<p>You are right jym and idad. People like that fascinate, perplex and frustrate me, but that is why I ended my last post as I did.</p>
<p>I just read thru this entire post and just wanted to say that my son is one of those students that originally applied to Tulane as a safety school. After getting in to Boston College, Tufts, Rice, Wash U and USC he had narrowed it down to Rice and Wash U. Then…he started thinking more about his love of the south, the history of New Orleans, the music and the location (close to high school friends and family in Florida) and at that 11th hour decided to attend Tulane this fall. He ultimately wants to write and he could see many stories in this town. The scholarship money offered was not part of the decision in the least but is nice now. He is number one in his class and had SAT’s over 1400. I also think that part of this decision was that he wanted to go to a school with smart kids but also kids that like to have fun and are not all top of their class and all work and no play. I think the college rankings were making his decision very difficult but in the end it was the school and not the ranking that pulled him in. I hope it was a good decision. Hard to tell what the opinion is from this posting.</p>
<p>Congrats to your son, Momundecided. I thought for sure from that other thread you posted back in April he would be at Rice or USC. I am sure he will enjoy his decision. If it helps any, my D was in a very similar situation in some ways (1500+ SAT’s, accepted everywhere she applied including higher ranked schools, Wash U being one of them, and also is a writer) and she chose Tulane. In our case finances did have a role in the decision, but she was going to choose Tulane or Wash U anyway. Like your S, NOLA was a big draw, and she has not been disappointed in that regard or in academics. Out of her 10 courses so far (well, 11 if you count TIDES, which I don’t), she only thought 1 was so-so. I strongly recommend your S register for the Honors freshman colloquium course. It is a variation of the “Great Books” core liberal arts offering, and is invaluable to aspiring writers.</p>
<p>I am not sure what you mean by your last comment, but I wouldn’t worry about his decision. He will get a great education both on campus and off, and I bet he will love NOLA. I do worry he will miss surfing though.</p>
<p>Obviously people don’t want to acknowledge chemist’s blatant error. Maybe that is because he works in your marketing department. Here, I will summarize.</p>
<p>Someone suggests that the SAT scores have gone up at Tulane since 1993. </p>
<p>I mention that the scores are higher almost everywhere than they were in 1993 since the test was recentered in 1995. I state that the average score had been as low as 900 and is now 1015. </p>
<p>Fallenchemist posts the SAT scores since the 1970s to today showing that the average SAT score has been around 1000 throughout the entire time period to prove that the SAT scores averaged 1000 before recentering. He does not provide a link to his source.</p>
<p>I request a link and, finally, he reluctantly provides it. As it turns out, the SAT average before recentering was around 900 and the scores he provided were scores after conversion to the presently used scale. Therefore, the same percentile score from pre-1995 is now about 100 points higher (thus accounting for 100 points of the Universities increase in SAT scores). The 100 points is an illusion as I suggested.</p>
<p>Chemist then say that’s what he meant, the SAT test takers have always scored around 1000 if you convert it. (Kind of an obvious proposition since the purpose of the conversion is to make a 1000 score equate to the 50th percentile of those taking it). Really weak. </p>
<p>Chemist, just admit you were wrong! It doesn’t reflect well on you or Tulane when you make ludicrous, circular arguments to pretend that you didn’t miss the point. It is all here for everyone to see. Just admit you were wrong!</p>
<p>OK, let me try a simple example. A professor gives a test for 10 years that he scores on a 50 point scale. The average score is 38. Then he changes it to a 100 point scale. The average score for the next 10 years is 74. Do you want to claim that the test scores were lower in the first 10 years because he changed the scale? That is what you are saying. Instead any rational person would compare scores from the first 10 years to the next 10 years by adjusting the scores. The extra 34 points or so are not an illusion, they are simply graded on a different scale. That is all the College Board did. It would be as if you took the professor’s test in the second 10 years, got a 65, and bragged that you did better than the person that got a 38. Or more to the point, you got an 80 and bragged that you did 42 points better rather than the 4 points you actually did. The table in the College Board link I gave shows the scores for all those years based on the same scale. So the average score based on the same scale was not 900, but about 1000. To even waste a minute comparing different scales makes no sense at all. No one knows what you are talking about or trying to prove, I am sure.</p>
<p>So the scores have done a bit of a rollercoaster ride, going up about 13 points since 1993 if you compare them scored the same way. This really is not that hard a concept, is it? Tulane’s SAT scores have gone up far more than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just wrong. I never said before recentering, because as I have stated no one would be silly enough to compare scores based on different measurement scales. It is like comparing meters and feet without converting. Makes no sense at all. And I did give a source, I just did not link it until later. As you said in one of your posts, how can you not know such an obvious source? But I gave it to you anyway. Interesting that College Board thinks you can only compare scores after they are put on the same scale.</p>
<p>Stop. You aren’t fooling anyone. </p>
<p>To use your example, what if the professor switched it to a 100 point scale and the schools started boasting that the average score of the students had jumped from a 38 to a 74!?! That is exactly what you were doing when you bragged that the average SAT score for Tulane shot up since 1993. Of course it did, the test was recentered!</p>
<p>FC, you are talking to him again. Everyone who reads this know precisely what you are saying. Ignore him. ( If it is a him)</p>
<p>Maybe they don’t teach statistics at SJU :rolleyes:</p>
<p>idad - Well, apparently Momundecided didn’t, if I interpreted what she said correctly. Maybe she meant something else.</p>
<p>Actually I never said anything about shooting up since 1993, he keeps thinking I am Ben. And Ben just posted numbers. I would actually say the scores have shot up since 2000, when it appears they started to make a significant move. No recentering there, and they have increased far more than the national average in that time frame.</p>
<p>I am not confusing you with Ben. Ben posted SAT scores since 1993 showing a jump (the largest of which was between 1994 and 1995. He didn’t mention the recentering that accounted for that 1995 jump. I pointed it out saying that the SAT average before recentering was much lower and maybe as low as somewhere in the 800s (in fact it was around 900). </p>
<p>You responded by saying I was wrong and that the average SAT score was consistent during that period with an average of around 1000! You posted uncited data to prove it. Here is your post:</p>
<p>SJUHawk is wrong. Obviously posted with zero research. Here are the stats (3 minutes total to Google and cut and paste):</p>
<p>Year Ver Math Total
1972 530 509 1039
1976 509 497 1006
1980 502 492 994
1984 504 497 1001
1988 505 501 1006
1990 500 501 1001
1992 500 501 1001
1994 499 504 1003
1996 505 508 1013
1998 505 512 1017
2000 505 514 1019
2002 504 516 1020
2004 508 518 1026
2005 508 520 1028
2006 503 518 1021
2007 502 515 1017
2008 502 515 1017
2009 501 515 1016</p>
<p>So after peaking in 2005, there has been a decline. His 800’s number is wildly off. So in the 10-15 years when Tulane has seen a substantial increase, nationally it has been essentially flat, and Tulane’s increase over that time far outpaces the national average.</p>
<p>You boasted that it took 3 minutes to find and paste your proof but should have taken the extra minute to see that you were not posting raw scores. You were posting converted scores. In the footnote to the very table you posted it said the scores were converted to reflect the recentered scores. Therefore, confirming my assertion, that the SAT scores went up by about 100 points from 1994 to 1995. The 1003 in 1994 was really about a 900.</p>
<p>Once I posted this simple link <a href=“http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1994/09/09-12-94tdc/09-12-94dnews-1.asp[/url]”>http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1994/09/09-12-94tdc/09-12-94dnews-1.asp</a> and highlighted your misreading of your own link you suddenly said “I know, I meant the scores averaged around 1000 after being adjusted.” Obviously this makes no sense because the scores that are recorded are what count. The conversion is an attempt to make the average score a 1000. Therefore, the 900 being an average score is retroactively converted to a 1000.</p>
<p>Again, I await your apology.</p>
<p>I just reread this thread an it is classic. I like this comment from you chemist: “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. (bold added). 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>You are the one that is comparing 2 different scales. I simply pointed that out and you said I was wrong. </p>
<p>Bentode posted an average SAT score for Tulane in 1994 as 1180. In 1995 it had jumped to a 1270!!! A 90 point jump in 1 year!!! Why? Because the test was calculated differently. The test was recentered increasing the average SAT by about 100 points! </p>
<p>Just apologize and get it over with. You were wrong. Be a man and admit it.</p>
<p>
That is what Ben said, not me. How can Ben say it but I said it? Ben posted it, but I am comparing them? That makes no sense. I never “bragged” that the scores had shot up since 1993. However, even after correcting for the recentering the scores at Tulane have indeed shot up significantly more than the national average, whether since 1993, 1996, 2000, or 2005. Take your pick.</p>
<p>Yes, the scores shot up 95 points that year because of recentering. All schools would have seen some kind of jump like that. That was never the issue except to you. The issue is that recentering or not, if you compare Tulane’s progress in this area with the national average and with most other schools, Tulane has done much better. You said that all schools had seen an increase. Fine, that’s right. Clearly the point was that Tulane’s increase through 2009 and now 2010 was significantly in excess of the national average. That is clearly a fact.</p>
<p>You will be waiting for a long time.</p>
<p>Okay, you admit it, it was due to recentering! When I pointed that out Ben didn’t deny it - YOU DID! You told me I was wrong and even provided the incorrect information above to prove I was wrong. Now, you acknowledge that I was right and you, in fact, were wrong. That is good enough I guess. I will now accept your friend request.</p>
<p>Good Lord, LOL. Friend request?</p>
<p>
Only half due to recentering. Tulane has gone up quite a bit more than the national average after the recentering is factored out. Sure, if you look only at raw numbers half of Tulane’s increase is due to the change in scale. But since the movement from that recentered number has been negligible nationally and very strong at Tulane, that is a significant factor. You made it sound as if Tulane’s increase was only due to recentering, but whatever.</p>
<p>
HAHAHAHA. Thats funny. Please learn to read, SJU. Preferably in some OTHER forum.</p>
<p>Ah, I just saw that SJUHawk sent me a friend request. I know he will make a big deal out of my rejecting his request. Nothing personal SJUHawk, but I really don’t see the point.</p>
<p>Eww. I got one too. Thanks but no thanks, SJU. Don’t consider the behavior you exhibit here to be in any way, shape or form, friendly. We do not bash your school. Truth be told, I’d never heard of it before, and I am not impressed. But I will not go to the SJU forum and trash it. No one understands, other than the joy you get out of being a pest buzzing around the heads of posters, what you get by criticizing a school. So just stop. You are not being helpful and you know it.</p>
<p>Several people have insulted my school in this very thread. I pay no mind since I am not on this site in an effort to promote my school. </p>
<p>I tried to add you and chemist so I could get to know the older demographic. I am disappointed that you have rejected me.</p>
<p>There is nothing to “know” nor any benefit to “friending” anyone in this site. Act in an appropriate, cordial fashion and people will be friendly.</p>