Comparison between top colleges and university

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College Size 75% SAT %CS %Eng %Math and Science Sum Retention Location State Acceptance Rate Student/ Teacher Ratio (2015) LAC Public Undergrad Focused
Amherst 1855 1530 5% 0% 27% 32% 96% S MA 14% 8 x x
Bowdoin 1828 1510 5% 0% 26% 31% 98% R ME 15% 9 x x
Brown 7043 1540 10% 7% 19% 36% 98% U RI 9% 11
CalTech 948 1600 24% 37% 36% 97% 98% S CA 9% 7
Carleton 2097 1520 11% 0% 33% 44% 97% R MN 23% 9 x x
Chicago 6552 1590 6% 0% 34% 40% 99% U IL 9% 11
Claremont McKenna 1324 1500 3% 0% 14% 17% 96% S CA 11% 8 x x
CMU 6947 1530 13% 25% 20% 57% 97% U PA 25% 10
Colby 2000 1430 2% 0% 22% 24% 93% R ME 28% 10 x x
Columbia 6202 1570 7% 0% 17% 24% 97% U NY 7% 15
Cornell 15182 1520 11% 17% 17% 44% 97% R NY 14% 13
Dartmouth 4417 1560 7% 8% 17% 32% 97% R NH 12% 11 x
Duke 6682 1550 12% 15% 21% 48% 98% S NC 12% 11
Emory 7086 1460 3% 0% 24% 26% 95% S GA 27% 14
Grinnell 1716 1500 8% 0% 28% 36% 93% R IA 28% 9 x x
Harvard 6788 1600 9% 4% 33% 46% 98% U MA 6% 12
Harvey Mudd 889 1560 23% 33% 28% 84% 97% S CA 14% 8 x x
Hopkins 6064 1510 5% 24% 33% 62% 97% U MD 15% 11
Macalester 2174 1450 5% 0% 24% 28% 96% U MN 41% 10 x x
Middlebury 2579 1480 5% 0% 20% 25% 96% R VT 17% 8 x x
MIT 4602 1570 31% 35% 23% 89% 99% U MA 8% 9
Northwestern 8231 1550 5% 13% 16% 34% 97% S IL 13% 12
Notre Dame 8617 1520 3% 12% 10% 25% 98% S IN 20% 10
Pitt 19330 1340 7% 14% 15% 35% 93% U PA 55% 14 x
Pomona 1679 1540 9% 0% 27% 36% 98% S CA 12% 8 x x
Princeton 5428 1600 13% 17% 17% 47% 98% S NJ 7% 9 x
Reed 1503 1470 1% 0% 28% 29% 88% S OR 35% 9 x x
Rice 3992 1550 7% 19% 16% 42% 97% U TX 15% 10
Smith 2502 ? 4% 6% 22% 32% 93% S MA 37% 10 x x
Stanford 7087 1570 18% 18% 14% 50% 99% S CA 5% 15
Swarthmore 1559 1530 13% 7% 24% 44% 97% S PA 17% 8 x x
Tufts 5643 1520 9% 10% 14% 33% 96% S MA 17% 14
UCBerkeley 30853 1490 6% 11% 19% 36% 97% U CA 16% 21 x
UCLA 31577 1440 2% 7% 24% 33% 97% U CA 19% 24 x
UPenn 10183 1540 5% 10% 15% 30% 98% U PA 11% 16
UVA 16777 1460 3% 13% 11% 27% 97% S VA 29% 17 x
Vanderbilt 6861 1570 4% 12% 15% 31% 97% U TN 13% 12
VT 31205 1320 3% 26% 12% 42% 91% R VA 71% 16 x
W&L 1829 1460 3% 1% 17% 21% 96% R VA 20% 9 x x
W&M 6377 1460 4% 0% 19% 24% 95% S VA 33% 12 x x x
WashU 7751 1550 6% 15% 20% 41% 97% U MO 17% 14
Wellesley 2534 1510 11% 0% 22% 33% 96% S MA 31% 7 x x
Williams 2073 1560 6% 0% 28% 35% 99% R MA 19% 7 x x
Yale 5964 1590 6% 6% 22% 33% 99% U CT 6% 11


So, I made this Excel file for my DC, who was of course not interested. I scoured the Common Data Sets to get percentages of students in Computer Sciences, Engineering and Math and Sciences. I thought that by maximizing these measures, one could minimize the SJW horseshit that is prevalent in some schools. Note that there are many LACs with a high percentage of STEM majors even without the availability of an engineering school.

The table may be useful for those on the various "discrimination against Asians" thread looking for smaller, high quality schools with a STEM focus. (I disagree that Asians are viewed as a URM at Midwestern LACs, but, on the other hand, they are likely not dinged for being Asian as in the Ivy League and a few East Coast LACs.) And remember, if you want your DC to be an academic, LACs are better feeder schools to grad school than is the Ivy League or big state schools. See:https://www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-research/doctorates-awarded

Sounds like your kid knows you’re full of sh*t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP I don’t think being a STEM major means that you are not a liberal. Maybe you should look at schools in Utah.

Why are you equating SJW horseshit with all liberals? Almost all colleges in the spreadsheet are politically liberal. Why are you bringing Utah into this? Are nuanced discussions even possible anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP I don’t think being a STEM major means that you are not a liberal. Maybe you should look at schools in Utah.

Why are you equating SJW horseshit with all liberals? Almost all colleges in the spreadsheet are politically liberal. Why are you bringing Utah into this? Are nuanced discussions even possible anymore?

I don’t know you’d equate SJW with non science majors to start. One doesn’t lead to the other. How many science majors do you think there are at Liberty?

[Anonymous]

I am confused. The values in the table are culled from 2015 data? Does that mean 2015 SAT data as well? I ask because in 2015 the maximum SAT score was 2400, not 1600. When viewed in that frame, these data points at the 75% percentile are not all that fabulous. For example, the national 75% SAT score for 2015 was 1720; the 50% was 1480. In 2018, 75% was 1180 (1600 total possible points); the 50% was 1050.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am confused. The values in the table are culled from 2015 data? Does that mean 2015 SAT data as well? I ask because in 2015 the maximum SAT score was 2400, not 1600. When viewed in that frame, these data points at the 75% percentile are not all that fabulous. For example, the national 75% SAT score for 2015 was 1720; the 50% was 1480. In 2018, 75% was 1180 (1600 total possible points); the 50% was 1050.

These are on a 1600 point scale. It came from here: https://www.stateuniversity.com/rank/sat_75pctl_rank.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused. The values in the table are culled from 2015 data? Does that mean 2015 SAT data as well? I ask because in 2015 the maximum SAT score was 2400, not 1600. When viewed in that frame, these data points at the 75% percentile are not all that fabulous. For example, the national 75% SAT score for 2015 was 1720; the 50% was 1480. In 2018, 75% was 1180 (1600 total possible points); the 50% was 1050.

These are on a 1600 point scale. It came from here: https://www.stateuniversity.com/rank/sat_75pctl_rank.html

NP: the source you linked used the wrong data for 2015. The SAT was on a 2400 scale. Also, the 1600 score for Harvard is the highest score in the 75th percentile, which is meaningless for Harvard. In 2015 Harvard reported the percentiles for each section, not a combined score.

[Anonymous]

As I stated before, I just included SAT as a rough guide of "quality" of the schools. I cited my data source, which seems to be in line with common perceptions. If you dig deeper into the website, it gives the percentiles for the Math and Critical Reading sections of the 2015 CDS. The cited numbers are consistent with a 1600 scale. I am not responsible for the information on the website. Furthermore, and most importantly, I do not care about it's exact precision. The purpose of the whole exercise from my perspective is to look at the relative size of STEM in elite colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could see you put in lots of effort. However, there are many errors, especially the 0% that you put in were all wrong.

The 0%s are saying the LACs have no Engineering majors. This is not an error.

I’m one of the huge LAC boosters. Virtually no LACs have engineering majors. Off the top of my head, Mudd is the only one I would send my kid to. Maybe Smith for a girl. Also would not be my first choice for CS. LACs are small and do what they do very well. Which is pre-professional and pre- grad school. They can’t really do that and engineering well for classes for 400-500 kids, so they don’t try. LACs Are great because they have maybe 10 kids in most majors per class, so the kids get a lot of attention and opportunities. That’s just not the way engineering education works. Or CS, which I tend to pair with engineering. But I wouldn’t send a kid to Harvard for engineering or CS either. Michigan, yes. Cal Tech. Yes. MIT. Yes. Harvard engineering? Not where they shine. A kid with the credentials to get in can get a much more impressive education to other engineers).

[Anonymous]

PP. also, percent math and science isn’t that important. Yes, you want a decent number. But the quality is a lot more important than quantity. A small excellent department with top professors and great research and internship opportunities is much better than a department twice the size doing crap. LACs are about matching your kid to opportunities that are good for your kid. Numbers don’t tell you that. Outcomes do. And LACs track them.

When I look at LaCs with my kid, they sit in classes with the actual professor that closely aligns with his interest. He can get a good sense about quality of teaching and quality of the department (the other kids). And I literally ask the admissions office while my kid is interviewing if I can get the data on where all of their biology majors from the last 5 years are. That tells me what I need to know. Does it line up with where my kid wants to be.

Obviously, you also tour the science facility. Oberlin is excellent and not on your list. And these schools encourage your kid to contact a professor as part of the application process and talk to them about their interests and what they could do.

It’s much less subjective and numbers driven than your chart. But your numbers don’t really mean much in the % of STEM categories. A good fit is very personal. You can’t even really rank best biology departments at LACs. It depends what your kid wants to do with the degree.

[Anonymous]

Your analysis is spot on.

It is however far more nuanced (and requires hands in parenting), which seems to be beyond many DCUM posters

[Anonymous]

Are you concerned that your child will end up a SJW or that they are too easily overwhelmed by them to study? Just curious why that would really matter if your child is someone who either doesn’t care to be involved in protesting or is strong enough in their own convictions to dismiss it. So strange IMO. My child attends a school that has SJWs but she doesn’t ever think about it or get pulled into it. Life is full of distractions and people who might think differently than you so I think college is a good time to learn that.

[Anonymous]

Actually I did this exercise primarily to show that LAC is not the opposite of STEM. DC is interested in STEM and I wanted to show options. Even back in the day, colleges seemed to divide into more "serious" students and those less so. The less serious students were generally not STEM majors.

That said, some schools seem to go out of their way to admit political activists generally of one particular persuasion. A significant percentage of these seem to think it is acceptable to shut down of those with whom they disagree. Many also try to shut down debate by calling others racist. Personally, I feel they are distractive to the whole concept of Open Inquiry, the basis of a good education. To the extent college administrations favor admitting obnoxious political activists, I would prefer DC to disfavor these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually I did this exercise primarily to show that LAC is not the opposite of STEM. DC is interested in STEM and I wanted to show options. Even back in the day, colleges seemed to divide into more "serious" students and those less so. The less serious students were generally not STEM majors.

That said, some schools seem to go out of their way to admit political activists generally of one particular persuasion. A significant percentage of these seem to think it is acceptable to shut down of those with whom they disagree. Many also try to shut down debate by calling others racist. Personally, I feel they are distractive to the whole concept of Open Inquiry, the basis of a good education. To the extent college administrations favor admitting obnoxious political activists, I would prefer DC to disfavor these schools.

A couple things. First, you’re making a big mistake here by saying that “less serious serious students” are the non-STEM. And you bias is showing. Sure, many schools have a couple of throwaway majors that are often non-STEM where weak kids flee. In my school in was Communications. Does not mean all Communications degrees are crap. You become a Philosophy Major or Lit Major and see how long you last. At a time when top med schools actively recruit humanities students with the pre-med core. And today liberal arts is much more useful. It’s kids aren’t not “African Studies”. It’s epidemiology or environmental science with a concentration in African nations and an internship with Ghana’s Health ministry or an environmental NGO in Africa during a semester overseas plus research in transmission patterns or how to broaden adoption of solar energy. It’s not a one size fits all education.

Second, the entire point of liberal arts is to put STEM and humanities and fine arts together in dorms and at meals and as friends and in some classes and let them learn from each other. That doesn’t seem to be what you want for your kid. So— and I’m not trying to be snarky here— you should not be looking at LACs. You won’t like them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I did this exercise primarily to show that LAC is not the opposite of STEM. DC is interested in STEM and I wanted to show options. Even back in the day, colleges seemed to divide into more "serious" students and those less so. The less serious students were generally not STEM majors.

That said, some schools seem to go out of their way to admit political activists generally of one particular persuasion. A significant percentage of these seem to think it is acceptable to shut down of those with whom they disagree. Many also try to shut down debate by calling others racist. Personally, I feel they are distractive to the whole concept of Open Inquiry, the basis of a good education. To the extent college administrations favor admitting obnoxious political activists, I would prefer DC to disfavor these schools.

A couple things. First, you’re making a big mistake here by saying that “less serious serious students” are the non-STEM. And you bias is showing. Sure, many schools have a couple of throwaway majors that are often non-STEM where weak kids flee. In my school in was Communications. Does not mean all Communications degrees are crap. You become a Philosophy Major or Lit Major and see how long you last. At a time when top med schools actively recruit humanities students with the pre-med core. And today liberal arts is much more useful. It’s kids aren’t not “African Studies”. It’s epidemiology or environmental science with a concentration in African nations and an internship with Ghana’s Health ministry or an environmental NGO in Africa during a semester overseas plus research in transmission patterns or how to broaden adoption of solar energy. It’s not a one size fits all education.

Second, the entire point of liberal arts is to put STEM and humanities and fine arts together in dorms and at meals and as friends and in some classes and let them learn from each other. That doesn’t seem to be what you want for your kid. So— and I’m not trying to be snarky here— you should not be looking at LACs. You won’t like them.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused. The values in the table are culled from 2015 data? Does that mean 2015 SAT data as well? I ask because in 2015 the maximum SAT score was 2400, not 1600. When viewed in that frame, these data points at the 75% percentile are not all that fabulous. For example, the national 75% SAT score for 2015 was 1720; the 50% was 1480. In 2018, 75% was 1180 (1600 total possible points); the 50% was 1050.

These are on a 1600 point scale. It came from here: https://www.stateuniversity.com/rank/sat_75pctl_rank.html

NP: the source you linked used the wrong data for 2015. The SAT was on a 2400 scale. Also, the 1600 score for Harvard is the highest score in the 75th percentile, which is meaningless for Harvard. In 2015 Harvard reported the percentiles for each section, not a combined score.

OP, I work in the admissions field and don't even know what stateuniversity.com is. If you are using 2014, 2015 figures you are hopelessly behind. The field is changing that much and that fast. You should be using more current figures. For Virginia, you would use SCHEV for all Virginia schools, public and private. There you would learn that the entering class last fall at the 74th percentile had a 1500 SAT and a 34 ACT. http://research.schev.edu//enrollment/B10_FreshmenProfile.asp. Start reading College confidential