<p>I did not attend the accepted students day as it is a bit of an expensive trip for me as is the same case for my roommate. Both of us are a minority I guess with him being Korean and my being Chinese-Vietnamese. I guess this helps out a little?</p>
<p>Why would admitting black or Latino students w/ lower numbers require "sacrificing other goals"? You rarely hear this argu regarding the legacy, athletic or geog prefs. Also, since black and Latino enrollment at most prestig schools is significantly less than than 25%, these colleges are admitting large numbers of White students w/ scores below the mid50% (the 25-75% SAT scores reported in college guides).</p>
<p>Certainly, a student w/ an SAT score of 1300 is not, in any meaningfully way, more qualified than a student who scores 1240 - - standard deviation alone probably accounts for such a difference. And with the explosion in test prep industry, a high score may reflect no more than a parent's ability (and willingness) to spend $5-10k for a private tutor.</p>
<p>When my public school friends and I enrolled in college, we were undeniably less prepared and - - by the numbers - - less "qualified" than many of our classmates (especially those who had graduated from top tied day and boarding schools). But we worked hard, graduated and attended grad/prof schools along w/ the prep school girls. Similarly, when D applied to day sch, her scores (92 percentile) were lower than those of many White applicants (98 percentile); but like me, when admitted, D was able to do the work. </p>
<p>Sadly,because of the fiece competition for a ltd number of seats at the top schools, falling outside the statistical norm is incorrectly and unfairly viewed, not as marginally less qualified, but pantently unqualified.</p>
<p>nyc- is your D attending Tulane? Also, I think the most important factor with schools that have a paucity of diversity is whether or not the school's environment is conducive to and comfortale for those in the minority. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the nation's best schools are the least diverse. What's important to me is whether or not the school is making a concerted effort to change.</p>
<p>But as I said to c-dad several posts back, URMs (particularly black and Latino students/parents) often disagree w/ White students/parents as to whether a campus is, in fact, comfortable and what constitutes a sincere, concerted effort to change. On this thread the presence of tall, short, fat,thin, gay and straight students at Tulane has be cited as evidence of the sch's diversity. That may be sufficient for some, but D and I are interested in the number of black students (at some LACs, literally one of a handful of black female students) - - w/o sufficient numbers there's no way she'd feel comfortable.</p>
<p>nyc - I think you only heard in my post what you thought I said. I couldn't agree with you more that a 1240 vs a 1300 SAT doesn't mean squat. But at some point as the gap spreads, particularly when taken in conjunction with other parts of a transcript it can become a major hurdle. </p>
<p>Why would admitting black or Latino students w/ lower numbers require "sacrificing other goals"?</p>
<p>Because once the Ivy's have sucked up the relatively handfull of well prepared minority candidate with good grades, strong class standings, tough courses, and good test scores what is left are kids that will need work and they are going to be thrown in to a highly competitive environment full of academic and social challenges for even the best prepared. In fact even as it stands today Tulane has a relatively woefull retention and graduation rate compared to its peers.</p>
<p>Tulane has a larger percentage of kids comming to school from 500 miles away or more than any school in the country. Once they get there they have NOLA in their backyard and a fairly demanding faculty in their face. Homesickness, too much partying, too little studying, plus the usual transfers that any school sees take their toll and it is one of the things high up on the schools list of things to fix. Taking a diamond in the rough on only adds to the problem plus it requires more resources, mentoring, remedial courses etc.</p>
<p>BTW if you think atheletes and their cost to the university and legacies haven't been a contentious issue within the Tulane community and the administration you should have been here in the Spring of '03 when the board was debating dropping D1 sports. Cowen came close to getting lynched by all sides.</p>
<p>Tulane is an urban school that sits in the middle of a mostly Black city (BTW the mayor is a Tulane graduate) and for social, educational, and not least political reasons it would like nothing more than to attract more minority students, especially local ones. But it is not necessarily easy and Tulane's endowment isn't on a par with Duke or Stanford or Princeton. It is not in a financial position to say, "Oh heck lets just offer every minority graduate in NOLA a scholarship, tutoring, mentoring, summer programs, and remedial courses whatever it takes to get them to come to Tulane." And most the other schools in the country below the top 20 or so are in the same boat.</p>
<p>P,</p>
<p>Perhaps I should have posed a quest instead of making a statement: is Tulane sacrificing so much more w/ black or Lation students than for students admitted b/c of other prefs, disabled students or any student whose stats place him/her in the bottom 20%? (Facinating point about the sports, but Tuland is still D-I.) </p>
<p>Clearly, extra services cost $$, but putting your $$ where your mouth is, is an expression - - though by no means the only one - - of commitment. (I do not say this cavalierly; I cough up a kidney every year to keep 3Ds in private sch, sans aid.) And, I believe, this thread began w/ Miguel questioning Tulane's commitment to and success in addressing what othes have labeled the sch's diversity problem. </p>
<p>As for attacking Tulane; (1) this thread is about diversity at Tulane,no diversity in general and (2) sadly, I think the similar crit can be leveled against many other schs. (Though there are certainly schs where, even if the numbers aren't great, URMs find the campus to be open and hospitable.)</p>
<p>It seems we have come to an empasse: Tulane is not as diverse as most, if not all, would like. Tulane is trying to change that, maybe not as fast or as in a commited was as some, if not all, would like. Tulane's problem is not unique to Tulane, but seems endemic with most private schools. </p>
<p>Some, but not all, URM's will choose to attend Tulane, and some will choose not to attend. No one has the right to say which is right or wrong. But, reality dictates that for things to change, not only must the administration do more, but some must the URM's in accepting the seat once it is offered.</p>
<p>It is a process, and engaging in this discussion is useful. And as both a Tulane Parent, and moderator, I am particluarly glad that the discussion has gotten back to a debate of conditions, and not personalities.</p>
<p>CD</p>
<p>nyc - I hear what you are saying but I am not sure what the bottom 20% looks like now. Certainly you are not advocating throwing the disabled out in order to replace them with URMs. Arguably you could drop D1 sports and there are certainly a number of advocates of that on campus and in the admin, It is costly and hard to measure the value but of course at the same time URMs benefit disproportionately from the scholarships. </p>
<p>Anyway the barriers at selective schools Tulane included are not that they won't admit minorities but rather that relatively few are qualified, financially able, and interested in attending. Over all in the US Black HS graduates are attending college at virtually the same rate as White graduates. In fact I think the rate for Black women might even be higher. But the drop out rates from HS are much higher and the schools attended are much more often open admission schools.</p>
<p>I'll be honest nyc I don't know what the answer is. A school like Tulane is trying to climg the ranks. To do that it needs to improve the overall quality of the student body. You have $X to work with. Over here you have a kid with 1500 SATs an unweighted 3.9 and a slew of APs and ECs. You might be able to "buy" two kids like this for a roughly 40% discount on tuition and they might actually need the money in order to make attendence feasable. Over there you might have a URM from a working/middle class family financially not much different from the 1500 SAT kid only s/he has 1100 or 1200 SATs a 3.4 and solid courses. In all likelihood the kid could attend, do well and graduate. You want to increase diversity so there is no doubt you admit the kid but where do you spend yous money? Without grants this kid isn't comming, can't afford to. Without grants the all-star can't afford it either. These are the kinds of real world decisions colleges have to make everyday. Who is more deserving? Who better advances your institutional goals?</p>
<p>When you are Harvard or Princeton or Yale or Stanford you can just go out and grab another 1600 class valedictorian any time you want to offset that kid with 1150 and the A-. If you are Tulane or Vanderbilt or Wake or Davidson it is not quite as easy. Toodle around in the 40's in the rankings and you will attract more abuse than a rented mule for not being diverse enough, selective enough, accomplished enough, abjectly apologetic enough. You name it.</p>
<p>Patuxent, I'm toodling around in my 40's, and I noticed some similiarities with Tulane. I'm not accomplished enough or abjectly apologetic enough. Perhaps money can solve my problems too!!!</p>
<p>Seriously, your point is well taken in that schools with smaller endowments do not have the options that schools dripping in money do. It would be nice if they did. I think that Tulane knows what the right thing is and really wants to do it. Practical realities, though, sometimes get in the way. Perhaps after the Campaign for Distinction has concluded and the Tulane endowment has grown, there will be funds in place to make it happen faster.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the most important factor with schools that have a paucity of diversity is whether or not the school's environment is conducive to and comfortale for those in the minority.
[/quote]
This seems to me a crux of the matter in a school, such as Tulane, which does not have the diversity "stats" which it would like.</p>
<p>So, I hear nyc saying that numbers are a part of it. Makes sense. Her d needs more than a handful of black females to feel that she could be comfortable. What else are we looking for to see that a campus would be welcoming/conducive/comfortable when it may not have the numbers?</p>
<p>I am no kind of URM but not a WASP either (half Irish Catholic/half Eastern European Jew here, but several generations up the line in each category), so I am genuinely interested in what creates that conducive environment.</p>
<p>When I was at Engineering Scholar Days, I saw things like Asian student org. hosting a food fest one day, Hispanic Engineering student org. hosting a food fiesta the next. These events were student-run, open to the whole campus, heralded in chalk on the walkways (seems to be a primary advertising/promotional tool). I liked seeing that on a campus I knew, from this board, was low on diversity numbers. But I have no idea whether those are in any way the types of things which create the atmosphere nyc is describing.</p>
<p>Is is a positive that Tulane is in a city which is the polar opposite of lily white? Or not?</p>
<p>nyc, others? what does one look for?</p>
<p>P,</p>
<p>Of course I wasn't advocating replacing disabled students w/ URMs - - just point out that although all forms of inclusion come at a price, the "sacrificing other goals" argu is more likely to be made regarding URMs than other groups. </p>
<p>As for admissions standards, a school is free to chart its own course. There's certainly nothing wrong w/ wanting to climb up in the rankings (certainly no sch wants to see a downward slide). But, even schs wishing to make the move place diff value on moving up and chose to move up in diff ways (check out the ND thread - - moved up by increasing the % of women!). Others may decide that moving up is of little or no importance (Smith probably could have moved up by going co-ed back in the 70's-80's, but chose to remain a women's college). </p>
<p>If a sch's upward movement has a delitirious effet on diversity (as you assert is the case w/ Tulane), they have made a decision regarding the relative value of these two good objectives. If I value those objs diff than the sch, I may see the sch as insuff committed to something that is important to me. And if I view the sch as infuffic committed, I am unwilling to take that leap of faith. </p>
<p>So take the White student w/ the 1500+, but D won't be joining him. I was the pulic sch kid w/ the lower stats and a sch's willingness to take a chance on those students (particularly URMs) is terribly important to me and will factor in her college decision making process, since D shares my values.</p>
<p>(Funny, D is probably one of the "handful" you've described, P. And, even though she want to attend college in the south and southern schs have much stronger track/field prgms than NE schs, she may end up at northern sch simply b/c of the numbers and campus comfort level.)</p>
<p>jmmom - What do I look for - not the diversity dinners (too superficial). I check the composition of small, casual goups in a college's viewbook or video. (Are there any black or Latino kids pictured among the group of 5 sitting on the lawn or the group of three walking to class? Or do you only see black and Latino students in large groups or more formal settings - - lecture, varsity sports?) During the visits, I look at the social groups (formal and informal) - - who sits w/ whom at dinner, who waves to whom on campus, who's in the clubs, who are the lab partners, etc. I'll PM you if I think of anything else.</p>
<p>You should go to UT Austin over Tulane.</p>