<p>I also did the calculation of raw numbers vs percentages of the incoming classes of TU (around 1500) vs Miami (around 2500 was my estimate- with an undergrad population of about 10K b/c I couldnt find the freshman class # on Miami’s website), but had decided not to post it, as it would indeed point out the idiocy of using raw numbers. By SJU’s calculation- if 1200 of the incoming class of an estimated 2500 at Miami were in the top 10%- that would be 48%. If 840 of TUs 1500 incoming class were in the top 10% that would be 56%. So by his estimation, TU trumps Miami by 8%. But those numbers provided are probably wrong, and probably made up (no citation given-- what a shock!!). So pointing this error out would just point out again that JHU either doesnt know what he is talking about, is just trying to be annoying and inflammatory or all of the above. So I’ll just go back to saying what I said in post 47- that if he doenst understand the difference between raw numbers and percentages its time to take, or retake intro stat.</p>
<p>** Just looked on another site and saw that an estimated # of 2006 for Miami’s incoming class last year. Don’t know if this # is accurate as it is a secondary site <a href=“Answers about University of Miami”>Answers about University of Miami. Who knows what the actual # was, but the point is that comparing raw numbers when the base numbers are different (1500 vs 2000 , or even 500 vs 5000) makes NO sense.</p>
<p>It can get a little confusing, because just like Tulane they have some part-time students. But it seems clear that the comparable numbers are for full time degree seeking first time freshmen, which appears to have been 1905 for Miami and 1505 for Tulane for Fall 2009. So if we take their report of 63% in top 10% at face value, which I do, that is 1200 students. But of course that is meaningless, it is the 63% that counts (to the extent any of this is meaningful at all) and Tulane reports at 60%. OK, 59.6%-60.4%, since they apparently rounded. Since Miami doesn’t use decimal places either, theirs is also 62.6%-63.4%. Yeah, let’s have fun arguing with SJUHawk over what amounts to less that a couple of dozen students, lol. Now that we have the stats straight, it is clearly a meaningless issue because the schools are very similar academically.</p>
<p>WRONG! If Miami had 2500 in the freshman class, 1575 would be in the top 10 percent of their high school class! (63%). In fact, the incoming class is not 2,500 but 1,905. 63% of 1,905 is 1,200. </p>
<p>Seriously, jym, do you really think prospective college students can’t see through your double talk and false logic. The numbers are not ambiguous. It is this simple: </p>
<p>**Percentage of incoming freshman at Miami in the top 10% of their high school class - 63%</p>
<p>Percentage of incoming freshman at Tulane in the top 10% of their high school class - 50%**</p>
<p>END OF STORY! Those are the FACTS. Try all you want to cite blogs and marketing puffery, those are the facts. Here are the SOURCES (unlike you, I cite sources):</p>
<p>And you said that Tulane reports 60%. That is untrue! In fact Tulane deliberately does not report a common data set. However, Tulane reported 50% to Business Week. On a blog and on their site they make higher APPROXIMATIONS (marketing) but when they have been required to provide truthful information (i.e. a major publication where lying could have major repercusions) Tulane reported 50%. </p>
<p>The question crossing any logical person’s mind is why is there a discrepancy between what the assistant dean of admissions puts on his blog and Business Week? The simple answer is they are not being honest. They call there false statements “approximations” in an effort to avoid culpability. Business Week requires hard numbers (not “approximations” because they know approximations open the door to false reporting). When they give the true numbers we see that it is only 50% of the incoming class that is in the top 10% of their high school class.</p>
<p>LOL FC-
I had Miami’s CDS in post #42- Didn’t pull it back up! I was looking in their admissions/ enrolled students /fast facts etc sections of their website. Is the TU estimate of 59.6-60.4 based on their saying “approximately 60%” or have you gbeen able to locate numbers. I just wondered. </p>
<p>TU held its SAC meeting yesterday. Maybe when the minutes are posted there will be some updated #s.</p>
<p>Stop, STOP STOP SJU. Your info is for the BUSINESS school. Can you or will you simply not read??? Sheesh!!!</p>
<p>And the “sources” you posts are the incorrect busineesweek info (incorrect meaning you are trying to extrapolate business school data to the whole university) and the CDS link FC and I provided. Too funny.</p>
<p>Go back and pester the Temple U people. We are really weary of this BS</p>
<p>Also pretty funny that SJUHawk thinks everything he reads in Business Week or any other commercial publication is always true anyway.</p>
<p>Anyway, I suggest we let SJUHawk live with the delusion that approximately 60% really means 50% and that the Business Week stats are for the whole school instead of just the Freeman school, even though they clearly state the latter is the case. Between that and all the other comical errors he has made, no one could read this and not realize what he is truly all about.</p>
<p>Ah, just found this. OK I will severely chastise Tulane for rounding 59% up to 60%. Shame on them, lol. But it clearly is not 50%.</p>
<p>The point of this whole thread was supposed to be helping someone decide between Miami and Tulane, both great schools to attend. Let it be known that your recommendation is to attend Miami, which is fine, and leave it at that.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why anyone can’t realize that no matter where you are reading the info, Businessweek, US News, university-produced admissions material, even the Common Data Set; it’s ALL provided to those sources by the same person at that university.</p>
<p>True, benetode, but the numbers change, depending on when they are released. Perhaps that is why many schools dont release #s til after the dust has settled and freshmen have completed a month of school, and why there aren’t yet “official” publications of numbers for the incoming class of 2014.</p>
<p>** And why anyone would try to compare the preliminary stats for the incoming class of 2014 ( the complete entering class) and stats from a subset of identified business majors, from a few years ago (could be a blend of sophomores, junior, seniors-- who knows, and who knows what year the data is pulled from, so this could be a mix of students from the class of 2009, 10 etc) is simply mind boggling and ignorant.</p>
<p>Whew- its just after 10 am and I’ve had my fill of trolldom for the day!</p>
<p>Well, I have provided 2 sources. Both were consistent. The dilema here is that Tulane tries to hide this information from the public (WHY?). Most schools it is as simple as looking at the published common data set. Of course, Tulane refuses to publish this. The simple fact is that every available source indicates that Miami is more selective than Tulane! Accept it. Tulane is an okay mid-level school. Tulane people try to make it more than it is. It is essentially a fall-back plan for those who could not gain admission to Miami or George Washington.</p>
<p>FallenChemist: the is an obvious reason I believe major publications over what blogs say. The major publications have nothing to gain by lying. The are simply reporting. The university websites and the assistant dean of admissions’ blog are aimed at promoting the school and their own jobs (i.e. “I brought in a good class therefore I am doing my job well”). The Princeton Review benefits by accuracy - the more reliable they are, the more likely it is that people will trust, and purchase, there guides.</p>
<p>P.S. I am glad you and chemist stopped calling me names. It does not look good when university promoters call people names on a public forum.</p>
<p>Absolutely Jym, but I don’t understand the idea that there is ever a true ‘official’ set of numbers that the government has inspected and approved and then, and only then is sent to the all-mighty Businessweek (which obviously considers only business students) or to whomever else.</p>
<p>It is truly insane to me how paranoid and suspicious people are of Tulane University staff. Why would they lie? The numbers that people say are manipulated have zero effect on rankings, ect. They have zero effect on grants. They have zero effect on their own employment. </p>
<p>And the idea that the common data set isn’t providing the exact same numbers from the exact same guy/gal at the university that’s gives it out to everyone else is crazy. The CDS is a relatively new format that simply keeps universities on the same format so it becomes easier to compare schools. The info itself is still provided by the schools. It’s not a gov. entity, nor is it a regulatory body in any sense that could rain down terror if it was lied to. That is what you would think though to read some of the posts on here. Craziness.</p>
<p>This is tiresome SJU. Look. At.Your.Own.Citation. [Business</a> School Rankings and Profiles: EMBA, Executive Education, MBA, Part-time MBA, Distance MBA](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)
They rank Tulanes’ undergrad husiness school one HIGHER than Miami’s. They are essentially equivalent, in their eyes. Now ENOUGH. PLEASE STOP your INCESSANT ranting. You won’t but we can ask.</p>
<p>Bentode, that is true that the source is always the university. The difference is the level of accountability. It you give an APPROXIMATION in a blog, that is very different than reporting a false common data set. That is one of the reasons that there has been a push for the common data set - university accounability. The idea is that it is easy to report false conclusions but a common data set would require falsification of the raw data (a serious offense) to alter the conclusions. I will look at every university’s reporting with caution if they don’t provide a common data set. There is a reason they refuse to do so.</p>
BINGO!! You and FC have to quit being logical Seems that some think that if they rant long enough and throw out wild and crazy accusations and engage in melodramatic hystrionics loud enough, that some poor person might actually believe them.</p>
<p>Again though, there is zero accountability. The worst case scenario would be getting caught and then being embarrassed. </p>
<p>Was there a reason Harvard and Penn didn’t provide a CDS until recently? Yes. It’s called laziness. It’s also called being overworked. Seeing as how Tulane had more applications than any other private school in the country this past year, they might be busy. </p>
<p>Listen, I trust what a university tells me about how much I trust my parents when they tell me I’m special. But the idea that you can ever get consistent 100% accurate info from ANY school is also crazy. That’s why it’s crazy to compare schools based on a stat differences. If you want the most ‘official’ version, you should actually go to the horse’s mouth and get it from the university’s admission website (since they provide it for everyone else anyhow.) </p>
<p>Anyways, y’all have fun bickering, I have to go re-center my steering wheel (don’t ask.)</p>
<p>Benetode: Have you ever noticed that the suspicions often center around Tulane? Did you ever notice that Tulane is often mentioned in these conversations? </p>
<p>And jym, please stop calling me a ■■■■■. If I was just trying to dump on Tulane I would have pointed out that Miami is a much nicer city. That the Tulane campus is a swamp. That New Orleans has more rats than people - so many, in fact, that a 3-month old baby was killed in its crib by rats! etc. I didn’t. I simply pointed out that Miami was a bit more selective and that Miami had better sports.</p>
<p>SJ, you do have me there, you should NEVER bring a baby to Tulane, lest it be devoured by rats. OR…maybe you shouldn’t leave your kid in a meth lab anywhere. Bye for now.</p>
<p>Don’t want to get involved in any of this, however I am happy to see people are reading my blog! Just to put one fact out there: Within the current incoming class of 2014, the % of students in the top 10% of their class is indeed 63.7%. We do publish all of our data which you can view here. If anyone has any questions please feel free to call me in the admission office or e-mail me at <a href=“mailto:jschiffm@tulane.edu”>jschiffm@tulane.edu</a>. </p>
<p>Keep in mind this is last year’s data. We will not update it for the class of 2014 till late this summer. </p>
<p>Thanks Jeff. We all completely understand that you cannot get caught up in this kind of skirmish, given your official position with the univeristy. I’ll do my best to continue to point out all of this ■■■■■’s fallacies and misinformation. The link you gave was the source of the “approximately 60%”, which only a truly odd person would jump on the way SJUHawk did, but in any case the link I gave showed the more precise 59%. I know it kills SJUHawk to be wrong for like the 12th time in trying to report “data”, but it is his own fault for not reading the Business Week reference carefully and trying to extrapolate it to the entire entering class.</p>
<p>Now I would like to see if he wants to call you a liar to your “face”.</p>
Seems that some think that if they rant long enough and throw out wild and crazy accusations and engage in melodramatic hystrionics loud enough, that some poor person might actually believe them.</p>