Which Ivy+ Schools are Actually the Most Selective?

Schools often tout low admission rates as a proxy for a highly competitive academic environment. This blunt instrument fails to account for the quality of the applicant pool, and may distort potential applicants’ understanding of their chances of admission. To help give applicants a more complete picture, Dimension Admissions dove into the Common Data Set of Ivy+ universities in order to determine which schools have the most stringent selection criteria. For our purposes, we defined as Ivy+ every Ivy League school, plus any school ranking within one spot of an Ivy in US News and World Report’s 2024 Best Universities list, as well as the top five ranked liberal arts colleges. You can view our complete methodology at the end of this article.

1. Selectivity Results 

• #1 Most Selective:

  MIT emerges as the most selective school in the nation, followed closely by Cal Tech which is not at all surprising.

• Clusters at the Top:

  While the raw scores of MIT and Cal Tech are separated by less than a point, there is a 3-point drop to the schools ranked #3 and #4 – Stanford and Harvard (Stanford and Harvard were actually tied in terms of raw score, we gave the edge to Stanford since it edged ahead of Harvard in 20/22 metrics).

  The upshot is, in terms of measurable selectivity, MIT and Cal Tech are out front by a considerable margin. Yale and Princeton, separated by under half a point in raw scores, came in at #6 and #7 respectively in terms of measurable selectivity, with a wider margin separating these schools and Brown at #8.

• Least Selective Ivy:

  Though Ivy League schools are generally considered among the most competitive in the nation, it’s notable that Cornell’s measurable selectivity landed it in the bottom 40% of the 25 schools evaluated (making it the 10th least selective school on the list). Cornell’s raw score trails the highest ranked Ivy, Harvard, by a whopping 20 points.

• Berkeley in the Bottom 5:

  Berkeley, situated in the bottom 20% of the list, emerged as the 5th least competitive school we evaluated.

• Widest Admitted SAT Range:

  Harvard lands in the bottom 5 schools with respect to the lower end (bottom quartile) of its admitted SAT scores. Its top quartile SAT scores are in the top 5 on the list, making the range of SAT scores Harvard accepts the widest on the list by far (1460 – 1570).

• Most Selective in terms of Class Rank:

  Hopkins and University of Chicago outpace even MIT when it comes to the percentage of admits graduating in the top 10% of their high school classes. An eye-popping 99% of freshman at Hopkins and Chicago graduated in the top 10% of their classes, compared to 97% at MIT.

• Level of Interest Outlier:

  Columbia is an outlier on the list in that it considers an applicant’s “level of interest” as “very important” in admissions determinations. It is the only Ivy League school that considers level of interest at all, and one of only a handful of Ivy+ schools that consider it.

  No other Ivy+ school weights “level of interest” as heavily as Columbia does, which means, if your dream school is Columbia, you should work on communicating that as persuasively as possible. It might make all the difference.

• Ivy+ Selectivity Outlier:

  the Naval Academy emerged as the least selective on our list by a considerable margin. Navy’s raw score was exactly half of Wellesley’s, which is the second least selective school on the list, posting pronounced differences in admit rate, test scores and the class ranks of incoming freshman.

  Having said that, Navy’s admit rate, sitting just under 12%, still makes the school very competitive, on the whole, just not within the realm of Ivy+ schools. Navy also considers many factors that other schools do not—like required recommendations from a Congressman or Senator, and physical fitness requirements—raising its non-quantifiable selectivity.

• Qualifications about All Rankings:

  It’s notable that the rankings could change considerably with minor shifts in the weighting of each factor in our formula. While the same sets of schools generally emerged at the top and bottom of the rankings, discrete rankings are easily pliable, which is testament to how much rankings can be manipulated even when using the same origin data.

  It’s important to note that there are many other factors that weigh into admissions decisions beyond what’s reported and quantifiable, so these rankings are only an approximation, and not a complete measure of any given school’s selectivity.

Selectivity Methodology 

We defined as Ivy+ every Ivy League school, plus any school ranking within one spot of an Ivy in US News and World Report’s 2024 Best Universities list, as well as the top five ranked liberal arts colleges. Our measurable selectivity rankings were then determined based on a formula that considered Admit Rate, Class Rank, Standardized Test Scores (SAT and ACT), an evaluation of Non-Achievement Based Admissions Considerations by school, and Yield.

For reasons outlined below we’re confident this formula captures selectivity more accurately than the way it is most often construed, which is by simple reference to admit rates. The weighting was distributed as follows:

• Admit Rate (25%):

  Admit rate is traditionally understood to communicate selectivity, and it’s easily called on to make determinations about relative selectivity because almost every school reports it. But admit rate doesn’t actually speak directly to achievement-based selectivity, because we have no idea where the bottom is in terms of the competitiveness of applicants applying. So, comparing admit rates across schools could say more about marketing efforts, application fees, application requirements, brand recognition, scholarships available etc. etc. etc. than it does about true selectivity.

  For these reasons, instead of using Admit Rate as the sole factor determining measurable selectivity, we elected to make it 25% of the calculus.

• Class Rank (20%):

  Initially, we’d discussed weighting Class Rank and GPA together at 30%. Once we investigated the data in more depth, though, we decided to remove GPA from the equation entirely, given the lack of standardization in GPA reporting. Namely, while the Common Data Set explicitly states that GPAs are to be reported on a 4.0 scale, Harvard and Chicago are clearly ignoring that directive, reporting GPAs in excess of 4.0, and calling into question how many of the other top schools are ignoring it, too.

  Princeton alone has stated its reported GPA of 3.95 is based on an unweighted, 4.0 scale. Comparing weighted GPAs to unweighted GPAs is obviously useless, and the fact that less than half of Ivy+ schools are even reporting GPA data speaks volumes.

  Apart from the issue of standardization, rampant grade inflation has rendered GPA nearly meaningless as a differentiator among top students in the U.S. – a recent study estimated that roughly 50% of the 850,000 collegebound seniors in the United States graduate with straight A’s.Class rank, on the other hand, speaks directly to applicant achievement relative to peers, and there can be no inflation in class rank because it’s fixed. Class rank also does something to reduce the noise around what courses and resources are available to particular applicants. Obviously, this measure remains imperfect, but we feel strongly the proportion of Top 10% and Top 25% students a school accepts is more relevant than the GPA of admits.

• Standardized Test Scores (20%):

  Behind class rank, standardized test scores are the most objective measure of achievement that can compare across schools. SATs are weighted more heavily in our formula because there is more room for differentiation in the scores, and more students are reporting SATs than ACTs at IVY+ (unclear whether this is tied to primarily to geography or to a perception that the SATs are the more challenging, gold-standard test).

  This measure is imperfect to the extent that, at least anecdotally, top schools have indicated that they could fill their entire classes with perfect scoring candidates if they were so inclined.

• Non-Achievement-Based Considerations (15%):

  This is a factor we haven’t seen included in any other formulas attempting to capture selectivity, but we feel it’s relevant. Schools report the factors they consider in admissions determinations in the Common Data Set. While not all of these factors are academic (e.g. recommendations, extra-curriculars, work experience, interviews, and considerations re talent and character), there are a handful that are completely unrelated to achievement: legacy status; geographical considerations; state residency considerations; religious affiliation; and level of applicant interest.

  Of those factors, we weighted considerations of applicant interest most heavily against selectivity—desire to attend is entirely unrelated to achievement, as is its expression, so schools that consider it are necessarily less selective with respect to measurable applicant achievement; we feel it dilutes selectivity more than the rest to the extent it’s completely discretionary on the part of applicants.

• Yield (20%):

  Finally, we factored yield into our selectivity determination. While yield is not a direct measure of selectivity, as it’s not an admissions consideration, and runs from students to schools instead of the other way around, we do feel it speaks to perception of selectivity and the caliber of the institution among applicants.