Top 52 Colleges & Universities Ranked By Selectivity (Wallethub.com)

[Anonymous]

Since SATs are directly correlated to student outcomes, this list is very instructive. Thanks for posting OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Methodology used admissions rate, 25th% SAT/ACT scores, 75th% SAT/ACT scores, and % of freshmen in top 10% of class.

1) MIT
2) CalTech
3) Harvard
4) U Chicago
5) Stanford
6) Columbia
7) Yale
8) JHU
9) Northwestern
10) Duke

11) Brown
12) Princeton
13) Dartmouth
14) Vanderbilt
15) U Penn
16) Pomona College
17) Rice
18) Swarthmore College
19) Cornell
20) Amherst College

21) Harvey Mudd
22) Carnegie Mellon U.
23) WashUStL
24) Barnard College
25) NYU
26) Colby College
27) Tufts
28) Haverford College
29) N'eastern
30) Notre Dame

31) Georgetown
32) UCLA
33) Hamilton College
34) USC
35) Middlebury College
36) UCal-Berkeley
37) Emory
38) Wellesley College
39) Boston College
40) Colgate University

41) Claremont McKenna College
42) U Virginia
43) Grinnell College
44) Wash & Lee University
45) Georgia Tech
46) Wesleyan University
47) Vassar College
48) Boston University
49) U Michigan
50) Carleton College
51) RISD
52) Tulane

How is Olin not in the list? It is typically in top 20 for SAT scores.

Good point. Olin has very high scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since SATs are directly correlated to student outcomes, this list is very instructive. Thanks for posting OP.

They are not directly correlated to student outcomes.

[Anonymous]

kinda useless because the numbers vary a lot within the same univ. between different schools/majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Methodology used admissions rate, 25th% SAT/ACT scores, 75th% SAT/ACT scores, and % of freshmen in top 10% of class.

1) MIT
2) CalTech
3) Harvard
4) U Chicago
5) Stanford
6) Columbia
7) Yale
8) JHU
9) Northwestern
10) Duke

11) Brown
12) Princeton
13) Dartmouth
14) Vanderbilt
15) U Penn
16) Pomona College
17) Rice
18) Swarthmore College
19) Cornell
20) Amherst College

21) Harvey Mudd
22) Carnegie Mellon U.
23) WashUStL
24) Barnard College
25) NYU
26) Colby College
27) Tufts
28) Haverford College
29) N'eastern
30) Notre Dame

31) Georgetown
32) UCLA
33) Hamilton College
34) USC
35) Middlebury College
36) UCal-Berkeley
37) Emory
38) Wellesley College
39) Boston College
40) Colgate University

41) Claremont McKenna College
42) U Virginia
43) Grinnell College
44) Wash & Lee University
45) Georgia Tech
46) Wesleyan University
47) Vassar College
48) Boston University
49) U Michigan
50) Carleton College
51) RISD
52) Tulane

How is Olin not in the list? It is typically in top 20 for SAT scores.

Good point. Olin has very high scores.

Maybe it doesn't get as many top 10% of class (being so geographically close to several top schools?)? Similarly, I am sure it hurts William and Mary's admissions rate that the applicant pool is fairly self-selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To some, USNWR is losing its credibility by contorting itself into a pretzel trying to appease certain segments of the population

You're a white boy, right?

Right? Because POC don't care about class size, the qualifications of instructors, or schools that meet all demonstrated need and allow students to graduate without debt or federal aid. Those are the things that USNWR dropped from consideration. Obviously, only white boys care about such trifles.

Some public colleges that serve a diverse range of students racially and socioeconomically rose in the rankings. Some private colleges serving predominantly wealthy and white students dropped a little.

The CRT/Woke/DEI spouting boys are mad.

So what?

Join a conservative think tank and be gone.

And....USNWR will still be very relevant for thousands prospective students and their DCUM parents.

It's only relevant for ranking obsessed mouth breathing parents and gunners. To normal well adjusted kids and their parents that can critically think and discern what a good college is on they're own they will continue to be irrelevant. The latter will continue to laugh at the former's feeble and pathetic attempts to make them so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:kinda useless because the numbers vary a lot within the same univ. between different schools/majors.

I think this is a very good list for what it is, though I would like it better if they were more nuanced in admissions rate (taking into consideration schools that automatically wave fee or don't require essays) and test scores (wrt schools with over 60% TO).

A large percentage on the list doesn't differentiate between schools and majors. If you are specifically targeting a CS program, then I agree that this isn't the list for you.

Many of the people who don't like this list are not saying why. Remember, the OP ranked by "selectivity" and not "best" or something vaguer. I fully support Virginia Tech's and other schools' mission to help first-time college students. But to understand a colleges' selectivity in a tangible way, this list is helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda useless because the numbers vary a lot within the same univ. between different schools/majors.

I think this is a very good list for what it is, though I would like it better if they were more nuanced in admissions rate (taking into consideration schools that automatically wave fee or don't require essays) and test scores (wrt schools with over 60% TO).

A large percentage on the list doesn't differentiate between schools and majors. If you are specifically targeting a CS program, then I agree that this isn't the list for you.

Many of the people who don't like this list are not saying why. Remember, the OP ranked by "selectivity" and not "best" or something vaguer. I fully support Virginia Tech's and other schools' mission to help first-time college students. But to understand a colleges' selectivity in a tangible way, this list is helpful.

As pointed out yesterday at 13:06, that is a very silly thing to punish a college for - making it easier and cheaper for applicants. Particularly in a ranking that also includes academic data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate as the heaviest weighted factor is not useful because colleges game this by offering no "supplemental essay" requirements, test optional, freebies, to boost the number of applications.

People keep saying this, but any school would love to have a sub-15% admit rate. But they can’t. Admission rate needs to be adjusted for % of class ED, for having multiple ED rounds (and EA to boot, like Chicago does), for yield, and for percentage of transfer students (looking at you, Columbia GS, Oxford Emory, and UVA Wise). But if that’s done properly, it would be the only ranking we need — and far superior to US News’ ranking. And far more helpful, too, because the point of an application is getting in…

Totally disagree. Why would rejecting lots of students make it a good school?

Name one school with a single-digit admissions rate that is not a good school. You can’t. And now you have answered your question.

[Anonymous]

Admissions rate is a terrible indicator. Colleges can induce unqualified students to apply and then reject them. Stats of enrolled kids is a better indicator, but with TO and a very low percentage of high schools reporting class rank, this also needs to be taken in context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate as the heaviest weighted factor is not useful because colleges game this by offering no "supplemental essay" requirements, test optional, freebies, to boost the number of applications.

People keep saying this, but any school would love to have a sub-15% admit rate. But they can’t. Admission rate needs to be adjusted for % of class ED, for having multiple ED rounds (and EA to boot, like Chicago does), for yield, and for percentage of transfer students (looking at you, Columbia GS, Oxford Emory, and UVA Wise). But if that’s done properly, it would be the only ranking we need — and far superior to US News’ ranking. And far more helpful, too, because the point of an application is getting in…

Totally disagree. Why would rejecting lots of students make it a good school?

Name one school with a single-digit admissions rate that is not a good school. You can’t. And now you have answered your question.

Northeastern. It's not a bad school, but it's not nearly as "selective" as it appears. If you ED full pay, with good GPA, even TO, odds are about 40% you'll get in under their "alternative" programs like N.U.in which starts in Europe first semester and doesn't count toward acceptance. It's not cheating, it's strategic. The head of enrollment came from Tulane, where the selectivity also skyrocketed, to help accelerate the model of rapid grad school campus expansion and low-barrier to entry with highly sophisticated enrollment management algorithms. Again, it's not bad, it's just not as academically well-regarded as it's peers on this list. For undergrads it's a sink-or-swim attitude. Not because it's harder, it's just that undergrads are really the strategic focus.

Our student turned them down after spending time on campus with actual students, not admissions.

Bottom line, it's all apples and oranges. Until there are consistent ways that schools conduct admissions, there's really no point in harping on selectivity. AI yield management is indeed selective, but not in the way you might think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda useless because the numbers vary a lot within the same univ. between different schools/majors.

I think this is a very good list for what it is, though I would like it better if they were more nuanced in admissions rate (taking into consideration schools that automatically wave fee or don't require essays) and test scores (wrt schools with over 60% TO).

A large percentage on the list doesn't differentiate between schools and majors. If you are specifically targeting a CS program, then I agree that this isn't the list for you.

Many of the people who don't like this list are not saying why. Remember, the OP ranked by "selectivity" and not "best" or something vaguer. I fully support Virginia Tech's and other schools' mission to help first-time college students. But to understand a colleges' selectivity in a tangible way, this list is helpful.

As pointed out yesterday at 13:06, that is a very silly thing to punish a college for - making it easier and cheaper for applicants. Particularly in a ranking that also includes academic data.

No, it isn't. If it is actually a hardship EVERY college will waive the fee. Making it so easy is a way to inflate the numbers and improve the admissions rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate as the heaviest weighted factor is not useful because colleges game this by offering no "supplemental essay" requirements, test optional, freebies, to boost the number of applications.

People keep saying this, but any school would love to have a sub-15% admit rate. But they can’t. Admission rate needs to be adjusted for % of class ED, for having multiple ED rounds (and EA to boot, like Chicago does), for yield, and for percentage of transfer students (looking at you, Columbia GS, Oxford Emory, and UVA Wise). But if that’s done properly, it would be the only ranking we need — and far superior to US News’ ranking. And far more helpful, too, because the point of an application is getting in…

Totally disagree. Why would rejecting lots of students make it a good school?

Name one school with a single-digit admissions rate that is not a good school. You can’t. And now you have answered your question.

Northeastern. It's not a bad school, but it's not nearly as "selective" as it appears. If you ED full pay, with good GPA, even TO, odds are about 40% you'll get in under their "alternative" programs like N.U.in which starts in Europe first semester and doesn't count toward acceptance. It's not cheating, it's strategic. The head of enrollment came from Tulane, where the selectivity also skyrocketed, to help accelerate the model of rapid grad school campus expansion and low-barrier to entry with highly sophisticated enrollment management algorithms. Again, it's not bad, it's just not as academically well-regarded as it's peers on this list. For undergrads it's a sink-or-swim attitude. Not because it's harder, it's just that undergrads are really the strategic focus.

Our student turned them down after spending time on campus with actual students, not admissions.

Bottom line, it's all apples and oranges. Until there are consistent ways that schools conduct admissions, there's really no point in harping on selectivity. AI yield management is indeed selective, but not in the way you might think.

This is true for pretty much any ED school outside of the Ivy League. ED provides such a big advantage which benefits upper income students the most!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admissions rate as the heaviest weighted factor is not useful because colleges game this by offering no "supplemental essay" requirements, test optional, freebies, to boost the number of applications.

People keep saying this, but any school would love to have a sub-15% admit rate. But they can’t. Admission rate needs to be adjusted for % of class ED, for having multiple ED rounds (and EA to boot, like Chicago does), for yield, and for percentage of transfer students (looking at you, Columbia GS, Oxford Emory, and UVA Wise). But if that’s done properly, it would be the only ranking we need — and far superior to US News’ ranking. And far more helpful, too, because the point of an application is getting in…

Totally disagree. Why would rejecting lots of students make it a good school?

Name one school with a single-digit admissions rate that is not a good school. You can’t. And now you have answered your question.

Northeastern. It's not a bad school, but it's not nearly as "selective" as it appears. If you ED full pay, with good GPA, even TO, odds are about 40% you'll get in under their "alternative" programs like N.U.in which starts in Europe first semester and doesn't count toward acceptance. It's not cheating, it's strategic. The head of enrollment came from Tulane, where the selectivity also skyrocketed, to help accelerate the model of rapid grad school campus expansion and low-barrier to entry with highly sophisticated enrollment management algorithms. Again, it's not bad, it's just not as academically well-regarded as it's peers on this list. For undergrads it's a sink-or-swim attitude. Not because it's harder, it's just that undergrads are really the strategic focus.

Our student turned them down after spending time on campus with actual students, not admissions.

Bottom line, it's all apples and oranges. Until there are consistent ways that schools conduct admissions, there's really no point in harping on selectivity. AI yield management is indeed selective, but not in the way you might think.

DC visited Boston University, Boston College and Northeastern during spring break. Liked Northeastern the best.

There's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kinda useless because the numbers vary a lot within the same univ. between different schools/majors.

I think this is a very good list for what it is, though I would like it better if they were more nuanced in admissions rate (taking into consideration schools that automatically wave fee or don't require essays) and test scores (wrt schools with over 60% TO).

A large percentage on the list doesn't differentiate between schools and majors. If you are specifically targeting a CS program, then I agree that this isn't the list for you.

Many of the people who don't like this list are not saying why. Remember, the OP ranked by "selectivity" and not "best" or something vaguer. I fully support Virginia Tech's and other schools' mission to help first-time college students. But to understand a colleges' selectivity in a tangible way, this list is helpful.

As pointed out yesterday at 13:06, that is a very silly thing to punish a college for - making it easier and cheaper for applicants. Particularly in a ranking that also includes academic data.

No, it isn't. If it is actually a hardship EVERY college will waive the fee. Making it so easy is a way to inflate the numbers and improve the admissions rate.

You are making a claim you have no evidence for.

Why is it not possible that they are doing it so they get the largest number of applicants to build their class? Why is it not possible that they are doing it to encourage kids to look at the college who otherwise might not (we all agree it's not super-well known)?

Why do you claim it is a conspiracy theory to affect rankings when the #1 ranking system is USN which does not use admit rate?

Take off the tinfoil hat. Call Colby's admissions office and ask why they have the policy. They'll tell you directly and personally. If you choose to stay Q after that then that is not an issue that can be addressed in this forum.