<p>I'm not trying to offend anyone, but Tulane seems misplaced (in the US News rankings). Considering its admit rate and average SAT/ACT scores it doesn't fit in with the schools around it. In addition, it seems more prestigious than many of the schools ranked around it. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>I’ve written about this a few times, but it has been awhile so there is no reason you would have seen it. Before I explain the answer to your question, I should tell you that I consider the USNWR rankings to be among the greatest travesties to occur in college admissions ever. They are trying to measure something that cannot be measured or even defined (unless you can tell me what being the “best” college really means, and even if you could how you could actually measure it), and therefore creating an anxiety and angst among some parents and students that is deplorable. OK, so leaving the soapbox…</p>
<p>When you look at the USNWR parameters, among the most heavily weighted are peer/guidance counselor assessments and 6 year graduation rates, with first year retention rates also being a somewhat significant factor. Average SAT/ACT scores are a somewhat surprising low factor, and admit rate is almost insignificant (1.5%).</p>
<p>So focusing on the first two, let’s start with graduation rates. What USNWR does is take the latest rate of the freshman class that graduated and does an averaging of that rate with some number of previous years (I think 4?). In other words, the class that entered in 2006 would have hit the 6 academic years mark in 2012. However, Katrina hit in 2005, so the class that would have hit the 6 year mark in 2011 could not be reasonably reported. Therefore Tulane essentially was scored at “0” for that year and USNWR would not adjust it, despite requests from Tulane to do so. I won’t even go into how despicable I think it is that USNWR would not recognize how a tragedy of that magnitude affected the school. Anyway, since that number will remain part of the USNWR formula for a few years, it will continue to affect Tulane.</p>
<p>As an aside, one can also easily question their assumption that retention rate is a good measure of quality because “The higher the proportion of freshmen who return to campus for sophomore year and eventually graduate, the better a school is apt to be at offering the classes and services that students need to succeed. This measure has two components: six-year graduation rate (80 percent of the retention score) and freshman retention rate (20 percent).” That is 80% and 20% of the overall 20% weighting retention is assigned, BTW. There are numerous confounding factors that makes that assumption false. Tulane has more students from >750 miles away than any other university in the country. It is reasonable to assume that it is therefore more susceptible to people deciding to move back closer to home than other schools, especially state schools. Similarly, many of the students that leave Tulane cite financial reasons as a factor. Tulane is not cheap, and family circumstances can change. Obviously state schools are less expensive, so their retention will most likely be better, at least when it comes to financial reasons. USNWR’s simplistic assumption that retention reflects quality is only true if all else is equal, which clearly it never is.</p>
<p>As far as peer assessment, Tulane suffered a lot from Katrina here as well. You are probably too young to remember the media coverage at the time, but one would have thought that New Orleans was the lost city of Atlantis, completely under water everywhere. While the campus was certainly affected, it was nothing like the Ninth Ward and some other areas that really were completely destroyed. Tulane had to shut down for a semester, which while a bad thing it was actually a miracle that they were able to open again in January.</p>
<p>But Tulane lost some faculty, closed some departments (some of the engineering programs most notably), and generally it was just assumed by many that Tulane was only a shell of what it was, based on the media coverage and the “water cooler” talk in academic circles. The truth today is so far from that it is hard to know where to start. Is it perfect? No, of course not, but Tulane has attracted a great group of bright young faculty along with retaining most of the former faculty, and is doing some great things academically. Some programs really stand out, and some are coming back and/or being expanded considerably, but the bottom line is that Tulane is a great academic experience. Besides, as you point out the average academic level of the entering classes has been very high, and quite a bit of the quality of a university education is what your peers bring to the table, at least as much as how great the research of any given professor is.</p>
<p>OK, enough already. I think you get the idea. In theory Tulane should start moving up some in the rankings in a few years, but again it really shouldn’t matter to anyone. Maybe that is being too idealistic, in the real world many do pay attention to the rankings and so the school has to as well. Most unfortunate, but practical. But please, don’t make your college decision based on rankings, if you are looking at colleges still.</p>
<p>Ok, thanks. I’m not one to care too much about rankings, I was just surprised to see that Tulane was ranked where it was, and maybe there was something about the school that I didn’t know about. It’s likely that I will end up putting it on my list.</p>
<p>In terms of academics, what schools are considered to be peer institutions?</p>
<p>I probably should have mentioned that just on the basis of average SAT scores, I think Tulane would be somewhere around upper 20’s to 30th on the list of what USNWR calls "National Universities. I haven’t looked at the very latest reports, but last year that was true (I think they were 28th). Whatever it is/was, definitely higher than the final ranking. </p>
<p>There is a lot more I could have said about the USNWR rankings and its flaws (administrators at some schools admitting they tanked their peer assessment of rival schools, others admitting they give them to their secretaries to fill out, so on and so forth), but it would be a book. Or at least a chapter in a book.</p>
<p>To answer your question, and trying not to sound too technical, we have to define if you mean who Tulane considers their peer schools or who the general public (particularly college applicants) consider to be the peer group. The latter can be known from cross-applications, but I don’t know where to find that list. It might not exist, since it would have to be self-reported by students. There is no national clearing house for applications. But I think that list and the Tulane list wouldn’t vary much anyway, since I have a reasonable feel for where the cross-apps go and I know Tulane’s list, at least most of it.</p>
<p>10 years ago Tulane specifically said the peer schools they studied were Duke, Emory, Georgetown, Northwestern, Stanford, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, and Washington University in St. Louis. From conversations with top administrators at Tulane, some of the schools they also consider in their peer group, at least informally, are Rice, U of Miami (FL), and I think Boston U. That makes a lot of sense since most of those schools are urban, of a similar size, private, have a lot of cross applicants, high emphasis on academics, and have medical and law schools associated with them. Some will pooh-pooh comparing Tulane to the schools that are ranked much higher, but I think the group is an extremely valid comparison.</p>
<p>Tulane rankings should go up in coming years, as evidenced by Tulane being in the usnwr “up and comer” category. </p>
<p>Student selectivity is 15% of the score, so those numbers should be helping in future years. Freshman retention is only 4% of the formula, and Tulane isn’t doing too bad in that category.</p>
<p>The single biggest piece of the usnwr formula (23.5%) is tied to six year graduation rate. That’s where the Katrina effect is felt. But Tulane was only in the mid-40s pre-hurricane.</p>
<p>Next biggest (22.5%) piece is peer academic reputation. That’s the one that is probably the hardest/slowest to change.</p>
<p>How much longer will the six year grad rate slump from Katrina affect Tulane? If it happened in the 05/06 year then the last class in that six year limit should have been the class that just graduated (11/12), right?</p>
<p>jph - Right, I think that is what I said, that the Katrina class hit the 6 year mark in May 2011. I am not positive as to how many years USNWR averages, I know they don’t just take the last available year. I think they average the last 4-5 years, and I think they weight the more recent years somewhat. In any case, it is another example of dong “scientific-looking” methodology on something that has no basis in reality at all.</p>
<p>norhtwesty - You are correct student selectivity is 15%. Unfortunately, 40% of that 15% is the percentage of the entering class that graduated in the top 10% of their high school class. This is one of the most lied about stats out there. Let’s take a look at what is reported in some CDS filings from some schools, and I think you will see what I mean.</p>
<p>For example Stanford reports that 92% of the entering class graduated in the top 10%. Seems reasonable, right? UC Davis, on the other hand, reports that 100% (!!!) of their entering class was in the top 10%. I have seen similarly ridiculous examples at other schools. I can only speculate on how this happens. I think it might be related to the fact that although the CDS tells the schools to adjust students’ GPA to a 4.0 scale, many ignore that and report numbers like 4.10 and 4.17 for average GPA. Maybe they then look at the unweighted GPA of what would have been in the top 10% and voila, they all end up in the top 10%. Or maybe it is as simple as they are lying. Tulane and many others report it honestly, but enough that are ahead of Tulane in the rankings don’t so as to make it worthless.</p>
<p>I really should write a book on this fraud, shouldn’t I?</p>
<p>Tulane massively manipulated the admit-rate statistic by sending out the notorious ‘free applications’ to nearly graduating high-school senior in the country. They’re lucky that USNews didn’t punish them for that, else their ranking would be much lower. Meanwhile, continuing to blame Hurricane Katrina for everything is becoming a bit embarrassing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Admit rate is 1.5% of the overall US news rating. If US news did “punish” Tulane in the admit rate section it wouldn’t really affect the overall ranking. </p>
<p>Why do you think that advertising is a bad thing? WUSTL and U Chicago do the exact same thing as Tulane, and they’re two of the greatest schools in the nation.</p>
<p>There are many many schools that offer free applications. And exaggerating how many applications were sent out helps, how?</p>
<p>We should probably ignore Marsden. Some people just like to attribute dishonorable motives (“massive manipulation”) to everything when instead there is a much more logical explanation, such as trying to save a school after the worst disaster in US History. Some people have no idea how many parents wouldn’t even let their kids apply to Tulane because of all the distorted reporting that went on.</p>
<p>But I have to wonder how factual mathematics is “blaming” Katrina. You have no statistic for that year because of Katrina, you plug zero into the equation, you get a lower number. Cause, effect. Simple.</p>
<p>Ignore facts all you like; however they remain facts.</p>
<p>Meanwhile,
</p>
<p>comes in the very next post after this about UC Davis:
</p>
<p>Pot and kettle seem to have made a close acquaintance here.</p>
<p>Even the Ivies work hard to increase their applications, even though there’s really no need to do that (other than to burnish their single digit acceptance rates).</p>
<p>In the past 3 years, Columbia has almost doubled its applications from 19k to 35k for example. Part of that was due to signing on with the Common App, which is a proven way to increase apps. </p>
<p>End of the day, the stats of the admitted students matter much more than the acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Well Marsden, I am happy to hear any explanations you have as to how 100% of their entering freshman classes are in the top 10% of their high school class. Because it certainly is not the truth.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, what fact did I ignore? Your speculation as to why they instituted massive marketing and the free app is not a fact, it is your opinion that has no foundation. Given that the % accepted rate is only 1.5% of the USNWR scheme, it makes your explanation the most unlikely one.</p>
<p>UC’s admit with heavy emphasis on GPA, moreso than privates. And Davis might be stating that all students are not 10% at their school, but top 10% in the state, which makes more sense. That is how they guarantee ELC to the top 9% or something of students in the state and ensure those students are offered a place at a UC.</p>
<p>It may be what they are doing, but if so it completely obviates any comparison to schools doing it as the instructions state. More to the point of this discussion, reporting 100% gives then a significant boost in the rankings they do not merit, since schools like Tulane do not have the kind of one state concentration the U C schools do.</p>
<p>But of course we do not know what they are doing. I do know that nowhere close to 100% of the students there graduated in the top 10% of their high school class. Anyone familiar with college admissions knows that, especially when you look at their SAT score stats. And contrary to Marsden’s comment, I was clearly speculating as to the reason they are reporting 100%, as compared to his categorical statement of Tulane’s motives. He has hated on Tulane in the past.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is correct. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know nothing of the kind. Since UC guarantees admission to the top 9% statewide AND the top 9% from any and every public high school, the stat as reported is likely, even. California’s population has burgeoned which has raised the stats at all UC campuses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This indicates that indeed you do not know what you’re talking about. GPA and SAT stats are not remotely the same thing, especially when we’re including public high schools statewide, from places like inner-city L.A. on the one hand and places like Fresno on the other. Even the worst high school in the country has a top 10%. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct, you were stating your opinion, which (as I have pointed out) is different from offering facts.</p>
<p>Well, if what you are saying is correct (and I know personally at least one student going to UC Davis and one going to UC San Diego neither of which are in the top 10% of their class, but whatever) then you have demonstrated even further how absolutely absurd the ranking criteria of USNWR is. After all, if numerous students from the top 10% of numerous low-performing high schools are going to these UC schools (and that would explain the incongruous SAT scores) then it really doesn’t measure student quality on an absolute basis, as USNWR contends that parameter does. Yet another useless factor they use in their formula. So thanks for that.</p>
<p>I have to say, however, that I find it hilarious that you “point out” that offering opinions is different than offering facts, yet you present your take on Tulane’s motives for their marketing strategy as a fact. I never presented my comments as anything other than opinion, using phrases such as “I think” and “maybe”. Except for the 100% issue, which I do know is false. Absolutely. Anyway, nice job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying there’s another explanation? If so, why haven’t you offered it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simple solution: provide a cite or other **factual **information which supports your assertion. Stamping your figurative little feet, alas, does not qualify. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t mention it!</p>
<p>I think we can clear up this argument about “Tulane massively manipulated the admit-rate statistic by sending out the notorious ‘free applications’” quite easily.</p>
<p>Really it’s quite a “Simple solution: provide a cite or other factual information which supports your assertion. Stamping your figurative little feet, alas, does not qualify.”</p>
<p>Hmm… I think I’m understanding why people like you enjoy trolling so much :)</p>