Appendix to “Philosophy Majors & High Standardized Test Scores: Not Just Correlation”

This is an appendix containing the data and sources used in the post, “Philosophy Majors & High Standardized Test Scores: Not Just Correlation,” by Thomas Metcalf, published on July 14, 2021.

Appendix

General comment: All of this is from an Excel spreadsheet. I’ve double checked my data entry but it’s possible I’ve made a few typos. When in doubt, check my sources and enter your own calculations.

Table A.1: Contributions versus ACT 2016

In each row, each cell other than titles represents the number of percentage-points that majoring in that program seems to contribute (versus ACT 2016) toward some effect, either a test score or whether one is admitted to postgraduate study, versus the average among the other majors listed here.

Comments:

1. See Tables A.6-A.10 for sources.
2. Here, the “pp” sign means percentage-points. “Comm.” means “Communications.” “P&R” means “philosophy and religion” or “philosophy, religion, and theology.” “N/A” means the data weren’t available.
3. The penultimate row indicates by how many percentage points philosophy-and-religion outperform the average contribution across the listed majors. The last row indicates philosophy-and-religion’s rank out of the ten majors listed here.
4. Average contributions can be negative because not all majors are listed here. The “average” is not an average of the data on the lists of the majors I present, but the data across all test-takers, including majors that aren’t listed here.
5. The sources I found that claimed to present the overall rate generally presented the overall law-school admission rate (i.e. what percentage of applicants enrolled) or averaged admission rates across schools rather than across majors. So those didn’t cohere with my source for the individual admission rates; but if you look at that source, and laboriously enter the eighty-or-so most-populous majors and their corresponding data, you can estimate an overall acceptance rate of around 74.30%. That’s what I did. It doesn’t make a huge difference because we’re still comparing all these majors to the same average and measuring the relative contribution, but it helps when we want to estimate magnitudes.
6. For GMAT data, replace “visual and performing arts” with “fine arts,” “communications” with “journalism,” “health sciences” with “medicine/nursing”; and “physical sciences” with “the average of biology, chemistry, and physics.” The latter is not weighted by population, since I didn’t have those data available. Still, since physics tends to outperform biology and chemistry in these sorts of tests, yet comprise far fewer majors, this helps “physical sciences” versus the average and correspondingly harms “philosophy and religion” in relative terms.
7. For med-school admission rate, replace “health sciences” with “the average of the scores of biology and biochemistry,” replace “physical sciences” with “the average of the scores of chemistry and physics,” replace “English and foreign languages” with “English,” replace “social sciences” with “history,” and replace “philosophy and religion” with “philosophy.” I grant that this may distort the results, so I don’t put a lot of weight on these data. 
8. Here and throughout, numbers may not all add up exactly right, since I’m cutting off some digits.

Table A.2: Contributions versus SAT 2016 Subscores

Note: See Table A.4 for sources.

Table A.3: Contributions versus SAT 2016 Comprehensive Scores

Notes:

1. See Tables A.6, A.8, A.9, and A.10 for sources.
2. For GMAT data, replace “visual and performing arts” with “fine arts,” “communications” with “journalism,” “health sciences” with “medicine/nursing”; and “physical sciences” with “the average of biology, chemistry, and physics.” The latter is not weighted by population, since I didn’t have those data available. Still, since physics tends to outperform biology and chemistry in these sorts of tests, yet comprise far fewer majors, this helps “physical sciences” versus the average and correspondingly harms “philosophy and religion” in relative terms.
3. For med-school admission rate, replace “health sciences” with “the average of the scores of biology and biochemistry,” replace “physical sciences” with “the average of the scores of chemistry and physics,” replace “English and foreign languages” with “English,” replace “social sciences” with “history,” and replace “philosophy and religion” with “philosophy.” I grant that this may distort the results, so I don’t put a lot of weight on these data.

Table A.4: GRE Contributions versus SAT Subscores

Comments:

1. See Tables A.6 and A.7 for sources.
2. The left three data columns are percentages (i.e. “1.02” = 102%); the right three report percentage points.
3. Average contributions can be negative because not all majors are listed.
4. Given what we would expect from the SAT, P&R make an average contribution to verbal reasoning, a slightly better-than-average contribution to quantitative reasoning, and an enormous contribution (13.33pp vs. the average of 2.08pp) to writing.

Table A.5: LSAT, GMAT, and MCAT Contributions vs. SAT Comprehensive

Comments:

1. See Tables A.6, A.8, A.9, and A.10 for sources. Some calculations may appear slightly off because I’ve cut off some digits; the spreadsheets I used have cells with typically 5-7 significant digits.
2. See especially Table A.10 for how to read the “med school” column.
3. Division by averages yields percentages (i.e. 1.08 = 108%); “contributions” are in percentage points.
4. As before, average contribution can be negative because not all majors are listed.
5. Given SAT results, P&R make an average contribution to the LSAT, a much-better-than-average (+4.12pp vs. -2.67pp) contribution to the GMAT, and philosophy makes a much-better-than-average contribution to med-school admission.

Table A.6: ACT and SAT Data

Note: ACT data for natural sciences are combined, so I just repeated them. SAT data are separate for biological vs. physical. Source here.

Table A.7: GRE Data

Note: I combined data for “English” and “foreign languages” (weighted by population) which is why those averages aren’t whole numbers. The same goes for P&R and for biological and physical sciences. ACT source here. SAT source here. GRE source here.

Table A.8: LSAT and Admission Rate

Table A.9: GMAT

Table A.10: Med School Admit Rate

Main Data Sources

• ACT scores: http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/P_99_999999_N_S_N00_ACT-GCPR_National.pdf
• GRE scores: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf
• LSAT overall average: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/what-is-a-good-lsat-score
• LSAT results by major and law-school admission rates: https://www.yu.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/applicants-by-major-2018-19%20%283%29.pdf
• Major consistency (i.e. between “intended” and actual): https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/R1711-major-consistency.pdf
• Medical school: https://www.fredonia.edu/sites/default/files/section/academics/college-liberal-arts-sciences/philosophy/Philosophy%20Gets%20you%20into%20Med%20School.pdf

SAT scores: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_226.30.asp

Click to return to “Philosophy Majors & High Standardized Test Scores: Not Just Correlation”