Oh, we are well acquainted! But no mania here, just rational (mostly) discussion.
@northwesty - it is interesting to intersect the historical ranking, with their historical acceptance rates (https://tulane.edu/strategicplanning/undergrad_admissions.cfm).
Tulane has an overall score of 61 in its USNWR category. If the university’s score were three points lower, their rank would be 51. “Crush[ing] it” may simply be a self-aware hyping for the purposes of this somewhat insider forum. However, from a statistical standpoint, the expression does not apply.
(This is not an anti-Tulane post. Does that need to be said?)
That doesn’t make sense though. Saying something is only a 3 point difference or 300 is all relative to the scale used. The ACT is on a 36 point scale, the SAT 2400. A 3 point difference on the ACT is huge, and it strikes me that its scale is somewhat similar to what USNWR uses. The difference in boiling point of water is almost twice as much using F degrees instead of C. From a statistical viewpoint “crushing it” might very well apply. Especially since one person’s “crushing it” might be another’s “not bad”. Look at how much more a .300 hitter in baseball usually gets paid than .270 hitter, yet that is only how many hits more per hundred at bats? Oh, look at that. Three.
This is a linear score, I don’t perceive it as being statistically complex. As an illustration, If UC-Berkeley rose three points in overall score, it would have an identical ranking to what it currently has, but the three points would represent the same value as the hypothetical I described. Statistically, I would look at both changes as being identical. Public perception is another matter, but was not the subject of my post. (Yes, I do understand threshold values and other elements that often pertain in natural or psycho-social environments.)
Batting averages are linear as well. Saying it is linear is not the point at all. I can have a linear scale that is from 0-1,000,000 or consolidate that to 0-10, and just have a lot more decimal places. So to say that it is 3 points sheds no light on anything. It all has to do with how tight the standard deviations are, etc.
The ranking is the ranking, and sure small differences in the underlying elements can have meaningful effects on the final result. It is what it is. And what it is, is silly to argue about anyway, since the formula itself is arbitrary, the methods used to gather some of the data are imprecise, and the overall concept is ludicrous. But to go back to your original comment, Tulane had the biggest jump of any school in the top 150, or something like that. Let’s just attribute “crushing it” to that phenomenon.
“That doesn’t make sense though.” (#103)
Whether something makes sense or not can be clarified through further exposition. This seems to cut off dialog on the topic.
Give me a break. That obviously is the implied “That doesn’t make sense to me”. Not to mention it didn’t seem to cut you off.
Why do you want to make a big deal of this? The topic had been dead for a month and as you say, it is something some Tulane people might want to just take as a nice thing. I don’t think the rankings are worth the paper they are printed on, or the electrons they use or whatever. But to the extent that the reality is that some use them, like them, whatever, what is indisputable is that Tulane had the biggest rise by quite a bit. As I said, that is certainly a valid interpretation of “crushing it”. Oh, IMO I guess I have to say.
Well now I know what you meant. I like what colleges do educationally for the sincere, intellectually motivated students who attend them. However, I’ll occasionally comment on rankings because, also IMO, they are frequently misinterpreted. I’m happy for the students at Tulane who can now take additional pride in their school as a consequence of its being recognized as a top fifty national university.
(I also am aware that Tulane has been similarly recognized in the past.)
The 2017 rankings should be coming out soon. Any predictions from the shallower folks on here (like me) that pay attention to such things?
Tulane was 54 in 2015. Then a big jump to 41 in the 2016 rankings (due significantly to the extreme Katrina time lag finally working its way out of the 6 year graduation statistics).
I think there was still a little bit of remaining Katrina in last year’s data set, so I’m speculating a slight improvement over last year. Say 40 for 2017.
How do you think Tulane will stack up against Villanova? Someone said they are in the National University rankings for the first time.
Excepting the impact of additional schools or a methodology change, Tulane’s natural statistical range for this year would be 37-51.
Agreed, @merc81. Although I think the success of Tulane post-Katrina indicates that the impact of being 40 or being 55 is minimal. And that’s a good thing, maybe it shows there is at least a little sanity out there.
That’s the thing, @fallenchemist. Tulane “survived” a “low” ranking quite well (which, in fact, wasn’t really low except by superficial interpretation).
It looks like Tulane is tied with a big wad of schools at #39.
Tulane is tied at 39 with Northeastern and BU among others. It looks like the clot of tied schools has moved higher.
September 13, 2016
Tulane University rose to No. 39 in the 2017 U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges rankings released today. The university was No. 41 in 2016 and in 2015 was ranked 54.
The 39th ranking, the highest Tulane has received in more than 16 years, was announced just two weeks after Tulane began the 2016-17 academic year by welcoming its largest, most academically qualified and selective first-year class ever.
“Tulane students have the opportunity to study across fields of knowledge and in disciplines seemingly unrelated to their majors, but essential to understanding the world and becoming a leader in it. This has helped us build on Tulane’s tradition of academic excellence, expand our research and capitalize on our location in one of the world’s most interesting cities. As a result we are increasingly becoming the choice of the nation’s top students,” said Tulane’s Senior Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Institutional Effectiveness Richard Matasar.
Matasar said the popular rankings, which The Washington Post has called “…the granddaddy of college rankings,” are one indication of Tulane’s success in adopting a multidisciplinary approach in learning, teaching, research and public service.
“We are pleased by this national recognition and the spotlight it shines on the innovative and inspired teaching, learning and discovery happening at Tulane University, ” Tulane President Mike Fitts said.
The Best Colleges rankings can be viewed at www.usnews.com/colleges and the full rankings, including departmental and specialty rankings, can be viewed at U.S. News College Compass.