According to their 2025-26 CDS, Tulane’s admissions rates were as follows:
RD - 11.5% (3554/30865)
ED - 58.2% (1209/2077)
There is no way to compare the quality of the ED pool to the RD pool, but even taking athletes and legacies into account, the difference is stark.
They enrolled a class of 1858 freshmen. Assuming that nearly all of the ED class enrolled – let’s say 1200 of the 1209 enrolled – that means that their RD yield was only 18.5% (658/3554).
So they boost their overall yield by letting in so many in the ED round, and balance the high ED admit rate with a far, far lower RD admit rate.
Would you count master’s programs or various certificate programs? I know a LOT of executives that have various Harvard credentials (not the traditional undergrad or MBA/JD) on their LinkedIn profile, for example. And these are fairly senior people, so it’s not like they don’t have other laurels to stand on.
Columbia, I think, is also known for having a lot of master’s degree students that “pay the bills”. But I’m not sure of the selectivity of those programs.
I figured out what I was referring to… I mean that prestige (and rankings) tend to lag reality. Only a person who studies colleges closely will appreciate subtle trends. A student/parent needs to be hit in the face for them to change their mind on the prestige of a school. History holds weight with many, whether current thinking supports it.
kind of. i think on a relative basis, there has been a shift between the top state schools and “almost top” private schools. I think some schools with excellent career paths lack the prestige they have earned.
I think there’s some truth to that. I live in Georgia and the local feeling is Georgia Tech is more prestigious than Emory in all fields. I mean I think it’s wrong, but people are dazzled by potential earnings from Tech (even if they major in a low earning field) so they think it’s better. Obviously Tech is better in engineering fields, but in everything? No.
Our experience has shown that most people consider the service academies prestigious, though their admissions rubric and education goals do not align well with the civilian colleges many consider their peers. However, “prestige” is not enough to sustain the kids who go this route through to the finish line; attending an academy is a very tough way to get through college not to mention the service years that follow. Rather than prestige, I think the service academies engender a high level of respect for those who choose to serve.
ETA: No school tops the University of Michigan in my book. Go Blue!
Of course– I agree 100% with you, and you’ve walked the walk AND talked the talk.
But I think (at least where I live) there is awe for the entire process and package of being admitted to one of the academies. Not just a jock; not just great academics, not just leadership. But in my experience, the kind of kids who engender respect across the board. Nobody is getting in by making a big donation to West Point. The fact that Grandpa served in the Navy is of course a nice thing- but it isn’t compensating for a kid who doesn’t have all the other stuff.
That’s what I mean by the prestige factor. Young people who are community minded, smart, hard-working, respected by their peers and by the adults who know them. Getting in is a really big deal because there is no backdoor and no shortcut.
Tulane offers EA admission, in addition to ED, so the RD group includes both EA and RD, which likely have very different admission rates. The Inside Higher Ed article at Tulane admitted two-thirds of its class early this year mentions only 106 were admitted via RD in a previous class – a small fraction of the 2249 admitted via EA, implying an RD admit rate of under 1%. The article states, “The regular-decision numbers were so low that some college counselors heard a rumor that Tulane didn’t admit anyone that way.” However, no source for 106 RD admits is listed, so I’m uncertain about accuracy.
This is the problem - like I noted, some “think” my daughter’s school is prestigious. It’s well above that.
Some think schools like Purdue - engineering - top rate - but over a third accepted. Some think Miami of Ohio is prestigious.
This is the issue in general - prestige - is an individual thing - what you don’t see as prestigious others think are.
Many think very highly of IU and they have many top programs, etc. UMN - strong in business, engineering - one of the top law schools - in very high regard. I think it’s over a 75% admit rate. U Wash - over 40%, etc.
But there isn’t an official prestige lever - its’ in the eye of the beholder.
You have a love through your posts for Missouri S&T. I don’t think most consider it prestigious - but that goes back to - it’s in the eye of the beholder.
I’d say the same with Stony Brook - outside of a few states, no one even knows what it is - and if you said what part of NY, looking for Long Island as the answer…..forget it!!
Butto you it is prestigious - and that’s all that matters - because there is no actual, set definition.
Honestly, I’m not impressed with Emory or Ga Tech co workers that I’m aware of. Literally none. We recently let an Emory go (last year). She was very nice though.
Ga Tech hiring stats aren’t all that.
It’s rep (US News) is a peer rep - no data included. No doubt they are getting top kids - but then why are their % wanting a job getting one so low?
Really - I watched as the student wrote, then deleted - and it was it’s my dream school (NU) and all my friends/classmates are going to Duke, Stanford, etc. So I was WL at NU and want to take another shot. This after getting into WUSTL - but the parents couldn’t afford it.
And getting into UIUC for CS.
I think - that’s it - I don’t think there’s more…based on what the student wrote and deleted.
There may not be a generally accepted definition- but certainly academic rigor comes into play, and so my “love” for these schools is mostly about intellectual rigor, and NOT about “every Mayday we run across the green in our underpants” traditions. Research facilities, faculty who are both gifted scholars AND expert teachers, grants and external funding out the wazoo.
Surely I am not the only person on CC who cares about these things. And even though employers get criticized for being behind the times when it comes to universities zooming up the rankings, the main reason is NOT that recruiters are too dumb to use Google. The main reason is that breaking ground on a nanotechnology lab is a multi-year initiative, and rankings are a backwards facing metric. And the universities who are spending big time improving their stadium parking to make it more pleasant for alums on game day, and spending on marketing, or small merit aid awards, in order to juice up their rankings are missing the point.