<p>I was going to post on the “downward spiral” thread… but remembered not to, since give that thread up was the purpose of me starting this one! :)</p>
<p>Guhengshuo, USNWR is constantly tweaking its system, we all know that. Is that wrong? I take issue with it as readily as anyone: for instance, I think the Guidance Counselor component they’ve recently begun to emphasize is, um, misguided.</p>
<p>But the yield, about which you began this thread in the first place, is a significant marker no matter what the rankings say. I’d like to see it higher, that’s all.</p>
<p>**e 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>The difference is these students knew they were going regardless of money.
Meg has already said that money was an issue with her.
Therefore, those who are full pay have the advantage of “knowing” that if accepted they will enroll. Under the same circumstances, Meg would have been a shoe in from day one. It is hard to assure a university anywhere that you will definitely enroll if admitted if you are counting on scholarships as well.</p>
<p>southlandguy is not pro Tulane. He never would have named that first thread the way he did.</p>
<p>Guhengshuo: Also, FWIW, 15 out of 17 components are most certainly “factual”. Only the GRP I believe is compared with an ‘expected’ rate which may be murky. Remember, I am not defending these rankings–I have my own problems with them. But 22.5 is nowhere near a majority of 100%, and I am here relying on your figures.</p>
<p>He never said it was the majority, he said it was “most” as in the highest factor of all the factors. A plurality.</p>
<p>BTW, you article is from 2007, while I specifically was saying that Tulane has seen these increases since then. Sorry, not pertinent.</p>
<p>For someone that complains about me being insulting to people, you sure seem to do a lot of it yourself. By your own reasoning, I guess your points are weak and cannot stand up to scrutiny. Which they generally don’t anyway.</p>
<p>Look, all the vitriol aside, I cannot see where yield is, as you say, a significant marker. Who says it is? Obviously even USNWR doesn’t think so, nor do they think admission % is (1.5% is not significant). That might be true about yield if all the schools were employing the same strategy and tactics in admissions, but Tulane clearly went down a very different path after Katrina. And as the old saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Tulane had gotten bad results from their methods, then of course changes should be made. But they didn’t, instead they got a huge number of applications (nothing wrong with that unless you work in admissions and have to read them all), a lower acceptance rate (totally artificial but hardly to “game the rankings” since it has very little effect as the math shows) and a correlated low yield, which has no effect on the rankings. And the bottom line from it is that they have more students of significantly higher caliber than before wanting to attend than they have space to hold.</p>
<p>The evidence indicates, short of an exhaustive study, that Tulane has indeed seen a greater rise in the academic quality of their students than most other schools near them or even significantly above them in the rankings. I checked Villanova, Lehigh (the one in your example, and it actually saw one of the more significant declines in CR a year ago, and a very slight decline in math), UCLA and Pitt just to check a few more, and they have not seen these increases in quality. UC Davis has, it is the only one I have found so far that matches Tulane over that same time period. They are about 75-100 points below Tulane’s numbers, despite being ranked about 10 spots higher, but that is another issue.</p>
<p>So since Katrina, the decline in Tulane’s ranking can be laid very much at the feet of Katrina and the way USNWR calculates its rankings, IMO. Tulane is getting better students, creating new programs, helping New Orleans and people in general, and seeing a very dynamic and palpable resurgence. Once the graduation rate problem is in the past (another 3-4 years, unfortunately) Tulane should see the ranking rise, unless USNWR decides to change the formula again. That, of course, is unpredictable. I also rather suspect that its peer assessment will increase, but since that is subjective it cannot be known either.</p>
<p>IMO, worrying about yield is a waste of time. Tulane gets more students of higher quality than they can house comfortably. It just escapes me why the administration should change what they are doing to meet some formula or perception over one number. But then, I am stupid I guess.</p>
<p>Moderator note: Thread is requiring to much Moderator time to deal with ad hominem attacks. Thread closed.</p>
<p>Those posting here with more than one account will find one (or more) of their accounts closed.</p>