I applied under the thought that Tulane has a placement rate into med school between 70-85 percent. Though that seems to be the general consensus on the internet, while on Tulane’s website I saw that it said they have an overall rate of only 58%. Which stat is true?
http://admission.tulane.edu/faq/allquestions.php
With all due respect, I think the answer is right there in your link. Except instead of 70-85, the number seems to be 90%.
I added the underline that supports your second stat of 58%, and bold for what was undoubtedly the kind of reference that was being made for the higher percentage. Perhaps the 70% was for a different, somewhat lower set of GPA and MCAT numbers. While the 32 (I believe starting this year they have changed the scoring scale on the MCAT) was about an 85th percentile, and so a pretty tough score, most Tulane students scored at least that kind of percentile on their SAT/ACT, and the correlation is fairly good between the two. Bottom line, that and a 3.6 are highly doable with decent discipline as a student. I think on the new MCAT scoring the 85th percentile is around a 511.
Browsing these forums, I think I have seen many posts, some by you I believe, citing around a 70%. While the stats seemed fairly obvious, it went against everything else I had seen online.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/tulane-university/460684-pre-med-in-tulane.html
Yes, but some of those posts and/or stats are older (2008, 2010). But all in all, what was being said seems extremely consistent with what is cited now. The GPA and MCAT numbers used appear to be a bit different as well, but like I said it seems to track pretty well.
So in those posts, the 70% wasn’t the general statistic, rather it was for a specific GPA/MCAT?
If you are talking about this post from over 2 years ago:
that was posted by someone named Catria and she gives no source for either the 10% or the 73%. I have no idea where that came from. In the next post, I was agreeing with the general statement that Tulane has produced a lot of doctors, not the stats. In the follow-up posts from those, my comment was meant to mean only that assuming that her stats are accurate, I would think they are fairly stable. I cannot vouch for them since, as far as I can tell, she gives no source.
I would focus on the 58%/90% stats as the most current and reliable.
Ok, thank you.