<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry to pick nits, but, by definition (and AP Stats), a bunch cannot be under-valued unless the exact same number are over valued.</p>
<p>fc:</p>
<p>yes, USNews does show the exact ranking of every college by individual criteria, such as Peer Assessment, retention, alumni giving, etc.</p>
<p>Valid point except that i’d argue there are several schools of equal quality that are not regarded equally. I was also speaking in qualitative and not quantitative terms as I see no way to truly mathematically encapsulate all that a university or college is for a prospective/current student. </p>
<p>For example:<br>
1st A
2nd B
3rd C
4th D</p>
<p>If A,B,C, and D represent schools, ranked in that order, and if B is really the same quality as C then B is only over-valued with respect to C and not over-valued with respect to D. B is still two spots above D when equated with C in the rankings. A is still 3 spots above D and one spot above B. The only shift in ranking is C.</p>
<p>The true ranking in the example should be:
1st A
Tied for 2nd B, C
4th D</p>
<p>In other words, A and B are not really OVER-valued but C is certainly UNDER-valued. You are technically correct for most cases, but I was speaking of a situation similar to that above. I also think that people can get too quantitative in the college selection process. The only quantitative thought process that should be included to any degree in my opinion is a cost-benefit analysis of funding that education.</p>
<p>You could argue that B is only OVER-valued with respect to C while C is UNDER-valued with respect to both B and (to a lesser extent) D. Again though, rankings are far from any form of science or any true statistically significant measure and I was thus speaking in qualitative terms.</p>
<p>bluebayou - Can you give the link for the USNWR site that shows the details?</p>
<p>Also, Ben is right that you are thinking of mathematical averages and the like, while this is much mushier. It isn’t quite so much being ranked 38 instead of 35, but more like being ranked 51 instead of 27 or whatever. More of a tier level kind of thing, depending on how finely you want to break it down. While some people are nuts about these rankings for sure, I doubt there is anyone that really distinguishes between #14 and #16, but they would between #14 and #30. Something like that. It’s all crazy.</p>
<p>fallanchemist, sry but my online subscription to USNews expired. I’ll check my hardcopy tonite.</p>
<p>oops, perhaps I mispoke. The hardcopy report only has rankings for those colleges on the first page, i.e., top 50. For example, WF is ranked #28 overall nationally, 27th in graduation & retention rate, 35th in faculty resources, 37th in selectivity, 6th in financial resources, & 18th in alumni giving. Of course, 25% of the overall score is Peer Assessment, and Wake’s PA is 3.5, tied with Boston College, Brandeis, RPI, and a couple of mid-tier UCs. Tulane has a PA of 3.3, tied with 'Cuse, Rutgers, VaTech, and Oregon. </p>
<p>A couple of stats jump out: Wake has a 94% Frosh retention, while Tulane’s is only 76%. Only half of Tulane’s matriculants are in the top 10% of their class. Boston College is 80%, Lehigh is 93%. Wake, Miami & GW are ~65%. There are only three colleges with a lower top 10% out of the top 60 colleges.</p>
<p>Well this is confusing. The 2009 report says the retention rate is 87.5%</p>
<p>[Best</a> Colleges - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-freshmen-least-most-likely-return]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-freshmen-least-most-likely-return)</p>
<p>I think the 76% might be the 6 year graduation rate. If so, and if this is significantly different from other schools like Wake et. al., then I would wonder why that is so different.</p>
<p>Something also smells wrong about those top 10% stats. I wonder of that is like the reporting of average GPA, where Miami and others report weighted GPA and Tulane reports unweighted. I know top 10% seems like you either are or are not, but I wonder if some schools are using self-reported “I am in the top 10%” as opposed to what the high school itself tells them. Because while I realize that while it is mathematically possible, in aggregate it seems very unlikely that Tulane would have average standardized test scores equal to or greater than some of these schools yet have such a dramatically lower number that were in the top 10%. I mean really, no knock on Lehigh, but 93% in the top 10%? I don’t think so. Their CR SAT middle 50% is 40 points below Tulane’s and math about the same. Just doesn’t make much sense.</p>
<p>For example, I went to the #4 magnet high school in the country. We had about 200 kids in our graduating class. There were two kids that knew where they stood, the Valedictorian and the Salutatorian. The school never reports the ranks to anyone else. So Tulane didn’t have my rank.</p>
<p>A good friend of mine from my high school years went to a small private school that was also very competitive. They had less than 50 kids in their class. Their % numbers were never reported either. So, I think those numbers aren’t great indicators to any degree. Colleges can only report to US News the numbers they get and ultra competitive schools do not report those numbers more often than not. </p>
<p>One reason is the sheer competition to get into the school in their first place. We had two entrance exams and an IQ test to get into my high school and the lowest level of classes offered were Honors classes. Our class alone failed out 26 kids freshmen year after all that. Most of those kids went on to be the Valedictorian at their new schools. I know another guy from that group that went on to finish at the top of his Med School class and got into a great Residency program elsewhere.</p>
<p>In the same way, Harvard doesn’t report your grades to recruiters for certain grad programs (MBA, ect.) because it would deter students from taking harder (finance mostly) classes. It would also breed too much competition.<br>
US News doesn’t have the rankings from the majority of highly competitive and small private schools. I would not use those as indicators at all. </p>
<p>Retention-wise, keep in mind that Tulane has 75% of its students come from 500 miles away. I’d bet homesickness, not to mention the cost, makes many of those leave. Others may party too much in the French Quarter.</p>
<p>Agree again, Ben, although Tulane’s retention numbers don’t seem that far off from many others. But there is no question that Wake and BC, for example, have a much higher percentage of students come from a much closer radius. I am sure there are many factors involved. I know when I was there the party factor (kids that couldn’t handle that much freedom well) affected 5-7% to the extent they had to leave, and another 2-3% found out that they just couldn’t cut it academically. Their high school just had not prepared them as well as it appeared based on their grades. How true these things still are I cannot say, but add to that a few that just find it isn’t the right place for them in general, others that have personal family issues such as finances, etc., and you pretty quickly get to 90% or a bit lower. As Tulane says somewhere, the TIDES program is an attempt to help with that first 10% to some degree by providing fun “courses” in a relaxed and collaborative atmosphere. I don’t know how effective this has been, time will tell.</p>
<p>On the class rank thing, do you remember if they asked on the “survey” part of the SAT to place yourself in class rank, by decile? Also do they ask what your GPA is? If I am right about the former especially, that might be where the crazy numbers come from for some of these schools. I know Tulane uses the actual rank from the high schools, when available.</p>
<p>Keep in mind though that kids from these ultra competitive HS also don’t have their numbers reported at Wake, BC, ect. but I’d wager TU has more kids (due to the number of affluent kids there) that come from those types of private and magnet schools. All colleges have skewed numbers for where their kids stood in their HS class. GPA is a better indicator but again, schools weight differently (we got 0 weight for Honors classes) and also schools teach at different levels and offer different classes. It’s like comparing the GPA’s of an art history major with a chemical engineering major.</p>
<p>SAT and ACT ranges are better indicators but FEEL of a school on that all important visit should be the most important thing a kid considers when looking at schools. Well, that and cost.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think GPA is about as worthless as class rank for comparing across schools, especially from different regions. Only when they are being judged by an admissions officer who can properly assess a student’s GPA based on experience with that school does it take on meaning. Standardized tests are the only true constant. You are right that once you know you are or can be accepted by some group of schools, the feel of that school (along with its value proposition) are what count most.</p>
<p>fc:</p>
<p>gah, I need new glasses; yes, – Tulane’s retention is ~86%…</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>yes, more and more high schools no longer rank students – I know our competitive district does not. That being said, it’s true across the country, such that the reported top 10% numbers are only for schools that DO rank. Now there could be some discrepancy across schools, i.e., students at no-rank high schools tend to apply more to xx colleges, but that’s a supposition with not facts for support. For example, it’s hard to argue that very prep Wake Forest does not have a lot of kids from competitive prep schools. Ditto BC, only in this case they are private Catholic (prep-style) schools.</p>
<p>Re: test scores: don’t forget, that Tulane does not release its common data set, so it’s published test scores are circumspect. (IMO, every college that does not publish its CDS has something to hide!) Plus, I believe that Tulane superscores the ACT, and if so, that’ll give Green Wave a test boost over practically every college that does not superscore the ACT. Moreover, Tulane resides in ACT country, so approx. half of its matriculants are ACT superscored?</p>
<p>Does anyone know if Tulane does superscore ACTs?</p>
<p>I’m not sure and I don’t know if others schools do as well. It’s a valid point if TU stands alone in doing that (assuming it does) but my point was that ACT and SAT ranges would still be a better indicator than GPA’s and Ranks because there are too many variables (GPA-wise) and the lack of reporting of ranks to ALL colleges is great.</p>
<p>CDS-wise, I’d argue laziness. Which is a horrible excuse, but my guess is Tulane is not alone in that respect. I imagine TU is understaffed for the number of apps they get and without increasing their Admissions staff size they simply put the CDS on the back burner and use their own system of reporting. This is all speculation of course. I doubt TU is hiding anything.</p>
<p>I would also say Tulane is not particularly in ACT country, in that they get so many apps from Northeast and West Coast, which are SAT heavy.</p>
<p>To me, the numbers from entering class 2008 and 2009 seem almost identical, ie, no movement. Are others seeing it this way too?</p>
<p>They are close. When you figure it all out, the average is 10 points higher.</p>
<p>2008 - </p>
<p>CR 630-720
Ma 620-700
Ttl 1250-1420
Wr 640-720
Ttl 1890-2140</p>
<p>2009 - </p>
<p>CR 620-720
Ma 630-710
Ttl 1250-1430
Wr 630-720
Ttl 1880-2150</p>
<p>So using only the traditional 2 portions it went up 10 points on the high end. Using all 3 it is a wider spread, with the average remaining the same. It is virtually no movement either way. The rumor is the actual average went up about 5 points, but not sure.</p>
<p>I came across an interesting thread on the College Search message board here and thought it would fit better in this thread as opposed to starting a new one. Apparently the site’s own highly respected poster Hawkette inspired someone to re-rank the US News top schools list using admissions statistics. In this methodology Tulane ranks 27th in the country and jumps up significantly higher than any other university, which only backs up my strong opinion that we’re severely underrated currently. Here are the rankings:</p>
<p>"Using the very wise Hawkette’s method of examining the most consistent hard data available, SAT and ACT scores, I thought it would be interesting to see how the current USNWR top 100 list would shake out using 2008 (the latest) SAT and ACT admissions data. Hawkette describes her/his method as thus:</p>
<p>“One way that I have measured this is to compare the achievement levels of each school’s student body on the SAT and the ACT exams. I looked at absolute barriers (700 on the CR and Math SAT and 30 on the ACT) and asked what percentage of the student body achieved at these levels. As the data attests, the usual suspects top the list and IMO, the order is a reasonable listing of student body quality at these colleges. </p>
<p>Rank , Total Score , School , Critical Reading SAT (25% weight) , Math SAT (25% weight) , ACT (50% weight)” </p>
<p>(Back to me) A few observations:</p>
<p>1 , Eight schools rose into the top 50 : Tulane climbing the highest to 27, along with Miami of Fl to 38, Worchester Poly to 42, Tulsa to 43, American U to 45, Colorado Sch. of Mines to 46, Pepperdine to 48, and Pitt to 50. Of the schools cracking the top 50, Tulsa had the largest leap, rising 40 places from 83.</p>
<p>2 , The California public UC schools did not fare well under this system. One has to wonder what it is about the USNWR criteria that is protecting those currently tied for 44th – S. Barbara, Davis, Irvine – with their top 50 status. SB fell to 70, Davis to 84, and Irvine to 96. And Berkeley, UCLA, and San Diego, while certainly remaining in the top 50, all had significant drops.</p>
<p>3 , Another mystery is the low showing (92) of Penn State, a current USNWR top 50 school. When measured against other schools’ SAT and ACT achievement, PSU did not perform well.</p>
<p>4 , BYU had the largest overall leap in rankings, from 113 to 55.</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard does not list admissions data on Peterson’s, so it did not make my list. </li>
</ol>
<p>6 , Thoughts…???</p>
<ul>
<li>(USNWR current rank)</li>
</ul>
<p>Rank; Total; School; SATW 25%; SATM25%; ACT50%
1 , 93.5% , Caltech , 76, 100 ,99 *(6)
2 , 81.5% , Wash U 64,77,92 (12)
3 , 80% , Princeton 73,77,85 (2)
4 , 77.8% , MIT 58,85,84 (14)
5 , 76.5% , Yale 77,77,76 (3)
6 , 70% , Notre Dame 50,64,83 (18)
7 , 69.8% , Northwestern 61,66,76 (12)
8 , 69.5% , Dartmouth 65,67,73 (11)
9 , 69.3% , Stanford 57,66,77 (4)
10 , 69% , Columbia 64,66,73 (8)
10 , 69% , Vanderbilt 47,66,82 (18)
12, 68% , Duke 60,68,72 (8)
12 , 68% , U Penn 52,70,75 (6)
14 , 64.8% , Rice 53,64,71 (17)
15 , 64.5% , U Chicago 62,60,68 (8)
16 , 64% , Emory 45,61,75 (18)
17 , 63.5% , Tufts 62,62,65 (28)
18 , 63% , Brown 57,63,66 (16)
19 , 60.8% , Cornell 41,64,69 (14)
20 , 59.3% , Carnegie Mellon 37,66,67 (22)
21 , 57.8% , Johns Hopkins 42,59,65 (15)
22 , 55% , Georgetown 54,56,55 (23)
23 , 52.3% , USC 35,50,63 (27)
24 , 50.8% , Brandeis 38,43,61 (31)
25 , 48.8% , Boston Coll 29,42,62 (34)
26 , 48% , W&M 41,35,58, (32)
27 , 43.8% , Tulane 43,24,54 (51)
28 , 40.3% , Case Western 24,41,48 (41)
29 , 40% , UC Berkeley 29,51,40 (21)
30 , 39.8% , NYU 32,37,45 (33)
31 , 39.0% , U Michigan 22,46,44 (26)
32 , 37.3% , U Rochester 22,41,43 (35)
33 , 36% , U Virginia 32,40,36 (23)
34 , 35.5% , Georgia Tech 19,47,38 (35)
34 , 35.5% , Wake Forest (28)
36 , 34.5% UCLA 20,40,39 (25)
37 , 33.8% , U Illinois 16,47,36 (40)
38 , 32.8% , U North Carolina 25,30,38 (30)
38 , 32.8 , U of Miami (FL) 20,27,42 (51)
40 , 31.5% , U Wisconsin 14,40,35 (35)
41 , 30.3% , Rensselaer 23,52,23 (41)
42 , 30% Worchester Poly 13,37,35 (71)
43 , 29% U Tulsa 27,23,33 (83)
44 , 28.8% , Lehigh 17,40,29 (35)
45 , 27% American University 25,17,33 (83)
46 , 26% Colorado School of Mines 12,28,32 (80)
47 , 25.5% , U Florida 17,25,30 (49)
48. 25.3 ; Pepperdine 16,19,33 (56)
49 , 24.5% , UCSD 11,29,29 (35)
50 , 24.3% U of Pittsburgh 20,21,28 (58)
51 , 24% Northeastern 12,24,30 (96)
52 , 23.8% , U Texas 16,25,27 (47)
53 , 23.5% U Maryland 17,30, 23.5 (53)
53 , 23.5% Illinois Inst. Tech 9,27,29 (102)
55 , 23% BYU 16,18,29 (113)
56 , 22.8% Boston U 17,22,26 (60)
57 , 22.5% George Washington 19,21,25 (53)
58 , 22% UMinn Twin Cities 28,18,21 (61)
58 , 22% SMU 13,19,28 (66)
60 , 21% SUNY Binghamton 12,24,24 (77)
61 , 20.5% Stevens Inst. Tech 16,31,20.5 (83)
62 , 20% Clemson 9,17,27 (61)
62 , 20% U Oklahoma 12,12,28 (108)
63 , 19% , Ohio State 11,19,23 (56)
64 , 18% St. Louis University 10,12,25 (80)
65 , 17.5% , U Washington 12,16,21 (41)
66 , 16.8% U Nebraska 15,18,17 (89)
67 , 16.3% U Georgia 11,14,20 (58)
68 , 16% Texas A&M 9,15,20 (64)
69 , 15.8% Fordham 14,11,19 (61)
70 , 15% U Denver 8,12,20 (89)
70 , 15.% , UC Santa Barbara 11,13,18 (44)
72 , 14.8% U Iowa 14,19,13 (66)
72 , 14.8% Purdue 5,14,20 (66)
72 , 14.8 Iowa State 14,21,12 (89)
75 , 14.5% Auburn 7,11,20 (96)
75 , 14.5 Clark 15,9,17 (80)
75 , 14.5% Marquette 9,9,20 (77)
78 , 14.3% Miami of Ohio 8,11,19 (66)
79 , 14% U Delaware 11,13,16 (71)
80 , 13.8% Mizzou 13,10,15 (96)
81 , 13.3% Baylor 12,15, 13 (76)
81 , 13.3% U Tennessee 7,8,19 (108)
83 , 12.75 U Colorado 7,10,17 (77)
84 , 12.5% , UC Davis 8,16,13 (44)
84 , 12.5% U South Carolina 7,9,17 (108)
84 , 12.5% Indiana U 7,9,17 (71)
87 , 12.3% U Dayton 7,10,16 (108)
88 , 12% U Pacific 6,18,12 (102)
89 , 11.5% U Conn 7,13,13 (66)
89 , 11.5% U Vermont 9,7,15
91 , 11.3% Michigan State 8,13,12 (71)
92 , 11% , Penn State 15,7,11 (47)
93 , 10.5% VA Tech 7,14,10.5 (71)
93 , 10.5% U Alabama 7,7,14 (83)
95 , 9.8% NC State 5,12,11 (83)
96 , 9.5% , UC Irvine 8,18,6 (44)
97 , 8.5% SUNY Stony Brook 4,13,8.5 (96)
97 , 8.5% FL State 7,7,10 (102)
99 , 8.3% UC Santa Cruz 7,8,9 ( 96)
100 , 7.5% UMASS 6,8,8"</p>
<p>Thanks very much for the work that went into this analysis. It certainly does support with hard numbers exactly what was stongly suspected. To be fair, even though Harvard does not supply the needed data, there can be little doubt it would be in the top 10, so Tulane would really be 28th. Still, very strong stuff.</p>
<p>While there is more to any school than just average scores, of course, I think this shows how the arbitrary weighting of other factors that get manipulated by certain schools has worked against Tulane. I can only suspect that a combination of peer assessments biased in favor of certain schools along with the aforementioned weighting and manipulation led to the bizarre results. It always seemed obvious to me that most state schools, because they have to take in state students in many cases, could not seriously be ranked as high as Tulane, at least not if you believe that it is the quality of the undergraduate student body that is the biggest factor in the quality of the school, followed by research opportunities for the undergrads.</p>
<p>I do have a question though. What does it mean</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>since the top score on the SAT is 800 for each section and 36 for the ACT?</p>