Category Archives: Stats and Surveys

U.S. News 2014 Rankings: Lots of Changes for Public Universities

Posted on by

The U.S. News Best Colleges edition for 2014 is out, and the somewhat obscure changes in the magazine’s methodology this year have wrought many changes in the rankings of major public universities.

The 2013 rankings were especially unkind to public universities; the new rankings show gains by 23 of the 50 schools we follow most closely, while 19 declined and 8 remained the same.

Colorado, Penn State, Stony Brook, Vermont, and Indiana made the most dramatic gains.   The new rankings mark the second year in a row that Stony Brook has made a big leap, now ranking 82, versus 111 only two years ago.

What we do know about the changes in methodology probably explain the perhaps surprising fall of two public elites, UT Austin and Washington.  The new methodology places more emphasis on grad and retention rates, and these two schools likely did not better the expectations set by the magazine in these categories or actually fell below projected levels.  It is also possible, though less likely, that other schools performed much better in these categories than they did in 2013.

The magazine has not been forthcoming about possible changes in the weight given to academic reputation.  Both these schools have scored extremely well in that category in recent years, so a reduction in the weight of that category would hurt their rankings.

Alabama, Binghamton, Arizona State, and UC Irvine also fell by at least five places in the 2014 rankings.  It is important to keep in mind that very small statistical changes can result in a ranking difference of 4-6 places.

Below are the 50 universities we follow, showing by the symbols (-, +, or +) whether they fell, stayed the same, or gained in the rankings.  We also list each school’s rankings for a three-year span: 2012, 2013, and 2014.  Schools with gains of five or more places are listed in caps.

-Alabama—2014 (86); 2013 (77); 2012 (75)

+Arizona—2014 (119); 2013 (120); 2012 (124)

-Arizona State—2014 (142); 2013 (139); 2012 (132)

+ARKANSAS—2014 (128); 2013 (134); 2012 (132)

-Auburn—2014 (91); 2013 (89); 2012 (82)

-Binghamton—2014 (97); 2013 (89); 2012 (90)

+CLEMSON—2014 (62); 2013 (68); 2012 (68)

+COLORADO—2014 (86); 2013 (97); 2012 (94)

+CONNECTICUT–2014 (57); 2013 (63); 2012 (58)

=Delaware—2014 (75); 2013 (75); 2012 (75)

+FLORIDA–2014 (49); 2013 (54); 2012 (58)

+Georgia—2014 (60); 2013 (63); 2012 (62)

=Georgia Tech—2014 (36); 2013 (36); 2012 (36)

+ILLINOIS—2014 (41); 2013 (46); 2012 (42)

+INDIANA—2014 (75); 2013 (83); 2012 (75)

-Iowa—2014 (73); 2013 (72); 2012 (71)

=Iowa State—2014 (101); 2013 (101); 2012 (97)

+KANSAS—2014 (101); 2013 (106); 2012 (101)

-Maryland—2014 (62); 2013 (58); 2012 (55)

+MASSACHUSETTS—2014 (91); 2012 (97); 2012 (94)

+Michigan—2014 (28); 2013 (29); 2012 (28)

-Michigan State—2014 (73); 2013 (72); 2012 (71)

-Minnesota—2014 (69); 2013 (68); 2012 (68)

+Mississippi—2014 (150); 2013 (151); 2012 (143)

=Missouri—2014 (97); 2013 (97); 2012 (90)

=Nebraska—2014 (101); 2013 (101); 2012 (101)

=North Carolina—2014 (30); 2013 (30); 2012 (29)

+NC STATE—2014 (101); 2013 (106); 2012 (101)

+Ohio State—2014 (52); 2013 (56); 2012 (55)

+OREGON—2014 (109); 2013 (115); 2012 (101)

+PENN STATE—2014 (37); 2013 (46); 2012 (45)

-Pitt—2014 (62); 2013 (58); 2012 (58)

-Purdue—2014 (68); 2013 (65); 2012 (62)

-Rutgers—2014 (69); 2013 (68); 2012 (68)

+South Carolina—2014 (112); 2013 (115); 2012 (111)

+STONY BROOK—2014 (82); 2013 (92); 2012 (111)

-Texas A&M—2014 (69); 2013 (65); 2012 (58)

-UC Davis—2014 (39); 2013 (38); 2012 (38)

-UC Irvine—2014 49); 2013 (44); 2012 (45)

+UCLa 2014 (23); 2013 (24); 2012 (25)

-UC San Diego—2014 (39); 2013 (37); 2012 (38)

=UC Santa Barbara-2014 (41); 2013 (41); 2012 (42)

-University at Buffalo—2014 (109); 2013 (106); 2012 (111)

-UT Austin—2014 (52); 2013 (46); 2012 (45)

+VERMONT—2014 (82); 2013 (92); 2012 (82)

+Virginia—2014 23); 2013 (24); 2012 (25)

+Virginia Tech—2014 (69); 2013 (72); 2012 (71)

-Washington–2014 (52); 2013 (46); 2012 (42)

-Washington State—2014 (128); 2013 (125); 2012 (115)

=Wisconsin—2014 (41); 2013 (41); 2012 (42)

 

U.S. Has 24 of Top 50 Engineering and Tech Universities in the World

Posted on by

According to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, the U.S. is home to 24 of the top 50 engineering and technology universities in the world.

It is also notable that 13 of the 24 U.S. institutions are public universities.  The United States also has the top four schools on the Times list.

“The 2012-2013 Times Higher Education World University Rankings’ Engineering and Technology table judges world class universities across all of their core missions – teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook. The ranking of the world’s top 50 universities for engineering and technology employs 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons available, which are trusted by students, academics, university leaders, industry and governments.”

Here are the U.S. universities on the list, along with their rank:

1. Caltech

2. Princeton

3. MIT

4. UC Berkeley

5. Stanford

7. UCLA

9. Georgia Tech

13. UT Austin

15. Carnegie Mellon

16. Northwestern

17. UC Santa Barbara

18. Cornell

19. Michigan

20. Illinois

21. Columbia

26. Penn

30. Rice

34. Washington

36. UC San Diego

41. Wisconsin

42. Purdue

45. Minnesota

48. UC Davis

49. Duke

 

The End of Affirmative Action in College Admissions: Bad for the Middle Class?

Posted on by

If the recent Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin ultimately leads to a prohibition on using race-conscious factors in college admissions, one counter-intuitive result could be that middle-class applicants of all races may find it more difficult to get into selective public institutions.

Currently, UT Austin is required to allocate 75 percent of its freshmen spaces to students who graduate in the top 8 percent of their high school classes (2013-2014 academic year).  The remainder of the places may be filled with some consideration given to an applicant’s race, along with many other factors, including socioeconomic status.

Many of the students who are automatically admitted through the top 8 percent formula come from minimally desegregated high schools in poor urban and rural areas of the state, so the automatic formula is a proxy for increasing the enrollment of minority students, many from Dallas, Houston, and the Rio Grande Valley.   About 37 percent of the automatic admits are minority students.

The second group–the 25 percent who do not have to be in the top 8 percent of their high school classes–includes a much higher proportion of students who come from more rigorous high schools.  The “holistic” process utilized to admit these students emphasizes test scores, high school gpa, quality of the high school, leadership, extracurricular activities, work, etc., along with special factors, including race.  But only about 22 percent of holistic admits are minority students.

The interesting thing about the holistic process is that, even though a smaller percentage of minorities are admitted this way, the socioeconomic status of these students is higher, meaning that they “diversify diversity” by including minority students from all socioeconomic levels in the university population.  Aside from being a way to counter racial stereotypes that may be held by white students, these minority students also pay more of the costs of attending UT Austin.

Many high-achieving students of all races also gain admission through the holistic process.  Students at demanding high schools may not rank in the top 8 percent, but many have high SAT scores and even have gpas that are higher than many of the automatic admits.  (The average SAT scores of holistic admits in a recent year was 1902, but for automatic admits the average was 1812.)

For legal purposes, the automatic admission process is considered “race neutral,” and so would likely be allowed to continue if “race conscious” plans are eventually disallowed.  But since the automatic plans are proxies for using race, and because they are also proxies for admitting lower-income students, the use of automatic admission practices alone would leave less room for many high-achieving students of all races who come from strong schools in middle class or high income districts.

The admission of more low-income students will all place greater demands on the ability of the universities to provide financial support to middle-class students.

The University of Colorado at Boulder has experimented with a more sophisticated admissions system that provides “boosts” to applicants who have some degree of disadvantage coupled with evidence of over-achievement.  Highly-qualified applicants who are not disadvantaged are not penalized, yet the boosts for other applicants will still yield a student body with more lower-income students.  Again, added pressure on financial resources is one result.

The Colorado plan is a laudable attempt to increase access, promote diversity, and avoid overt racial considerations.  The point of this article is not to criticize these goals but only to point out the possible impact that the changes in college admissions could have on the middle class.

So in the end, while some non-minority families might complain about what they see as favoritism in current race-conscious practices, the change to race-neutral options might make it even more difficult for middle-class students to gain entrance to selective schools and receive some financial assistance in the process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honors Colleges vs. Honors Programs: NCHC Survey of Smaller Institutions

Posted on by

The leadership of the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) has completed a survey of more than 400 honors colleges and programs, many of them at smaller institutions.  The average total enrollment at the colleges surveyed is 6,484.  The average size of the 50 larger state universities we surveyed was much larger, just under 25,000 students.

NCHC President Rick Scott, Dean of the Schedler Honors College at the University of Central Arkansas, released the report.

As we found earlier in the post Honors Colleges vs. Honors Programs, honors colleges tend to have a greater “value added” impact on large universities that are not as selective as some of their counterparts.  For example, UVA, UNC Chapel Hill, Michigan, and UT Austin do not have honors colleges, and their strong “value” is often validated by external rankings and other measures. 

All these universities have strong honors programs, but the extent to which they add value to the universities as a whole is less than the impact of honors colleges on less selective schools. The Barrett Honors College at Arizona State, for example, is a powerful value added feature for the university as a whole.

Most of the two-year and four-year colleges in the NCHC survey are not highly selective.  Therefore, it is not surprising to us that the NCHC survey did in fact show a significant difference in the size and positive impact of honors colleges at these school versus the impact of honors programs.

What this means for prospective students who are looking at honors options offered by smaller or less selective colleges is that, in general, the schools with honors colleges will have stronger honors components, especially in several extremely important categories.

Size–In smaller institutions, the size of the honors component can be especially important.  The survey showed that the average size of responding honors colleges was 814 students, but only 292 students for honors programs.  By contrast, in our evaluation of fifty large university honors colleges and programs, there was only a very slight difference in the relative size.

Staff–The survey found that honors colleges had an average of 4.9 full-time employees, while honors programs had only 1.2 FTEs.

Advising–In the very important area, 77 percent of honors colleges had their own advisers, and only 44 percent of honors programs did.

Prestigious Scholarships–Guidance for outstanding students applying for Rhodes, Truman, Goldwater and other awards was available in 45 percent of the honors colleges but in only 16 percent of honors programs.

Honors Housing–83 percent of honors colleges offered honors residence choices, but only 46 percent of honors programs did so.

Living/Learning Options–Again, 73 percent of honors colleges had living/learning communities, but only 33 percent of honors programs did.

Curriculum–Here, 73 percent of honors colleges also offered departmental honors, while 59 percent of honors programs did so.

Internships–Honors colleges offered much stronger opportunities for internships, 44 percent versus only 22 percent for honors programs.

 


We’re Considering a New Edition–Nominate a Regional University!

Posted on by

Our current publication, A Review of Fifty Public University Honors Programs,
is going to be updated, possibly as soon as the latter part of 2014 if all goes according to plan.

That plan is for the second edition to include evaluations of 100 public honors colleges and programs, although we will use a two-tiered approach for the new edition.  One tier will likely include most of the 50 institutions that we reviewed in the 2012 edition. (A few might not be included, while some new ones are likely to be added. The selection process for this tier will be one reason for the minor changes.)

The other tier will cover regional public university honors colleges and programs.  A few of these have already been profiled on this site (please see, for example, Western Kentucky Honors College: Regional Excellence, International Impact and East Tenn State Univ: Exemplary Honors Coordination).

For regional universities to be competitive, the honors curriculum should be strong and comprehensive.   Although the examples above signal their regional nature by their very names, there are certainly other, similar schools that do not have similar “regional” names.

We have several of these institutions in mind already, but we are open to suggestions, preferably from the senior staff of a prospective honors college or program, on a confidential basis.  One important element in our consideration of universities for both tiers will be the extent to which a college or program is inclined to be reasonably cooperative and forthcoming with data that meet our category requirements.

(Please contact editor@publicuniversityhonors.com to make inquiries or to suggest an honors college or program for inclusion.)

In particular, we need accurate data for six-year graduation rates, freshman honors entrants only (not honors completers), and data showing the percentage of honors students who study abroad for at least one full summer term or longer.

Although we will look very closely at curricula and honors housing ourselves, these are two categories that can be clarified through dialogue.  As we did for the 2012 edition, all universities will receive advance copies of both their narrative profiles and statistical data prior to publication.  This was a very effective means of obtaining the best information in 2012, at least from the programs that participated in the dialogue.

One critical improvement over 2012 is that there will be a firm, detailed, and uniform questionnaire sent to selected programs–none of that “evolving” stuff that characterized our first, tentative effort.  We are open to suggestions for ways of making the questionnaire as effective as possible.

We hope to hear from you soon!

John Willingham, Editor


 



Times Higher Ed World University Rankings 2012: The Top U.S. Publics

Posted on by
Reply

Each year we especially enjoy writing about the Times Higher Education World University Rankings because unlike most U.S. ranking publications and the current trend of disparaging academic research at public institutions, the Times rankings embrace research as “the single most influential of the 13 indicators,” as the Times “looks at the role of universities in spreading new knowledge and ideas.”

This year, U.S. public universities occupy 24 of the top 100 slots, while U.S. private universities account for another 23 positions.  The Times surveys 400 institutions, so being in the top 100 is certainly a noteworthy achievement.  The continuing worldwide respect for U.S. higher education is even more remarkable, given the number of detractors in this country.

The Times rankings do not ignore metrics for class size and financial resources as they focus on research, but they certainly do not make them determinative.  The downside to the Times list is that it does not include a metric for graduation rates.

But to us, the Times rankings are like old-time football: straight up head knocking to see who’s the best, and forget who has the most expensive stadium or the best recruiting class.  On the other hand, we believe that they are most useful in tandem with some of the other rankings that place more emphasis on class size as well as graduation rates.  In effect, the Times rankings offset some of the shortcomings of the U.S. News rankings, and the U.S. News rankings do the same for the Times rankings.

Below are six lists.  The first lists the U.S. public universities that are in the top 100 universities in the world, according to the Times rankings.  We will show the world rank, and then list the university.

The other five lists show the U.S. universities that are in the top 50 in the subject areas ranked by the Times: Arts and Humanities; Engineering and Technology; Life Sciences; Physical Sciences; and Social Sciences.  Again, we will list the world rank of each university within each subject area, and then the name of the university.

U.S. Public Universities in the Top 100 Worldwide:

9–UC Berkeley

13–UCLA

20–Michigan

24–Washington

25–UT Austin

26–Georgia Tech

31–Wisconsin

33–Illinois

35–UC Santa Barbara

38–UC San Diego

42–North Carolina

44–UC Davis

47–Minnesota

53–Ohio State

61–Penn State

69–Purdue

72–Massachusetts Amherst

76–Pitt

91–Colorado

94–Michigan State

96–UC Irvine

97–Maryland

98–Arizona

99–Rutgers

Arts and Humanities: Top 50 Worldwide

7–UC Berkeley

16–UCLA

18–Michigan

20–Rutgers

22–UT Austin

27–Wisconsin

33–North Carolina

35–UCSD

42–Massachusetts Amherst

45–Pitt

49–Virginia

49–Arizona

Engineering and Technology: Top 50 Worldwide

4–UC Berkeley

7–UCLA

9–Georgia Tech

13–UT Austin

17–UC Santa Barbara

19–Michigan

20–Illinois

34–Washington

36–UC San Diego

41–Wisconsin

42–Purdue

45–Minnesota

48–UC Davis

Life Sciences: Top 50 Worldwide

6–UC Berkeley

15–UCLA

17–UC San Diego

18–Michigan

24–Washington

30–Wisconsin

35–North Carolina

38–Massachusetts Amherst

39–UC Santa Barbara

43–Penn State

47–Illinois

Physical Sciences: Top 50 Worldwide

2–UC Berkeley

9–UCLA

14–Washington

15–UC Santa Barbara

18–UT Austin

20–Michigan

24–Illinois

30–Colorado

38–Wisconsin

47–Georgia Tech

48–UC Santa Cruz

Social Sciences: Top 50 Worldwide

12–Michigan

12–UCLA

14–UC Berkeley

21–Wisconsin

25–North Carolina

27–Washington

28–UT Austin

29–Minnesota

34–Ohio State

37–Penn State

47–Michigan State

49–UC Santa Barbara



State University Leaders in Recent Marshall Scholarships

Posted on by
Reply

Now that we have the full list of Marshall Scholars 2013 , we thought it would be a good time to report on the number of Marshall scholars among the 50 public universities we follow, since 2001, the year we use in our metric for Marshall awards.

Below are the universities and the number of Marshall Scholarships since 2001:

UT Austin–10

Georgia Tech–8

Arizona State–7

Michigan State–7

Indiana–6

Georgia–5

Pitt–5

Michigan–4

Ohio U–4

Penn State–4

Texas A&M–4

Washington–4

Colorado–3

Delaware–3

Iowa State–3

Oregon–3

UCLA–3

Virginia–3

Arizona–2

Arkansas–2

Connecticut–2

Kansas–2

Kansas State–2

Mass Amherst–2

Nebraska–2

NC State–2

Ohio State–2

Oklahoma–2

South Carolina–2

Alabama–1

Florida–1

Maryland–1

Minnesota–1

Mississippi–1

Missouri–1

Montana–1

North Carolina–1

UC Davis–1

Univ at Buffalo–1

Wisconsin–1


 

 

 

 

 

 

Leading Public Universities for Undergraduate Research

Posted on by
Reply

We are about to head out to Boston for the annual conference of the National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC), and one of the most exciting features of the conference is the presentation of undergraduate research by honors students from across the nation.   So this is a good time to list the most recent U.S. News listings of the best major public universities for undergraduate research, an area in which most public honors programs excel.

The number of public flagship institutions on the list doubled over last year to include 10 in the current list.

The magazine lists 50 universities based on a national survey of 1,500 college presidents, deans, and chief academic officers.  The magazine lists the schools alphabetically, and below are the leading public institutions that made the list:

  • Arizona
  • Michigan
  • Nebraska
  • North Carolina
  • South Carolina
  • Virginia Tech
  • UC Berkeley
  • UCLA
  • Washington
  • Wisconsin

Special congratulations to Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, UC Berkeley, and Wisconsin for making the list two years in a row!

 

Public vs. Private Universities: Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, Goldwater, Etc….

Posted on by
Reply

In previous posts we have written about the dominance of elite private institutions when it comes to winning prestigious national awards, such as Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, Gates Cambridge, and Goldwater scholarships.  There is no question that Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, and a few other elite schools dominate some of these awards, especially Rhodes scholarships.

But what about the performance of other leading private universities, including those in the top tier of the U.S. News rankings?  We have analyzed the record of 20 private universities ranked 24 to 83 in the 2013 U.S. News rankings.  The average ranking for the 20 schools is 54.4.  We then compared their performance with that of the 50 universities whose honors programs we evaluated.  The average U.S. News ranking of the 50 public schools is 74.16, down from an average of 72.82 in 2012.

The 20 private universities are the following: Notre Dame, USC, Wake Forest, Boston College, NYU, Case Western Reserve, University of Miami, Boston University, George Washington, Tulane, Fordham, Northeastern, SMU, Syracuse, American, Baylor, Denver, Marquette, Tulsa, and TCU.

We analyzed the full history of Rhodes, Truman, Churchill, Fulbright, Goldwater, and Udall awards, and we adjusted for size of undergraduate enrollment in the case of Fulbright Student Scholarships because of the high number of those awards (about 1,500) in a given year.  We also analyzed Marshall and Gates Cambridge awards from 2001 through 2012.  One point was assigned for each award.

On a scale with 25 being the highest score, the mean score for the private universities was 7.21 and for the public universities it was 11.86.  Below are some interesting specifics:

  • The University of Tulsa had the highest overall score for the private universities, mainly due to the impressive number of Goldwater awards for undergraduates studying STEM subjects (51), which would place Tulsa at number 9 among all 70 universities in this comparison.  The leaders in Goldwater awards (among our 50 public schools) are Illinois (63), Penn State (61), Virginia (59), Wisconsin (56), Arizona State and Minnesota (54), and Michigan and Washington (52).
  • Overall, the mean score for Goldwater awards (raw numbers) was more than twice as high for the public universities as it was for the private schools (33.7 versus 16.2).
  • The mean score for Rhodes Scholarships was likewise much higher for the public schools, 12.16 versus 5.25.
  • Tulane led private schools in total Rhodes Scholarships with 18, followed by Notre Dame (14), Wake Forest (13), Case Western (10), Boston University (8), USC (8), and Denver (7).  The leading schools among the 50 we reviewed are Virginia (46), North Carolina (41), Washington (39), Wisconsin (31), Kansas and UT Austin (27), and Michigan (25).
  • The four private schools that had a total scaled score that was above the mean for the 50 public schools were Tulsa, Tulane, Notre Dame, and NYU.
  • The strongest performance for private schools was in earning Fulbright awards, probably because of the adjustment for size of undergraduate enrollment.  The mean score for the private schools was 7.21 versus 3 .07 for the public schools.
  • The mean scores for Truman Scholarships were close, with private schools averaging 8.8 and public schools 9.3.  American University and Wake Forest led private schools with 15 Truman awards each, followed by USC (14), SMU (13), Boston College and Tulane (12), and Syracuse and Tulsa (11).  The leading public schools are North Carolina (32), UT Austin (26), Michigan and Virginia (24), Wisconsin and Arizona State (17), and Arkansas and Delaware (16).
  • The public universities in this comparison score significantly higher in earning Gates Cambridge and Marshall scholarships since 2001.  However, NYU students have won an impressive 8 Gates Scholarships, the only private university in this comparison to win more than 3.   Illinois has 10, Penn State 7, Rutgers and Florida 6 apiece, and Georgia, Georgia Tech, NC State, and Michigan 5 apiece.
  • The public universities dominate Udall Scholarships, although American University has 10 and Tulsa 9.   Arizona State has 29, Arizona 21, Penn State 20, Kansas 16, and North Carolina 15.

 

 

Sample Class of 2016 Admission Stats, Public Honors and Private Universities

Posted on by
Reply

Below are selected admission stats, mostly for the class of 2016, including public and private universities.  We list both public and private schools in this post so that readers can get an idea of comparability.  All of the stats for private schools are for the class of 2016; some of the public school stats are for the class of 2015, and will be listed with an asterisk.  Please note that even though public and private admission stats are often comparable, the acceptance rates may vary greatly and are typically much lower at most private institutions.  The public university stats are for honors programs only, except in the case of UC Berkeley, William & Mary, and the University of Virginia.

Georgia: SAT middle 50%=2110–2240; ACT middle 50%=31–33

Penn: SAT middle 50%= Reading 660–760; Math 690–780; Writing 680–770; ACT 30–34; acceptance rate 12.3%

UC Berkeley: Mean SAT=2068; acceptance rate 21%

Stanford: Median SAT=Reading 730; Math 740; Writing 730; acceptance rate 6.6%

Delaware: SAT middle 50%=2020–2170; mean ACT=33

Wesleyan: SAT average=Reading 730; Math 740; Writing 730; ACT 32; acceptance rate 20%

North Carolina: Mean SAT=1455; Mean ACT=32.5; top 9% of university applicants

MIT: SAT middle 50%=Reading 680–780; Math 740–800; Writing 690–790; acceptance rate 8.9%

Indiana (Hutton): Mean SAT=1372; Mean ACT=31.38

Vanderbilt: SAT middle 50%=1470–1590; ACT middle 50%=33–35; acceptance rate 12%.  (Note: these are sharply higher than 2011 stats.)

Washington*: SAT total average 2070; acceptance rate 26.3%

Davidson: SAT middle 50%=Reading 620–720; Math 640–720; Writing 620–720; ACT middle 50%=29–32; acceptance rate 24.8%

William & Mary: SAT middle 50%=Reading 620–740; Math 630–720; Writing 620–720; ACT middle 50%=28–32; acceptance rate 32%

Dartmouth: Mean SAT: Reading 736; Math 741; Writing 743; Mean ACT 32.5; acceptance rate 9.4%

UT Austin Plan II*: Average SAT=Reading 718; Math 715; Writing 722 (2155 combined); middle 50% ACT 32-33; for class of 2016, acceptance rate was 31%.

Cornell: Mean SAT=Reading 675;  Math 717 (total of 1402); Mean ACT 31; acceptance rate 16.2%

Virginia: Mean SAT=1395; acceptance rate 27.4%

Colgate: SAT middle 50%=Reading 660–740; Math 670–750; ACT 30–33; acceptance rate 29%

Mississippi (Barksdale Honors): ACT average 30.1

Boston University: SAT average 2005; ACT 29; acceptance rate 45.5%

Penn State Schreyer*: SAT average 2070; ACT 32; estimated acceptance rate 10–12%

Tufts: SAT middle 50%: Reading 670–760; Math 680–760; Writing 680–760; ACT 31; acceptance rate 21%

South Carolina*: SAT average 1427; High school GPA (weighted) 4.6