<p>Mastadon - Show us the new 2010 data from Avery, Glickman, Hoxby and Mertick and then we can do an apples-to-apples comparison. The whole approach you’ve taken in your analysis is deeply flawed and your results are absurd. You would flunk Research Methodology 101. Come on! You can do better. </p>
<p>ariesathena - You embarrass yourself every time you post. As a Tufts graduate, you are doing your alma mater a disservice.</p>
<p>OldScarecrow All the supporting information is in the link I provided. Right above Harvard there is a place you can click to get more information on the methodology and the size of the database. The methodology is based on Hoxby et als work and it uses a much larger database. To get head to head information, just click on the college matchup button and follow the directions. It provides you with a 95% confidence interval on the data so you can infer the size of the data set for each comparison. Hopefully, you will be able to reproduce my results with the exception that I have a typo in the Princeton data (it should be 20, not 22) Here is some more info. </p>
<p>[Parchment</a> Releases 2nd Annual ?Student Choice College Rankings?](<a href=“Parchment Releases 2nd Annual ‘Student Choice College Rankings’”>Parchment Releases 2nd Annual ‘Student Choice College Rankings’)</p>
<p>This is the second release of the model/dataset, so as you know there is the chance that there are bugs in it, but I am finding it much better than the first release. After playing around with it a bit I am gaining confidence in it and starting to like it. </p>
<p>My methodology was to take the chart published in the NY Times from the original Hoxby study and reproduce the head to head competition line associated with Tufts using the new Hoxby derived model (and associated data set) and compare it to the results from the original model and data set. This could be done for the entire table, if one has the time.</p>
<p>If you have faith in the original data set (which can be legitimately challenged), then the difference between the two results should give a reasonable approximation of how much the popularity (which I am using as a proxy for reputation) has changed over time.</p>
<p>Because the original 2004 Hoxby paper was a working draft , you might feel more comfortable knowing that the work was finally published in 2012 in a reputable journal. Note that Hoxby is now at Stanford.</p>
<p>[A</a> Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities](<a href=“http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/1/425]A”>http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/1/425)</p>
<p>Since Parchment is a company , not a study, I checked them out to see where their data set came from. Here is the info:</p>
<p>[Parchment</a> raises $6M to expand education credential storage business - Phoenix Business Journal](<a href=“http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2012/02/14/parchment-raises-6m-to-expand.html?page=all]Parchment”>http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2012/02/14/parchment-raises-6m-to-expand.html?page=all)</p>
<p>[Parchment</a> Merges Docufide With Avow Systems to Create Largest Electronic Transcript Network Linking Schools and UniversitiesParchment.com | Leader in eTranscript Exchange | Parchment.com | Leader in eTranscript Exchange](<a href=“http://www.parchment.com/press-releases/parchment-merges-docufide-with-avow-systems-to-create-largest-electronic-transcript-network-linking-schools-and-universities/]Parchment”>http://www.parchment.com/press-releases/parchment-merges-docufide-with-avow-systems-to-create-largest-electronic-transcript-network-linking-schools-and-universities/)</p>
<p>They have an interesting business model that provides them with yearly access to the data. If this company is successful, it could realize the original researchers goal of providing an alternative to the existing ranking systems. What I find interesting is that the company was moved to the valley by the VCs (which are well connected to Stanford) and has Stanford as a customer. I am wondering if Hoxby is involved </p>
<p>The Tufts results are consistent with this ranking
[15</a> Hottest Schools of the Decade [2000 to 2009]](<a href=“http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/top-schools-of-the-decade-2000-to-2009/]15”>http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/top-schools-of-the-decade-2000-to-2009/)</p>
<p>
Would you like to address the disparity between a survey based on 3,200 students and one based on more than two hundred thousand students? Or as I said earlier, the fact that Tufts’ financial resources have grown enormously over the last decade? Or are you just going to bash Tufts, its alumni, and long-time posters, in an ad hominem attack and then, in a feat of stunning hypocrisy, say that I’m the one embarrassing herself?</p>
<p>Expanding on my previous comment: OldScareCrow’s cited paper ranks ‘more than 100 colleges’ based on data from 3,240 students.</p>
<p>If you have 100 colleges in a head-to-head match-up (e.g. Harvard v. Stanford, Harvard v. Georgetown, Harvard v. Rice), you would need to have almost five thousand different ‘competitions’, i.e a student who chose either Harvard or Stanford, or Harvard or Rice. In order to get any sort of statistically accurate result, you would need to have about ten different match-ups per school (e.g. of any ten students who go to either Harvard or Stanford, how many will choose Stanford?). That means that your dataset needs to have at least fifty thousand students in it to be meaningful.</p>
<p>It is possible to use one student’s acceptances for multiple schools, i.e. one particular student chose between Harvard, Princeton, and WUSTL, and chose Harvard, so that would be a Harvard-Princeton match-up and a Harvard-WUSTL match-up. However, unless all these 3,240 kids are getting into at least a dozen schools - which raises questions of the type of sample you’re using - you still have the problem of statistically insignificant results. Again, at a bare minimum, you would run something like fifty thousand different match-ups to find a statistically significant revealed preference ranking, and multiple acceptances isn’t going to transform a pool of 3,240 into a pool of about fifty thousand.</p>
<p>But this study had 3,240 students, meaning that some schools may never had any head-to-head match-ups (for example, you may never have had a student who chose one of either Furman or Tufts); nevertheless, the rankings purport to give just such a result. </p>
<p>The study cited by Mastadon are (a) not a decade old, and (b) are at least structurally capable of bearing statistically significant results. </p>
<p>But I guess this is just me, embarrassing Tufts with my posts. ;)</p>
<p>My two best friends are first years at Tuft. It’s a great school and they love it. </p>
<p>However, the Parchment study, cited by folks above, doesn’t seem to square with any other rankings, despite the methodological failings of each.</p>
<p>Here is another one from Forbes, called the Grateful Grad Index. It’s recent.</p>
<p>[FORBES:</a> The Grateful Grad Index (4/30/13)](<a href=“FORBES: The Grateful Grad Index (4/30/13) | PDF | Universities And Colleges | Further Education”>FORBES: The Grateful Grad Index (4/30/13) | PDF | Universities And Colleges | Further Education)</p>
<p>If, in fact, students are choosing Tufts in increasing percentages over other top schools (I think this is what Parchment is saying), Tufts graduates are not rewarding it with donations at the same rate as those schools.</p>
<p>Donations are a kind of odd thing. For example, Cornell (I think) several years ago asked each graduating student to give $1 so their overall “donation per student” would rise. That’s…odd.</p>
<p>But I think the reason that donations seem strange is because individuals give back in other ways that aren’t always monetary. For example, being on a board, helping to organize an event, mentoring current students, or recruiting / hiring from the university. I am confident that this occurs at other institutions but I wouldn’t say students don’t appreciate the institution because of lack of donations. The school has a ton of pride from both current students and alumni. But there are many ways which this cannot be captured.</p>
<p>
This is a good point, especially considering how active many alumni are in the interview/recruitment process for prospective students.</p>
<p>Hey, any interest in extending this thread? Though a bit dated, it has some useful discussions and information. Given the increasing cost of a college education, now at some schools exceeding a quarter of a million dollars, the issue of reputation is very important.</p>
<p>The points made over the last year… are they still valid? </p>
<p>Can say anecdotally, now that D is nearly done with first year at Tufts, that she loves the place, is challenged, stimulated. Has met really wonderful people, made great friends. But most significantly, as she’s sought out summer opportunities in research, has gotten prompt responses from professors at other colleges indicating that, indeed, a Tufts education is very impressive. Of course, one would hope this suggests a return on the many dollars over the coming years.</p>
<p>Funny how only Tufts people are forced to have to keep checking themselves in the mirror before they go out into the world to make sure they “look” okay. Is Tufts’ reputation/ classification really that nebulous?</p>
<p>Let’s not beat a dead horse. Tufts’ acceptance rate will be around 17% this year. I know 3 people who had 34’s on ACT and were rejected. All of the guidebooks rate it as highly selective. Fiske loves it. It’s a fantastic university, provides a fantastic education, is great socially, and has Boston in its back yard. All of the great firms recruit there. Many polls rank it on par with some Ivies. It’s in the NESCAC ( a great conference Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, etc…) And it has a great reputation. Next topic please…</p>
<p>Yes, I view Tufts similarly from a reputation standpoint to one of the NESCAC schools, Wesleyan for those who prefer a LAC-orientation. Colgate too in that regard It is also a lot like Case-Western Reserve with its small research university quality, pockets of real excellence. Still suffers from a predominantly regional reputation - NE and mid-Atlantic. Aspires to be like Johns Hopkins, but falls short, in large part because it doesn’t have the endowment. Pandering approach to application essays makes it appear trendy, frivolous and unserious. </p>
<p>Hey @GreenIndian, what’s up? You have 21 posts over a six-year period and most bash tufts. Your posting history is weird, to put it mildly.</p>
<p>As far as jhu is concerned, it’s a great school for the right person. Doesn’t have the same vibe as tufts. And although this shouldn’t matter to anyone, business week just released a rank of the top schools according to their standardized testing. Tufts came in at 19, jhu at 26. But as you’ll see, all these top schools have kids who are equally bright…their scores are just mere points apart. For the smart student, it’s all about fit. But I’m sure I’m telling you something you already know.</p>
<p>Happy Halloween!</p>
<p><a href=“Smartest Colleges in America”>Smartest Colleges in America;
<p>Regarding the tufts application essays: if the admissions committee cared more about selectivity over getting to know their applicants, they’d either drop the essays or limit the essay to just “a why this college?,” as other top schools do. Without essays or just one supplemental essay, their applications would probably mushroom. My kids viewed the tufts essays as creative, which made the school more appealing to them because the essays seem to reflect the intellectual & creative vitality they felt on their visits to tufts. Other schools that have similar essay questions include brown & uchicago. All very neat schools. Higher education in this country really is amazing…so many exceptional universities and LACs to choose from. I’m curious why you’re not on the forum of your own college to extoll its virtues to prospective students. </p>
<p>@RenaissanceMom </p>
<p>I thought the same thing re: the cryptic greenindian. Why revive this thread when the last post was in March? And revive right on the cusp of the EDI deadline? And do so with the same hoary stereotypes about regional-specific appeal the “frivolousness” of Tufts’ supplemental essays? Isn’t this discussion long over? </p>
<p>Obviously Tufts is an itch that continues to bother him/her. </p>
<p>(And that Business Insider ranking puts Tufts higher two slots from last year. Avg. SAT/ACT up from 1435 to 1445–higher than Swat, Brown, Cornell, Williams, Amherst, and JHU.)</p>
<p>I had forgotten about this thread…</p>
<p>To tie up the loose ends, Old Scarecrow said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually reputation (at least as Old Scarecrow defines it) is irrelevant, as you cannot use it pay off your loans. Earning power is what is important. The latest Payscale report is out… They now include the % of STEM majors to reveal which schools as well as what alums who went to grad school make. See the thread that directed you here for the actual data.</p>
<p><a href=“ranking - Tufts University - College Confidential Forums”>ranking - Tufts University - College Confidential Forums;
<p>PayscaIe rules! I wish I’d gone to Harvey Mudd, the USNA, Stevens Institute or Babson. I’d be rollin’ in the dough. </p>
<p>Tufts advances from #60 in 2013 to #17 in the 2013-14 report. Kudos to the Jumbos!</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/full-list-of-schools”>http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/full-list-of-schools</a></p>
<p><a href=“College Education Value Rankings - PayScale 2013 College ROI Report”>http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013</a></p>
<p>:)] </p>
Bump, bump, bump!!!
Who cares about Tufts’ reputation? Really, unless you go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford, your success after college depends on how you do in college. I know that there are some firms that only hire from HYPS, but I don’t want to work at one of those (my father does and he is never around). It’s a good school that people know…
A related thread.
You got an itch you can’t scratch, GreenIndian?
Is that why you’re dredging this thread up again? And linking to a ten year-old thread?