<p>Tulane is still #50.</p>
<p>Shocking because the SAT scores of 1250-1420, make it higher than 15 schools rated above it!!! They would be ranked around 35.</p>
<p>Also, the accaptance rate of 27% would rank Tulane in 24th place!!</p>
<p>I think it’s important to keep in mind that UF is kind of unique. Florida’s population is 18M, and there are just two “top publics” in the state … UF and New College. Where else are Top 10% students going to attend?</p>
<p>By way of comparison, Virginia’s population is 8M and students there can choose among UVA, W&M, Va Tech, James Madison, Mary Washington, etc.</p>
<p>How does a school like UC Santa Barbara experience massive budget cuts and rank above Tulane, University of Texas, Florida, Miami, etc? Does anyone really believe that UC Santa Barbara ever should have been ranked ahead of a public university as strong as Texas in the first place?</p>
<p>Utah, I agree and I’ve stated numerous times on CC that any list that has UC Davis, Irvine, and SB ahead of Tulane, UF, UT, and PSU is a joke. I’ve looked at these Cal schools’ numbers from last year and they’re definitely gaming the system with bogus figures – most notably the top 10 percent of class category. All reported 96 percent. Whereas that’s what Harvard reports and Vandy reports 80 percent for context. They probably are benefiting from inflated PA scores, too.</p>
<p>It may be small consolation, but at least Tulane moved up to the coveted “first page” of the magazine’s format.</p>
<p>Also, when looking at these UC schools’ SAT/ACT numbers posted earlier on this thread, these schools aren’t anywhere near the top 50 using that criteria.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Accurate”, no, reasonable, yes. Don’t forget that most colleges increased in most of their stats, too, so it’s all relative. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, if SAT scores were the only things being measured, but they are not. PA is 25% of the score, but things like class size & retention rate (Boston College is 96%, Tulane is 86%) also matter.</p>
<p>And since T is now on the first page, perhaps y’all will start to compare items other than test scores to see where Tulane ranks per individual item.</p>
<p>re: UC’s: yes, they fudge the top 10% number, bcos less than half of California high schools rank, so the data is not even collected by UC – just esimated. Test scores are relatively unimportant in admissions, gpa is paramount.</p>
<p>Reasonable? HA</p>
<p>I wish I had admin status on this board so I could ban you for excessive ******-ness</p>
<p>sorry, johnny, but some college has to be 50 and someone has to be 35. Don’t forget that colleges with a social service component, like Tulane and the Catholic colleges, get hammered on PA.</p>
<p>Another data point, which is particularly important for parents at a school that does NOT meet full financial need (thus the 'rents are paying a big portion of the bill): 4 year graduation rate at Tulane = 66%, BC = 88%. Assume that could be the impact of Katrina, so let’s consider 5-year grad rates: Tulane = 73%, and BC is 93%. Or even SIX-year grad rate, where Tulane is 76%! UMiami, also ranked 50th, has a 4-6 year grad rate of 63%, 75%, 76%, respectively. (source: IPEDS)</p>
<p>Perhaps top 10% is a factor that does matter? :)</p>
<p>To move significantly up in the rankings, any school just has to follow WashU and USC: big discounts for NMSF’s, full rides, 7-year automatic med school admission, and meet 100% of financial need.</p>
<p>“How does Tulane increase its ranking, draw higher level kids, get more of an academic powerhouse reputation - yet still retain its character? (Is Brown a good example of that?)”</p>
<p>This raises an interesting point … would Brown be as highly ranked if it were NOT in the Ivy League? Brown’s a wonderful place obviously. But is it more wonderful than Carleton? Reed? CMU? IMO the reality is that you have the Ivy League plus a bunch of really, really good unaffiliated schools. I think the USNWR rankings are a very poor way to choose “best colleges” in the same sense that elections are a very poor way to choose “best representatives.” Some years ago Reed decided to cease playing the USNWR ratings game. That didn’t turn out so well. Like it or not, reasonable or not, it does appear that the magazine’s ratings have some importance.</p>
<p>How does a school like UC Santa Barbara experience massive budget cuts and rank above Tulane, University of Texas, Florida, Miami, etc? Does anyone really believe that UC Santa Barbara ever should have been ranked ahead of a public university as strong as Texas in the first place?</p>
<p>The rankings lag about 2 years so why would budget cuts this year show up in the rankings? Also, UC Santa Barbara has many strong programs. These are graduate programs, but for example, UCSB has the #10 graduate physics program in the country and the engineering is ranked #18.</p>
<p>Also, I explained before to harvardgator why UCs have very high top 10% numbers. He seemed to agree with the explanation before so I’m not sure why he’s saying it’s unreasonable now (the UCs draw applicants from a much worse academic pool than schools like Harvard).</p>
<p>RC, hi – yes I agree that drawing applicants from a lower academic pool can (unfairly)effect the top 10 percentage, but I prefer BlueBayou’s assessment of the “estimating” powers of these schools:</p>
<p>“re: UC’s: yes, they fudge the top 10% number, bcos less than half of California high schools rank, so the data is not even collected by UC – just esimated. Test scores are relatively unimportant in admissions, gpa is paramount.”</p>
<p>It is estimated, but the idea of the UC system is to accept the top 12.5% of California high school applicants. Since California schools in general are pretty poor, the top 12.5% is pushed into the UC system while the bulk of the load is taken into the State college and Community college system. Harvard draws many of it’s students from extremely competitive private high schools, for example, and the top 20% there could be better than the top 2% at a typical California high school, for example. </p>
<p>And yes, the number is estimated, but the minimum requirements for the UCs are adjusted periodically specifically so they can continue to serve the top 12.5% of students. The idea is that unless you happen to be an ELC candidate, if you’re below the top 12.5% you do not get into a UC.</p>
<p>I do think it’s legitimate to bring up this issue though because it is a major factor in the ranking. I just think it makes more sense to take issue with the way the ranking is done… Even if there was a through audit of class rank at the mid tier UCs, I still don’t think it would ever fall below Harvard’s level, for example.</p>
<p>Ready for this… being a stat major 30 years ago is coming in handy…</p>
<p>A liitle more analysis shows that Tulane scored relatively low on “the peer assessment score” (3.3) which is 25% of the total weight. This is defined as the “opinions” of those in position to judge a schools undergrad academic excellence. These opinions were made by about 2000 people who hold positions like Dean of Admissions, Presidents, etc. </p>
<p>The info I mentioned previously, SAT scores, admission difficulty/acceptance rate, and students who are in the top 10% of their high school class combine for only 15% of the total weight. That’s right on 15% of the total score for all combined.</p>
<p>So…even if the average SAT score continued to jump, as well as acceptance rate, etc… it would not be as much of an impact than somehow raising the peer assessment score. Even raising it the peer assessment score equal to Univ. of Florida, (3.6) would probably have moved Tulane up 10 places, with the other criteria beign strong.</p>
<p>So, how does Tulane receive a higher peer assessment score from the industry?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct, but that 12.5% goal is statewide, not per high school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Factually incorrect. Based on recent reports, the UCs are accepting the top ~14% of high schoolers statewide. But, more importantly. anyone with a 3.0 will be accepted to a UC even is s/he is in the lowest decile of his/her HS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PA correlates well with research, & membership in the National Academy of Sciences (mid-tier UCs have several). Nobel laureates (UCSB has several) also boosts PA.</p>
<p>But, more importantly. anyone with a 3.0 will be accepted to a UC even is s/he is in the lowest decile of his/her HS.</p>
<p>But aren’t these students only usually offered admission at UC Riverside and UC Merced?</p>
<ol>
<li>Get off the party school list (Crack down on alcohol consumption?)</li>
<li>Publish faculty and student accomplishments. For example, send the following story to AP newswire as well as academic publications [Tulane</a> University - Students’ Invention Aids Safe Childbirth](<a href=“http://tulane.edu/news/newwave/081809_safesnip.cfm]Tulane”>http://tulane.edu/news/newwave/081809_safesnip.cfm)</li>
<li>Send a high caliber of graduate off to apply to the graduate schools where peer assessment is created. Help those kids polish their resumes and interview skills. (What is peer assessment based on , by the way?)</li>
<li>Do an analysis of why kids are leaving after freshman year, and fix it. Who is leaving - is the the top 10% or the bottom 10%</li>
<li>Be careful in choosing a commencement speaker. Give commencement the gravity it deserves.</li>
<li>Pay attention to status and rankings. It’s what top 10% kids are paying attention to. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg - what comes first, more top 10% kids or higher status? So you’ve got to attack both.</li>
</ol>
<p>To those who say, don’t put any credence in US news rankings - I say, get your head out of the sand. Not only do students pay attention to those, but grad schools and employers do as well. The methodology may not be perfect but its what we’ve got. So let’s help the administration get Tulane back up to the 30’s in rank where it was 10-20 years ago, long before Katrina</p>
<p>bff - kids are not leaving after freshman year in large numbers, last I saw. We have been over this. And you really think Tulane’s ranking is affected by the choice of commencement speaker?</p>
<p>I didn’t say don’t give the rankings creedence (if by creedence you mean that people use them), I said be careful in reacting to them in a way that can actually be detrimental to the school itself. The cure may be worse than the disease. Your logic is suspect, in that just because there is a fallacy out there being bought by a lot of people, Tulane should buy into the system. I think Tulane is doing just fine the way it is, and whether it be 50 or 30, it is doing great. I mean, this whole argument makes no sense, Tulane has better students than ever even when it was down in the rankings. Peer assesment is a bogus way to judge a school. They are assuming these people can know a lot about all these schools? No way. And weighting it higher than SAT scores is even more ridiculous. As I said, it was how the guy that originated the system got the list to gel the way he preconceived it.</p>
<p>The other elephant in the room is the number of self reported statistics there are. The top 10% thing is in fact bull. Between the self reporting of the students and the fact that many schools don’t rank, it is absurd. You really think there would be that wide a non-correlation between class rank and test scores? No way. Another gamed stat is the % graduating after 4 5 and 6 years. Tulane counts every student that entered with the class, many others manipulate students out, much like schools do when reporting to the NCAA for their athletic programs. With minimal controls on the statistics being used, why would anyone think this is accurate and reliable?</p>
<p>In the end, people are way too hung up on this one ranking system. A lot of these kids are smart enough to look at schools more deeply than rankings and for the ones that are not, too bad. Since Tulane has prospered despite the lower than “deserved” ranking, why get agitated over it?</p>
<p>“Nobel laureates (UCSB has several) also boosts PA.”</p>
<p>Nobel laureates definitely do boost a school’s abilities and reputation, I agree. But their direct impact on UG education is minimal in most cases. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing several Nobel recipients … each one is very interesting. But they don’t spend their days with UGs. And being the Devil’s Advocate for a moment, let’s say Tulane decided to go that route. Where would you put them … and their flocks of post-graduate and post-doctoral students? Harvard is trying to solve its space problem by “jumping the river.” How would Tulane address the space issue?</p>
<p>“Peer assesment is a bogus way to judge a school. They are assuming these people can know a lot about all these schools? No way.”</p>
<p>I don’t know if any of you saw the published PA score list from UF’s president, but it was pretty apparent that he had no knowledge of many of the schools he ranked and intentionally underrated some competitors. “Prestige” is difficult to quantitatively measure, but US News needs to come up with something better or drop that measurement altogether. As it is it’s ridiculous that it’s weighted at 25%</p>
<p>Didn’t Tulane have 2 past presidents as commencement speakers a few yrs ago? And is Ellen DeGeneris that much worse than picking another comedian(eg Bill Cosby). Yes, I know Bill Cosby has and advanced degree and an honorary doctorate and is a big supporter of education, but Ellen is a native of New Orleans and her presence is reasonable to me. Heck, I hope they choose Harry Connick Jr as the graduation speaker when my s graduates! We had Art Buckwald as my graduation speaker. He was hilarious, and his commencement speech then became his article in his NYT column that Sunday. I probably still have it around somewhere.</p>