Tufts or Tulane?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Tufts University
21

<p>I’m going to keep this somewhat brief.</p>

<p>1) I don’t work in admissions. I’m assuming you don’t as well. I was commenting on how breaking down ranges (on CC) for different sections was unnecessary since you can simply look at composite ranges for a school. And frankly, as a finance guy, I can tell you those ranges are so close they only provide a slight edge to Tufts. </p>

<p>2) They did not just re-adjust the score from 1600 to 2400, they changed the format and CONTENT of the test. It is a completely different test than it was 10 years ago.</p>

<p>3)They have not remade the ACT any where near that degree so it can still be looked at across time. Tufts and Tulane have the EXACT SAME MEAN for the ACT. I also explained why Tulane’s low end (28) of the range was lower (Focus Louisiana Program.)</p>

<p>4)I provided data to describe why the ACT is fine to use as it’s actually used much more in the midwest and the south (where Tulane is) and also provided the percentage SAT vs ACT in every state. I’m not sure how you still think the ACT is a horrible or ‘suspicious’ point of comparison. </p>

<p>5)You apparently can’t read (or you read too much into things) since I never said that schools in the South were more competitive and certainly didn’t say that in that quote. Plus 75% of Tulane comes from more than 500 miles away. I have more friends from Tulane from boarding schools in the North East and other top private schools than I do public schools for a reason. Tufts may have more, but I doubt it’s by much. Tulane is $50,000 a year and thus many kids come out of wealthy families that send their kids to top flight schools as I’m sure Parents of Tufts kids had.</p>

<p>6)I unfortunately mistyped again, I apologize for that, I was trading. I should have typed the origin of the moniker “Harvard of the South” and not “ivy of the south.” My point was simply that the moniker was once attributed to Tulane due to its history in the United States and the fact that it’s older than all of the other schools. </p>

<p>Anyways, again I’m sure I’ll be misread and chastised for using actual facts and data to support my statements.<br>
If you somehow still find fault in reason and logic and want to pick and chose data then be my guest.</p>

<p>On another note: That’s horrible about Tufts with Madoff. A friend of mine from undergrad was on the discovery team with what used to be the NASD (FINRA) for that investigation. Not only the money being stolen but the lack of confidence in the markets he created, at a time when confidence was already beaten down, gets me so upset.</p>

<p>Tulane had around $600 million in damages from Katrina. Most was fortunately recoverable from their insurance. Although now their premiums are much higher than before. They still lost $300 mil or so in the market downturn but that’s expected and frankly much better than getting scammed by “people” like Bernie Madoff. One of the reasons Tulane’s endowment only reached over a billion the last few years was actually because they didn’t have much invested in the market during the pre-2000 run up. Now they have exposure and that risk bit in them in the butt. They’ve done a great job of fundraising which has helped and still provide financial aid which is nice for parents.</p>

22

<p>Well, I apparently wasn’t brief. :)</p>

23

<p>

lol i stopped reading after that</p>

<p>You have extremely poor reasoning and critical thinking skills. On occasion when you do have a valid point, it gets lost in your terrible use of the english language. Moreover you often make very long tangent arguments that is completely irrelevant to your point.</p>

24

<p>Tufts vs. Tulane. Are you kidding me? Tufts “wins” by a mile and twice on Sundays!</p>

<p>'Nuff said.</p>

25

<p>

Tulane: ~$630 million
Tufts: ~$1 billion</p>

<p>Those numbers are estimates, as each school released its summer 2008 figures, and each has announced more recently a percentage drop since then. Tufts claimed $1.5 billion in summer 2008 and a 30% yearly drop, while Tulane claimed a $1 billion endowment in summer 2008 with a 37% yearly drop. We can expect fresh numbers from each institution later this summer.
The Madoff business cost us $20 million. A of money, but in the context of these numbers, not significant.</p>

26

<p>This has been pretty amusing to see what Harry has stirred up. He posted this thinking I would see it and take the bait. But I had no idea it existed until someone PM’d me about it. I am, like Benetode, a Tulane alum and booster. But unlike what Harry would have you believe, I have often observed that other schools seem like better fits for some students, and I think (other than posts in response to people like Harry) that my comments have consistently been reasoned and backed up with facts.</p>

<p>Anyway, some parts of this discussion have been silly on many levels. Tufts is clearly a more selective school than Tulane. No question about it. Light years apart? No, I wouldn’t say so, but there is a mathematically significant difference in the stats. Of course they are both fine schools, and the experience one gets by going to school in New Orleans is quite different than going to school in Boston (Medford). The people talking about fit have it right. I have to take a bit of issue with Snarf though (in a nice way I hope):</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The difference between Tufts and Tulane is about the same as the difference (stats wise) as between Tulane and these schools. And yet you say Tulane is nowhere near as highly regarded as Tufts. So if you are going to be consistent, you really cannot make that argument. Don’t even look at the PR selectivity rating. A significant part of that is average HS GPA, and they don’t correct for schools that report weighted GPA’s (Miami for example) and unweighted (Tulane), among other problems with the figure, so it is worthless. I will point out that not only is Tulane more selective than ever this year, as Benetode says 22% is a pretty low acceptance rate in this world; the average SAT for the incoming class is going to be right around 2100 (1400). Probably will just miss. So we should see Tulane rising in the (also worthless IMHO) USNWR rankings.</p>

<p>Finally Benetode has it right about the history of the “Harvard of the South” designation, although I always hated it. The “Southern Ivy” thing came from Wiki and presumably therefore from somewhere else, but it is equally misguided. I understand the motivation, but Tulane is Tulane, Harvard is Harvard, Tufts is Tufts, and so on and so forth. I think Tulane stands well on its own. Certainly students looking for schools need to compare, so to that extent all this piercing analysis is useful. Let’s just keep it factual and fair.</p>

27

<p>Hey fallenchemist,
I’ve been going back and forth between making comparisons regarding admissions statistics and making comparisons regarding “prestige”, and I haven’t been good about being clear which is which. I agree totally about fit. I actually did say that one should go to Tulane if they thought they’d be happiest and learn the most there, and I tend to disregard prestige. However, the original post was specifically about prestige, so, uncharacteristically, I was measuring prestige when I compared Tulane to College Park, University of Florida, University of Miami, and (perhaps mistakenly, I’ll admit) Sewanee. While the USNWR and Princeton Review rankings aren’t good for much, they are pretty good at measuring prestige (as they partially MAKE prestige in the first place, but that’s another argument). Certainly Tulane is a more selective school than those aforementioned, I wouldn’t claim otherwise. But, according to the opinion-makers at least, it’s equally well-regarded. So while in terms of selectivity, the difference between College Park et. al. and Tulane is about equal to the difference between Tulane and Tufts, the difference in reputation between Tufts and Tulane is much greater than the difference between Tulane and College Park.</p>

<p>Again, please don’t think I personally put any stock whatsoever in reputation or prestige, as it’s mostly meaningless. But if we are going to talk about it (and that’s what the original post talked about, apparently just to start an argument but I didn’t know that at the time), it has to be acknowledged that the primary opinion-makers regard Tufts as significantly more prestigious.</p>

28

<p>krm-
What made you say that Tufts was especially affected because of Madoff? Snarf’s right, according to Bacow it was only $20 million; certainly a substantial sum, but a very small portion of the endowment. Madoff’s effect was de minimis as compared to the economic downturn, which hurt every school from Harvard (which was hit particularly badly) on down.</p>

29

<p>I guess that fifth sentence was your limit. If proper English is truly that important to you, what is “lol i stopped reading after that” supposed to mean? Shouldn’t there at least be some capitalization? Shouldn’t there be some form of punctuation in that sentence? Perhaps you simply can’t make a valid point yourself or admit when someone else is making one. </p>

<p>“You have extremely poor reasoning and critical thinking skills. On occasion when you do have a valid point, it gets lost in your terrible use of the english language. Moreover (comma?) you often make very long tangent arguments that is (shouldn’t this be ARE?) completely irrelevant to your point.”</p>

<p>There’s a reason most people come on CC. It’s not to battle grammatically. That’s apparently lucky for you.</p>

30

<p>It was mentioned earlier about how ‘convenient’ it was that I used the ACT scores as a comparison. I find it ‘convenient’ that you refuse to refute any of my reasons (or data for that matter) as to why I chose that perfectly acceptable criteria. </p>

<p>MEAN ACT:31
Critical Reading Middle 50%: 670 - 750
Math Middle 50%: 670 - 750
Writing Middle 50%: 670 - 760</p>

<p>MEAN ACT:31
Critical Reading Middle 50%: 630 - 720
Math Middle 50%: 620 - 700
Writing Middle 50%: 640 - 720</p>

<p>How is saying that the edge goes to Tufts, but not by a tremendous amount, way off base?
Actually, I don’t care about your reasoning because after all of the links and data I’ve posted on here to illustrate and support my points you fail to do anything but point out run on sentences.</p>

<p>I liked Harry better :)</p>

31

<p>Snarf, below are the “Hawkette” method rankings measuring the percentage of accepted students scoring over 700 on the SAT and 30 on the ACT for 2008. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I can’t help chiming in here. Tulane’s ranking, using this criteria, is a heck of a lot closer to Tufts’ than it is to UF, UMd, etc. Further the USNWR prestige-driving-rankings you mentioned as they relate to Tulane, are Katrina induced. The school will definitely rise in subsequent editions. Fallenchemist and Benet read on, too…</p>

<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)</p>

32

<p>Snarf - Appreciate what you are saying. I have no idea how one can really know what people (and then you have to ask “which people”) think about prestige and schools short of very specific and non-biased surveys, but OK. I would just quibble with “significantly”. That is a non-quantitative, very subjective term. Your definition of that word might be very different than mine. Is there really any point in making an argument at that level? I have lived in the midwest, the south, and now RI, and while I am of course biased, I know very few people that think Miami, Maryland or Florida are as “prestigious” as Tulane, unless we are talking about sports. For some of these schools, that is probably part of the problem. People too often equate name recognition with prestige. There is no doubt in my mind that Tulane benefited from the post-Katrina publicity and rose in “prestige” after it came back, especially with Presidents Clinton and Bush (I) being covered there, Clinton kicking off one of his global initiatives at Tulane, and many other things like that. Opinion makers? I have no idea who those people are.</p>

<p>As far as USNWR and PR being good at measuring prestige, I will admit I have never thought of it that way and so don’t really know. I suppose off-the-cuff I would argue that if people think schools that are clearly less selective are equally or more prestigious, then I am not sure how valuable these assessments are. Just ask students at Washington University in St. Louis. It is more selective than Tufts, but they will tell you that very few people know about the school, and constantly confuse it with other schools. In that sense, Tufts is probably more prestigious than Wash U, although in certain academic circles that would not be the case.</p>

<p>So that is all a way of saying Harry did a good job picking a red herring for a topic. It is an impossible thing to be right or wrong about, especially with these ill-defined terms and fine differences.</p>

33

<p>Oh, and, Snarf, while we’re addressing your misguided sense of prestige, don’t take my word for it, check out what Peterson’s has to say about Tulane’s comparable and overlap schools – funny I don’t see UF or Md. on this list:
[Tulane</a> University - Peterson’s](<a href=“College Search | College Finder | Colleges by Major & Location”>College Search | College Finder | Colleges by Major & Location)</p>

<p>I attended Harvard and you remind me of the typical Mass./Boston-area-school alum drunk on their own wine. If Tufts weren’t located in Mass., I think it would have the same reputation as Idaho State – how do like that? Fallenchemist and Benet spread the word. Snarf, give me a break</p>

34

<p>I just thought of another example of this “publicity”’ and “prestige” thing. I had almost forgotten about it. Back in the mid-1980’s a Tulane basketball player, Hot rod Williams, was caught in a gambling and point shaving scandal. Tulane’s response to this was a stroke of genius. They shut down the program indefinitely, saying that they were there to teach students and this kind of lack of control was unacceptable. They went as far as to say that they were reevaluating participating in D1 completely. The publicity turned out to be a windfall. Almost every story went something like “The academically prestigious but athletically woeful Tulane University…” It essentially marked the beginning of Tulane’s academic rise to a tier or two higher than it had been. People that never would have applied to or gone to Tulane before, maybe even had not heard of it, suddenly were coming. Just a little vignette.</p>

<p>This is not to generally diminish what Snarf has said. While I have a couple of quibbles, I think he is largely correct. You seem like an intelligent and thoughtful guy.</p>

<p>Just after posting this I saw Harvardgator’s comment. Take it easy my friend. I am Mr. Tulane (just ask Harry) and I didn’t think Snarf was that hyperbolic at all. OK, like I said he used a subjective term I don’t agree with, but not that bad. Let’s all relax.</p>

35

<p>Got it, Fallenchemist, I’ll chill. Guess I’ve come across too many Tufts windbags in my time and Snarf hit a nerve with his greater-than/lesser-than prestige BS.</p>

36

<p>Although no one seems to really be discussing which school would be a better “fit” for this person, since no indication of intended major or anything else has been mentioned, I wold like to point out that the mid 50% scores you are including for tufts are not what is posted on their website for class of 2012
[Profile</a> of the Class of 2012 - Office of Undergraduate Admissions - Tufts University](<a href=“Tufts University”>Tufts University)</p>

37

<p>■■■■■ successfully fed.</p>

38

<p>RE harvardgator’s first post (post #31): As a methodological point, enrolled students would be a much more informative metric than accepted students. As a contextual point, if you had actually read all of my posts, you would have noticed that I never claimed Tufts was head-and-shoulders above Tulane in terms of admissions selectivity. Above it, yes, but not vastly above it. Admissions selectivity was never really the issue under discussion.</p>

<p>fallenchemist: I think US News actually does distribute and collect short surveys to evaluate reputation. What I meant by “opinion-makers” was actually USNWR and Princeton Review themselves. Their rankings, especially US News’, are self-reinforcing: since they are by far the most read and consulted college ranking agency, their own rankings actually determine reputation and prestige to a large number of people. I think this is regrettable, but true. The schools I mentioned are near or above Tulane in USNWR rankings and in certain PR rankings like admissions selectivity. Thus, to the very large number of people who rely on rankings to determine or at least influence their ideas on which schools are “best” (a term I personally don’t think makes sense as applied to colleges), these schools would be Tulane’s compatriots.
You bring up the point that if people think less selective schools are as or more prestigious than more selective schools, their assessments are useless. I agree. They will continue to think that anyway, driven largely by rankings agencies like US News and Princeton Review. (I should note though that your example, Washington U in St. Louis, is actually ranked extremely highly in US News, much higher than Tufts, and I think it’s probably more generally prestigious as well.)
If you look at my other posts (not that you’d want to sift through them all), you’ll notice that whenever reputation or prestige came up I argued that it shouldn’t be a factor in choosing a college. But the OP made it the point of discussion of this thread, apparently just to start an argument, but even so that was the only reason I was discussing it at all. It seems like when people talk about prestige, they’re basically talking about rankings (they couldn’t possibly be talking about personal experience as no one has attended every college), so that’s what I was referring to. Clearly, though, the original post was just baiting us and not a sincere inquiry for opinions, so there’s no point in discussing it further. I post here to offer perspective to prospective students, not to fight about which schools are “better”, so since there are no actual students interested in this thread, I’ve lost interest as well. I appreciate your patience and level-headedness, though, and look forward to talking with you again if at some point in the future a real student is debating between Tulane and Tufts. Rest assured, I will join you in condemning prestige as a reason to choose a school.</p>

<p>harvardgator: Consider me humbled. Your ability to skim some of my posts and misconstrue my intentions has left me utterly defeated and without anything to respond with. Since I’ve been so abjectly beaten by you, there’s really no need for you to ever talk to me or even visit this subforum again. Instead of continuing to post here, you can go out drinking to celebrate your glorious victory over an internet strawman. I won’t be responding to anything else you say, and if you continue to be as inappropriate as you have been, resorting to personal attacks and name-calling, I’ll start reporting your posts.</p>

39

<p>For the record, the “finance guy” reference was a statement of fact, not opinion.
I doubled in Finance and Mathematics as an undergrad, worked for Morgan Stanley for a couple years, went back to school to get a Master of Finance, and have worked for a botique firm ever since. If my postings ever ramble, it’s because I trade FX at night as a hobby and post while I kill time between numbers coming out. Now, I’m watching Unforgiven on tv (no FX till Sunday).</p>

<p>Ambulancechaser, for someone who’s pre-law, you need to learn to read more thoroughly and critically. It also helps to be able to respond to counter arguments.</p>

<p>It also wouldn’t hurt to get off of your high horse. Law school can be very humbling as can working for any large law firm. It would help to start early. Best of luck in school! I do actually mean that too. :)</p>

40

<p>Benetode, what boutique do you work for?
And could you speculate on the differences in terms of quality of life and compensation between boutiques and big firms?</p>