<p>In 2006 a CC poster named WilmingtonWave recomputed the USNWR ratings after excising PA. Yes the data are ancient (2004?), but even at that relatively low point in Tulane’s history the school still showed up at #38 … and just six slots from #28 (due to ties).</p>
<p>Hi NewHope - I understand what I think you mean by saying colleges should graduate their students. Certainly there should be an environment where students that need help staying on task can get some. But I also wonder what it means beyond that. I mean, is it really the responsibility of any university to make sure a student goes to class, does the work, and meets the requirements beyond basic advising? Certainly virtually all schools make advisors accessable to students, and Tulane most certainly does. I am just not sure what a school as an institution is supposed to do beyond that, or more pointedly, should do. I think Tulane’s graduation requirements are kind of complicated, but I also know that the advising staff will make sure my D is on track to graduate in 4 years. That seems perfectly adequate to me, and if kids are not graduating in at least 5-6 years (adding the extra year for architecture) then it seems to be it is no ones fault but their own.</p>
<p>That is interesting about the recalculation taking out peer assessment. As you saw, someone else calculated it based on test scores alone, and Tulane came out #28 (filling in Harvard, who was missing). But I am kind of torn on these reassessments, because it is still ranking something that cannot be ranked. I mean, if you just say “Here is the list of schools based on average test scores” then fine. It is just a list, just data. It is the reader that either does or does not impute other meanings to it. But once one starts combining factors and making it obvious that it is still an attempt to “rank” colleges, then the trap is the same also. One is trying to assess something numerically that is not amenable to such a procedure. It seems to me of a school truthfully publishes its data (test scores, class sizes, demographics, etc) and then talks about other, more subjective features that they think make it special, a serious student can use that information plus things like location, sports availability, etc. to make decent decisions, especially with campus visits being so much more common nowadays. I simply don’t understand this need to rank schools. I understand the temptation, but I would think that some small amount of rational thought past the primal urge would lead people to know that it is a fool’s errand to undertake a ranking system, and equally foolish to base a decision on it, especially one as flawed as USNWR.</p>
<p>As I hope my prior posts have indicated, I’m no fan of ranking universities. Princeton at #2 … that would make them “first loser” wouldn’t it? Totally ridiculous.</p>
<p>New Hope, LOL. Sorry, I wasn’t directing the rest of that comment at you. Just part of my general rant. I know you are on the same page with me. I think Harvard and Princeton tied for #1 this year. What a ridiculous system. It is funny to read the USNews justification for why they do this. They say it is only a tool, that there are so many more factors that should be taken into account, etc. etc. But they never address the real criticisms of why their methodology and weighting system stinks. And, I would argue, that as a news organization if they know that their rankings are being used incorrectly (although there is no correct way to use such a system that measures such meaningless factors), it is hypocritical for them to continue to publish it. A magazine such as theirs should never be in the position of pronouncing “judgement” on this kind of area. They can cloak it any way they want, but it is just wrong on so many levels.</p>
<p>Fallen Chemist - I think you are on to something. Since there are so many ways to calculate rank, why can’t one recalculate using various methodologies and publish it virally? It’ll definitely call into question the whole system and perhaps even cause the heated debate that we are having to spread to a wider audience. Blog anyone?</p>
<p>^ bff - You don’t want me on that blog … I’m rational. I wonder if Rush is available???
OK, that’s my little joke for today … back to your suggestion.</p>
<p>When my first child was approaching college age, I went out and purchased a variety of books about choosing a college. Some of them were very helpful … some were, um, less helpful. Among the latter was William J. Bennett’s “Choosing the Right College” … a book that claims to provide objective assessment of top US Colleges and Universities. It came highly rated. And I tried to extract useful info, I really did … in fact, I read the entire book, many chapters twice. (OK, maybe I’m not so rational.) I’m leafing through several sections as I type this, and I still can’t believe a person of intellect could spout such drivel. BUT, my point is merely that Bennett’s view of what makes a superior liberal arts college (his choice is Cristendom) differs from mine (Amherst, Williams, Carleton, Whitman, and others). As for public universities, Clemson gets a positive review … but not Cal-Berkeley. I’m sure he’s sincere, but really …</p>
<p>Needs of individual students are, well, individual. For reasons I’ve enunciated in other threads, Tulane was a “no brainer” choice for my D, and if she had to do it all over again she’d choose the school again. But Tulane’s a tougher sell for socially conservative parents. “Couldn’t she get into Yale? Isn’t New Orleans still flooded? Aren’t you worried about her safety?”</p>
<p>I’m all for a revised system to evaluate (rather than rank) colleges and universities. But I wonder how far Tulane can climb when seemingly “normal” success criteria (i.e., how strong are the students, how competitive are they after graduation, would they recommend the school to others, etc.) are such a tiny part of the equation, and subjective viewpoints (e.g., “how good can a school in poor black crime-ridden southern city really be?”) is such a large part.</p>
<p>After reading the above posts I started thinking about an old friend of mine. He attended a selective LAC for two years, then decided he’d been there and done that and transferred to a selective state university. He graduated and went to medical school and the last time I checked in he was on the faculty of a medical school and doing great. </p>
<p>But the first LAC has to score him as a non-graduate - even after six years - even though they did nothing wrong and he left with no complaints.</p>
<p>And my own story is somewhat similar. I transferred, graduated and did well in grad school and business.</p>
<p>Doesn’t seem fair to the first school. </p>
<p>I wonder how many students choose NOLA and after a while have the same realization and decide to do something else.</p>
<p>bird rock - exactly. But I bet some of these schools don’t count transfers against their percentage, they just erase them from the base as if they never existed at that school. Ah well, I see some groundswell against USNWR rankings. Maybe it will catch on. I did read one of the changes USNWR made was to somehow make diversity part of the caculation. While I cna appreciate that possibly, maybe, kind of diversity can have an enhancing effect on the undergraduate experience, I wonder again how well this is measured. Just because someone checks off the Hispanic box or Asian box tells you nothing about how diverse their point of view or life experiences really are.</p>
<p>I rather like bff’s idea of publishing a number of alternate ranking systems, both existing (like Forbe’s, which is actually more ludicrous that USNWR, and others) and new ones based on an ab initio approach to the entire problem. Hopefully it would really show how ridiculous the entire idea is, but with my luck people would like one of the new ranking systems better and the whole thing just starts all over.</p>
<p>why is so much emphasis being places on undergrad education? Unless you’re going to a top 20 school, it really just comes down to a matter of preference. Personally i would rather spend my college experience in a lively city, rather than some isolated town. Doing well in the school is what really counts, and the easiest way to do that is by being happy in the environment.</p>
<p>Took a quick peek at the USNews at the beautiful new Borders Bookstore on St. Charles last evening. There is an asterisk next to the data for retention rate (IIRC) on TUlane’s listing. Did they adjust for the impact if Katrina and the closing of much of the engineering program on the retention rate 4 yrs ago? This would certainly affect the numbers</p>
<p>It appears Katrina is having a lingering effect on Tulane’s USNWR rankings. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The four-year graduation rate is a problem. Clearly the numbers aren’t good for the previous four years (classes 05 - 09), i.e., all of the students of these classes were there during Katrina. Most likely this is the reason the school has chosen not to release graduation numbers for the “previous year and years.”</p></li>
<li><p>The PA of 3.3 is probably also a reflection of lingering misperceptions about the school and New Orleans. For example, “how can a school in a flooded, crime-ridden town be that good.” Hopefully, PA respondents will continue to become aware of the high SAT/ACT achievement and low acceptance rates. etc. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>But, on a brighter note, the school is back in the top 50 – by any measuring a very nice achievement. This is in spite of the low graduation and retention ranking and low PA. I noticed a number of schools in the second 50 have PA scores higher or equal to Tulane; point being: it could be worse.</p>
<p>^^^ All valid points, but their validity depends on accepting the premises of the USNWR methodology. All attempts to explain, hope, or otherwise work within their framework gives it at least some creedence. Not in a purely academic sense, but in the real world it unfortunately does.</p>
<p>It also occured to me recently (not that I probably haven’t bashed USNWR enough) that another very important aspect of a college education these days especially is community service. I could easily support an argument that the university which has a higher percentage of their students’ time in community service is a “better” school than one that has less, or that at least it would be a factor in the equation, and a fairly heavily weighted one. After all, these “best” universities are supposed to be developing the minds and a sense of world citizenship in their students, not just be job training centers. So where is that in the USNWR rankings for “best” colleges? Oh gee, it is completely absent. I guess that isn’t important after all.</p>
<p>think of the ridiculousness of the data in terms of a high school senior applying to colleges…and the “what are my chances” forum. Tulane would be a reach for a student with a 1270 SAT (two parts), yet would be a match and in some cases (school #47) a safety. </p>
<p>You would likely get rejected to Tulane (27% acceptance also) and get accepted to many of the schools ranked 40-49!</p>
<p>Princeton Review needs to add a category: Top Schools for Preparing Students to Change the World</p>
<p>USNWR can add that to its rankings as well</p>
<p>Having just returned from freshman move-in and my first welcome week experience, I have to say that the culture and philosophy that President Cowan has created for the school is quite impressive. From student leader volunteers greeting us at the doorstep of the dorm to help move in our belongings (by the time the car was unloaded, half our stuff had been transported upstairs by a band of cheerful helpers), to the inspiring message at the Convocation directing this fresh-faced group of freshman to strive for excellence in their studies while making time to give back to the community, to the messages of personal support and helpfulness communicated by every Dean and advisor, we felt very fortunate to be there.</p>
<p>Fallenchemist, trust me, I agree with you in questioning the validity of the USNWR methodology; in fact, I think it stinks, especially the beauty contest portion, aka PA. </p>
<p>Also, I think you touched on this before, but another major flaw in the methodology is the self-reporting aspect for several categories. As such, let me take another shot at the lower UC’s (my favorite whipping boys): I noticed that UC Santa Barbara has a Faculty Resources ranking of 31 – this is absurd at a time when budgets are being slashed and faculty and staff are being laid off in the UC system. This number is as bogus as their 96 percent of top ten students claim. Clearly these schools would sell their mothers to maintain their top 50 USNWR “status.” </p>
<p>Tulane’s Faculty Resources ranking is an impressive 26.</p>
<p>bff - totally agree, move-in was extremely impressive. Sure, the logistics were handled amazingly well, but what really just continues to blow us away is the incredible attitude of all we meet: students, parents and faculty/administration. Just super, and we even got lucky with the weather. It was warm for sure, but for New Orleans in August it wasn’t too bad.</p>
<p>Harvardgator - I know we are in agreement, I was just piling on. I hate to even have a whiff of anything that justifies what USNWR does and the way they do it, so I probably go overboard.</p>