<p>It never fails. When someone rufuses to provide a source, it always turns out that it is because they have something to hide!</p>
<p>Below is a link to the 2010 Tulane profile from Business Week. </p>
<p>Students in the top 10% of their high school class - 50%</p>
<p>Again, I am simply citing reliable authorities. Don’t call me names because you don’t like the numbers - I didn’t make them up. I am simply the messenger.<br>
[Tulane</a> University: Undergraduate Profile ? BusinessWeek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>And for those too lazy to look up newer data than 2007, here are the published stats for the Freshman Class of 2009. They are remarkably comparable.</p>
<p>Please stop wasting everyone’s time with stale data. The only point being proven is that SJU needs to improve the quality of education at its institution. Learn to go directly to the source for your data. Not secondary publications, which, as you nicely proved in your post above, are alll too often wrong. Good bye-- feel free to continue to post inflammatory garbage and get your last word in. Seems to be your want. No one else is listening, and now the same will be true for me. Surely you’ll find something else to complain about . Have fun with that. Enjoy the echo in here.</p>
<p>In this incoming class, approximately 60% of the Freshmen were in the top 10% of their class, **approximately ** 80% were in the top 20% of their class and 98% of the freshman were in the top half of their graduating class."</p>
<p>That is what you call double talk! Tulane put that garbage on their website? They have the data so why are they approximating? What do they have to hide!?! Lets see the real numbers! Why no common data set? And in case you missed this, it is still lower than what you provide for Miami so you have confirmed that I was correct in saying Miami is more selective!</p>
<p>Also, did you notice the difference in the 2 links you provided? The Miami link is to their common data set! (Something Tulane refuses to provide!!!). The numbers for Miami aren’t estimates or approximations from their staff. Miami provides the hard numbers.</p>
<p>Also, you failed to notice that I already provided a link to the 2010 data. The number in the top 10% of their high school class was 50%. The author of that blog has some explaining to do! False advertising could have serious consequences.</p>
<p>go away- you dont understand statistics. There are no statistical differences between the percents provided by the schools - and one gives top 20% and the other the top 25th. Nor will you accept that the numbers in a second party publication are incorrect (or more likely old). But you are married to those numbers. Good for you. Again- call Jeff Schiffman- he’ll answer your questions- correctly.</p>
<p>Maybe you can call Jeff Schiffman and ask him why Tulane does not publish a common data set. Maybe he can tell us what they have to hide.</p>
<p>And I do understand statistics. I also know the difference between drivel and dribble. This has nothing to do with statistics. It is a very simple concept. 63 is higher than 50 right? It means that of the enrolled freshman (for next year) at Miami, 1,200 of them were in the top 10% of their high school class. At Tulane, only 840 were in the top 10%.</p>
<p>Also, please look at my link. They both use top 10% and top 25%.</p>
<p>^^ I wondered about that, benedote, but ther link it gave to A.B. Free didn’t show any stats for the business majors per se. Even if it did, the students would have to have been sophomores at least, as declared majors, yes? So the data is even older.</p>
<p>And to the annoying gnat buzzing around here, if he doesnt understand that raw numbers are not the same as percentages, then its time to retake intro stat.</p>
<p>Also, regarding universities and colleges filling out the CDS: </p>
<p>Harvard did not start using it until 2006.
Penn just started doing it, even more recently than Harvard.
USC may still not do it.</p>
<p>Frankly, with 44,000 applications for 1500 spots, I think the admissions staff in New Orleans have gotten lazy and put going on the CDS on the back burner. Not to mention that little hurricane thing in 2005.</p>
<p>The one thing that confuses me is why anyone would suggest calling Jeff (who i’m guessing is someone in TU admissions.) I mean unless Jeff kicked your dog and called your ‘momma’ fat, I don’t see why he deserves to get a call from this guy. :)</p>
<p>LOL, benedote. Naw, he just called Jeff a liar. That is all.</p>
<p>And according to another poster in another thread, they listed the following schools as examples of schools not posting CDS numbers (though they have Penn on their list, and since this was a recent post, either they werent aware that Penn changed, or Penn’s change is very new)</p>
<p>UNIVERSITIES (14 total that I found)
Penn
Columbia
Chicago
Duke
Washinton U
Johns Hopkins
Rice
Notre Dame
Georgetown
U Southern California
Tufts
Boston College
U Rochester
Tulane</p>
I am not inventing anything. We all now know that PR gets both weighted and unweighted GPA’s from schools. We know they do nothing to correct for this, because they cannot. We know from their own website where they define the methodology they use to calculate selectivity that they use GPA, which means they are using GPAs measured on different scales. If you cannot see that this means their calculation is flawed and meaningless, then I suspect you are the only one. But thanks for that, it is so obvious to everyone else it gives me something more that is easy to point to that shows how you have zero credibility. And btw, if I was told that is how someone was calculating a ranking, I wouldn’t care if it put Tulane at #1. Flawed is flawed.</p>
<p>The fact that you keep refering to USNWR and yet don’t know the latest data is just another sign of your sloppiness.</p>
The simplest explanation of what? I never said anything about Miami’s average GPA being higher, lower or the same, only that the two schools were reporting different measures. Tulane reports unweighted, Miami weighted. The actual fact of the matter is I have no idea how they compare to each other if the same measure were used, and neither do you. You can guess using the top % stats, but that is all it is, a guess. I am sure you are as right about this as you were about Tulane’s average GPA of 3.49 being weighted. Using out of date stats is pretty dishonest too, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that the 3.49 and 4.2 stats were not from 2007.</p>
<p>As far as athletics, Tulane has the same number of football and basketball players, since that is regulated by the NCAA. I have no idea how they compare to Miami’s, and neither do you.</p>
<p>Oh, and btw, you can disparage the statistics given by the Tulane website or the Tulane admissions counselor all you want, but where do you think all the stats that these “authoritative sources” you love to quote come from? From each school’s website and admissions departments. It’s the same info. No different for Miami, who didn’t follow instructions to report an unweighted GPA on the common data set. It makes the rest of their reported data suspect.</p>
<p>As I pointed out earlier, GPA is meaningless for comparisons. Class rank is almost as bad, see my earlier post. It is not really worth arguing about. If one is looking for a comparative measure then SAT score range (mid 50%) is best. But even that is not always reported accurately. There will be different numbers for those who applied, those who were admitted, and those who attend. Schools don’t always make clear which they use.</p>
<p>I agree with you idad. I am not arguing that they are good for comparing schools, I am only continuing to demonstrate how flawed SJUHawk’s statements and conclusions are.</p>
<p>Perhaps you are right. Now he is doing the same on the Temple thread, where he has commited another blunderous misstatement of an easly checked fact.</p>
You mean like you cited your sources about Tulane reporting weighted GPA? Which was as good as your source on the Temple thread that Temple is 86% PA residents, when it is really around 70-71%. There are a few others, but that is enough to demonstrate the hypocrisy.</p>
<p>Yes, apparently benetode thought so too-- see post # 46. It makes sense, but as I said, I tried looking for the stats in the link to the business school’s website that that Bus Week site provided and couldnt find the numbers.</p>
Yet another ridiculous statement from SJUHawk. And wrong in his calculations also. Tulane had 1505 entering freshmen with 60% in the top 10%. That’s 903. Miami’s freshman class was about 25% larger than Tulane’s last year (by 400 students). So if a school only had 1000 entering freshman with 90% being in the top 10% (900 students) and School2 had 5000 entering freshmen with 50% in the top 10%, SJUHawk would be touting that School2 had 2500 in the top 10% compared to only 900 for School1. Brilliant!! And the % in the top 10% for Tulane in 2009 was 60%, not 50%. They use approximately because they didn’t take it out to 2 decimal places, duh. Even if it was 59.6% and they rounded up, that would change it by like 6 students. Oh my.</p>
<p>The Business Week statistics for SAT scores, % in top 10%, etc are for the Freeman school only.</p>