Is Tulane even that good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it similar to U Chicago in a key respect - takes almost the entire class ED - 80%+ ED acceptance rate? Unlike Chicago, Tulane publishes these stats, so you don't have to guess.

And a LOT more fun than Chicago!

No, I’d say the key thing that separates Chicago from peers is its intellectual atmosphere and rigorous academic load.

Such as? There’s a ton of public universities with excellent reputations and strong alumni networks. The average person doesn’t care at all about wake forest, nor know what it is, nor has seen its network do anything at all.

+1.
C’mon people, one is ranked #11, higher than some Ivies. And the other is in the 60s. Not much in common between those two schools.

Using ranking to prove any point other than that rankings are stupid is stupid. Agree with your point but really bad "evidence."

In my 50 odd years on Earth, I have come to realize that reputations and rankings are there for a reason. They should of course be used with a grain of salt, and people should stay open minded, but nevertheless, it’s another datapoint to keep in the back of your mind.

I don’t get all the hate against rankings. They line up with perceptions of elite/prestige pretty well. Sure there’s edge cases where you can make a ton more from university A, but overall the rankings seem decent

Any ranking that has top privates/mid size universities below large public universities with low SATs should not be trusted. Sorry!

[Anonymous]

Dumbass wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it similar to U Chicago in a key respect - takes almost the entire class ED - 80%+ ED acceptance rate? Unlike Chicago, Tulane publishes these stats, so you don't have to guess.

And a LOT more fun than Chicago!

No, I’d say the key thing that separates Chicago from peers is its intellectual atmosphere and rigorous academic load.

+1.
C’mon people, one is ranked #11, higher than some Ivies. And the other is in the 60s. Not much in common between those two schools.

Using ranking to prove any point other than that rankings are stupid is stupid. Agree with your point but really bad "evidence."

In my 50 odd years on Earth, I have come to realize that reputations and rankings are there for a reason. They should of course be used with a grain of salt, and people should stay open minded, but nevertheless, it’s another datapoint to keep in the back of your mind.

I don’t get all the hate against rankings. They line up with perceptions of elite/prestige pretty well. Sure there’s edge cases where you can make a ton more from university A, but overall the rankings seem decent

They don't, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Dumbass wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it similar to U Chicago in a key respect - takes almost the entire class ED - 80%+ ED acceptance rate? Unlike Chicago, Tulane publishes these stats, so you don't have to guess.

And a LOT more fun than Chicago!

No, I’d say the key thing that separates Chicago from peers is its intellectual atmosphere and rigorous academic load.

+1.
C’mon people, one is ranked #11, higher than some Ivies. And the other is in the 60s. Not much in common between those two schools.

Using ranking to prove any point other than that rankings are stupid is stupid. Agree with your point but really bad "evidence."

In my 50 odd years on Earth, I have come to realize that reputations and rankings are there for a reason. They should of course be used with a grain of salt, and people should stay open minded, but nevertheless, it’s another datapoint to keep in the back of your mind.

I don’t get all the hate against rankings. They line up with perceptions of elite/prestige pretty well. Sure there’s edge cases where you can make a ton more from university A, but overall the rankings seem decent

They don't, actually.

They really do, unless you’re a butthurt W&M parent.

[Anonymous]

Dumbass wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dumbass wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it similar to U Chicago in a key respect - takes almost the entire class ED - 80%+ ED acceptance rate? Unlike Chicago, Tulane publishes these stats, so you don't have to guess.

And a LOT more fun than Chicago!

No, I’d say the key thing that separates Chicago from peers is its intellectual atmosphere and rigorous academic load.

+1.
C’mon people, one is ranked #11, higher than some Ivies. And the other is in the 60s. Not much in common between those two schools.

Using ranking to prove any point other than that rankings are stupid is stupid. Agree with your point but really bad "evidence."

In my 50 odd years on Earth, I have come to realize that reputations and rankings are there for a reason. They should of course be used with a grain of salt, and people should stay open minded, but nevertheless, it’s another datapoint to keep in the back of your mind.

I don’t get all the hate against rankings. They line up with perceptions of elite/prestige pretty well. Sure there’s edge cases where you can make a ton more from university A, but overall the rankings seem decent

They don't, actually.

They really do, unless you’re a butthurt W&M parent.

They really don't, unless you're a Rutgers, Texas A&M parent. Why are you so angry at parents whose kids have higher test scores than yours? W&M, Wake Forest, Tulane, CWRU are superior and their SATs reflect this fact of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dumbass wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it similar to U Chicago in a key respect - takes almost the entire class ED - 80%+ ED acceptance rate? Unlike Chicago, Tulane publishes these stats, so you don't have to guess.

And a LOT more fun than Chicago!

No, I’d say the key thing that separates Chicago from peers is its intellectual atmosphere and rigorous academic load.

+1.
C’mon people, one is ranked #11, higher than some Ivies. And the other is in the 60s. Not much in common between those two schools.

Using ranking to prove any point other than that rankings are stupid is stupid. Agree with your point but really bad "evidence."

In my 50 odd years on Earth, I have come to realize that reputations and rankings are there for a reason. They should of course be used with a grain of salt, and people should stay open minded, but nevertheless, it’s another datapoint to keep in the back of your mind.

I don’t get all the hate against rankings. They line up with perceptions of elite/prestige pretty well. Sure there’s edge cases where you can make a ton more from university A, but overall the rankings seem decent

They don't, actually.

They really do, unless you’re a butthurt W&M parent.

They used to. But 2-3 years ago, they started factoring DEI accommodations into the rankings and most of the good schools fell in the number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it similar to U Chicago in a key respect - takes almost the entire class ED - 80%+ ED acceptance rate? Unlike Chicago, Tulane publishes these stats, so you don't have to guess.

And a LOT more fun than Chicago!

No, I’d say the key thing that separates Chicago from peers is its intellectual atmosphere and rigorous academic load.

+1.
C’mon people, one is ranked #11, higher than some Ivies. And the other is in the 60s. Not much in common between those two schools.

Using ranking to prove any point other than that rankings are stupid is stupid. Agree with your point but really bad "evidence."

In my 50 odd years on Earth, I have come to realize that reputations and rankings are there for a reason. They should of course be used with a grain of salt, and people should stay open minded, but nevertheless, it’s another datapoint to keep in the back of your mind.

I don’t get all the hate against rankings. They line up with perceptions of elite/prestige pretty well. Sure there’s edge cases where you can make a ton more from university A, but overall the rankings seem decent

Any ranking that has top privates/mid size universities below large public universities with low SATs should not be trusted. Sorry!

Yes, because there is nothing more to a university than that. That’s it. That’s all there is.

[Anonymous]

Every day that passes this Forum gets more and more ridiculous.

Threads like this are just trolling. The premise of the question is a joke. As if people here in this forum claim that Tulane is a t10 school.

remember everyone….we can only post a thread that is worthy to DCUMers if it is about;

1) IVY +
2) frustrated UVA/W&M parents
3) Elite LACs
4) Hysterical Pageant/Sorority Moms looking for “prestige” in the Greek scene and bragging rights in their social lives.

Anything else and you are a complete loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Dumbass wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Dumbass wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it similar to U Chicago in a key respect - takes almost the entire class ED - 80%+ ED acceptance rate? Unlike Chicago, Tulane publishes these stats, so you don't have to guess.

And a LOT more fun than Chicago!

No, I’d say the key thing that separates Chicago from peers is its intellectual atmosphere and rigorous academic load.

+1.
C’mon people, one is ranked #11, higher than some Ivies. And the other is in the 60s. Not much in common between those two schools.

Using ranking to prove any point other than that rankings are stupid is stupid. Agree with your point but really bad "evidence."

In my 50 odd years on Earth, I have come to realize that reputations and rankings are there for a reason. They should of course be used with a grain of salt, and people should stay open minded, but nevertheless, it’s another datapoint to keep in the back of your mind.

I don’t get all the hate against rankings. They line up with perceptions of elite/prestige pretty well. Sure there’s edge cases where you can make a ton more from university A, but overall the rankings seem decent

They don't, actually.

They really do, unless you’re a butthurt W&M parent.

They really don't, unless you're a Rutgers, Texas A&M parent. Why are you so angry at parents whose kids have higher test scores than yours? W&M, Wake Forest, Tulane, CWRU are superior and their SATs reflect this fact of reality.

?? My kid has a 1550. I don’t think the schools you laid out are that impressive at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every day that passes this Forum gets more and more ridiculous.

Threads like this are just trolling. The premise of the question is a joke. As if people here in this forum claim that Tulane is a t10 school.

remember everyone….we can only post a thread that is worthy to DCUMers if it is about;

1) IVY +
2) frustrated UVA/W&M parents
3) Elite LACs
4) Hysterical Pageant/Sorority Moms looking for “prestige” in the Greek scene and bragging rights in their social lives.

Anything else and you are a complete loser.

That pretty much sums it up.

5) Mediocre white families touting legacy, TO and mid stats to get into decent colleges, yet bashing high stats URMs getting into the same schools.

[Anonymous]

Like Wake, WM, Vanderbilt, Northeastern, etc, Tulane did not suddenly become a much better college because they hired someone to help them play the USNWR game ten years ago (CWRU and Pitt were also also played the game well). Tulane isn’t better school because they started manipulating the ED numbers to increase yield, for example. In fact, the y actively hurt kids who needed to see financial aid package and could not ED.

When the new numbers/ methodology hit last year, midsize, expensive privates that were not actively recruiting Pell Grant kids were hurt the most. SAgain— Tulane, NE, Wake, WM (yes, public, but an expensive one). Especially since USNWR stopped considering average class size, percentage of classes taught by full professors, terminal degrees on the faculty, undergrad teaching reputation etc— which IMO matter a lot more than the percentage of a given class made up of Pell Grant kids.

I’ve know kids who have gone to Tulane since my high school class of 1992. First my peers, then my relatives and my friends and their kids, and now my kids peers. And the average strength of the students admitted doesn’t seem to have changed much. No, they are not “just missed an Ivy” caliber students. But, they are relatively strong students who often have a “work hard/play hard” mentality. OMO, the caliber of students hasn’t changed in 30 years. What’s changed is the methodology of the rankings.

This is why p

[Anonymous]

^^ sorry for the typos. Accidentally it send before proofing. My last sentence was going to say that this is why parent need to stop with having blind faith in USNWR rankings. There are now many, many different rankings out there. Parents need to look at underlying methodology and find rankings that match their priorities— 4/6 year grad rate, starting salary, percentage who are admitted to med school, class size,, undergrad teaching. Etc.

Parents also need to carefully check methodology and make sure they are looking at undergrad teaching metrics and not grad school teaching metrics.

Tulane should serve as a warning for parents and kids making decision based on IUSNWR rankings. Change happens slowly over time. It’s possible a school legitimately drops 15-20 places in 20 years. Absent something truly catastrophic happening at a college, no school drops 20+ spaces in one year. If that happens, the school was playing the USNWR game and got burned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like Wake, WM, Vanderbilt, Northeastern, etc, Tulane did not suddenly become a much better college because they hired someone to help them play the USNWR game ten years ago (CWRU and Pitt were also also played the game well). Tulane isn’t better school because they started manipulating the ED numbers to increase yield, for example. In fact, the y actively hurt kids who needed to see financial aid package and could not ED.

When the new numbers/ methodology hit last year, midsize, expensive privates that were not actively recruiting Pell Grant kids were hurt the most. SAgain— Tulane, NE, Wake, WM (yes, public, but an expensive one). Especially since USNWR stopped considering average class size, percentage of classes taught by full professors, terminal degrees on the faculty, undergrad teaching reputation etc— which IMO matter a lot more than the percentage of a given class made up of Pell Grant kids.

I’ve know kids who have gone to Tulane since my high school class of 1992. First my peers, then my relatives and my friends and their kids, and now my kids peers. And the average strength of the students admitted doesn’t seem to have changed much. No, they are not “just missed an Ivy” caliber students. But, they are relatively strong students who often have a “work hard/play hard” mentality. OMO, the caliber of students hasn’t changed in 30 years. What’s changed is the methodology of the rankings.

This is why p

Who knew “work hard/play hard” meant get black out drunk for most of your “degree”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m aware of some not so impressive students who got in ED from DC’s school. Like really not so impressive. Not high rigor course loads etc. Yet it’s discussed often as like an Ivy fallback.

it is not an ivy fallback. never on dcum or anywhere have i seen it called that. Tufts, maybe. WashU/Vanderbilt/Hopkins definitely. Tulane no. Tulane ED is for average to below average, 3-4 AP kids take at the boys and girls private schools nearby that have around 1250 as the average SAT. On Scoir the Tulane average SAT is about the same, 1250. Tulane RD is used for the 1300s kids as a backup to UGA and UVA in state.

What a bunch of BS

DS is at Tulane. Wait listed on ED with a 1440 SAT.

Anyone can make up stats. It doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No not impressive. In the 90s it was up and coming and respected. Now it’s just a party school for kids who can’t get into NYU. I met a young graduate recently, he was friendly smart enough but not impressive by any means

It is a much better party school than NYU.

[Anonymous]

The students I know there are impressive and can hold their own with most any student I know at Wake (a lot of kids from my kids’ hs go to both). And the ones at Tulane seem to have a better college experience!