<p>What informative posted doesn’t begin to address what I said. Of course USNWR has their system of measuring. I agree that they have it, my point is they are using data that cannot possibly apply to Tulane. Tulane is in a unique situation and USNWR refuses to adjust for this. LOL, I mean using USNWR to corroborate USNWR is absurd. If you pick parameters for an equation that cannot be measured for a subject of the study, then it is useless, or at least not apples to apples for that particular subject. Besides, there is nothing sacrosanct about the parameters USNWR uses anyway. It certainly isn’t scientific. They change them from time to time and change the weightings. Very subjective stuff. The guy simply has no idea what he is talking about.</p>
<p>ghostbuster - You misunderstand what I think was irrational. Of course making an honest mistake is not. But you were acting like that 1249 was from what would be the current sophomore class at Fordham, and that you knew the current class had a 1280 average. So you came on all hot and bothered and proclaimed DEFINITIVELY
And you were 100% wrong, and yes I think it was irrational, because all you had to do is read the site I linked. This was all before you realized your mistake in confusing median and mean (average). However, the quote I posted and the link I gave was clearly regarding the current freshman class, and that is the very latest data. So what was “irrational” (maybe not the best word) was that you were hell-bent on making that data about a previous class when, if you had taken a few seconds to really read the post and the site I linked, you would have realized I was right and the 1249 was indeed the average for the current freshman class. I think we can indeed put this to bed, just please try reading more carefully.</p>