Faculty Minutes May 22, 2001
Announcements:
1. Faculty Council committee assignments are in the process of being made. An effort is being made to adapt Dr. Boarman’s Task Forces with standing pre-existing Faculty Council committees to mitigate duplicate service by faculty. Next year’s Task Forces will include (but are not limited to) Standards and Curriculum, Strategic Planning, and Governance. There will also be slots available on the Admissions Committee, whose service will entail the requisite three-day reading of applicant files plus additional admissions work next year.
2. Tuesdays will continue to be the meeting day of choice for faculty during the 2001-2002 academic year.
3. Faculty volunteers are needed to participate in a service learning seminar on Thursday, June 7. Faculty will be trained as facilitators and assist the training of SLIs in holding conversations concerning NCSSM students’ service learning graduation component. Please contact Dr. Warshaw if you are interested.
4. Faculty are also invited to participate in a discussion about the proposed NCSSM summer reading (A Practical Guide to Ethics and Study is Hard Work) that will be held on May 30th at 4:00 p.m. Location TBA. A second discussion regarding these books and their application to our community will be held on June 7. Stay tuned.
Faculty Evaluation Procedures: The Faculty Evaluation Committee has been working industriously to revise evaluation procedures for discipline reports. Of particular concern is the evaluation of those persons, such as the librarian and counselors, who are faculty, but do not teach regular, academic classes. In an effort to accommodate their evaluation, the committee tries to change the language of the procedural guidelines to enable faculty to write the requisite reports. The faculty asked the committee to revisit the guidelines and devise/revise a process that would capture these folks’ performance. The recommended changes will be placed in faculty mailboxes soon, and a vote will be taken. A final version of procedures is due to Dr. Warshaw by June 1, 2001.
Grade Task Force/NCSSM College Acceptance Rates: Dot distributed graduation information she and others gathered from the materials provided by the counseling department. Observations that were drawn from the data include the following:
1. NCSSM students are accepted at a higher rate to top universities than the national rate of acceptance.
2. More students across the U.S. are applying to elite public and private institutions than ever before. (Thus, even though we are getting a high percentage of students into top-flight schools, there are, because of the sheer increase in applicants, a corresponding rise in rejections and hurt feelings exists. This makes the problem seem worse than it is because more students are affected.)
3. The data does not indicate that NCSSM has a problem in getting top kids into top universities.
Questions and comments voiced by the faculty include :
1. Are curricular changes necessary in response to a perceived problem that, in fact, based on the data seems not to exist?
2. Many top high schools do not weight their grades with quality points. What is our motivation in adopting quality points?
3. Do we really have a decision to make? Previous recommendations arising from Task Forces and committees have been rejected.
4. Concern was expressed that we will create second class citizens at NCSSM who, because of their educational background, will never be able to take courses with weightings of 6 points.
5. Preference was expressed for initiating transcript changes and course numbering changes to indicate the level of difficulty without inserting quality points next year. In other words, make changes gradually.
6. Have parents, the Director, and counseling been given the data that Dot shared? (The data was shared with the members of the grade task force.)
Certainly, all faculty want students to have the very best opportunities after graduation, but the issue of quality points proved especially disconcerting and unclear as to its impact on both the quality of student life and the recruitment of future Science and Math students. This was of significant concern to the faculty members present at the meeting.
Materials and data shared in the meeting is found below.
GPA and extra QP’s at some schools (NC Public high schools generally not included since they all do the same - honors = +1 and AP = + 2)
Alabama - no class rank, no GPA, does honors and AP, ???
Asheville - add 1 to honors and AP, median weighted = 3.4
Bancroft (Worcester MA) - 4.0 unweighted, no rank
Hackensack Academy - unweighted, A+ = 4.33, no rank, only A, B, C
California Academy - unweighted GPA, no rank
Carolina Day (Asheville) - A+ = 4.33, unweighted
Center for Adv. Technology (St. Petersburg, FL.) - weight A = 5, honors (and AP?), no class rank; A, B, C, D, F; course names, some have “honors after an AP”
Charter School of Wilmington (Delaware) - a math and science school, does rank; does weighted grades but not clear how
Durham Academy - no weights (4pt.), 4.3 = A+; no rank; no class rank
Gaston Day School - only A, B, C grades, GPA: + 0.5 Honors, +1 AP
Governors School for Govt. and Intl. Study in Richmond - Honor don’t get extra qp’s, AP gets +1, no class rank
Greensboro Day - bar chart of jr. grades looks normally distributed with avg. B/B+ [GPA = 4, but add 5 pts. to grade if A+ and 10 pts. if AP; no class rank; provide both weighted and unweighted GPA)
Groton - no class rank, honors and AP not weighted, provides a grade distribution chart: median grade seems to be about mid 80s » 84, looks like 60 is passing; sample transcript marked one of last year’s best had grades ranging from mid 80s to mid 90s about evenly split.
Hayesville High School
High Tech. High School (NJ) - no class rank
Illinois Math and Science Academy - don’t seem to have an honors designation on transcript; no rank; no GPA; profile shows grade distrubtion by % and broad course groups
Indiana Academy - sample transcript; does not show honors, GPA, or number of p’s.
J. H. Rose High School (NC)
Jefferson Science/Technical High School - sample transcript; shows GPA; AP = +1?
Leesville Rd. High School (NC)
Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts - GPA based on grades, earned at the Louisana school; 4.0 unweighted, also show transfer based on 4.0
Landon School - no class rank; GPA & +1 for both honors and AP
Macomb Math Science Technical Center
Maine School of Science and Math - no class rank; no GPA; transcript says all courses honors level or above
Maret School
Marine Academy of Science and Technology (Voc.) - does GPA- weighted-by how much
Maritime and Science Technical High School (Miami-Dade Public Schools)
Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science - no GPA or classrank
Math/Science/Technical Center (Big Rapids, MD)- profile shows class average GPA out of 4.0
Mathematics and Science High School at Clover Hill (Chesterfield County) -weighted GPA, +1 for honors and AP.
Mercersburg Academy - unweighted GPA
Midlothian High School (Chesterfield Co.) - weighted GPA, +1 for honors and AP.
Mississippi School for Math and Science - no GPA
Montgomery Blair - no class rank, weighted and unweighted GPA
Myers Park - Advanced, AG, Pre-IB get 1 QP; IB and AP get 2 QP
Notre Dame Academy - does not weight grades, courses are designated Honors/AP
Orlando School of Science and Math - no class rank, no GPA, all courses are designated Honors
PEA- no weighted grades, Honors/AP indicated on transcript with stars
Ravenscroft - GPA based on Ravenscroft’s grades, AP/Honors add +1 QP, A+ = 4.33
Roanoke Valley Governor’s School for Science and Technology - half-day school so no class ranks or GPA
Thomas Jefferson - no class rank, no Honors, no enriched
|
Brown |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
12 |
6 |
50.00 |
2 |
|
|
1992 |
5 |
3 |
60.00 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
6 |
2 |
33.33 |
1 |
|
|
1994 |
8 |
4 |
50.00 |
1 |
|
|
1995 |
15 |
3 |
20.00 |
2 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
39 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carnegie Mellon |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
6 |
6 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
1992 |
6 |
6 |
100.00 |
2 |
|
|
1993 |
3 |
2 |
66.67 |
0 |
|
|
1994 |
10 |
10 |
100.00 |
5 |
|
|
1995 |
8 |
7 |
87.50 |
2 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
94 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
2 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
2 |
2 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
1993 |
1 |
1 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
1994 |
5 |
4 |
80.00 |
1 |
|
|
1995 |
3 |
3 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
77 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dartmouth |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
5 |
2 |
40.00 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
2 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
1 |
1 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
1994 |
4 |
2 |
50.00 |
0 |
|
|
1995 |
2 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
36 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duke |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
94 |
39 |
41.49 |
12 |
|
|
1992 |
45 |
31 |
68.89 |
10 |
|
|
1993 |
55 |
40 |
72.73 |
15 |
|
|
1994 |
78 |
53 |
67.95 |
24 |
|
|
1995 |
103 |
60 |
58.25 |
29 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
59 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emory |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
7 |
7 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
1992 |
7 |
6 |
85.71 |
1 |
|
|
1993 |
11 |
9 |
81.82 |
1 |
|
|
1994 |
16 |
13 |
81.25 |
0 |
|
|
1995 |
9 |
9 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
88 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgetown |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
5 |
2 |
40.00 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
6 |
3 |
50.00 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
4 |
2 |
50.00 |
0 |
|
|
1994 |
7 |
2 |
28.57 |
0 |
|
|
1995 |
6 |
2 |
33.33 |
2 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
39 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harvard |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
8 |
1 |
12.50 |
1 |
|
|
1992 |
11 |
4 |
36.36 |
1 |
|
|
1993 |
12 |
6 |
50.00 |
2 |
|
|
1994 |
17 |
6 |
35.29 |
3 |
|
|
1995 |
29 |
2 |
6.90 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
25 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haverford |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
3 |
3 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
1992 |
2 |
2 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
2 |
2 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
1994 |
5 |
4 |
80.00 |
1 |
|
|
1995 |
1 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
85 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johns Hopkins |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
14 |
4 |
28.57 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
17 |
12 |
70.59 |
1 |
|
|
1993 |
16 |
7 |
43.75 |
0 |
|
|
1994 |
12 |
5 |
41.67 |
2 |
|
|
1995 |
16 |
8 |
50.00 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
48 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIT |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
13 |
5 |
38.46 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
11 |
4 |
36.36 |
3 |
|
|
1993 |
14 |
8 |
57.14 |
3 |
|
|
1994 |
12 |
4 |
33.33 |
1 |
|
|
1995 |
24 |
7 |
29.17 |
3 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
38 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
9 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
9 |
3 |
33.33 |
2 |
|
|
1993 |
9 |
7 |
77.78 |
7 |
|
|
1994 |
11 |
3 |
27.27 |
0 |
|
|
1995 |
22 |
5 |
22.73 |
3 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
30 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanford |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
7 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
1 |
1 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
4 |
3 |
75.00 |
1 |
|
|
1994 |
4 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
1995 |
7 |
2 |
28.57 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
26 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.Chicago |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
6 |
5 |
83.33 |
1 |
|
|
1992 |
3 |
2 |
66.67 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
2 |
2 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
1994 |
4 |
4 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
1995 |
5 |
3 |
60.00 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
80 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UPenn |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
11 |
7 |
63.64 |
0 |
|
|
1992 |
4 |
3 |
75.00 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
5 |
5 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
1994 |
4 |
3 |
75.00 |
1 |
|
|
1995 |
4 |
3 |
75.00 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
75 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UVA |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
13 |
7 |
53.85 |
2 |
|
|
1992 |
6 |
4 |
66.67 |
1 |
|
|
1993 |
17 |
7 |
41.18 |
0 |
|
|
1994 |
9 |
3 |
33.33 |
1 |
|
|
1995 |
18 |
13 |
72.22 |
4 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
54 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yale |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1991 |
5 |
1 |
20.00 |
1 |
|
|
1992 |
1 |
1 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
1993 |
8 |
3 |
37.50 |
2 |
|
|
1994 |
9 |
3 |
33.33 |
1 |
|
|
1995 |
12 |
2 |
16.67 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
29 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brown |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
15 |
4 |
26.67 |
1 |
|
|
1997 |
21 |
8 |
38.10 |
2 |
|
|
1998 |
10 |
1 |
10.00 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
17 |
1 |
5.88 |
0 |
|
|
2000 |
4 |
1 |
25.00 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
22 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carnegie Mellon |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
13 |
12 |
92.31 |
2 |
|
|
1997 |
8 |
7 |
87.50 |
0 |
|
|
1998 |
6 |
6 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
8 |
7 |
87.50 |
3 |
|
|
2000 |
10 |
5 |
50.00 |
4 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
82 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
5 |
4 |
80.00 |
0 |
|
|
1997 |
7 |
3 |
42.86 |
0 |
|
|
1998 |
7 |
4 |
57.14 |
0 |
|
|
1999 |
11 |
2 |
18.18 |
0 |
|
|
2000 |
6 |
2 |
33.33 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
42 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dartmouth |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
6 |
1 |
16.67 |
1 |
|
|
1997 |
4 |
3 |
75.00 |
1 |
|
|
1998 |
5 |
2 |
40.00 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
7 |
2 |
28.57 |
1 |
|
|
2000 |
3 |
1 |
33.33 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
36 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duke |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
85 |
63 |
74.12 |
23 |
|
|
1997 |
85 |
59 |
69.41 |
26 |
|
|
1998 |
73 |
52 |
71.23 |
18 |
|
|
1999 |
117 |
57 |
48.72 |
29 |
|
|
2000 |
80 |
54 |
67.50 |
26 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
65 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emory |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
14 |
10 |
71.43 |
4 |
|
|
1997 |
17 |
14 |
82.35 |
0 |
|
|
1998 |
18 |
16 |
88.89 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
16 |
11 |
68.75 |
2 |
|
|
2000 |
11 |
4 |
36.36 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
72 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgetown |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
3 |
1 |
33.33 |
1 |
|
|
1997 |
9 |
3 |
33.33 |
1 |
|
|
1998 |
5 |
1 |
20.00 |
0 |
|
|
1999 |
17 |
5 |
29.41 |
2 |
|
|
2000 |
10 |
1 |
10.00 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
25 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harvard |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
26 |
5 |
19.23 |
3 |
|
|
1997 |
25 |
3 |
12.00 |
1 |
|
|
1998 |
20 |
2 |
10.00 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
26 |
3 |
11.54 |
1 |
|
|
2000 |
16 |
2 |
12.50 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
13 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haverford |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
---------- |
----------- |
-------------- |
----------- |
|
|
1997 |
3 |
2 |
66.67 |
0 |
|
|
1998 |
2 |
2 |
100.00 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
4 |
2 |
50.00 |
0 |
|
|
2000 |
4 |
2 |
50.00 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
62 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johns Hopkins |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
8 |
5 |
62.50 |
1 |
|
|
1997 |
13 |
6 |
46.15 |
2 |
|
|
1998 |
16 |
12 |
75.00 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
28 |
14 |
50.00 |
1 |
|
|
2000 |
14 |
4 |
28.57 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
52 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIT |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
15 |
6 |
40.00 |
2 |
|
|
1997 |
21 |
10 |
47.62 |
3 |
|
|
1998 |
16 |
9 |
56.25 |
2 |
|
|
1999 |
22 |
6 |
27.27 |
3 |
|
|
2000 |
23 |
3 |
13.04 |
2 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
35 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Princeton |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
13 |
4 |
30.77 |
2 |
|
|
1997 |
15 |
4 |
26.67 |
4 |
|
|
1998 |
15 |
4 |
26.67 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
28 |
4 |
14.29 |
4 |
|
|
2000 |
11 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
20 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanford |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
8 |
4 |
50.00 |
1 |
|
|
1997 |
10 |
4 |
40.00 |
0 |
|
|
1998 |
2 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
1999 |
7 |
3 |
42.86 |
3 |
|
|
2000 |
10 |
0 |
0.00 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
30 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.Chicago |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
6 |
4 |
66.67 |
1 |
|
|
1997 |
2 |
1 |
50.00 |
0 |
|
|
1998 |
2 |
2 |
100.00 |
0 |
|
|
1999 |
4 |
3 |
75.00 |
1 |
|
|
2000 |
7 |
3 |
42.86 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
62 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UPenn |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
6 |
2 |
33.33 |
0 |
|
|
1997 |
4 |
3 |
75.00 |
1 |
|
|
1998 |
4 |
3 |
75.00 |
2 |
|
|
1999 |
14 |
4 |
28.57 |
2 |
|
|
2000 |
8 |
2 |
25.00 |
1 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
39 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UVA |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
34 |
22 |
64.71 |
5 |
|
|
1997 |
15 |
7 |
46.67 |
0 |
|
|
1998 |
12 |
3 |
25.00 |
1 |
|
|
1999 |
13 |
4 |
30.77 |
1 |
|
|
2000 |
11 |
2 |
18.18 |
0 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
45 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yale |
Applied |
Accepted |
% Accepted |
Enrolled |
|
|
1996 |
14 |
1 |
7.14 |
0 |
|
|
1997 |
8 |
2 |
25.00 |
1 |
|
|
1998 |
8 |
2 |
25.00 |
2 |
|
|
1999 |
25 |
6 |
24.00 |
2 |
|
|
2000 |
8 |
3 |
37.50 |
3 |
|
|
|
Avg. Acceptance |
22 |
|
||
|
Brown |
Average Acceptance Percentage |
|
1991-1995 |
39 |
|
1996-2000 |
22 |
|
|
|
|
Carnegie Mellon |
|
|
1991-1995 |
94 |
|
1996-2000 |
82 |
|
|
|
|
Columbia |
|
|
1991-1995 |
77 |
|
1996-2000 |
42 |
|
|
|
|
Dartmout |
|
|
1991-1995 |
36 |
|
1996-2000 |
36 |
|
|
|
|
Duke |
|
|
1991-1995 |
59 |
|
1996-2000 |
65 |
|
|
|
|
Emory |
|
|
1991-1995 |
88 |
|
1996-2000 |
72 |
|
|
|
|
Georgetown |
|
|
1991-1995 |
39 |
|
1996-2000 |
25 |
|
|
|
|
Harvard |
|
|
1991-1995 |
25 |
|
1996-2000 |
13 |
|
|
|
|
Haverford |
|
|
1991-1995 |
85 |
|
1996-2000 |
62 |
|
|
|
|
Johns Hopkins |
|
|
1991-1995 |
48 |
|
1996-2000 |
52 |
|
|
|
|
MIT |
|
|
1991-1995 |
38 |
|
1996-2000 |
35 |
|
|
|
|
Princeton |
|
|
1991-1995 |
30 |
|
1996-2000 |
20 |
|
|
|
|
Stanford |
|
|
1991-1995 |
26 |
|
1996-2000 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
U. Chicago |
|
|
1991-1995 |
80 |
|
1996-2000 |
62 |
|
|
|
|
U Penn |
|
|
1991-1995 |
75 |
|
1996-2000 |
39 |
|
|
|
|
UVA |
|
|
1991-1995 |
54 |
|
1996-2000 |
45 |
|
|
|
|
Yale |
|
|
1991-1995 |
29 |
|
1996-2000 |
23.73 |
|
|
|
school acc. rate 1991-95 acc. rate 1996-2000
From U.S. News and World Report
brown 23.6 18.4
carnegie-mellon 60.6 44.8
columbia 28.4 18.0
dartmouth 25.0 21.4
duke 29.0 29.2
emory 56.6 46.2
georgetown 27.0 22.6
harvard 16.4 11.8
haverford 40.5 35.0
johns hopkins 47.0 39.6
mit 31.2 23.4
princeton 15.8 12.6
stanford 20.4 15.6
u. chicago 46.6 60.0
u. penn 41.6 29.8
u. virginia 35.0 35.8
yale 20.6 18.0
Ratios: (our avg acceptance rate)/(nat’l avg acceptance rate)
|
School |
Ratio ‘91-95 |
Ratio ‘96-00 |
|
Brown |
1.65 |
1.20 |
|
CMU |
1.55 |
1.83 |
|
Columbia |
2.71 |
2.33 |
|
Dartmouth |
1.44 |
1.68 |
|
Duke |
2.03 |
2.23 |
|
Emory |
1.55 |
1.56 |
|
Georgetown |
1.44 |
1.11 |
|
Harvard |
1.52 |
1.10 |
|
Haverford |
2.10 |
1.77 |
|
Johns Hopkins |
1.02 |
1.31 |
|
MIT |
1.22 |
1.5 |
|
Princeton |
1.90 |
1.59 |
|
Stanford |
1.27 |
1.92 |
|
U. Chicago |
1.33 |
1.03 |
|
U. Penn |
1.80 |
1.31 |
|
UVA |
1.54 |
1.26 |
|
Yale |
1.41 |
1.22 |