Tulane drops one spot to No 51 in US News

[Roller]

I suspect that if our football team were to go, say three or four consecutive seasons with about 10 wins, culminating in a top ten ranking for a couple of years, our academic ranking would improve greatly. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what "perception" will do for you.

[EnergyWave]

Ah, it's the annual USNews' meaningless "non-academic" rankings discussion.

Endowment and research $$$s skew the rankings so that large state schools place higher in the rankings than their academic measures warrant.

And, Tier 1 used to mean top 50-60 schools. USNews keeps expanding it so that more than half the field gets to be Tier 1.

When they expanded the Tier 1 scale to 150 in the last year or so...schools like LSU were sending out congratulatory letters to their students for "becoming a Tier 1 institution". Congrats...they changed the SCALE!

What a friggin' joke!

[Pelican Power]

number 51....we simply have to do better.....figure it out is what SC and the folks are paid to do....I do understand Katrina's problems and I believe SC and staff have stopped the bleeding, but now we need to start adding some muscle. The prolonged strained economy is starting to effect state schools now...so everyone is in the same boat.

[TPSTulane]

And, Tier 1 used to mean top 50-60 schools. USNews keeps expanding it so that more than half the field gets to be Tier 1.

Good thing because we wouldn't be in it if it was Top 50.

[EnergyWave]

And, Tier 1 used to mean top 50-60 schools. USNews keeps expanding it so that more than half the field gets to be Tier 1.

Good thing because we wouldn't be in it if it was Top 50.

So, we're not in the Top 50 of a flawed poll whose formula waters down our academic stats by measuring $$$s and other non-academic factors. Whoop-de-do!!

[Yankeewave]

And, Tier 1 used to mean top 50-60 schools. USNews keeps expanding it so that more than half the field gets to be Tier 1.

Good thing because we wouldn't be in it if it was Top 50.

So, we're not in the Top 50 of a flawed poll whose formula waters down our academic stats by measuring $$$s and other non-academic factors. Whoop-de-do!!

and I would love to write off these rankings as well, but whether we like it or not, they are a huge component in how kids choose schools.

[EnergyWave]

And, Tier 1 used to mean top 50-60 schools. USNews keeps expanding it so that more than half the field gets to be Tier 1.

Good thing because we wouldn't be in it if it was Top 50.

So, we're not in the Top 50 of a flawed poll whose formula waters down our academic stats by measuring $$$s and other non-academic factors. Whoop-de-do!!

and I would love to write off these rankings as well, but whether we like it or not, they are a huge component in how kids choose schools.

Actually a poll within the last few years showed a vast majority do not use USNews' rankings at all when choosing a school.

Despite our slip in this ranking over the last 20 years, our incoming students' SAT scores and class stats are still above many of the schools above us in the ranking and closely mirror #17 Vanderbilt's stats, right where they were 20 years ago when I applied to Tulane and Vandy. I would be concerned if we weren't attracting the same caliber of student, but when our students continue to have SAT scores similar to Vandy and +100 to 200 points over the likes of Univ. of Texas, Wisconsin, Rochester, etc. supposedly ranked ahead of us...then something isn't measuring reality.

[Peter Berg]

Yes that is right. If everytime you run the 40 your time gets slower then it must be the watch or the yardstick must be wrong. If every time you do the bench press you lift less then the weights must be marked wrong and besides what do those things have to do with foorball?

The problem with dropping in the USNWR rankings is that the farther you drop the lower your yield goes or the higher your discount rate has to be to attract the students you want. Tulane despite its alleged 40,000+ applicants has one of the lowest yields and highest discount rates in the country and since we have such a small endowment we are dependent on tuition for revenue.

Inside Gibson Hall when they gather round and put the green eyeshades on they know what these numbers mean and how dire they are. Out here on this forum, primarily devoted to athletics many are in fear and denial. The fear comes from a fear that if there were a change in administration there might be a review of athletics and football might go the way of freshman beanies. I will not tell anyone that couldn't happen but I will tell them a chop becomes liklier the farther we fall and the same folks who can't keep our academic rankings up are failing just as miserable keeping our athletic teams competitive.

It is time to put aside a fear of change and admit we have a problem as an institution and set about fixing it not by some two bit PT Barnum stunt of bombing the internet with free Tulane freshman applications but by putting our house in order and doing what we have as an institution been doing for 175+ years.

[Godfather]

Somebody needs to develop a more realistic ranking based on quality of incoming freshman, percentage of students who go on to graduate/professional school, professor-student ratio, percentage of undergraduate classes taught by profs, Rhodes and Fulbright scholars, etc. Preferably a publication with a big name and a lot of credibility.

Any reputational ranking is bogus. I'm looking at Harvard...99% graduation rate? Please. That just proves you buy a diploma without being challenged. Some people just don't have the maturity to deal with college and it's impossible to identify those people until you give them a real life test. Not to mention how many high-profile morons have Ivy degrees. The Ivies get their reputation from their reputation. Unfortunately that allows them to stay in the top ten through inertia.

[WaveProf]

Yes that is right. If everytime you run the 40 your time gets slower then it must be the watch or the yardstick must be wrong. If every time you do the bench press you lift less then the weights must be marked wrong and besides what do those things have to do with foorball?

As someone who spends most of my day within the academy, not on the sports pages, I can honestly say I would mock these rankings just as much, and not care about them just as much, if Tulane were #1 in the nation. They are truly, in almost every sense of the word, meaningless.

PS: And its not JUST that we shouldn't be worried about the rankings, its almost comical how opposite things are. Education at Tulane is getting radicially better--possibly better than its ever been, or at least better than its been in decades, in the same time-block that USN-WR is dropping us in the rankings

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

The rankings are not meaningless. They are flawed, but not meaningless given that they are so widely cited.

I believe Tulane is underrated in these rankings, but when you have competing schools (USC, Vandy, Wake) ranked so much higher it is very much cause for concern IMO.

[Roller]

The rankings are not meaningless. They are flawed, but not meaningless given that they are so widely cited.
....

Perhaps "meaningless" is not the proper word, if we're parsing...
But the rankings are not really indicative of anything that SHOULD be used in selecting a college. Sure, they are meaningful in the sense that far too many people pay attention to them, but I think the use of "meaningless" was really a shorthand way of saying that they do not measure anything that contributes to the quality of the education one receives.

(That said, I should reiterate my belief that the rankings do actually constitute a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy, since the higher ranked schools will draw artificially increased attention, which would tend to increase the quantity--and therefore quality--of applicants, leading to an atmosphere that is more conducive to learning and development.)

[WaveProf]

The rankings are not meaningless. They are flawed, but not meaningless given that they are so widely cited.
....

Perhaps "meaningless" is not the proper word, if we're parsing...
But the rankings are not really indicative of anything that SHOULD be used in selecting a college. Sure, they are meaningful in the sense that far too many people pay attention to them, but I think the use of "meaningless" was really a shorthand way of saying that they do not measure anything that contributes to the quality of the education one receives.

(That said, I should reiterate my belief that the rankings do actually constitute a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy, since the higher ranked schools will draw artificially increased attention, which would tend to increase the quantity--and therefore quality--of applicants, leading to an atmosphere that is more conducive to learning and development.)

In general, you probably are right about that. But even that I question in regards to Tulane. Our applications continue to soar higher than ever (both in terms of number and quality). Our students on campus are far better than they were when I got here, and, according to a senior member of our department who has been here 40 years, FAR smarter than at any time in his long career. For whatever reason, such (mis)perception based on meaningless ratings doesn't seem to be hurting us.

[Roller]

The rankings are not meaningless. They are flawed, but not meaningless given that they are so widely cited.
....

Perhaps "meaningless" is not the proper word, if we're parsing...
But the rankings are not really indicative of anything that SHOULD be used in selecting a college. Sure, they are meaningful in the sense that far too many people pay attention to them, but I think the use of "meaningless" was really a shorthand way of saying that they do not measure anything that contributes to the quality of the education one receives.

(That said, I should reiterate my belief that the rankings do actually constitute a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy, since the higher ranked schools will draw artificially increased attention, which would tend to increase the quantity--and therefore quality--of applicants, leading to an atmosphere that is more conducive to learning and development.)

In general, you probably are right about that. But even that I question in regards to Tulane. Our applications continue to soar higher than ever (both in terms of number and quality). Our students on campus are far better than they were when I got here, and, according to a senior member of our department who has been here 40 years, FAR smarter than at any time in his long career. For whatever reason, such (mis)perception based on meaningless ratings doesn't seem to be hurting us.

I agree completely. That's why I used the word "somewhat." There are, naturally, other forces at play (such as the goodwill produced by desires to help with Katrina recovery, increased attention on the City of New Orleans, etc.) that also tend to increase the number and quality of applicants.

[Charlie Dunn]

Has Cowen addressed why we keep falling in the rankings? This is getting ridiculous. I don't understand how a school can just drop every year like this. Its unprecendented, especially when our applications are at 40K and the acceptance rate is 25% (down from over 50% about a decade ago). i just don't understand it. The endowment should not count that much.

[TUPF]

Found this which lists actual criteria that goest into the USNew ranking (I know I was just guessing):

http://www.usnews.com/articles/educatio ... -2011.html

I mutiplied out a weighting table for national universities and found the following weighted factors (rounded):

Average graduation rate - 16%
Peer assessment - 15%
Resources per student - 10%
SAT/ACT scores - 7.5%
Graduation rate performance- 7.5%
HS counselor rating - 7.5%
Faculty compensation - 7%
HS class standing top 10% - 6%
Class size, 1-19 students - 6%
Alumni giving - 5%
Freshman retention rate - 4%
% Faculty with top terminal degree - 3%
Class size, 50+ students - 2%
Acceptance rate - 1.5%
% Faculty full time - 1%
Student/faculty ratio - 1%

So if I were going to say what the ratings reflect, it is mostly...do you graduate your students?...what do others think of you including what high school counselors think (a circular argument IMHO...a self-licking ice cream cone)...your how much you spend on student instruction, etc. ...how much do you pay your faculty...getting good students - SAT/ACT scores and top 10% high school admittees (no points for being lower than top 10%)..and small class sizes.

[TPSTulane]

Seems fairly balanced IMO.............

[Yankeewave]

Seems fairly balanced IMO.............

Test Scores should be worth more

[TUPF]

Seems fairly balanced IMO.............

Test Scores should be worth more

When you peel back the criteria that USNews uses, it breaks down as follows:

Resource related (~35% of total): This is a measure of how much money the school has available from whatever sources (endowments, tuition, intellectual property income, outside grants, etc.) and how it uses the funds. USNews includes resources used for the student (10%), faculty salaries (7%), small class size (6%), alumni giving (5%) faculty with terminal degrees (which ties back to salaries - 3%), class size not too big (2%), full time faculty (1%) and student/faculty ratio (which ties back to faculty) (1%).

Graduation performance (~27.5% of total): Tabulates not only how the average graduation rate is relative to other schools (16%), but how well the school did graduating its students vs. some expected performance given the resources spent for each student (7.5%). Freshman retention counts for 4% of the total.

Other's opinions (~22.5% of total): Uses surveys of other colleges/peers adminstrators (15%) and high school guidance counselors' opinions (7.5%).

Good students (~15% of total): Objective measurement of SAT/ACT scores for incoming students (7.5%), upticks for students in top 10% of high school class (6%)--but no points for students outside of the top 10%, and tough acceptance rate (1.5%).

Soooo...if you made me make a conclusion, it sure looks like money is the root of most of it: how much is available and how much is used and in what manner, what you do to make sure your students stay after their first year and eventually graduate, what peer administrators think of you (the largest single weighted criterion (15%) and to me, the area most prone to subjectivity and manipulation), getting your alumni to give (even if it is just a pittance, because the criteria is percentage--not amount) (5%), and getting not just good, but excellent students.

If you really want to reopen a can of worms and are "teaching to the test"; you do whatever you can to raise money, plow it back into campus resources, campaign with your peers and high school counselors to talk up your school, concentrate academic recruiting on students who are in the top 10% of their high school class, keep them really happy, graduate them and get a high percentage to give a few bucks each to the school forever.

[Peter Berg]

Yes resources/filthy lucre is the biggest single factor and why shouldn't it be. It is the money that buys the profs, builds the class rooms, fills the library, generates the scholarship money, and funds the labs where our main product new knowledge is generated.

So if resources are the issue or the root of the rankings drop and resources are demonstrably good things to have then why are we slipping? And why isn't the administration doing something about it? The USNWR rankings are undoubtedly flawed, but so are the BCS rankings, so are the SATs, so are the Hall of Fame selections and so are the Academy Awards. Doesn't matter they are flawed it only matters that people use them even when they don't fully agree with them. Given two sets of college game tickets would you rather watch #1 play #5 or #51 play #55? You might not think the rankings are 100% accurate or reasonable but it is only a damn fool who would bet even money on #51 in a match up with #1.

[Roller]

I don't know...it just seems to me that they should give a test to incoming freshmen (which encompasses a broad gamut of humanities, sciences, current events, etc) and give a similar test to graduates. To my mind, the school whose graduates score the biggest improvements between the two tests would the the one that did the best job of educating the students into the world. And isn't that, after all, the raison d'etre of a University (root word is "universe," not "specialty")?

Then, if you want to decide who had the best Engineering school, or best History school, or whatever, you could additionally pre-test and post-test students in any specific discipline you chose.

Compiling a list of who has the most money or who has the most friends is really ludicrous--but I guess the true purpose is to give some kind of "bragging rights" to people who went through school and were not taught anything significant.

[Rotorooter]

Compiling a list of who has the most money or who has the most friends is really ludicrous--but I guess the true purpose is to give some kind of "bragging rights" to people who went through school and were not taught anything significant.

Having had recent experience in having my sons recruited by all types of schools, and going to their introduction meetings, Roller is on the money. For instance, we went to a Yale orientation, and all the guy could talk about was his course on his experiences with pubs in Ireland, where he received course credit (his major was European studies). My Lord, if that's what it takes, I would've aced my way through Tulane just by going to Fat Harry's and Tyler's Beer Garden for 10 cent oysters on Friday nights. Outside of Penn, our experience with the Ivys has been less than impressive. They are a club, once you get in, IMO. Outside of the connections one makes, the Ivys provide you with less a marketable skill than Diesel Mechanics at the local vocational college.

I am sorry that Tulane has not seen fit to re-instate the Engineering program, one of the true majors that teach a marketable skill. Perhaps we will have the money to do so now that we have "discovered" our opportunities in sports and the fact that a lot of money can be raised if we can win in football.

[TUPF]

Outside of Penn, our experience with the Ivys has been less than impressive.

Since I live in Philly, would be interested in what your experience was, both positive and negative. I would say that the city has a pretty decent relationship with its colleges--especially when they do well in sports ! Funny, because if you believe national opinions of Philadelphia--we eat our young and BBQ outsiders. Penn had a recent run of pretty good football and basketball, but since Temple hired away Fran Dunphy for roundball, it has fallen back a bit. Not a bad school academically either!

[Rotorooter]

Outside of Penn, our experience with the Ivys has been less than impressive.

Since I live in Philly, would be interested in what your experience was, both positive and negative. I would say that the city has a pretty decent relationship with its colleges--especially when they do well in sports ! Funny, because if you believe national opinions of Philadelphia--we eat our young and BBQ outsiders. Penn had a recent run of pretty good football and basketball, but since Temple hired away Fran Dunphy for roundball, it has fallen back a bit. Not a bad school academically either!

We were most impressed with Penn. They seem to stay true to their core educational beliefs as set by Franklin: marketable skills. We would have loved to have gone there, alas, both baseball and SAT were not desireable enough. The baseball field sucked, though, and frankly Philly is a rough place, especially that neighborhood. Academically, though, we would recommend Penn to any kid serious about a quality education. Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown, not so much.

[TUPF]

Thanks Roto--nice summary. Sorry it was not the right fit for your progeny. Philly is a funny place--not a monolithic place at all. It is really just a series of neighborhoods, some vastly different than the others, probably due to what wave of immigrants settled in what part of the area. I would agree that West Philadelphia, where Penn is, is a little rough around the edges, although the word is that it is a whole lot better than it was. Lots of new building and gentrification. Remember that "Fresh Prince" song a couple of decades ago?...he was referring to West Philly. Our condo is near the National Constitution Center--only about 3 miles from the UPenn campus, but light years away in style and safety. When most people think of Philly they think Rocky movies and South Philly circa 1975, and Veterans Stadium troglodytes. There is a lot more to it and I find it a liveable, walkable city without the prices and attitude of NYC. The UPenn kids have a good reputation in Philly--smart but not arrogant, engaged with the community. No town-gown divide there (unlike my own bad experience looking at Duke).