The Most Selective College in Every State

[Cearbhall]

I've seen this before. It's interesting, but not particularly helpful to prospective students.

I am also, so surprised, by how expensive universities are there! $50,000, and up, for some, yes?

My total cost of living for a year (including room and board) is close to that. However, that's just the sticker price. Many students receive significant scholarships from the university just for having a good high school GPA or test scores.

 

[keith99]

On the SAT, the highest possible score when I took it was 1600. The test was divided into two parts, math and english, each worth a possible 800 points. A couple years after that, they added an additional writing section which was worth an additional 800 points but I believe they have since revoked that portion of the test. All the additional SAT II tests are also worth 800 points per test subject.

IIRC, the score is technically not a straight up score of how many you got correct over how many you got wrong. Rather it is your score based on where you did in relation to everyone else in the country who took the test in that period. A score of 800 on a given section just means you did better than 99.9% of the other test takers.

 

[keith99]

Dang, seems you are spot on. 99.73% of people fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean. so that means 0.135% outside on each end.

I've got to wonder if you have the base population right. I was good, but I have a hard time thinking I was better than 99.9% of the people who took the Math level 2 subject matter test. 99.9% of students who took any SAT would fit well however.

For the main SAT no difference, but for the subject matter part II tests a significant difference.

 

[trunks2k]

Well my point was more that a "perfect" score of 1600 didn't mean that you got all the questions right - just that you did better than almost everyone else. "Normalized" score was the word I was looking for.

 

[Cearbhall]

Ah, I see. What scores do people need, to earn a place at universities, such as Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc, ect? Close to 1600?

A lot of universities have a Freshman Class Profile page on their website that gives this information. Here's Harvard's. Of course, that only tells you about the students who enrolled, not the whole group that was accepted. My high school had a subscription to a website that gave us access to scattergrams for the admissions data of every US college and university. We could input our test scores and GPA to plot ourselves on the graph to get a rough idea of our odds of getting in. It was interesting to see the outliers who got admitted or denied purely based on other criteria. I always wondered what they did (or didn't do).

It looks like this website offers a similar resource for free, though it's only the couple hundred students who entered their own stats and admissions decisions into the website. Click on any college to see the scattergram. You can change the SAT axis to ACT by using the dropdown menu.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

High end schools usually need a score over 1400. Though that is certainly not a given, I had a sub-1400 score and at least got to the point in admissions for an Ivy League school that got me an interview. Your actual grades make a big difference as does things like extra curricular activities. Also, money. If you a rich enough, grades aren't an issue.

The thing about SATs is that when taken as a single point of information, it is apparently the best indicator of how successful you will be in college that we have. However, what is better is looking at the whole picture of a given student. Grade history, types of classes taken, etc. That's much more time consuming though, but colleges are trying to move in that direction and rely less on standardized tests. Especially as there's good evidence that the SATs have a built in, though unintended, bias.

The standard SAT is only math and english. The SAT IIs cover a variety of subjects including History, Chem, Bio, foreign languages etc. But those are optional tests that most people will not take unless necessary.

I don't know much about the ACT, as it wasn't a popular test in my region of the country, but it seems as though the ACT does have a science section.

Colleges also look favorable on AP exams. AP courses are college level courses you can take in high school in a variety of subjects (I took history, statistics, and I THINK english, I don't recall 100%). You then take an exam at the end of the year in your subject and given a score on a scale 1 to 4. Based on that score, a college may decide that the course counts as a credit. For example, if a college requires a basic biology class in your first year of school and you get a 3 on the AP exam, they may consider that requirement already met. Either way, just taking the courses looks very good.

Your posts here are informative, but it's a pinkie-sized bone of contention that I have about blanket statements on how the wealth of an applicant's parent can nullify the need for high grades and other qualifications. People assume that money forms a magical rug to carry a rich kid into any college, but it won't get through the gates of every campus. In the past if you had wealth and affluence you could buy your way into HYPSM without putting forth the work for it, but today those and several other ultra-competitive colleges with immense endowments have need-blind admission policies. Most only extend this to domestic applicants, but some also have need-blind admission for international applicants as well. The application and financial information are segregated from one another during the evaluation process and the decision is based on merit. I'm not naive enough to think that finances don't still factor in, and aren't apparent in other ways. Even if the parental income isn't visible, if the applicant is attending one of the elite NYC prep schools with a $45,000 annual tuition it's obvious he or she benefitted from affluence, either directly from their family or through the ability to attend such a school through financial aid. But most of the students who come from wealthy families also an impeccable transcript with high grades in challenging classes throughout their high school career, SAT and ACT scores in the top percentiles, high AP scores, and other accomplishments that all require substantial personal effort to achieve. A famous filmmaker's daughter applied to college this year, and was denied admission to Brown (despite also being a legacy through her sister), Stanford, and several other colleges. She also wasn't a slouch in high school. She was on the Dean's List at a rigorous school, a talented artist, and very accomplished in equestrian sports, so even without him she had a lot going for her. She did get into several other top colleges, and she was deserving of admission.

There definitely are some colleges where having wealth will help you get in. Non-Californians pay $23,000 per year more in tuition to University of California campuses, and there's been heated controversy about the increased number of out-of-state residents who've been admitted. International students aren't eligible for the same financial aid packages, so wealthy foreigners who can afford to pay the full tuition are very desired at budget-strapped state universities. Several private universities that are prestigious but not with endowments in the billions also will look more favorably upon a student whose parent can shell out the $240,000 total cost for their undergraduate education.

As for AP classes the importance of them varies, both depending on the college and the student. Princeton salivates over them; Stanford makes the point of stating that it's not a matter of "she who takes the most AP classes wins" and encourages students to not take classes merely for the distinction of the AP label. State universities tend to be far more generous with granting AP credit earned from high AP scores. At the college I'll be attending they mainly award credit for 4s or 5s in STEM subjects or Foreign Languages. It's also really hard to get a 5 in most exams. Some private universities do still let you use high AP scores to cover prereqs even if they don't award credit for that specific AP.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Ah, I see. What scores do people need, to earn a place at universities, such as Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc, ect? Close to 1600? How is the ACT, different from the SAT? Do these tests, only test English & maths, not science, history, etc? Thank-you, again.

Many colleges publish their Common Data Set on their websites to provide comprehensive data about the test scores and grades of their admitted applicants, and their admission criteria. The majority of colleges in the United States require applicants to take the SAT or the ACT, which are standardized college readiness assessment tests. We have a diverse range of schooling options (public, private independent, parochial, charter, virtual, coop, homeschool) with incredible variations in their teaching methods, so a uniform measure can be beneficial. A handful colleges have discontinued using it, though, to have a more holistic approach to evaluating students.

I'm sort of tacking on a response to your question in another post here about admissions criteria. State universities tend to have a more regimented and straightforward admissions specifications, such as needing specific grades in specific academic subjects, and achieving set test score minimums. That process is more similar to universities in some other countries. I applied to Oxford in the UK, and it was exponentially less stressful than the application process for some of the private colleges in the US I applied to, despite the intensity of their requirements. Since American candidates to Oxford generally don't take A levels, we're expected to have a minimum composite SAT score of 2100 with a 700 or higher on each of the three components, or a 32 or higher on the ACT. Plus top grades. Plus a score of 5 in three or more Advanced Placement tests in subjects relevant to our course, or SAT Subject Tests in three subjects at 700 or better. Whew. Some programs require additional testing. I had to trek all the way out to Pasadena to take the LNET (Law National Admissions Test) because I was applying for Law. Then after I was short-listed I had an interview via Skype. It was all still less anxiety-producing because it was formulaic. If you made it through each obstacle in the course you actually have a decent chance of admission.

With Stanford, Harvard, Yale and other fiercely competitive colleges in the United States you need all the academic achievements in addition to personal accolades, strong college essays, and excellent letters of recommendation. You also need an enigmatic "it" factor to make your star shine a bit brighter amongst all the other stars. I devoted a portion of last summer to the writing supplements for the applications. I also submitted the optional arts supplement to boost my "it" appeal, and that upped the application deadline and required additional work to put together dance and art portfolios.
My friends in Australia said that there is a standardized test you take in your final year of school, and that along with your grades from that year alone are what determine if you're offered a place of admission. It puts a lot of pressure on that final year, but it alleviates stress if a student has underperformed in her earlier years. In Canada there are universities that merely require a simple application and your transcript, with no standardized test, letters of recommendation, essays, or anything extraneous, and whappakazam you're done. That would have been nice, haha. Some colleges in the US might also have a simple application process, but most are more elaborate.

This is the 2014 data for Stanford:

 

[Cearbhall]

Also, money. If you a rich enough, grades aren't an issue.

Erm, if you mean really rich, maybe. Like, a-building-or-scholarship-with-your-surname-on-it rich. Otherwise, they don't really care. They want economic diversity. It makes them look good, and most of the need-based aid is paid for by the government and alumni donors, anyway. They definitely don't go out of their way to admit kids who are going to flunk out in the first year.

Now, being a legacy student can have this effect at many institutions, but that's not just about money.

People assume that money forms a magical rug to carry a rich kid into any college, but it won't get through the gates of every campus. In the past if you had wealth and affluence you could buy your way into HYPSM without putting forth the work for it, but today those and several other ultra-competitive colleges with immense endowments have need-blind admission policies.

This. ^ The admissions team doesn't even see the student's economic information, usually.

 

[trunks2k]

Erm, if you mean really rich, maybe. Like, a-building-or-scholarship-with-your-surname-on-it rich

That's pretty much what I meant. Money as in your family has enough to donate to get something named after it.

 

[westen]

This surprises me. A college very close to where I used to go to the dentist is ranked pretty high. You hardly hear anything about it, though. I honestly had no idea.

 

[keith99]

Erm, if you mean really rich, maybe. Like, a-building-or-scholarship-with-your-surname-on-it rich. Otherwise, they don't really care. They want economic diversity. It makes them look good, and most of the need-based aid is paid for by the government and alumni donors, anyway. They definitely don't go out of their way to admit kids who are going to flunk out in the first year.

Now, being a legacy student can have this effect at many institutions, but that's not just about money.

This. ^ The admissions team doesn't even see the student's economic information, usually.

I doubt just being that rich would do it, or even help. But I think you are on the right track there.

Let's say your last name was Pauley and you are in the immediate family of the donors that Pauley Pavilion at UCLA and Pauley Dormitory at Occidental College are named after.

Yes that will help, especially at Oxy. UCLA being a state school would be limited in what they can do. But either would still look at the applicant carefully. Neither would be apt to accept an applicant who would not have a decent chance to graduate. What money with a history of donating it might buy is an admit when you are at the level where you would still benefit from an education at the level of the school and have a decent chance of having a positive experience at the school. The school would be hoping for future donations. Thoswe come from good experiences at the school, not mere admits.

In short it might be very helpful for the qualified student who would have lost out to other more qualified students. Not unlike the advantage of a recruited athlete. Pay attention next football season. You will not hear a football player from Stanford who sounds stupid. Some may be a step down from the average Stanford student, but still elite students.