<p>Excellent work, FC. Not sure why SJU is so angry with Tulane. He has made it pretty clear to all, regardless of your Tulane affiliation, that he has some sort of vendetta against the school. Is there any other reason that he’s on here posting? Or any logical reason why he has decided to single out Tulane? Maybe he didn’t get in and he’s bitter. Who knows… I for one am bored and tired of his antics and bypass his comments when I see his user name. He’s certainly become an annoying pest that is turning interesting threads into unnecessary drama. Some are even starting to feel like reality shows in the making.</p>
<p>Time for all of us to use the “ignore” option</p>
<p>Hi nj_mom. Thanks, just wish I didn’t have to do it. Well, I guess I don’t have to, but you know what I mean. Many of us have complained to the moderators, I suggest you do the same. This is definitely not what CC is supposed to be about.</p>
<p>Haters don’t belong on cc. Plain and simple. Except I am currently hating on the chipmunks that are destroying my house’s foundation. Does that count?</p>
<p>Serious debate, both pro and con Tulane or any other school for that matter, is fair discourse. The TOS require civility and moderation of language. Unless there is evidence of a violation of the TOS, post will not be deleted.</p>
<p>It would be easy to just delete someone’s comments when those comments are consistently and only negative. One could certainly come to the conclusion that such postings are made purely for the sake of provocation and have no redeeming quality at all. And, if that be the conclusion, then it would be my opinion that such posting should be treated like minor static on on the radio – something to be ignored.</p>
<p>Thus, I would ask those that only have something negative to say to examine their motives and think twice about such postings. And, I would ask those that see no value to those posts to give them no more currency than they are worth.</p>
<p>I am personally loathe to ban or censor anyone just because they are myopic or have an ax to grind, so long as the are respectful and civil in tone. Now, if they cannot maintain civility, then appropriate action will be taken without further warning.</p>
<p>concerneddad - I appreciate the points you make, I have thought the same. But there has to be a point where it is clear that someone is just making things up to be malicious towards a school where others are trying to have an informed and adult conversation. It is easy to say just ignore the person, but when a major purpose of these threads and the site itself is to impart information and considered, reasonable opinions that have some basis in fact, postings that misstate important information are difficult to ignore. I have seen how easy it is for people that are otherwise unfamiliar with an issue to pick up on that kind of thing and never know they were completely misinformed. OK, life isn’t perfect, and when it happens once and the person is corrected (with clear and ample evidence), we can all live with that. But for that same person to keep coming back and repeating the same canards, well it makes good discussion difficult.</p>
<p>But if there is nothing you can do, then I suppose there is nothing we can do either. We do appreciate your weighing in.</p>
<p>Thanks concerneddad. I agree, this is a site for discourse, not marketing. If we were not allowed to express an opinion this site would be meaningless. </p>
<p>Chemist, I called the Princeton Review as well but they didn’t know who Steve was. They said that they ask for unweighted gpa’s but they don’t know whether the numbers submitted by Tulane were weighted or unweighted (I emphasize, they didn’t know!). I aked them to justify the selectivity score of 94 for Tulane and 96 for Miami and they said that even if Tulane’s 3.49 gpa was unweighted, the weighted gpa would still be below Miami’s 4.2.</p>
<p>Fallenchemist: if you are such an advocate for truth and my sources are major publications, your problem is with the publications not with me. File for injunctive relief against US News for dropping Tulane from a top 50 ranking. File for an injunction against The Princeton Review for publishing that Miami is more selective than Tulane. I am simply referencing the leading authorities.</p>
<p>
Steve is one of two people that handle all the data sent in by the colleges. The other, who is the primary one, is Dave but he is off getting married. But he and Steve are responsible for this area. He said Tulane “definitely” sent in unweighted GPA, and since he is one of two people at PR responsible for this area, and you are claiming PR as a leading authority, I consider that authoritative. Coupling that with the fact that Tulane is ranked the same as Miami by USNWR, has higher average SAT scores, and given the comparisons to the other schools I cited, it is obvious that the GPA reported by Tulane is unweighted. For anyone to ignore that much evidence and common sense requires massive amounts of intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance. Since I hope that is not the case with you, I can only conclude that you are being overtly annoying and antogonistic with regard to this and other points, such as:</p>
<p>
This is exactly the kind of thing I brought up before. You have been informed, as if you did not already know, that Tulane is in fact ranked #50. [National</a> Universities Rankings - Best Colleges - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+2]National”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+2) So your statement can only be designed to antagonize.</p>
<p>
So if the leading authority didn’t know (although they actually do based on their expert’s experience), how is it you knew with such conviction?</p>
<p>
That is blatantly false. There is absolutely no way for anyone to know that without the raw data. It is not like converting Centigrade to Fahrenheit, there is not a single formula to do this. It depends completely on the mix of students that went to schools that went above the A=4.0 for AP and/or honors courses, schools that graded in general on a 5 or 6 point scale, etc. Miami obviously corrected for none of this. Tulane does, as I found out in an e-mail today.</p>
<p>After talking to PR yesterday, I wrote to Tulane admissions and asked what they did, pointing out the discrepency with Miami, UCLA, and some others. Their answer, which I received this afternoon, was in part “Since Princeton Review and most other agencies and rating sites ask for unweighted GPA, that is what we provide. We always ask the high schools to send unweighted GPA based on a 4 point scale, and occassionally we have to calculate it ourselves from a student’s transcript when the school does not provide it. We realize that some institutions report uncorrected GPA’s to these sites, but we have chosen to comply with their request.” Believe it, don’t believe it, it doesn’t matter since as I said above, it is incredibly obvious just from the data and comparisons.</p>
<p>I have no problem with anyone citing sources such as PR and USNWR. That certainly doesn’t mean that flaws in their methodology should be blindly ignored, and using data points that are measured on two different scales is about as big a flaw as there is. To keep citing this statistic once the flaw has been discovered and revealed is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.</p>
<p>For my friends and other interested observers that are wondering why I am responding to this person, I assume that SJUHawk will continue to spew this kind of nonsense in the future. This way, I can simply do a short post refering to this specific thread, telling people to look at his lack of credibility based on these facts, and move on. I actually don’t like doing this, but when someone insists on ignoring facts and repeating untruths, they leave little choice.</p>
<p>Oh, and SJUHawk:</p>
<p>
I could be mistaken, but I think he was talking to you there. I would even go so far as to say he also meant those that keep posting untrue statements.</p>
<p>A brief observation on GPA. If one looks at the profile for the freshman classes at The University of Chicago one will not see a GPA reported. This was true the last time I looked at the PR site as well. Why? If one looks at the list of items admissions considers as important one sees GPA is not listed as very important, nor important, only as considered. It has become increasingly clear that GPA comparisons between high schools is next to impossible. There are many different weighting schemes and some, such as S1 & S2’s HS do not weight at all. Almost all their courses were honors or AP courses, neither were in the top 10% of their class. Why not? A single B in one semester is enough to knock one out of the top 10% at their HS. Are those with higher GPAs who took few honors or AP courses really better students? Even GPA comparisons within HSs can be next to impossible. </p>
<p>S1, who is just finishing up a successful undergrad career at Chicago, had a HS GPA of 3.46. His ACT Was 35, and he took the most challenging curriculum possible including distance learning courses from UC Berkeley and summer courses from Univ. of WA. He finished AP calc BC his sophomore year. His ECs were incredible. Chicago, and most other selective colleges, tend not to be fooled by GPAs and take those who have challenged themselves and extended beyond what was expected. If one calculated a weighted GPA S1 it would be well over 4.0. </p>
<p>S2 was quite similar to S1 except his GPA was much higher. He felt Tulane recognized his accomplishments and provides the intellectual challenge he is seeking. If one were to calculate a weighted GPA for him, it would be far greater than UMiami’s 4.2. I believe one would find this true of many if not most of Tulane’s incoming class.</p>
<p>fallenchemist, I do not appreciate the personal insults. </p>
<p>Did you ever hear the expression that the true explanation is usually the simplest one? You are bending over backwards trying to invent flaws in the Princeton Review’s analysis in an effort to prove they are wrong simply because it contrasts with your agenda. If the Princeton Review said Tulane was more selective than Miami you would be telling us it was a perfect source. You need to accept that the average high school GPA of students attending Miami is higher than at Tulane. It is the simplest explanation. Stop trying to concoct a way around the truth.</p>
<p>As far as being in the Top 50, I was unaware that Tulane had pulled itself into a 2-way tie for 50th place in that particular catagory. Now Tulane is only 3 places behind Penn State and University of Florida. I would still point out that it is disputable whether the tie qualifies as a top 50 ranking (i.e. how can there be 51 schools in the Top 50?). Nevertheless, Tulane is tied with Miami this year on the U.S. News ranking of doctorate-granting universities. </p>
<p>Here is the last word on the subject: Miami’s student body had better class rank in high school than those of Tulane. As a result, it is fair to assume that the Princeton Review is accurate in saying that the students at Miami had better GPAs!</p>
<p>The most recent data available (2007) shows the percentage of the class with students in the top 10, 25 and 50% of their high school classes. Here are the stats:</p>
<p>University of Miami:
In the top 10% of high school class - 67%
In the top 25% of high school class - 91%
In the top 50% of high school class - 98%</p>
<p>Tulane University:
In the top 10% of high school class - 51%
In the top 25% of high school class - 74%
In the top 50% of high school class - 96%</p>
<p>And, beyond that, Miami has a very successful athletic department. Many of the scholarship athletes will have lesser class rank than the rest. As a result, the disparity is probably greater. </p>
<p>I think this confirms my original assertion that Miami is more selective than Tulane! As always, I expect you will attempt to fabricate an argument to dispute these simple facts. </p>
<p>Sources:
[Tulane</a> University Admissions Profiles](<a href=“http://www.eduers.com/University/Louisiana/Tulane_University.html]Tulane”>http://www.eduers.com/University/Louisiana/Tulane_University.html)
[University</a> of Miami Admissions Profiles](<a href=“http://www.eduers.com/University/Florida/University_of_Miami.html]University”>http://www.eduers.com/University/Florida/University_of_Miami.html)</p>
<p>idad: Not that the University of Chicago has anything to do with this discussion but they may not publish GPA but it is certainly considered. They do, however, publish high school class rank which I assume you will acknowledge is directly tied to GPA. 85% of their incoming class was in the top 10% of their high school class. 95% were in the top 20% of their high school class.</p>
<p><a href=“https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml[/url]”>https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml</a></p>
<p>Why not post the results of the Oscars or the World Series from 3 years ago while you’re at it, SJU. Thats about as equally irrelevant and stale. Good grief. ENOUGH already. Feeding time is over in ■■■■■-town. But a parting morsel for dessert: For Tulane’s incoming freshman class: 63.7% of the class of 2014 are in the top ten percent of their class.</p>
<p>Source please!</p>
<p>Those admitted in 2007 are now matriculating students at Tulane and Miami! Hardly irrelevant. Quite the contrary, those 2007 admittees are Tulane and Miami! They are the present student body.</p>
<p>If you have a reliable (not a blog) comparison that is more recent, please post it. You are as bad as fallenchemist with your assertions without sources. Don’t they teach you at Tulane to cite your sources?</p>
<p>Why don’t you consider readign the threads in which you post trash about schools? The information is here-- if you read. If you consider the correspondence from the Associate Director of Admissions at TU unreliable, thats your problem. </p>
<p>Posting old student stats from 3 years ago is absurd, and you know it. Irrelevant when discussing current school trends. Not wasting any more time on your dribble.</p>
<p>I’ll take that as you don’t have a source. For those reading along, she doesn’t have a source!</p>
<p>No, fool, the source was provided twice in this forum, in the other thread you trashed. That was my point. It is provided by the Assoc Dir of Admissions, Jeff Schiffman. He at times posts in this forum. Feel free to ask him directly. His email is <a href=“mailto:jschiffm@tulane.edu”>jschiffm@tulane.edu</a></p>
<p>I am not going on a wild goose chase looking for some obscure source. A statement is only as good as its source! Therefore, your post is meaningless without providing the source. If you have one, post it. If not, I will assume that you do not. A fair assumption in my opinion. Until then we have to go with the best we have - the 2007 statistics.</p>
<p>Nor am I going to email anyone. I don’t know how reliable the person is that would respond to the email. Does Tulane publish a common data set? </p>
<p>And, again, please don’t call me names. We can engage in discourse in a civil manner, even if we don’t agree. </p>
<p>P.S. I think you meant “drivel.”</p>
<p>Au contraire-- anyone who makes outrageous statements, posts old stale data and doesnt even bother to read the threads he posts in is a fool. If you won’t accept that the very freshest, hot off the presses data provided by the admissions staff because of the format in which he provides it, well I cant help you with that. If you think that Jeff’s admissions blog us unreliable, you are a fool.
Since you are too lazy to read, here ya go. Believe it or nor. Your problem. If you want to call Jeff Shiffman rather than email, his phone # is accessible on TU’s website.
</p>
<p>I am neither a fool nor lazy. I was expecting a source like this: i.e. **a blog ** from an employee trying to convice people that he is doing a good job.</p>
<p>Maybe a blog is a reliable source to you but it isn’t to me. How about a common data set published by the university? Does Tulane publish a common data set like other universities?</p>
<p>P.S. Those stats are still lower than those at Miami. Do you have any Miami blogs that give their recent stats?</p>
<p>Fine question-- ask Jeff Schiffman when you call him to challenge him on the statistics he provided for this years admissions round. You are accusing him of lying. Again— thats foolish. Havent seen any other school provide these numbers yet. Doesnt mean they haven’t-- just havent seen it. Schools tend to provide final admissions data after the first month of the fall semester. Then you’ll get the published data you seek. Until then, you can believe, or not. No one here cares. </p>
<p>So if you dont read the threads you post in, but instead post inflammatory dreck-- what is the right term for that?? Its a ■■■■■. Just like posting in the thread about Jewish student with a B average that they should apply to Brandeis or Yeshiva. Real helpful.</p>