<p>"No surprises on that list. Tufts is a good school, but not one of the greats IMHO. Why did you decide to pay the $40,000 in the first place?"</p>
<p>Because I was young, stupid, don't know what I know now and thought the name was important. Turns out the name doesn't mean **** though.</p>
<p>Ironic isn't it?</p>
<p>dude only 21% of the class at Harvard goes to one of these 15 programs, so even there 79% of Harvard grads don't get into an "elite" grad program. No other school comes close to 20%. Does that mean that even Harvard students have no chance in the real world? NO. What it does mean is that competition to get into elite grad programs is extremely fierce and that there have to be other grad and professional programs out there.</p>
<p>Btw as others have pointed out, the list IS based on percentage.</p>
<p>So where are you transfering to?</p>
<p>"The data presented is not a ranking. If 1,667 Harvard graduates applied to these 15 schools, their success rate would be 21%. If five Reed graduates applied, their success rate would be 100%."</p>
<p>Agreed. But so what?</p>
<p>Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't ALL that would prove would be that Reed students are hella successful when applying to the top professional programs in the country?</p>
<p>What you're doing is asking that the number of applicants be taken into account which is going to accomplish absolutely nothing. Imagine if that were taken into account for a moment. If that were taken into account than schools like Taledega Tech and South Bronx Community College would be among the tops in the nation in terms of percentage because very few students in those schools apply (maybe 2 or 3 from every graduating class), thus making even one acceptence among the top 15 programs worth alot in terms of score.</p>
<p>This ranking that we are looking at here however is quite clearly a ranking of the top 50 or so schools in the country. It doesn't take into account the total number of applicants because it presumes correctly that all of these schools have a great deal of applicants to the top 15 programs that is roughly relative to the population of their graduating classes. In other words you're not going to see huge discrepancies in terms of the percentage of students applying to these top 15 programs among these 50 schools. You're not going to see 40% of the kids at Bowdoin applying to these top 15 programs while only 4% of the kids at Tufts are applying to the top 15 like you're suggesting.</p>
<p>Also again taking into account the total applicants would produce results where no name Community Colleges would be in the top 10 based on the lone applicant that applied to Harvard Medical being accepted. This is a list that assesses the top 50 or so schools only which is why simbajune55 keeps saying it's biased towards the East Coast.</p>
<p>Realistically we know alot of Tufts students apply to the top programs and evidently not a whole lot are accepted. Too bad for Tufts kids but life sucks sometimes.</p>
<p>So yeah, it's based on percentages. What else would it be based on? You want them to numerically access the personality of each student, lol?</p>
<p>I do get what you're saying though vossron, and I agree the rankings would obviously change slightly if total applicants were taken into account but not anything serious although I know you weren't suggesting that, most others are however. Basically I think you'd agree though that the WSJ people said, "OK, these are the schools where alot of people apply to the top 15 programs. Which ones got the largest percentage in." </p>
<p>You seem to be suggesting the possibility that alot of Tufts students don't apply to the top programs. Even if I were to slip into a black hole of complete irrationality and follow you along this path what then, may I ask, is the point of going to Tufts at all and paying $40,000 a year? If barely anyone is applying to the top programs go to a state school where barely anyone is applying to the top programs and get the education for free.</p>
<p>I love the whole attitude though wrathofachilles..."It's based on percentages" erat quod demonstrandum. LOL!!! Great stuff.</p>
<p>"Btw as others have pointed out, the list IS based on percentage."</p>
<p>no it's not... jesusssssss can you guys not understand the difference between % of graduating class that is attending and % of those who APPLIED in the graduating class who are attending</p>
<p>"no it's not... jesusssssss can you guys not understand the difference between % of graduating class that is attending and % of those who APPLIED in the graduating class who are attending"</p>
<p>Read my above post, #24.</p>
<p>The number of applicants to these top 15 programs is roughly proportional to the number in the graduating class especially I'd imagine for the schools ranked between say 15-50 (Naturally you'd see more applicants in the top 10-15 or so programs). You guys are rediculously suggesting that like 40% of the graduating class at Bowdoin applies to the top 15 whereas only like 4% of the graduating class at Tufts applies to the same programs.</p>
<p>I think we all know that definately isn't true so lets not pretend like it is and brush Tufts abysmal rankings off with, "Oh it's based on percentages."</p>
<p>Tufts might be slightly higher or slightly lower even but there isn't going to be much difference even if the number of applicants is taken into account even only among these 50 schools here. Regardless the rankings are basically acurate and Tufts is not worth the amount of money it charges for tuition because it obviously isn't capable of producing many students that go on to the top programs.</p>
<p>"it presumes correctly that all of these schools have a great deal of applicants to the top 15 programs that is roughly relative to the population of their graduating classes"</p>
<p>There is no basis for this assumption. This is part of the regional problem.</p>
<p>"a ranking of the top 50 or so schools in the country" begs the question: By what measure? The article's data reports enrollment numbers only. What use is a ranking by enrollment numbers, except to someone who wants to target the largest or smallest schools?</p>
<p>What is the point of the article? It's an attempt to rank the quality of feeder schools (which would have to consider the number of applicants), but it ranks only the quantity (via a flawed percentage). </p>
<p>The assumption of "roughly proportional" is flawed.</p>
<p>Why are you so bitter? Did you think you were buying a golden ticket? Clearly your cost/benefit analysis results in Tufts not being worth it to you. America is a rich country and the $160,000 isn't much to many. For them it's easily worth it to pay for Tufts over most state schools. For many others it isn't.</p>
<p>"The assumption of "roughly proportional" is flawed."</p>
<p>No it isn't. I'd be willing to grant that you'd see some differences in the percentage of students applying to the top programs, but lets face it, these are more or less suppossed to be the top 50 schools in the country, you're not going to see any drastic difference in the percentage of graduating classes that are applying to the top 50 programs. </p>
<p>Differences sure. Not any differences that are going to drastically effect these rankings in anyway.</p>
<p>"Why are you so bitter? Did you think you were buying a golden ticket? Clearly your cost/benefit analysis results in Tufts not being worth it to you. America is a rich country and the $160,000 isn't much to many. For them it's easily worth it to pay for Tufts over most state schools. For many others it isn't."</p>
<p>Bitter? Hardly, lol. What leads you all to believe that? The fact that I question the worth of a Tufts $180,000 degree education? Is it possible that I'm merely trying to provide potential applicants with accurate information? </p>
<p>I agree with you. If money is no object than by all means go to Tufts. But if you've gotta take out loans to go here than realistically you should reconsider enrolling because clearly the Tufts name in terms of students going on to the top professional programs doesn't mean all that much. Save that $40,000 for when you get there.</p>
<p>um contrary to what some have said, the numbers are based on the TOTAL number of students in the class</p>
<p>and even so, your basic point is true: very few Tufts students get admitted to top professional programs, it's higher than 2% of those who apply, but still it's not very many. The thing is that very few students from anywhere do. NYU, GW, BU, and BC are all as or more expensive than Tufts, and none appears on the list.</p>
<p>Yeah, the thing is Tufts doesn't like to be compared to NYU, GW, BU and BC. Everyone here thinks Tufts is a Georgetown-Bowdoin-Johns Hopkins type category and there are a large number of complete dillusionals who think Tufts is near a HYP type of category. Unfortunately neither is the case.</p>
<p>You can't honestly tell me that Tufts folks don't like to think they're above BC, NYU and the like do you? These numbers here though clearly show that Tufts is far from anything special.</p>
<p>WSJ just shows where students at top professional schools come from...nothing more or nothing less. Its just that Tufts students don't usually go to these top professional schools at that high a rate. College applicants who DO want to go to top professional schools are probably interested in this...even if disgruntled alums/current students say its unimportant.</p>
<p>45th isn't really that bad considering how many schools there are in the country also.</p>
<p>"No it isn't."</p>
<p>Okay, show us the data backing your claim that your assumption is warranted.</p>
<p>A different metric makes the WSJ data suspect. This proves nothing; it's apples and oranges. Still...</p>
<p>The listing shows the top 10 institutions in the nation ranked (Source: Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium) by percentage of graduates who go on to earn a PhD in all disciplines. Next to this rank is the WSJ "Feeder Schools" rank (NR is not ranked).</p>
<p>1 28 CalTech
2 NR Harvey Mudd
3 50 Reed
4 10 Swarthmore
5 8 MIT
6 NR Carleton
7 NR Oberlin
8 26 Bryn Mawr
9 14 U Chicago<br>
10 2 Yale</p>
<p>Who cares about who erns a Phd? What matters is the top PHD programs only, since we are talking about the best schools. There's a difference between elite law schools and business schools and getting a Phd at any school in the country. That is one of the worst comparisons ever.</p>
<p>After a bit of digging, I found the law school numbers for Yale and Harvard. Tufts sent 1 to Yale and 8 to Harvard. </p>
<p>Yale
<a href="http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html/law/students.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html/law/students.html</a></p>
<p>Harvard
<a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php</a></p>
<p>Tufts sent 3 to Hopkins med.
<a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/students/academics/catalog05/MCATstudents.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/students/academics/catalog05/MCATstudents.pdf</a></p>
<p>Rightbackatyou- you are a spiteful bastard. Just move on.</p>
<p>"That is one of the worst comparisons ever."</p>
<p>For sure. It proves nothing; it's apples and oranges. And everyone knows how bad CalTech and Harvey Mudd are as feeder schools to advanced degrees. And the PhDs CT/HM students get are so much easier to earn at the lousy schools they choose. :o</p>
<p>um...vossron...we are talking about the top professional schools, if someone wanted to do find data about enrollment at top Phd programs...go for it. I didn't say that Cal Tech and Mudd don't send students to top Phd programs in great numbers. </p>
<p>I just said the comparison is almost completely useless, unless you are a high schooler who wants a school where a high proportion of his classmates just want PhD's in anything from anywhere.</p>
<p>"Okay, show us the data backing your claim that your assumption is warranted"</p>
<p>Tell me how my assumption isn't warranted. I think it's plainly evident that the number of students who apply to the top 15 programs among say Georgetown, Tufts and Bowdoin is roughly proportional to the size of the graduating class. How could you ever possibly think otherwise? Honestly, do you think that barely any Tufts grads are applying to these programs while a whole kennel of Bowdoin/Georgetown grads are? That is outrageous, positively outrageous.</p>
<p>People go to a school like Tufts or Georgetown or Bowdoin specifically because it's supposed to give them a better shot at the elite professional programs in the country. How you could ever think this is not the case I'll never know. The fact is Tufts simply isn't producing many grads in the top 15 programs the way supposedly similar schools (Bowdoin, Bates, Georgetown) are.</p>
<p>And I don't know what Ph.D's have to do with the top 15 professional programs in the country. Really no idea. Terrible, absolutely terrible comparison.</p>
<p>Obviously neither of us is going to research the amount of applications there were coming out of the graduating classes of these 50 schools. Thus it comes down to one of two assumptions. You can either assume that (1) barely any students apply to Tufts and then subsequently graduate with aspirations of going to the top 15 programs in the country. Or you can (2) be realistic and concede that the impetus behind paying $40,000 a year to go to a school like Tufts is that it will give you a better chance at an elite professional program and thus alot of Tufts students (just like alot of students at Bowdoin, Bates, Georgetown, etc.) do apply to these programs.</p>
<p>I mean c'mon, lets be realistic here. You're acting like my assumption is totally warrantless when clearly plainly acknowledged facts suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>Students at Tufts like to compare themselves to Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, etc. because many of us got in to those schools. I did. And most of my friends at Tufts did as well. Also, if you look at stats of accepted students at all of those schools, they are nearly identical. Any differences are statistically negligible.</p>