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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

What they mean is, Northeastern's need-minimizing yield management AI algorithm and application management system designed for triple digit Common Apps is as selective as MIT (my dad is an alum and cousin is on faculty, but what do I know )

It's safe to say Northeastern is hghly POPULAR - and for valid reasons. But that's not the same as a rigorous selective PROCESS of evaluating applicants.

There's really no need for Northeastern boosters to spend the energy defending selectivity. If the child is thriving, awesome! Share their ubique experience. It's more useful than ranking wrangling.

Signed,
Someone who's child got in TO without AP, but just declined.

Everyone has this. Northeastern need not be singled out for this reason. Why do you think Middlebury upped their % of class filled ED last year? To increase their full pay from 51% to 54%.
It is far simpler: What schools have EA and two rounds of ED? Off the top of my head, Chicago, Northeastern, and Tulane…
Add in the mid-years, non-Boston admits, and transfers, then adjust. What we are left with is a school that is still extremely selective (though adjusted not, to be sure, in the single digits); nobody is comparing Norteastern to MIT selectivity. Nobody is — or should be — comparing MIT to Chicago either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

What they mean is, Northeastern's need-minimizing yield management AI algorithm and application management system designed for triple digit Common Apps is as selective as MIT (my dad is an alum and cousin is on faculty, but what do I know )

It's safe to say Northeastern is hghly POPULAR - and for valid reasons. But that's not the same as a rigorous selective PROCESS of evaluating applicants.

There's really no need for Northeastern boosters to spend the energy defending selectivity. If the child is thriving, awesome! Share their ubique experience. It's more useful than ranking wrangling.

Signed,
Someone who's child got in TO without AP, but just declined.

Everyone has this. Northeastern need not be singled out for this reason. Why do you think Middlebury upped their % of class filled ED last year? To increase their full pay from 51% to 54%.
It is far simpler: What schools have EA and two rounds of ED? Off the top of my head, Chicago, Northeastern, and Tulane…
Add in the mid-years, non-Boston admits, and transfers, then adjust. What we are left with is a school that is still extremely selective (though adjusted not, to be sure, in the single digits); nobody is comparing Norteastern to MIT selectivity. Nobody is — or should be — comparing MIT to Chicago either.

Middlebury is need blind--Northeastern is not. Yes, the admissions committee can make assumptions about who is full pay based on demographics, but that info isn't shared with them. I think Middlebury increased the percentage of the class filled ED to minimize yield uncertainty after years of overenrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

What they mean is, Northeastern's need-minimizing yield management AI algorithm and application management system designed for triple digit Common Apps is as selective as MIT (my dad is an alum and cousin is on faculty, but what do I know )

It's safe to say Northeastern is hghly POPULAR - and for valid reasons. But that's not the same as a rigorous selective PROCESS of evaluating applicants.

There's really no need for Northeastern boosters to spend the energy defending selectivity. If the child is thriving, awesome! Share their ubique experience. It's more useful than ranking wrangling.

Signed,
Someone who's child got in TO without AP, but just declined.

Everyone has this. Northeastern need not be singled out for this reason. Why do you think Middlebury upped their % of class filled ED last year? To increase their full pay from 51% to 54%.
It is far simpler: What schools have EA and two rounds of ED? Off the top of my head, Chicago, Northeastern, and Tulane…
Add in the mid-years, non-Boston admits, and transfers, then adjust. What we are left with is a school that is still extremely selective (though adjusted not, to be sure, in the single digits); nobody is comparing Norteastern to MIT selectivity. Nobody is — or should be — comparing MIT to Chicago either.

Middlebury is need blind--Northeastern is not. Yes, the admissions committee can make assumptions about who is full pay based on demographics, but that info isn't shared with them. I think Middlebury increased the percentage of the class filled ED to minimize yield uncertainty after years of overenrollment.

Think what you will. They did that last year, and were still so overenrolled that they had to pay kids not to attend. Middlebury’s finances are unique because of their reliance on international programs, which have permanently declined in revenue. That’s what was driving the 4 straight years of over-enrollment. This admission season, their target was only 50 students less than last year. Read: planned over-enrollment.

Need-blind vs. not need blind is a good point, that adjustment could be added to a “selectivity” ranking as it is freely available info…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is actually quite a helpful list. Thank you for sharing.

(OP here)

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Some of the Ivy-obsessed posters here are hilarious

[Anonymous]

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

Or maybe it will be once the school have SAT scores from everyone. Totally useless when 23% submit scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

What they mean is, Northeastern's need-minimizing yield management AI algorithm and application management system designed for triple digit Common Apps is as selective as MIT (my dad is an alum and cousin is on faculty, but what do I know )

It's safe to say Northeastern is hghly POPULAR - and for valid reasons. But that's not the same as a rigorous selective PROCESS of evaluating applicants.

There's really no need for Northeastern boosters to spend the energy defending selectivity. If the child is thriving, awesome! Share their ubique experience. It's more useful than ranking wrangling.

Signed,
Someone who's child got in TO without AP, but just declined.

Everyone has this. Northeastern need not be singled out for this reason. Why do you think Middlebury upped their % of class filled ED last year? To increase their full pay from 51% to 54%.
It is far simpler: What schools have EA and two rounds of ED? Off the top of my head, Chicago, Northeastern, and Tulane…
Add in the mid-years, non-Boston admits, and transfers, then adjust. What we are left with is a school that is still extremely selective (though adjusted not, to be sure, in the single digits); nobody is comparing Norteastern to MIT selectivity. Nobody is — or should be — comparing MIT to Chicago either.

+1. Here we go again. Let it go, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

What they mean is, Northeastern's need-minimizing yield management AI algorithm and application management system designed for triple digit Common Apps is as selective as MIT (my dad is an alum and cousin is on faculty, but what do I know )

It's safe to say Northeastern is hghly POPULAR - and for valid reasons. But that's not the same as a rigorous selective PROCESS of evaluating applicants.

There's really no need for Northeastern boosters to spend the energy defending selectivity. If the child is thriving, awesome! Share their ubique experience. It's more useful than ranking wrangling.

Signed,
Someone who's child got in TO without AP, but just declined.

There aren't many Northeastern "boosters."
The results speak for themselves.

For some reason, there are quite a few Northeastern detractors and bashers for no other reason that it receives 100k applications (popular) and has the latitude to be selective as a result.

+1. Not to mention statistics is not their strong suit. No wonder they were rejected!

[Anonymous]

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

As far as lists go, I think this is a really good ranking, particularly the top 25 or so. It's far more useful than USNWR's list of 'best" colleges and universities, not least because lots of people consider both SLACs and larger universities when making their decisions. The absence of Williams from this list is a little mystifying though.

[Anonymous]

Obviously these schools all have high scoring students. But you have to look at a lot more than just having a high SAT. BC is different than Northeastern. Wesleyan is different than Yale, obviously. USC and Pomona aren't the same type of school.

Use this SAT information as a starting point. But fit, culture, particular majors matter so much more.

[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

As far as lists go, I think this is a really good ranking, particularly the top 25 or so. It's far more useful than USNWR's list of 'best" colleges and universities, not least because lots of people consider both SLACs and larger universities when making their decisions. The absence of Williams from this list is a little mystifying though.

I agree with you about Williams. I also wonder about Wake??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually quite a helpful list. Thank you for sharing.

(OP here)

Thank you.

+1

Helpful indeed.

[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

As far as lists go, I think this is a really good ranking, particularly the top 25 or so. It's far more useful than USNWR's list of 'best" colleges and universities, not least because lots of people consider both SLACs and larger universities when making their decisions. The absence of Williams from this list is a little mystifying though.

No Williams?!?

Gotta be a typo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Admissions rate, if adjusted (to reflect ED rounds, percentage of the class taken ED, and yield) is by far the best indicator we have. Even unadjusted, it is hardly a “terrible indicator.” If it were, you would be able to name a host of “bad” schools with a sub-10% acceptance rate. Go head. Still waiting for even one.

Well, why would it be better in any way than stats of enrolled students? If Northeastern has essentially the same acceptance rate as MIT, is it as selective?

Actually, funny you mention this because there is some Northeastern lover on DCUM that has tried to say this.

What they mean is, Northeastern's need-minimizing yield management AI algorithm and application management system designed for triple digit Common Apps is as selective as MIT (my dad is an alum and cousin is on faculty, but what do I know )

It's safe to say Northeastern is hghly POPULAR - and for valid reasons. But that's not the same as a rigorous selective PROCESS of evaluating applicants.

There's really no need for Northeastern boosters to spend the energy defending selectivity. If the child is thriving, awesome! Share their ubique experience. It's more useful than ranking wrangling.

Signed,
Someone who's child got in TO without AP, but just declined.

Everyone has this. Northeastern need not be singled out for this reason. Why do you think Middlebury upped their % of class filled ED last year? To increase their full pay from 51% to 54%.
It is far simpler: What schools have EA and two rounds of ED? Off the top of my head, Chicago, Northeastern, and Tulane…
Add in the mid-years, non-Boston admits, and transfers, then adjust. What we are left with is a school that is still extremely selective (though adjusted not, to be sure, in the single digits); nobody is comparing Norteastern to MIT selectivity. Nobody is — or should be — comparing MIT to Chicago either.

Middlebury is need blind--Northeastern is not. Yes, the admissions committee can make assumptions about who is full pay based on demographics, but that info isn't shared with them. I think Middlebury increased the percentage of the class filled ED to minimize yield uncertainty after years of overenrollment.

Middlebury’s finances are unique because of their reliance on international programs, which have permanently declined in revenue.

Certainly study abroad programs struggled during 2-3 years of Covid, but what makes you think that's permanent?

[Anonymous]

The universities that have my greatest respect offer a wide swath of majors. The university exceeds expectations for outcomes, for a range of students. Due to the varied nature of the programs, assigning an overall selectivity rating means very little.