Selectivity Rankings

[RSTuthill]

There is a thread over on USCO on selectivity rankings. How did Clarkson sink so low and how is SLU above Clarkson and yet have lower SAT scores?

Anyone have a clue?

[joecct]

Dick

This is off The Big Red What site. It is a bit old, but may lend credence.

http://www.tbrw.info/ncaaHistory/safetySchools.html

I believe that Quinnipiac would be near the bottom of the list.

Joe

[Stemmer]

There is a thread over on USCO on selectivity rankings. How did Clarkson sink so low and how is SLU above Clarkson and yet have lower SAT scores?

Anyone have a clue?

Related perhaps to the decline in demand for engineers in recent years and hence enrollment in engineering programs which has had a big effect at Tech.

[chuck]

This thread comes up every couple of years over there. I've heard it said that Clarkson is often not very high on that list. One explanation given is that Tech let's people in and weeds them out through academics.... whatever.

[petal]

I have to laugh. Cornell should be near the bottom. Seriously. This whole ranking thing is a joke.

[Stemmer]

I have to agree with Petal.

The true measure of an academic institution...ANY academic institution...is not what they take in but rather, what they turn out.

In that regard, Clarkson does not take a back seat to any science and engineering school.

The Ivies, especially some of our friends in Ithaca, like to puff up their chests and be critical of Clarkson. That's just ignorance talking because they do not understand the above "measure" and clearly have no clue about the high regard in which Tech is held in industry.

[RSTuthill]

The Princeton Review weighs ratio of applicants accepted to total applicants heavily. That is baloney.

Total SAT of the incoming class by itself would be a much better measure.

[andy]

This whole thread makes me wonder 'who cares?"

One thing I never understand on this board, or others like it, is why people feel the need to put down other schools academically in order to feel superior about their own! If you like your school, whichever one you attended, and feel it sent you on your way to a productive career: fantastic! But why say another school is a joke just so you can feel better about your own? Whole thing smacks of insecurity to me.

[Chaz]

This whole thread makes me wonder 'who cares?"

One thing I never understand on this board, or others like it, is why people feel the need to put down other schools academically in order to feel superior about their own! If you like your school, whichever one you attended, and feel it sent you on your way to a productive career: fantastic! But why say another school is a joke just so you can feel better about your own? Whole thing smacks of insecurity to me.
???:rolleyes:

[Stemmer]

The Princeton Review weighs ratio of applicants accepted to total applicants heavily. That is baloney.

Total SAT of the incoming class by itself would be a much better measure.

Except that SAT scores are now widely believed to NOT be an effective predictor of success, either in academic or career pursuits.

Some of the ivies hang their arrogance on the selectivity Dick mentioned and the SAT scores. That's two helpings of baloney.

[RSTuthill]

Except that SAT scores are now widely believed to NOT be an effective predictor of success, either in academic or career pursuits.

Some of the ivies hang their arrogance on the selectivity Dick mentioned and the SAT scores. That's two helpings of baloney.
I would not say "widely believed" is a correct assessment. I would say that their use -- alone -- is viewed as not appropriate for the reason that they are fallible. Certainly there are some kids who simply don't do well on SAT's who go on to be tremendous students. I happen to know one in particular very well. He struggled to get above the mid 1100's, yet was Magna Cum Laude at Union with a double major.

But I think statistically, the SAT's when averaged over a large number of applicants provides a better measure than a lot of the factors that the Princeton Review uses.

[Stemmer]

Dick,

Talk to HS guidance counselors and college admissions people. I have spoken with many I've met over the years related to my experience representing Tech at the many College Nights I've done. And in the two HS here where I've taught as a substitute the past three years. They all prefer to look at other factors and weigh them more heavily in evaluating applicants. A different story from when I was applying to colleges.

Also, I have a friend here in NJ who has run a business for nearly 20 years doing SAT review classes in high school systems largely in NJ and New England. He focuses on teaching the strategy in taking the test.

I have yet to hear any one of the above endorse the SAT as a good predictor of future success. And I've read quite a few articles by other educators that discount its value in that regard and in fact are very critical of it.

I'm not as familiar with the Princeton Review as you obviously are.

[scottcomstock]

Except that SAT scores are now widely believed to NOT be an effective predictor of success, either in academic or career pursuits.


Hear, hear.

I got into Clarkson with an average SAT score of 1135 -- at the time I applied (November 1995), the low end of their score range was 1200 if memory serves correctly. I left with a 2.797 GPA and a bachelor's in MIS (the major I applied with), and scored my first job 2-1/2 weeks later.

I'll leave the business-majors-vs-engineering-&-CS-majors debate for the Coffee Shop, but it reinforces both my opinion that standardized test performance doesn't really mean much in the grander scheme, and my belief that the federal government's obsession with standardized testing is thoroughly counterproductive.

[Crease Monkey]

Scored 1180 on the SAT. Graduated with a 3.6 in Electrical Engineering in 1993. Member of IEEE. My high school guidance counselor told me that based on my SAT score "You should do okay. Just work hard." I don't know if that means that the SAT is a poor predictor or if Clarkson is easier than I thought. Either way, I'm doing fine now, so...as andy said....who cares?