<p>Could you tell me which colleges/universities do you think are of the same stature of Tufts? I mean in terms of academics, prestige and things like that.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Boston College
Brandeis University
Case Western Reserve University
College of William and Mary
University of Rochester
Wake Forest University</p>
<p>what would be general stats for tufts?</p>
<p>Tufts accepts a mere 25% of applicants, so you can be sure that there are going to be a lot of oddities. I have known students with 1050 SAT scores and 3.2 GPAs who got in and other students with 3.8 GPAs and 1500 who were rejected. But on average, I would say the typical Tufts student has a 1300-1450 SAT score and a 3.5-3.9 unweighed GPA. But what Tufts really wants to see in a candidate is a good overall fit with the university.</p>
<p>do they require SAT IIs, im lazy to look it up. but if u feel like responding thanks</p>
<p>yea they do. im pretty sure they require 2 sat IIs for those who took the new SAT I and 2+writing for the old SAT takers</p>
<p>my opinion, tufts is way too selective for what it is. What i mean is that getting in there is an accomplishment but the school just isn't academically up to par w. other big time schools (ivies, duke, etc...)</p>
<p>yea but it seems like its slightly easier to get into</p>
<p>I went to Tufts over 30 years ago and it is considerably more rigorous today than it was then. My political science courses at Tufts were on a par with any course I took as a grad student at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. While Tufts does not necesarily have the "public" prestige of HYP it is well respected in the academic, medical and business, a point that is made weekly on CC.</p>
<p>Ever heard of Tufts Syndrome?</p>
<p>Tufts is generally known to be the backup school for Ivy goers. I'd imagine that's why they reject applicants with 1500's and accept ones with 1100s: they have a better chance of keeping the lower scoring one rather than losing them to the Ivies.</p>
<p>Basically, if you consider it to be Ivy tier with the Ivies, MIT, Stanford, and Caltech, near-Ivy tier with Duke, Virginia, and Chicago, then Tufts would be in the next tier.</p>
<p>I would also say it's comparable to NYU.</p>
<p>Basically, if you consider it to be Ivy tier with the Ivies, MIT, Stanford, and Caltech, near-Ivy tier with Duke, Virginia, and Chicago, then Tufts would be in the next tier.</p>
<p>I would also say it's comparable to NYU.>></p>
<p>Sorry, but I disagree. Tufts is academically comparable to Chicago, Rice, Duke and Virginia. I'd say NYU is a step behind Tufts not the other way around. </p>
<p>While they may occaisionally accept someone with lower stats, generally those people will have some strong "hook." Acceptances in that range are also few and far between: I would strongly discourage anyone with SATs in the 1100 range from applying to Tufts as it would not be a realistic reach unless there is some unique hook. 75% of enrolled students are in the top 10% of their high school classes.</p>
<p>I've been on these boards for a few years and went to Tufts. The students with low SAT scores who get in are usually international and don't have English as their first language. Just as a number, some 29% of students don't have English as a first language. That, more than anything, explains the low SAT score acceptees. </p>
<p>Yes, 75% of students are in the top 10% of their high school class - and 35% of students go to private school. If you go to a public school that isn't absolutely amazing, have English as your first language, and don't have some really outstanding hook, then you're simply not going to get in unless you are at the top of your class and have great SAT scores.</p>
<p>Hey Theoneo - I had a 1550 (first try) SAT and was at the top of my class. If Tufts syndrome is there, why didn't they reject me? Point I always make - never seen a rejectee with better stats than I had. Cut out the Tufts Syndrome nonsense.</p>
<p>thank you ariesathena</p>
<p>people who think that tufts syndrome exists should go to the tufts board and see it beaten to dust.</p>
<p>alexandre
i'm sorry, it may be because of my limited knowledge but I quite don't agree with the colleges you've put up these, i mean case western and the like. i think tufts is way more selective and better known than those other unis.</p>
<p>Ignited, there is nothing wrong with comparing Tufts to BC or W&M. Tufts is an amazing undergraduate institution, as are the other schools I mentioned. All of them lack the fame that comes with major research. So they are not comparable, in terms of reputation, to schools like Chicago, Columbia or Cornell.</p>
<p>Tufts and BC are different in student bodies and academic reputation. BC is very Catholic and was a Catholic commuter school until 25-30 years ago. Tufts is more diverse and very strong in pre-med and pre-dental. BU, Norteastern, BC, and Tufts all benefit by their Boston location.</p>
<p>I'd agree with Alexandre's assessment, though I do think Tufts has a slightly better research profile, given its med school and engineering programs.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree with par72. For more on religion at BC see that subject in the BC thread. As for BC having once been a commuter school, I don't see how this is at all relevant today. BC's pre-med is very strong and according to the latest BC bulletin, 90% get into med schools, given at least a 3.2 gpa/9 mcat. Furthermore, the most common grad schools BC grads attend (BC, Columbia, Georgetown, Harvard, NYU, Stanford, UNC, Notre Dame, Penn, UVa, WashU, and Yale according to the career center) hardly suggest a bias against BC for having been a commuter school in the 1950's.</p>
<p>I'd also be wary of par72 since a look into his/her past posts will reveal a systemic attempt to discredit BC.</p>
<p>About commuter schools that have done well as residential colleges: along with BC, include NYU, GW, UChicago, WUSTL, Emory and USC.</p>
<p>Also have to agree with the advantages given to schools located in Boston; their location allowed them to rise the bar and especially their admission standards. If these schools were there, BC would be another Villanova or Fordham, BU another Pitt, Northeastern another Drew or George Mason and Brandeis another Hofstra. The one exception, IMHO, is Tufts which although it enjoys the advantages of being in suburban Boston, would be equally well-represented elsewhere due to the high caliber of its facilities, faculty and students. Despite its being the origin of "Tufts syndrome," Tufts ranks well with Emory, WUSTL. CMU, JHU and Northwestern, all of whom have done quite well despite not boasting easy access to the Hub City.</p>
<p>so is it agreed that Tufts syndrome isn't real? I have a 2300 SAT, but it's very possiblee that I won't get into any of the more selective schools I'm applying to, and I've been seriously considering tufts ever since I started looking at colleges. If I visit the campus and everything, will that prove that I have genuine interest? i also listed Tufts along with cornell for the school I'd like to have notice of my nat'l merit commendation thing. so do you think I'm getting across that I really am interested in the school?</p>
<p>I don't think Tufts syndrome is real-- they accept plenty of people with very high stats. (I got in with a 1580 sat 800x3 sat2's)</p>
<p>Showing interest is important. Visiting is good; when it comes time to interviews make sure you get one; call the school with questions; attend regional info sessions, etc.</p>
<p>I got in with an SAT score well over 1500 and 800/800/760 SAT2s. I don't think Tufts Syndrome is real, but the only confounding variable in Zant's/my case is that we visited the campus, which Tufts keeps track of and takes into consideration during admission. </p>
<p>But I think Tufts Syndrome is the result of lazy-in-school high-SAT-scorers who get rejected and were bitter about it, and the reputation caught on that high-stat people get rejected at Tufts.</p>