<p>Okie Dokie, it’s like Lake Wobegon then–all the kids are above average. </p>
<p>No difference whatsoever between the pre-med kids and the kids over in the art department, and those are probably drama majors in the Library at midnight on Saturday.</p>
<p>I’ll pretend it’s true if it makes everyone around here happy.</p>
<p>Your implication is that smart people with good grades, standardized test scores and resumes are not interested in the humanities? Or the reverse, that schools have basketweaving courses for their athletes? Go try to peddle that horsepoop to any of the LACs or the top universities-- or and school for that matter. Its provincial thinking. Hope you open your eyes in your years at TU. Maybe this kind of thinking is why they have core requirements. Wow. Just wow. This truly saddens me.</p>
<p>
The table I posted adjusts the scores prior to 1995 as if they were scored with the new system, so it is all apples to apples. I know you were being sarcastic Ben, but it is hard for it to be a better argument when it is completely contradicted by the facts.</p>
<p>Scorpio,
Are you a parent or a student? Your profile pg says you are 18, but you mentioned being a parent in another thread. If you are a parent, you won’t directly benefit from the core courses at Tulane. </p>
<p>And to clarify a typo (or confused sentence) in my post above, I meant to say that the courses in the arts, theater, humanities, etc are not limited to “basketweaving for jocks”. I believe many of the DHS kids represented in this forum (parents here) are majoring in non-sciences. It is possible to be smart, motivated, driven, intellectual, etc and not necessarily be a pre-professional student. By the way, when you are on campus, check out the museum and definitely check out the Newcomb pottery, for which Newcomb College is so famous. I am sure the women who created it werent just dumb non science majors… <a href=“http://www.tulane.edu/~wc/pottery/[/url]”>http://www.tulane.edu/~wc/pottery/</a></p>
<p>Chemist: you should probably have spent 4 minutes and posted a link. There are a lot of years missing from your post. It also doesn’t say what the sample is. Are these scores from college-bound students or all people tested? etc.</p>
<p>I don’t have time to do any exhaustive research now but here is what wikipedia says about the recentering: </p>
<p>“The test scoring was initially scaled to make 500 the mean score on each section with a standard deviation of 100.[26] As the test grew more popular and more students from less rigorous schools began taking the test, the average dropped to about 428 Verbal and 478 Math. The SAT was “recentered” in 1995, and the average “new” score became again close to 500. Scores awarded after 1994 and before October 2001 are officially reported with an “R” (e.g. 1260R) to reflect this change. Old scores may be recentered to compare to 1995 to present scores by using official College Board tables,[27] which in the middle ranges add about 70 points to Verbal and 20 or 30 points to Math. In other words, current students have a 100 (70 plus 30) point advantage over their parents.”</p>
<p>Link: [SAT</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“SAT - Wikipedia”>SAT - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Here is the other problem with your argument. Tulane’s incoming class did not have an average SAT of 1370, it was 1325. Princeton Review and USNews report that. Since there is no common data set, this cannot be confirmed and may be part of Tulane’s marketing (puffing?). Tulane also has emphasized SAT scores (for marketing purposes) at the expense of class rank and GPA. The average GPA of last year’s incoming class was 3.49 - not very impressive!</p>
<p>The premise behind this whole thread is that Tulane is more desireable than ever and more selective. WRONG! It has a lot of applications due to its aggressive marketing but this does not translate into desireability as the yield is the lowest in the country. What it means is that a lot of people who have no interest in Tulane apply for the heck of it since it is free and easy to do so. Of the 10,563 students accepted last year only 1,502 enrolled (14%). When 86 percent of admitted applicants turn Tulane down, it is not indicative of a desireable school. And desireability was the implied assertion of this whole thread.</p>
<p>As for selectivity, Tulane continues to drop in overall selectivity. According to the Princeton Review, Tulane has a selectivity rating of 94 out of 100. This is because the class rank and GPAs of incoming classes are low. Tulane may have higher SAT’s than Lehigh, for example, but is less selective. Lehigh has a selectivity rank of 97. For comparison purpoposes, Miami, a historical peer of Tulane has surpassed it in selectivity at 96 of 100. Today, Tulane is about as selective as the University of Georgia (selectivity rank of 93).</p>
<p>SJUHawk - The scores are directly from College Board and there was no need to post every year. You are just trying to distract from your being wrong. The scores are for college bound seniors, the same as you quoted when you said 1015. If you looked at that data point you would have known that. I have no idea what your point in quoting the recentering info from Wiki was, since the scores as I posted them are corrected for the recentering and so are directly comparable.</p>
<p>
Actually it wasn’t, that is just your spin so you could then run the school down. Tulane was obviously desireable to about 1680 students, quite a few who chose it over higher ranked schools, and more than the school can really house (oversubscribed if you will). All that and the highest quality class in history academically. Those are flat out facts and you just hate it, I guess.</p>
<p>GPA as reported by these institutions are not comparable since some report weighted and others (like Tulane) report unweighted. I would say 3.5 out of 4.0 and nearly 2/3 of the class being in the top 10% of their high school class is fairly impressive, but feel free to disagree. You are welcome to keep wasting your “breath” about yield and the rest, but it really is sounding rather pathetic.</p>
<p>No one really understands why you come on here to try and disparage Tulane, but your clearly incorrect postings diminish your credibility anyway, so keep flailing away if you choose.</p>
<p>BTW, I did not cite that SAT average, Ben did but I believe he is correct. You are always carping that I don’t give links, where was yours? Also, the selectivity rating by Princetone Review:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the very least, since they don’t correct for schools that report weighted GPA vs. those that report unweighted GPA, it is totally useless. And they use the percentage that hail from OOS?? Interesting methodology. Please quit wasting our time.</p>
<p>Still no link? What are you hiding? </p>
<p>At least you admit the results are for college-bound students not the true average SAT scores (i.e. the average of all who take it). If you don’t understand the difference let me know and I will explain it to you. (The test was recentered because unqualified students were taking it and bringing the national average down - see my previous post).</p>
<p>You give out the so-called “facts” but provide no source. Where did you get the info that the Princeton Review uses both weighted and unweighted GPAs interchangeably? The answer, of course, is that you made it up! </p>
<p>Where did you get the information that the average SAT of enrolled freshmen is 1370? Again, you made it up. The 2 leading sources (princeton review and us news) indicate that Tulane REPORTED their average superscored SAT as 1335. You have a lot of free time - prove those sources wrong. </p>
<p>Where did you get the information that 2/3 of enrolled freshman were in the top 10 percent of their high school class? Made that one up too?</p>
<p>If they don’t go to college what difference does their SAT score make? We are only talking about college students here. Please don’t be so intellectually dishonest. You cited the same number.
1016 was the average for college bound seniors that year. You really are wildly inconsistent. But please, do us a favor and show us statistics for the last 10-15 years on the average SAT scores for ALL that take it. You have given no sources or links.</p>
<p>No I did not make it up about the GPA’s. PR reports GPA’s over a 4.0, so clearly some are weighted. This has been known for years. Want an example? [Test</a> Prep: GMAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, SAT, ACT, and More](<a href=“http://www.princetonreview.com/schools/college/CollegeAdmissions.aspx?iid=1023331]Test”>http://www.princetonreview.com/schools/college/CollegeAdmissions.aspx?iid=1023331) University of Miami, gives the GPA as 4.2 which is a neat trick on a 4.0 scale. GPA’s cannot be compared unless they are normalized.</p>
<p>I think the whole world can now see you are just a ■■■■■. I have proven you wrong at every turn and you do no research and misstate quite a few “facts”. In fact you are the only one making things up
Since they have dropped from 1028 in 2005 to 1016 last year, this is clearly wrong.</p>
<p>Again, I did not report the SAT average (I am sorry you cannot read my posts). Give me the links where the PR and USNews report this and I will comment. I cannot find where they say this.</p>
<p>I can’t have made anything up “too” since I have not yet, like you did when you said that SAT scores were rising (which the college board data proves is wrong). You want every year and the link? Fine. <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/CBS%2096%20National.PDF[/url]”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/CBS%2096%20National.PDF</a> Page 3 has the list through 1996 (everything recentered) and [Archived</a> SAT Data and Reports](<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/archived/]Archived”>http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/sat/archived/) gives the data for 1997 onwards. But the 2/3 statistic is directly from the Tulane admissions office. Obviously you will not accept that as a source, but guess what? I think everyone here will find that more credible than you, who has no data at all. It was in post #16.</p>
<p>SJUHawk - I will anxiously await the fruits of your research, but as far as I can tell the whole “college bound” description for those taking the SAT is redundant. They apparently assume that all seniors that take the SAT are going to college, otherwise why take it? I am not saying this is absolutely correct, I just cannot find any other breakdown. But again, by all means link me to the data that shows SAT scores are rising every year since 1993 as you claim for ALL that take the test. It would be interesting, although I repeat that since you were claiming all colleges were seeing increased SAT scores and so Tulane’s rise was nothing special, clearly only the SAT scores of those going to college matter.</p>
<p>PS. Here we go. Quote from the College Board Report itself
So everyone that took the test is assumed to be college bound. If you don’t understand the difference, let me know and I will explain it to you.</p>
<p>Did you not read the link that you posted? This is seriously funny! It indicates that the scores provided are after “A FORMULA WAS APPLIED TO THE ORIGINAL MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION TO CONVERT THE MEAN TO THE RECENTERED SCALE. FOR 1987-1995, INDIVIDUAL STUDENT SCORES WERE CONVERTED TO THE RECENTERED SCALE AND THEN THE MEAN WAS RECOMPUTED”!!! Is this why you didn’t initially provide a link? And you want to call me dishonest?</p>
<p>If you were not deliberately deceptive (i.e. you don’t understand the concept of conversion), the results you gave are not the raw scores. These are scores after conversion to the recentered scale (i.e. scores in the past were converted to the recentered (aka higher) scale. Thus, this confirms what I said: SAT scores were recentered to make the average around 1000 when in the preceeding years it had fallen to around 900. Therefore, an SAT score of the same percentile before 1995 is now about 100 points higher.</p>
<p>I await your apology.</p>
<p>Here’s an article that should help you wrap you mind around things: </p>
<p>Excerpt: "Although the national average of seniors’ scores on the 1994 Scholastic Aptitude Test was 423 in verbal and 479 in math, the 1996 scores will average about 500 each – but not necessarily because students are getting smarter.</p>
<p>This boost in scores won’t be due to the new Scholastic Assessment Test I: The Reasoning Test (SAT I) either, but to charting the test on a new scale, said Anne Buckley, spokeswoman for The College Board." </p>
<p>[New</a> scale to increase SAT scores](<a href=“http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1994/09/09-12-94tdc/09-12-94dnews-1.asp]New”>http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1994/09/09-12-94tdc/09-12-94dnews-1.asp)</p>
<p>Your post #114 has nothing to do with anything. I am not talking percentiles, and I never was. I am not comparing scores calculated by different methods, either. I am talking total scores, calculated using the same formula. You really don’t understand I guess. The average SAT score in 1972 using the same calculation method as after 1995 was 1039. The average in 2009 which can be directly compared to that score was 1016. I totally get that before they recentered that same 1039 was probably about 939 or whatever. That cannot be compared to the 1016, for sure. What can be compared is the score calulated by the same methodology. By definition those scores are about the 50th percentile for that year. <a href=“https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-2009.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board; You are agreeing with me and you don’t even know it. Who cares what they were before the recalculation? That is why they recalculated them, so one could compare against today’s scores. They clearly state that in the link. In recalculating they are saying that the 1039 they state as the mean for 1972 was around the 50th percentile, and the same for the 1016 for 2009.</p>
<p>But you know what? Let’s forget about pre-1995. From 1995 to the present, the scores are virtually unchaged. From 2005 to the present they have dropped. You claimed over that same time period all schools had seen an increase. That is obviously wrong. So yes, you are being intellectually dishonest, no doubt. Sorry, no apology because I was perfectly correct. And the true point was that you were claiming that Tulane’s increase of about 100 points in their average SAT since 1995 could be discounted because all schools saw an increase in that same time frame. Again, you just made that up because since recentering, there has been almost no change. I await your apology.</p>
<p>Where are your links for PR and USNews?</p>
<p>WRONG! The average SAT score in 1972 was NOT 1039. Benetode or someone please explain this to him. I am feeling embarassed for him. </p>
<p>I’ll try one last time. If the average SAT score was 100 points lower in 1995 then you would expect that a school that has an equivalent student body would have an incoming class with higher SAT scores today. Bringing up an increase from 2005 is another subject (don’t change the subject). Someone put the SAT averages beginning in 1994! </p>
<p>As far as an increase since 2005, AS I SAID BEFORE, it is the result of several factors:
<p>A student with a higher SAT is not necessarily better qualified (i.e. the test can be skewed by prep courses or high schools that “teach to the test.”) Class rank and GPA are often better indicators of a student’s academic potential. But SAT scores for Tulane provide a basis for the marketing gimmick. The SATs are okay but the enrolled students have lower GPA’s (remember the Lehigh example I gave you). Look at the University of California system’s admission stats, for example, where the emphasis is on class rank and GPA over SAT. Tulane may have higher SATs but Berkeley (and UCLA and Lehigh) is uninversally regarded as a better school with more talented students.</p>
<p>As far as providing Princeton Review and US News links: Are you frickin kidding? These are not exactly obscure sources. I would post them nonetheless but you need to have an account to access them. A guy who spends as much time as you do plugging a college surely has a copy of the US News Best Colleges edition. If not, maybe on of your comrades will confirm that I have cited them correctly. Or you could sign up and find out for yourself.</p>
<p>[Test</a> Prep: GMAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, SAT, ACT, and More](<a href=“http://www.princetonreview.com%5DTest”>http://www.princetonreview.com)
[Best</a> Colleges - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges)</p>
<p>Okay, thanks for adding the bolded part. It is not quite an apology but at least you admit you were wrong.</p>
<p>You clearly don’t understand recalculated. The average SAT score in 1972 if it had been calculated the way they are in 2009 was indeed 1039. That is what their chart is saying, exactly. I was not even close to apologizing, I assumed you knew that you cannot compare numbers that are calculated on different scales. For that assumption, I do apologize.</p>
<p>I will let everyone else read everything that has been posted so far and decide who should be embarassed.</p>
<p>Feeding time at ■■■■■-ville again?? Let him starve, FC.</p>
<p>FC, the writer clearly will not or cannot understand/accept your very clear explanation so I would recommend simply ignoring the writer.</p>