Which schools do you guys consider to be Tulane’s academic peers?
I’m thinking that group comprises the following, at least:
Wake Forest
Boston University
University of Rochester
Tufts University (academically… not necessarily admissions)
Case Western Reserve U
Lehigh
…and maybe a bit of a reach, but could we also include NYU, BC and USC in that group?
Looking at the rankings, they are all in the vicinity of Tulane in terms of overall ranking. (within about 20 spots)
northwesty,
I use the word generous because it gives a reasonable award to a LOT of their incoming students. That, IMO, is generous. So lets agree that contrary to your comment in post # 12, some top schools (you mentioned top 30 schools) do give merit money.
So here is some data to chew on in terms of how TU might do in the future as compared to some of its peers (or wanna be peers).
USNWR gives #41 TU a 45 ranking for selectivity. #47 Lehigh gets 46; #41 BU gets 55; #37 Case gets 34; #32 NYU gets 49; #27 Wake gets 36. Comment – TU’s about where it should be on this one, but maybe some good publicity and ranking karma will increase selectivity a bit in the future.
USNWR gives #41 TU a 74 ranking for graduation and retention. Lehigh is 32, BU is 40, Case is 65, NYU is 40, Wake is 34. Clearly there is significant upside here for TU since this is a big part of the formula. TU’s much improved 83% grad rate was graded as a minus 2 as compared to its 85% expected rate. I suspect this number will improve as Katrina continues to fade out of the grad rate data. But probably some work for TU to do here. Also some work to do on its 90% freshman retention rate – that’s light for this class of schools and should be unaffected by Katrina at this point. If selectivity increases, grad/retention will automatically increase too.
TU’s peer assessments are basically in line with Lehigh and BU. And a bit below the other schools. These are hard to change in the short term.
TU underperforms a bit on financial resources (61) and also alumni giving (50). Overperforms on faculty resources (25).
Bottom line – maybe a little bit of rankings upside in the short term.
Nice analysis on the schools. Tulane actually has a set of schools it compares itself to, and calls them the peer group although clearly some are aspirational in most areas we would traditionally look at, as northwesty outlines above in part. Here is a list of schools that I have seen continually used as Tulane’s “peer group” throughout the years.
Boston University, Carnegie Mellon University, Duke University, Emory University, George Washington University, Rice University, University of Miami, Vanderbilt University, Wake Forest University, and Washington University in St Louis.
I believe that is the set I have seen many times. If I forgot anyone or there is an error, I will correct it as soon as I see it, but that is very very close if not exact. There is certainly nothing wrong with your list, @prezbucky, this is just what I have seen Tulane use for many years. I think, but cannot swear, that they have agreements with these schools to share a lot of data so they can all compare themselves to each other in some detail. I know Tulane is close with WUSTL, for example, having seen that they have attended several meetings there and vice versa. I am sure the same is true for the others. Also, I am not saying this is a closed group. So for example, while WUSTL and Tulane consider themselves peers for the sake of numerous areas of common interest, that doesn’t mean that WUSTL doesn’t also have U Chicago and U Penn in its peer group and not GWU or Rice.
Anyway, the question was asked and I thought I would let you all know that there is such a thing as an “official” peer group, at least from numerous years of studies and policy issues Tulane has conducted over many years.
That is interesting! It tells me a few things:
That is certainly one way to look at it. I can tell you with near certainty that the rankings in fact had nothing to do with the choices the schools made. In fact for all I know these peer groups could easily predate the rankings. I would more strongly suspect that some of the main factors involved in these choices, but certainly not all, are
Remember, this could easily date back some decades and things have changed as to how we see these schools relative to each other now. I don’t know when it started, just saying. But it isn’t a bad group to use at all, I don’t think. There are schools that seem closer to Tulane in current student body stats and similar concerns, and schools that I imagine Tulane would like to be closer to in terms of those same qualities. Seeing where you stand in terms of faculty salaries, research support, benefits, and many many other things helps Tulane figure out how to stay ahead of the ones nipping on their heels, and how to get closer to the others given the constraints of the endowment relative to theirs (a huge factor of course).
Why is Katrina even still in the retention/graduation rate metric? My s graduated 3 years ago and he entered 3 years after Katrina. Katrina was 10 years ago. This should be in Tulane’s rear view mirror wrt graduation rates.
Here’s why Katrina is still in. And will be for three more years to come.
US News takes an average of four years for the six year grad rate. You have to wait for 2 years post-graduation to get out to six years. So the most recent data available are for the class of 2012. Who started in 2008.
So the current USNWR data set are the kids who STARTED at Tulane in 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005. Katrina was 2005.
As you can see from the data below, the grad rate for the couple of classes before Katrina was in the 70s (which is BAD for a school like Tulane). Also bad for the couple of classes after Katrina (I’d say hangover effect).
The numbers don’t improve until the 2008 cohort hits the data set. Which finally happened this week. That is your son’s class, right?
The data should continue to improve over the next three years as 05/06/07 get replaced with the new normal 09/10/11.
No one knows exactly how USNWR handles the 2005 year being reported as N/A.
2002 74%
2003 73%
2004 70%
2005 N/A due to Katrina
2006 75%
2007 76%
2008 83%
To clarify, even considering 6 year graduation rates, the Katrina impact should be minor. I’ll have to read their method. But then I would need to care about USNews’ metrics, which I don’t . The (5 year) Architecture program will always affect 4 year grad rates, as that’s the nature of the program.
And while we are at it, let’s look at freshman retention. That’s a more current metric.
This year’s rodeo uses an average of the kids who started in 10/11/12/13. So for that metric Katrina is already gone. Here’s the data, so you can see where the trend may be going. The results for the 2014 class are now determined with the start of this school year; but that data won’t get reported for a while.
2009 91%
2010 90%
2011 89%
2012 90%
2013 92%
2014 ???
Not minor, because USNWR weights 6 year graduation rates extremely heavily.
18.0% Average 6-year graduation rate
4.5% Average 1st-yr student retention rate
7.5% 6-year graduation rate performance
So that is 25.5% that depends on a strong 6 year graduation rate. That last 7.5% is a joke to me, but not worth discussing here because it only matters that it exists and they use it. In short it judges the 6 year rate against what they think you should have accomplished given the quality of students you have and some other factors. Now it is true the effect of the low Katrina numbers becomes more minor, if you will, as graduation rates in the mid 80’s replace those in the mid to upper 70’s as the old ones fall out and the new ones move in. But they still drag down the average. And freshman retention is key, not only because it is 4.5% of the calculation, but obviously if they leave after freshman year they cannot possibly graduate at your school. High freshman retention inevitably leads to higher 6 year rates.
You comment about architecture is exemplary of why they no longer use 4 year rates, along with frequent gap years, inability of students to graduate in 4 years at many schools due to lack of class availability, etc. It just wasn’t even close to being fair. I guess they then took into account that there are many 5 year programs out there and decided to use the 6 year graduation rate as the dominant metric. Also that is what the Dept. Of Education has been emphasizing for some time, so that might have influenced their decision.
I saw one article where they talked to Morse, the guy at USNWR responsible for this tool of the devil 
but I don’t remember which outlet. They specifically asked him about Tulane and he cited the improvement in the graduation rate as the reason for the big move. Or put another way, if the Katrina effect were minor, Tulane wouldn’t have moved 13 spots to the better so suddenly, the first year that a non-Katrina graduation rate number was considered in the average.
@northwesty - also include Miami, George Washington and perhaps Northeastern in the peer group.
“And freshman retention is key, not only because it is 4.5% of the calculation, but obviously if they leave after freshman year they cannot possibly graduate at your school. High freshman retention inevitably leads to higher 6 year rates.”
This.
TU retained 91% of the kids that started in 2008. That class eventually graduated at 83%, which is what caused the big jump this year.
TU retained 91% of the kids who started in 2009. So you’d expect that class’s grad rate data will be similarly good for next year’s ranking cycle.
Retention then dipped a little, 90%/2010, 89%/2011, 90%/2012. Then improved to 92% for 2013.
So I’d think the ranking goes up slightly for the next two or three rodeos. As the remaining bad hurricane grad rates from the 05/06/07 cohorts get replaced by higher new normal grad rates.
Then the ranking goes sideways or slightly down for the next few years as that mild retention dip starts hitting the grad rates.
The admitted classes have been academically stronger since 2008, so the improved retention rate makes sense (though there are of course other factors).
And yes, the Katrina factor is a somewhat lesser impact now, so the ranking jumped notably. IMO, the school will continue to improve in ratings over the next few years, but its unlikely the magnitude will be this dramatic in one year again. It would be great if id did, but its not likely we’ll continue to see 13 point jumps.
No, that is mathematically nearly impossible. Too many variables to predict otherwise, but the probability of even 6 places would appear to be very, very small. Could even drop a spot to two depending on how other schools do, which is of course a complete unknown. Just no telling from here on out, although the bias (in a mathematical sense) should be towards holding steady or improving a spot or two.
Got rid of duplications. Want to pull this back on topic, which is Tulane and the USNWR rankings, not about NMF and demographics. Again, not that it isn’t interesting stuff, it really is. But as you linked, it is discussed elsewhere where it is the exact topic. Especially since the original premise of that whole thing was so ridiculous.
Duplications are gone, but so is the original post.
Yes, it is off topic. Probably shouldn’t have let that issue get as far as it did to begin with, but time to get things back on track. There are other threads that discuss lots of NMF issues, demographic issues, etc.
"Here is a list of schools that I have seen continually used as Tulane’s “peer group” throughout the years.
Boston University, Carnegie Mellon University, Duke University, Emory University, George Washington University, Rice University, University of Miami, Vanderbilt University, Wake Forest University, and Washington University in St Louis."
Really? I honestly don’t understand this list. With due regard to Tulane - which I think is a great school - I don’t see how they consider most of these schools truly peer schools, and vice versa. Just curious. Does Fiske Guide agree?