Acceptance rate is not a great measure of selectivity

[Anonymous]

And it's not respected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My neighbor's kid is doing Liberty University online and the mom has told me more than once that Liberty "has a 20% acceptance rate". I believe this is technically correct, at least for on-campus, but it has nothing to do with academic selectiveness.

Liberty is very popular among kids at our church, and they all tout it's low acceptance rate, but I don't know anyone who has ever been rejected.

I just looked up the common data set for Liberty on college data. It lists a 28% acceptance rate, but under entrance difficulty, it says this...

Minimally Difficult: Most freshmen were not in the top 50% of their high school class and scored somewhat below 1010 on the SAT I or below 19 on the ACT; up to 95% of all applicants accepted.

How do they reconcile this with the 28% acceptance rate listed?

I'd be $5 they finagle this by doing on-the-spot decisions at religious events and/or college fairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Acceptance rates are also heavily impacted by marketing. UChicago, WashU, and Swarthmore send out far more marketing and assign materials than peer schools, driving the acceptance rate down considerably. I know Swarthmore actually gave out a bunch of free app waivers for students who did not respond to their emails/communication as a last desperation act.

UChicago is crazy, they sent us countless flyers and emails, clothes, and even offered to pay the application fee, like wtf?!? such try hards. no other school went to such desperate lengths

[Anonymous]

The only objective measure is incoming SAT scores. It is the defining rating mechanism.

[Anonymous]

My dd is getting emails and mailers from Fordham almost daily. They've become the butt of many jokes in our house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only objective measure is incoming SAT scores. It is the defining rating mechanism.

SAT scores are objective but some schools place disproportionate emphasis on SAT at the expense of other things. Vanderbilt is an example that instantly comes to mind. if you got a ultra high SAT score and not much else you are practically a shoo in. There are many top schools which could have much higher SAT averages if they chose to, but they choose to focus on other things as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only objective measure is incoming SAT scores. It is the defining rating mechanism.

SAT scores are objective but some schools place disproportionate emphasis on SAT at the expense of other things. Vanderbilt is an example that instantly comes to mind. if you got a ultra high SAT score and not much else you are practically a shoo in. There are many top schools which could have much higher SAT averages if they chose to, but they choose to focus on other things as well.

It's the only rating that isn't an opinion. all other measures are manipulated based on what schools the rating administrators favor. The best measure SATs and ACTs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only objective measure is incoming SAT scores. It is the defining rating mechanism.

SAT scores are objective but some schools place disproportionate emphasis on SAT at the expense of other things. Vanderbilt is an example that instantly comes to mind. if you got a ultra high SAT score and not much else you are practically a shoo in. There are many top schools which could have much higher SAT averages if they chose to, but they choose to focus on other things as well.

Yep, it can't just be a blanket assessment of test scores. Amherst College and Brown turn down over 75% of those scoring above a 34 ACT. I doubt this is the case with Vanderbilt given our Naviance.

Amherst is also extremely committed to socioeconomic and racial diversity- both groups which tend to score lower. Amherst's 27% URM is among the highest of any private school (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmative-action.html) and they also take in a lot more Pell Grant students than Ivies and the like (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/amherst-a-leader-among-elite-colleges-in-enrolling-students-who-need-pell-grants/2014/03/25/9df8ab6a-b414-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html). I could see someone justifying this is irrelevant, but that Amherst's testing profile is only slightly weaker than UPenn's (an example) is not so drastic a gap when I think about the former's commitment to building a diverse class.

No institution is 100% transparent about its admission process so it can be challenging to put an acceptance rate in context, but I agree considering a variety of factors is the best approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only objective measure is incoming SAT scores. It is the defining rating mechanism.

SAT scores are objective but some schools place disproportionate emphasis on SAT at the expense of other things. Vanderbilt is an example that instantly comes to mind. if you got a ultra high SAT score and not much else you are practically a shoo in. There are many top schools which could have much higher SAT averages if they chose to, but they choose to focus on other things as well.

It's the only rating that isn't an opinion. all other measures are manipulated based on what schools the rating administrators favor. The best measure SATs and ACTs.

Yes but they are not the sole measure of selectivity, and in many cases it would be incorrect to say that school X is more selective than school Y just because it has higher SAT scores. Different schools have different priorities.

[Anonymous]

Not the sole measure but the best and most objective measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My neighbor's kid is doing Liberty University online and the mom has told me more than once that Liberty "has a 20% acceptance rate". I believe this is technically correct, at least for on-campus, but it has nothing to do with academic selectiveness.

Liberty is very popular among kids at our church, and they all tout it's low acceptance rate, but I don't know anyone who has ever been rejected.

I just looked up the common data set for Liberty on college data. It lists a 28% acceptance rate, but under entrance difficulty, it says this...

Minimally Difficult: Most freshmen were not in the top 50% of their high school class and scored somewhat below 1010 on the SAT I or below 19 on the ACT; up to 95% of all applicants accepted.

How do they reconcile this with the 28% acceptance rate listed?

Because only morons apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the sole measure but the best and most objective measure.

best is subjective. not all schools care about SAT to the same degree, and could choose to focus on other things as well instead of having jus super-high score applicants. if you think SAT is the best measure, then do you think UChicago is more selective than Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With the common app, and top students submitting 10-15 applications, don't the selective colleges likely end up selecting the same 10-20% of applicants. I would assume that a large chunk of kids end up with multiple acceptances, and other top candidates are shut out

Absolutely. Superscoring, selective presentation of test scores, test score inflation, and grade inflation all work to exacerbate the information problem. colleges have less information differentiating students, and applicants respond to what feels like randomness by applying to still more schools....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the sole measure but the best and most objective measure.

best is subjective. not all schools care about SAT to the same degree, and could choose to focus on other things as well instead of having jus super-high score applicants. if you think SAT is the best measure, then do you think UChicago is more selective than Harvard?

And "best" isn't even what they get.

If each kid sends their best of three, the highest scorer isn't necessarily the best student of the three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My neighbor's kid is doing Liberty University online and the mom has told me more than once that Liberty "has a 20% acceptance rate". I believe this is technically correct, at least for on-campus, but it has nothing to do with academic selectiveness.

Liberty is very popular among kids at our church, and they all tout it's low acceptance rate, but I don't know anyone who has ever been rejected.

I just looked up the common data set for Liberty on college data. It lists a 28% acceptance rate, but under entrance difficulty, it says this...

Minimally Difficult: Most freshmen were not in the top 50% of their high school class and scored somewhat below 1010 on the SAT I or below 19 on the ACT; up to 95% of all applicants accepted.

How do they reconcile this with the 28% acceptance rate listed?

Some seriously poor students apply?

That is what the math suggests. My kid didn't apply to Liberty, despite being more than qualified.