<p>Southlandguy: Are you familiar with St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia?</p>
<p>I do wonder why he puts stars (*) on his posts. I have not been able to figure out where the footnote is he presumably is referencing.</p>
<p>
An interesting statement, let’s examine this. According to Collegeboard, [2010</a> SAT Trends](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/cb-seniors-2010/tables]2010”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board) the average scores have been 2006=1518 2007=1511 2008=1511 2009=1509 2010=1509. Hmmmm, I guess the test prep isn’t working too well. If “nearly every college in the country” is seeing increases here, some few poor schools are getting slammed with all the losers. You will have to explain to me what “larger student cohorts” have to do with anything; I am talking only about the entering classes, not the admitted classes. You will also have to cite some source for your contention regarding grade inflation. You are the one that is so big on “facts”. It is harder to get into good colleges, and a big part of that is the record number of college bound students as well as the increasing number of apps per student. Those factors, in and of themselves, have nothing to do with what I said, which is only about matriculating students. Meaning they got in. In any case, it is hard to see how Tulane can be in a downward spiral if they are at the very least keeping up with everyone else, but in fact they are ahead of the average gain by other schools.</p>
<p>Let’s look at some that are higher ranked. This forum doesn’t allow for easy posting of tables, so you may have to look these up yourself, but if you look at the Common Data Sets for a few higher ranked schools you will see they do not see increases in average SAT scores as you claim. Wake Forest, for example, saw a decline in 2009-2010 after holding steady the previous 2 years. (Go to section C9 if you need help finding the right place). NYU, well by gosh it is the same thing. Not dramatic to be sure, but a slight decline last year. About 10 points in reading and 20 in math in each case. Tulane, somehow during its death spiral, managed to increase over 10 points in each. I think it was actually 20 in CR, but whatever. It was up. A few more. Emory went down about 5 points over those same years, but they did rebound this year to back where they were. They are quicker to report the latest scores than the other schools. One more. Northwestern did go up 10 points in math from 3 years ago to 2 years ago, then held steady last year. They had the same in CR all 3 years. I am afraid I am not seeing those increases you are talking about at all schools.</p>
<p>Oh OK, let’s pick someone closer in the rankings to Tulane. University of Florida. Nope, went down 10 points 2 years ago then stayed the same. University of Miami. Not there either, down a smidge in CR and up the same smidge in math.</p>
<p>Sorry, I am just not seeing what you claim. I hope these count as facts, I tried not to be selective. I am sure there are schools that have seen better increases over that same time period, I just didn’t find them yet. But, for someone that has beat me over the head as not presenting facts (when in actuality I have done tons of it), you make sweeping statements that seem to fall apart in the face of facts. Maybe you should stop while you are behind.</p>
<p>Oh, I also just realized that grade inflation is irrelevant anyway. I didn’t say Tulane had a record high GPA, but that they have a record high (for Tulane, not for the whole country. I wouldn’t think I have to say that but you never know with you) in the percentage of incoming students that graduated in the top 10% of their class. So even if there is grade inflation, rampant or otherwise, it would apply to everyone at any given school and so it would not affect graduating in the top 10% of the class. I hope I don’t have to explain that further.</p>
<p>Once again, trying to advance a discussion by cherry-picking a few anecdotal examples from one year here or there is just plain ridiculous. Who do you think will be fooled by that? A high-school student would know better. I never said that <em>every</em> college in the country has improved its stats <em>every</em> year. That’s another straw man of yours. What I said was:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And note “context”? I’ll repeat: “It’s harder to get into good colleges than in previous decades!” Good colleges! Are you saying that Tulane is no longer even a good college? And larger cohorts? It means a larger number of applicants everywhere. This is really really basic.</p>
<p>Granted, I find it hard to believe you don’t know this, but since your “evidence” consists of a few random cherry-picked examples we are left with the conundrum from your previous post. Either you really don’t understand the first thing about college admissions, or you believe that everyone in the Tulane forum is slow-witted.</p>
<p>Now, since (to be kind) we appear to be starting at Square One with you, here are some sources that will help educate you and any other interested parties. They are documented, comprehensive and varied, and along with many others, they make the point conclusively:</p>
<p>[Admissions</a> Competition Heats Up, but Does Pressure Help Students? - Admissions & Student Aid - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Admissions-Competition-Heats/48162/]Admissions”>http://chronicle.com/article/Admissions-Competition-Heats/48162/)</p>
<p>[University</a> admissions: Accepted | The Economist](<a href=“Accepted”>Accepted)</p>
<p>[It's</a> Harder to Get Into Elite Colleges, Researchers Find - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/its-harder-to-get-into-elite-colleges-researchers-find/]It’s”>It's Harder to Get Into Elite Colleges, Researchers Find - The New York Times)</p>
<p>[Ivy</a> League Crunch Brings New Cachet to Next Tier - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/ivy-league-crunch-brings-new-cachet-to-next-tier/]Ivy”>Ivy League Crunch Brings New Cachet to Next Tier - The New York Times)</p>
<p>[College</a> Admission Gets Tougher - Newsweek](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/2008/01/02/getting-in-gets-harder.html]College”>College Admission Gets Tougher)</p>
<p>[Applications</a> Rise (Yet Again) at Dozens of Selective Colleges - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/total-apps-2011/]Applications”>Applications Rise (Yet Again) at Dozens of Selective Colleges - The New York Times)</p>
<p>[Why</a> So Many Applications for So Few Elite Spots? Continuing the Discussion - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/why-so-many-applications-for-so-few-elite-spots-continuing-the-discussion/]Why”>Why So Many Applications for So Few Elite Spots? Continuing the Discussion - The New York Times)</p>
<p>There now, another thousand points of light which will doubtless confuse you.</p>
<p>Except nothing there has a thing to do with anything we are talking about. Nice that your first reference cannot be read without a subscription. Are you going off the headline only? Good scholarship. The Economist article has zero to do with the discussion, please quote one thing from it that says anything about nearly all schools having higher stats for their students. No, all it says is there are more applicants at all schools. The NY TImes article that is next? Same thing, just more applicants for the same number of positions. That is not what we are talking about here. The next one says Lehigh has seen the median SAT rise. OK, that is relevant. And one data point only. They cite no others. The Newsweek article is the same as the Economist and the NY Times first one, just the numbers of applying students making it harder to get in. Nothing about the quality of students. The next NY Times article also just about the rising number of apps. You sure have picked totally irrelevant things to muddy up the discussion. The last one is no different. You are making an absolute fool of yourself.</p>
<p>I did not give anecdotal examples, I gave data from a number of good colleges in recent years. It was 6 schools from the top group, and since the Ivies have virtually no room to move up in their average SAT scores, it is hardly cherry picking. You, on the other hand, have given no data at all to support your contentions. And you said nearly all colleges, not nearly all good colleges for what I was talking about. Yes, the number of apps makes it harder to get into good colleges. But talk about context, your context in saying that was clearly related to academic quality statistics, nit just sheer number of apps. And you cannot support that contention. Honestly, no one has a clue what you are talking about any longer. Have fun.</p>
<p>Either you did not read the sources or you could not understand them. They are comprehensive, on-target, well-documented, and totally germane. The exact opposite of your random cherry-picked data points, which is doubtless the source of your fury. And they are unanimous in support of the point I was making. </p>
<p>Try to put your raging ego aside for just a moment and you will be able to see all of this, and more. Facts which contradict your prejudices represent opportunities to grow and learn, not just to rage and attack. Thank you.</p>
<p>By all means give me quotes from the articles (each and every one) that are germane. They can only support your point if your point was that there are more students applying for the same number of slots. That has nothing to do with the discussion.</p>
<p>Fury?? Raging ego?? You do have a knack for hyperbole.</p>
<p>You can make the last points in each thread. I think everyone can see you are completely hopeless by now. The sooner these threads die, the better.</p>
<p>Aw come on guys, don’t argue. I’m pretty sure Tulane just overestimated their own marketing power by sending out all those emails/college mail encouraging people to apply using the free/quick app. That’s what happened with me… But then I looked into the school and really liked it. I guess they just filled a lot of their spots really early on. At least things with me turned out okay… I got full tuition and room at Loyola, and if I want I can take classes at Tulane through the consortium. Hopefully Tulane fixes whatever went wrong this year and accepts people w/ higher stats who may have applied a little later.</p>
<p>meg - that is great about Loyola. You cannot beat full ride!! One of my best friends went to Loyola and has had an enormously successful career. Funny thing is, we met at my first job, not in New Orleans.</p>
<p>Maybe something went wrong with your app and maybe not. As I have said in other threads, Tulane has repeatedly pointed out they are wanting about 20% fewer students this year than last year because of the over-enrollment in the current freshman class. It led to some odd looking decisions compared to the past. You are a good example of that. You are right that applying later rather than sooner this year was a detriment to being admitted, overall.</p>
<p>Best of luck at Loyola!</p>
<p>Good to see you Meg lol :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You still find yourself unable to respond on point, without insults. That tragedy is yours, not mine. Meanwhile, I’m certainly not going to do <em>all</em> your homework for you, but will take one quote here (from the “Ivy League Crunch” article linked above) as an example of how ‘objective’ standards are improving at most if not all ‘good’ schools. I still don’t see how this is a bad thing, and certainly not worth getting angry about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some students who have accepted offers from these colleges were rejected by the most prestigious universities. Others, keenly aware of the extreme competition at the top, decided at the outset to focus on colleges more likely to admit them.</p>
<p>Wow, CC doesn’t like the NYT special characters, I’ll try again: </p>
<p>
[quote]
Some students who have accepted offers from these colleges were rejected by the most prestigious universities. Others, keenly aware of the extreme competition at the top, decided at the outset to focus on colleges more likely to admit them.</p>
<p>"I’m sure part of what we</p>
<p>Homework is hard lol
</p>
<p>Like it or not, the competition at better schools is tough and getting tougher for many years now.</p>
<p>Okay, that’s all the cutting-and-pasting I’m doing for now. Anyone can just click on the links after all!</p>
<p>While FC knows I’d like to see the school work towards a higher yield, I also can’t see how the school’s admissions approach, if it gets what they want in terms of a stronger and stronger student body and an ever increasing retention rate, is problematic. I also don’t see what the constant attacking of him and of the examples he provides by claiming he is “cherry picking” gets you. I agree – this sounds eerily similar to comments made by a hawk sometime back…</p>
<p>I agree that it’s arguable that Tulane is getting what it wants with its current admissions policies. However I would <em>much</em> prefer that it sent out far fewer free apps and if it had a much higher yield. The yield is a significant marker, just as retention is.</p>
<p>all that was required by meg was showing a hell of a lot of interest. i know several with less stats who got in around January through multiple letters of recommendation, e-mails and visits. With megs stats… if they know for a fact that you are going to Tulane… you’re in. however, you may not get any merit scholarship money.</p>
<p>No point in trying to have a logical discussion when outrageous statements like “They sent free apps to nearly every high school student in the country” are presented as if it was fact. Making accusatory statements to put posters on the defensive is childish and simply antithetical to a civil discourse. Good day to you.</p>
<p>Be careful muddybubbles, you will get in trouble by saying that students with worse stats than Meg’s gained admission! </p>
<p>I mean, I know it’s true too, but you will get in trouble for saying it!</p>
<p>I did a recent study on the USNSWR, and here’s their scoring system: (out of 100%)
6 year graduation rate: 16%
peer assessment: 15%
Financial Resources: 10%
High School Councilor evaluation: 7.5%
Student SAT Score: 7.5%
Graduation rate performance: 7.5%
Faculty income: 7%
class w/ 20 or under: 6%
student High school ranking: 6%
Alumni giving rate: 5%
Freshman retention: 4%
Professor w/ highest degree in field: 3%
class w/ 50 or up: 2%
ACCEPTANCE RATE: 1.5%
Student faculty ratio: 1%
Full time faculty ratio: 1%</p>
<p>It seems like the ranking doesn’t take too much fact into consideration… The most percentage of the score comes from subjective evaluation of people who knows who they even are… There u go with the well recognized USNEWS ranking! </p>
<p>Oh, yeah, BTW check out the ACCEPTANCE RATE part, 1.5%! Wow, that’s such a big deal, Southlandguy… I really wish to get that 1.5% to be 1.5% instead of 1.45%…</p>