Tulane acceptance rate rises to 13%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender balance gets worse under test optional (greater reliance of grades, where girls *on average* tend to do better)

Not true, this is just a theory being pushed on dcum for some unknown reason because girls do slightly worse on standardized tests. There is no data to support more girls being admitted under test optional,

And as long as colleges can track gender, it’s in their power to accept more of one than the other in order to get more balance. So I don’t see how TO automatically favors girls.

[Anonymous]

The gender ratio issue has been around for awhile but it seems to be only getting worse, not better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/09/08/dont-let-date-onomics-get-you-down/

[Anonymous]

Speaking of gender imbalance, when all the trans-boys apply to college, what will they be counted as? Trans/other? Girls? Boys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of gender imbalance, when all the trans-boys apply to college, what will they be counted as? Trans/other? Girls? Boys?

all the trans boys"....WTF kind of MAGA culture war queer bashing nonsense is this?

As an admissions insider that's seen hundreds of apps, I can count on less than 4 fingers how many checked non-binary or other or trans. None if them wrote about it in their essays.

Fun fact, schools don't police the identity of applicants. Nobody's looking up skirts, pulling down pants, or doing ancestry DNA tests to confirm how "of color" someone is.

Trust me. It's not fun to be the U in underrepresented in higher education.

Identity cheaters will always slip by. But there are way more legacy/side door/private tutored applicants pushing "embellished" apps from entitled, status-chasing parents.

Newsflash, you're "qualified" kid is a commodity. There's no magic formula, no matter what consultants tell you.

The "trans" are taking your varsity QB's spot any more than Black kids are getting a "boost" over Asians.

Each school has its own, often conflicting, admissions process.

Including, I kid you not, flipping a coin.

So let's not drag (ahem) kids into partisan politics and higher education economics and business models.

In this century, where you go to school for undergrad is less important than how well you do when you get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a bad gender ratio. I wouldn’t be surprised if more colleges start reaching that gender imbalance as well.

That would require rejecting more qualified girls than boys, which doesn't stop right with most adcoms. No one seems to be complaining about these ratios (misogynist much?) so there's no reason to change anything.

A LOT of people complain about this ratio. It's not good or healthy for a school to be this imbalanced.

-- signed, mom of Tulane student

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of gender imbalance, when all the trans-boys apply to college, what will they be counted as? Trans/other? Girls? Boys?

all the trans boys"....WTF kind of MAGA culture war queer bashing nonsense is this?

As an admissions insider that's seen hundreds of apps, I can count on less than 4 fingers how many checked non-binary or other or trans. None if them wrote about it in their essays.

Fun fact, schools don't police the identity of applicants. Nobody's looking up skirts, pulling down pants, or doing ancestry DNA tests to confirm how "of color" someone is.

Trust me. It's not fun to be the U in underrepresented in higher education.

Identity cheaters will always slip by. But there are way more legacy/side door/private tutored applicants pushing "embellished" apps from entitled, status-chasing parents.

Newsflash, you're "qualified" kid is a commodity. There's no magic formula, no matter what consultants tell you.

The "trans" are taking your varsity QB's spot any more than Black kids are getting a "boost" over Asians.

Each school has its own, often conflicting, admissions process.

Including, I kid you not, flipping a coin.

So let's not drag (ahem) kids into partisan politics and higher education economics and business models.

In this century, where you go to school for undergrad is less important than how well you do when you get there.

Thanks, but I don't believe for a minute that you're an "admissions insider." Your writing and grammar are horrible, and you present yourself as extremely immature.

Perhaps what you mean is that you consider yourself an expert in advising your 17 YO peers?

[Anonymous]

A big gender imbalance is definitely a negative box checked for my kids looking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of gender imbalance, when all the trans-boys apply to college, what will they be counted as? Trans/other? Girls? Boys?

all the trans boys"....WTF kind of MAGA culture war queer bashing nonsense is this?

As an admissions insider that's seen hundreds of apps, I can count on less than 4 fingers how many checked non-binary or other or trans. None if them wrote about it in their essays.

Fun fact, schools don't police the identity of applicants. Nobody's looking up skirts, pulling down pants, or doing ancestry DNA tests to confirm how "of color" someone is.

Trust me. It's not fun to be the U in underrepresented in higher education.

Identity cheaters will always slip by. But there are way more legacy/side door/private tutored applicants pushing "embellished" apps from entitled, status-chasing parents.

Newsflash, you're "qualified" kid is a commodity. There's no magic formula, no matter what consultants tell you.

The "trans" are taking your varsity QB's spot any more than Black kids are getting a "boost" over Asians.

Each school has its own, often conflicting, admissions process.

Including, I kid you not, flipping a coin.

So let's not drag (ahem) kids into partisan politics and higher education economics and business models.

In this century, where you go to school for undergrad is less important than how well you do when you get there.

Thanks! I really appreciate thoughtful and knowledgeable responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NYU is also 60/40. Not that unusual.

Yes, and significant chunk of that 40% at NYU are gay. My DD who went there was not happy with the dating pool.

[Anonymous]

Boys and men are flailing. Get used to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boys and men are flailing. Get used to it.

Nationally the average is close to 60% female, 40% male. It is a big issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a bad gender ratio. I wouldn’t be surprised if more colleges start reaching that gender imbalance as well.

That would require rejecting more qualified girls than boys, which doesn't stop right with most adcoms. No one seems to be complaining about these ratios (misogynist much?) so there's no reason to change anything.

Wait it’s misogynistic to admit more women vs men?

[Anonymous]

getting hysterical about a 60/40 "imbalance" is a joke. I went to college in the late '80s and many many schools including where I went were 60/40 male and NO one was complaining about that or saying that we were going to get a bad education - why is this such a big issue the other way around