Tulane 2010 Forum

[PDaddy]

Hey, I said "probably". I also do not imply that the change is immediate, although I cannot imagine employers not sitting up and taking notice. So, are you hatin' on IUB, or are you just a non-believer in the rankings' influence legal employers' behavior? lol. Employers rely on schools to sort talent, a point made over and over on TLS. Schools rely on rankings to tell them how good they are, and, thus sort talent according to what will improve their respective rankings. Hence, employers are relying on rankings whether they want to or not.

They rankings matter only because you think that they do. Firms don't change where they recruit just because of a jump in the rankings. The rankings change all the time. Besides, there are huge discrepancies between the amount of firms that recruit as schools in the 20-30 zone to begin with. Just because IU is now the same rank as Notre Dame doesn't mean that IU should or ever will have a similar placement/recruiting pull. As far as firms "sitting up and taking notice" on how IU made a jump in the rankings, that is ridiculous, especially in this climate. IU had to cancel both its Chicago and DC off-campus interviewing programs this year because none of the firms wanted to participate.

I think my statement above has exceptions. IU isn't as renowned a university as is Tulane. Remember, Tulane University's 'lay prestige" is much better. It has a long, well-established reputation. It would be ridiculous to compare the two, really. One's private, the other is public. One is southern and potentially dominant, the other is midwestern and simply good. As you stated above, IUB will probably never be N.D.

Well, I doubt IUB will ever be Tulane either. I am such a Tulane fan because I know what that university can be. The university really should be in a league with Duke, Vandy, UVA, and Emory. It may take another 15-20 years (or 30), but I believe it can be that good.

One last note. You make a good point: that similarly ranked schools are not necessarily similar in prestige or even quality. Well the reverse works too. Schools that may not be ranked the same can be similar in prestige and quality.

[DeSilentio2728]

The first part is nonsense and demonstrates a total lack of comprehension. My question was whether a new trend has formed this week as a result of Tulane having overplayed its hand in giving out too many acceptances already, and thus having to resort to Waitlisting the remaining 163's when this is not normally Tulane's practice as demonstrated from prior years' evidence (and this year's evidence up until this week).

There was one WL 3 years ago on LSN (my apologies). The remainder holds true for every documented year going back to 2003-2004. This trend was only broken this week suggesting that they have run out of seats until after the deposit deadline. This has nothing to do with a higher admissions standard this year as opposed to other years. If you notice, Tulane rejects plenty of people above 163, they just seemed to have held strong with the 163 line (their 75% mark). I was simply hoping that someone else may have heard some news with regard to Tulane having to hold off on further acceptances via ASW/phone call to admissions/etc...

I don't really care that much to argue with you. But you seem to be pretty ridiculous with your positions.
But Tulane had someone WL in 07/08 with 163 & 3.14, a reject in 08/09 with 164 & 3.0, and a few people who applied earlier in the cycle who were waitlisted a few weeks ago. If they had "just run out of spots last week" ... then the people who applied in October & December should have been able to get in before this "new trend" you speak of.
In all likelihood they have had an increase in apps and they are not sure of what kind of yield they will get. So they waitlisted a handful of people until they know how many (if any) open seats they still have. Its also possible that the standards for admission (numbers-wise) are going up slightly.
Why you seem to keep calling these points worthless is beyond me.

What you don't get, is that I was only talking about applicants with a 163. Not applicants >163. Thus, your lack of comprehension. 163 is their 75th mark, thus they would want to have as many people with a 163 as possible in order to make a one point jump in their median of 162. Accepting applicants with greater numbers, say 167 or even 165 brings increased risks since those applicants have a better shot at other schools and thus are less likely to attend Tulane. Accepting applicants right above their median is thus the safe strategy for improving their median.

[superflush]

I think my statement above has exceptions. IU isn't as renowned a university as is Tulane. Remember, Tulane University's 'lay prestige" is much better. It has a long, well-established reputation. It would be ridiculous to compare the two, really. One's private, the other is public. One is southern and potentially dominant, the other is midwestern and simply good. As you stated above, IUB will probably never be N.D.

Well, I doubt IUB will ever be Tulane either. I am such a Tulane fan because I know what that university can be. The university really should be in a league with Duke, Vandy, UVA, and Emory. It may take another 15-20 years (or 30), but I believe it can be that good.

One last note. You make a good point: that similarly ranked schools are not necessarily similar in prestige or even quality. Well the reverse works too. Schools that may not be ranked the same can be similar in prestige and quality.

I think you mean you're a troll for Tulane.
I like Tulane and I think it is a great school, don't get me wrong, but you are wrong about a lot things.

Tulane isn't Duke, Vandy, Emory, or UVA. Just a quick show of how they are not nearly in the same league.

Vandy - $2.83 billion endowment, 568 Group
Duke - $4.44 billion endowment, 568 Group
Emory - $4.32 billion endowment, 568 Group
UVA - $3.57 billion endowment

Meanwhile, Tulane has a $807 million endowment and is below the other 4 in the rankings. (Yes, I realize that Tulane's endowment was above $1 billion, and hopefully it will get above it again).

Honestly, I wasn't really talking about prestige. I was just saying that the correlation between rankings and placement/OCI/reach is not a peg-for-peg exchange.

[superflush]

What you don't get, is that I was only talking about applicants with a 163. Not applicants >163. Thus, your lack of comprehension. 163 is their 75th mark, thus they would want to have as many people with a 163 as possible in order to make a one point jump in their median of 162. Accepting applicants with greater numbers, say 167 or even 165 brings increased risks since those applicants have a better shot at other schools and thus are less likely to attend Tulane. Accepting applicants right above their median is thus the safe strategy for improving their median.

I've lost the patience to talk to you.

[DeSilentio2728]

What you don't get, is that I was only talking about applicants with a 163. Not applicants >163. Thus, your lack of comprehension. 163 is their 75th mark, thus they would want to have as many people with a 163 as possible in order to make a one point jump in their median of 162. Accepting applicants with greater numbers, say 167 or even 165 brings increased risks since those applicants have a better shot at other schools and thus are less likely to attend Tulane. Accepting applicants right above their median is thus the safe strategy for improving their median.

I've lost the patience to talk to you.

And I sir, now have the last word.

[superflush]

What you don't get, is that I was only talking about applicants with a 163. Not applicants >163. Thus, your lack of comprehension. 163 is their 75th mark, thus they would want to have as many people with a 163 as possible in order to make a one point jump in their median of 162.

Sorry, must have misunderstood. I didn't think somebody would be trying to make such a stupid point.

Accepting applicants with greater numbers, say 167 or even 165 brings increased risks since those applicants have a better shot at other schools and thus are less likely to attend Tulane.

Since you think LSN is the end-all-be-all for the application cycle, why don't you go to LSN and tell me how many 167s and 165s Tulane rejected last year, since the were so risky.

[DeSilentio2728]

What you don't get, is that I was only talking about applicants with a 163. Not applicants >163. Thus, your lack of comprehension. 163 is their 75th mark, thus they would want to have as many people with a 163 as possible in order to make a one point jump in their median of 162.

Sorry, must have misunderstood. I didn't think somebody would be trying to make such a stupid point.

Accepting applicants with greater numbers, say 167 or even 165 brings increased risks since those applicants have a better shot at other schools and thus are less likely to attend Tulane.

Since you think LSN is the end-all-be-all for the application cycle, why don't you go to LSN and tell me how many 167s and 165s Tulane rejected last year, since the were so risky.

I thought you had lost patience?

You are right, however. Tulane simply does not have enough data points to come to a reasonable conclusion. This is why I posited this as a question in the beginning. If you want an example of how this works, look at the American University LSN Graph

[superflush]

You are right, however. Tulane simply does not have enough data points to come to a reasonable conclusion. This is why I posited this as a question in the beginning. If you want an example of how this works, look at the American University LSN Graph, or other schools with more data points...

Okay, WCL is yeild-protecting.
Essentially, it seems like you were saying a good strategy would be for Tulane to get all their files and say "let's get as many 163 LSAT scores as we can!" ... which is not really a good strategy. Generally it would make the most sense for any law school to admit the best applicants that they get.
Yes, yield-protecting exists, and it looks like WCL does a lot of it. WCL's yield-protecting is probably further enhanced by the fact that they don't really give good financial aid. So, "who in there right mind would go to WCL with a 170 & 3.75 without a full-ride" is probably what WCL admissions says to themselves. Notice those are all WL up in that upper-right, they are not rejected these applicants. They just want to know if they are serious about attending (and they probably aren't with no good money, it was just a safety school).
I could see people attending Tulane with much higher stats, especially since Tulane gives good scholarships to some applicants. Also, it doesn't look like Tulane yield-protects nearly as much.

[DeSilentio2728]

You are right, however. Tulane simply does not have enough data points to come to a reasonable conclusion. This is why I posited this as a question in the beginning. If you want an example of how this works, look at the American University LSN Graph, or other schools with more data points...

Okay, WCL is yeild-protecting.
Essentially, it seems like you were saying a good strategy would be for Tulane to get all their files and say "let's get as many 163 LSAT scores as we can!" ... which is not really a good strategy. Generally it would make the most sense for any law school to admit the best applicants that they get.
Yes, yield-protecting exists, and it looks like WCL does a lot of it. WCL's yield-protecting is probably further enhanced by the fact that they don't really give good financial aid. So, "who in there right mind would go to WCL with a 170 & 3.75 without a full-ride" is probably what WCL admissions says to themselves. Notice those are all WL up in that upper-right, they are not rejected these applicants. They just want to know if they are serious about attending (and they probably aren't with no good money, it was just a safety school).
I could see people attending Tulane with much higher stats, especially since Tulane gives good scholarships to some applicants. Also, it doesn't look like Tulane yield-protects nearly as much.

Who in their right mind would turn down half of the top 14 with those numbers, all with heavier endowments than Tulane? You are right, WCL is notorious for YP. Why? Because yield is a factor in rankings. Tulane practices YP too, just not to such a heavy extent, as they have included a somewhat effective tool in their applications--the why are you interested in Tulane essay. I have a feeling that poor responses to this essay may be a large reason why some higher number applicants get WL or Rejected by Tulane.

But you have to admit, that there exists some cause for why Tulane would want to bunch a number of acceptances around their 75th mark, perhaps even relaxing their standards for the Why Tulane essay responses. This being two-fold: 1) These students are more likely to attend Tulane than applicants with higher numbers, and thus need to demonstrate less sincerity, as they are less likely to hurt Tulane's yield. 2) hitting the 75th mark is the easiest and most realistic way to improve Tulane's LSAT median (i.e. appearing more competitive).

The fact that there has been recent WL activity at the 163 mark could either be a fluke (very poor why Tulane?, truly unremarkable applicants) or Tulane has hit the maximum number of acceptances they can give out at this time, and thus must waitlist these applicants until after they can determine their yield post-deposit deadline.

The prior respondent made a good point about shifting target Median goals midway through the cycle (and this would be interesting and exciting for Tulane). This could be true, say if enough applicants that were admitted with 164's or higher have already sent in their seat deposits, enabling Tulane the ability to have a chance at shifting the Median all the way to 164 if they elect to hold off on accepting the remaining 163's until this possibility is confirmed.

[gwuorbust]

Tulane, just like the majority of other schools outside t-13, accept prob 95%+ of ppl that are above both 75ths.

[roguey]

Tulane, just like the majority of other schools outside t-13, accept prob 95%+ of ppl that are above both 75ths.

That statement would still be accurate if you omitted "outside t-13."

[gwuorbust]

Tulane, just like the majority of other schools outside t-13, accept prob 95%+ of ppl that are above both 75ths.

That statement would still be accurate if you omitted "outside t-13."

Well at first I was thinking of saying outside HYS, but I haven't really looked at the details of other t-14 other than GULC.

[superflush]

But you have to admit, that there exists some cause for why Tulane would want to bunch a number of acceptances around their 75th mark, perhaps even relaxing their standards for the Why Tulane essay responses. This being two-fold: 1) These students are more likely to attend Tulane than applicants with higher numbers, and thus need to demonstrate less sincerity, as they are less likely to hurt Tulane's yield. 2) hitting the 75th mark is the easiest and most realistic way to improve Tulane's LSAT median (i.e. appearing more competitive).

The fact that there has been recent WL activity at the 163 mark could either be a fluke (very poor why Tulane?, truly unremarkable applicants) or Tulane has hit the maximum number of acceptances they can give out at this time, and thus must waitlist these applicants until after they can determine their yield post-deposit deadline.

I don't even know how to respond to this, but no, just no.

[DeSilentio2728]

But you have to admit, that there exists some cause for why Tulane would want to bunch a number of acceptances around their 75th mark, perhaps even relaxing their standards for the Why Tulane essay responses. This being two-fold: 1) These students are more likely to attend Tulane than applicants with higher numbers, and thus need to demonstrate less sincerity, as they are less likely to hurt Tulane's yield. 2) hitting the 75th mark is the easiest and most realistic way to improve Tulane's LSAT median (i.e. appearing more competitive).

The fact that there has been recent WL activity at the 163 mark could either be a fluke (very poor why Tulane?, truly unremarkable applicants) or Tulane has hit the maximum number of acceptances they can give out at this time, and thus must waitlist these applicants until after they can determine their yield post-deposit deadline.

I don't even know how to respond to this, but no, just no.

I have a feeling you are not going to do very well in law school...

Often your responses are jumbled and offer no sound reasoning to the contrary (just bitching), and at times you lack even the ability to respond. Sad...My reasoning may be incorrect but at least the arguments are cogently written and are based upon some logical conclusions.

I wouldn't have been so adversarial with you if you hadn't been so dismissive in the beginning.

[superflush]

...I wouldn't have been so adversarial with you if you hadn't been so dismissive in the beginning.

I think you don't have a good grasp of the admissions process. You keep reiterating that a good strategy for Tulane would be to "admit as many people with a 163 as possible." I can't really work with that. It just flat out doesn't make sense. If you can't understand that, then I surely don't want to waste my time explaining it to you.

[DeSilentio2728]

...I wouldn't have been so adversarial with you if you hadn't been so dismissive in the beginning.

I think you don't have a good grasp of the admissions process. You keep reiterating that a good strategy for Tulane would be to "admit as many people with a 163 as possible." I can't really work with that. It just flat out doesn't make sense. If you can't understand that, then I surely don't want to waste my time explaining it to you.

I understand that you do not have the ability to grasp my reasoning. You have demonstrated a lack of comprehension throughout this conversation.

Obviously YP is disgusting, but if a school is concerned with its yield and also concerned with increasing their median LSAT then it is indeed a good strategy to accept the majority of applicants at their target median, say their prior year's 75th, and WL those applicants above their 75th who do not demonstrate a sufficient desire to attend said school in their application, or who demonstrate a desire to practice a type of law that the school is not necessarily strong in.

Obviously American finds this practice beneficial (see American LSN as before), thus I think that you are quite naive to not even consider that a school might clutter acceptances around its targeted median, while also WL'ing applicants with better numbers. This does not mean a rejection, just that the applicant needs to demonstrate further emphatic interest in attending said school see http://www.top-law-schools.com/appendixf.html:

Other points about LOCI’s

"In some cases, you may be waitlisted from a school that you were fairly confident you would be accepted to based on your LSAT and GPA. Often times, this is a case of yield protection. All law schools are conscious of their US News & World Report ranking, and one of the factors in the rankings is a school’s yield (the percentage of accepted applicants who attend the school). If a school thinks you applied to it as your safety school and will probably get into higher-ranked schools, they may waitlist you so that you will not lower their yield. If you are truly interested in that school, write a solid LOCI, and you have a good shot of being bumped off the waitlist. In a case like this, the school wants to see whether you truly are interested in attending the school or if you just applied to it as a safety school and have no real intention of going if you get into a higher ranked school. A good LOCI will show them that you are sincerely interested."

I am not necessarily saying that Tulane practices this to a great degree, I am just saying that prior to this week this "163 assumption" seemed to hold. In fact, it was the only LSAT number that maintained consistency throughout the past few years. For this consistency to break for the first time this week (with the only evidence we have LSN) suggests that something in the process may have changed. My initial question was whether this has resulted in Tulane, like a lot of other schools this year, reaching a threshold in the number of acceptances it can give out, thus forcing the school to WL those applicants, or whether something else was the cause.

For you to be dismissive of this as even a possibility gives evidence of your inability to think beyond your foregone conclusions. For this, I have sympathy for you, and as a result, I shall from now on discontinue this conversation on my end in order to limit your embarrassing yourself in future rebuttals.

[PDaddy]

I think my statement above has exceptions. IU isn't as renowned a university as is Tulane. Remember, Tulane University's 'lay prestige" is much better. It has a long, well-established reputation. It would be ridiculous to compare the two, really. One's private, the other is public. One is southern and potentially dominant, the other is midwestern and simply good. As you stated above, IUB will probably never be N.D.

Well, I doubt IUB will ever be Tulane either. I am such a Tulane fan because I know what that university can be. The university really should be in a league with Duke, Vandy, UVA, and Emory. It may take another 15-20 years (or 30), but I believe it can be that good.

One last note. You make a good point: that similarly ranked schools are not necessarily similar in prestige or even quality. Well the reverse works too. Schools that may not be ranked the same can be similar in prestige and quality.

I think you mean you're a troll for Tulane.
I like Tulane and I think it is a great school, don't get me wrong, but you are wrong about a lot things.

Tulane isn't Duke, Vandy, Emory, or UVA. Just a quick show of how they are not nearly in the same league.

Vandy - $2.83 billion endowment, 568 Group
Duke - $4.44 billion endowment, 568 Group
Emory - $4.32 billion endowment, 568 Group
UVA - $3.57 billion endowment

Meanwhile, Tulane has a $807 million endowment and is below the other 4 in the rankings. (Yes, I realize that Tulane's endowment was above $1 billion, and hopefully it will get above it again).

Honestly, I wasn't really talking about prestige. I was just saying that the correlation between rankings and placement/OCI/reach is not a peg-for-peg exchange.

I started to mention the endowments as a caveat to my arguments. I agree with you, and I know there's a big difference between the schools in that regard. But you ignore the part of my statement where I say that it may take Tulane up to three decades to catch up to those other schools. I'm not trolling for tulane, really. I just think the school has enormous potential. I also know faculty from the school, and I have learned that there's a movement to bring Tulane up to that level. Tulane isn't my favorite university, and, while I think the law school is very good, there are other so-called non-T14 schools I would attend first.

When I said that "schools that may not be ranked the same can be similar in prestige and quality", I wasn't literally saying that Tulane was already in the same league with the other schools. I said that it "should be", as in, the university has the potential to be in that league and needs to up its game and become one of those schools.

[PDaddy]

...I wouldn't have been so adversarial with you if you hadn't been so dismissive in the beginning.

I think you don't have a good grasp of the admissions process. You keep reiterating that a good strategy for Tulane would be to "admit as many people with a 163 as possible." I can't really work with that. It just flat out doesn't make sense. If you can't understand that, then I surely don't want to waste my time explaining it to you.

The right strategy under current conditions is to accept "high LSAT splitters" (even a few extreme ones) and throw lots of money at them, while accepting fewer "high GPA splitters". Then accept a large number of just above median LSAT and GPA students and give them money too. $$$cholar$hip$ = high LSAT's and GPA's = higher rankings. That said, I think the whole system is BS. Schools should be ranked based on outputs, not inputs.

[PDaddy]

Tulane Law is ranked within the top 25 "intellectual superspreaders" in the country, equaling or superseding Emory and Vanderbilt in some very crucial areas: "Outdegrees", "Hub Scores", and "Closeness Scores". Do you know what that means? I'm going to school you. First, look at the link below. This paper will give you some new insight on how to look at "faculty quality" and the influence colleges and universities have between each other.

Take a look at the bubble photo and draw a square from UNC to Tulane. That bubble diagram gives you the top intellectual superspreaders. As you can see, Tulane is right in the mix of the very top schools. The only other similarly ranked schools to make that elite list are Florida and Wisconsin.

--LinkRemoved--

Hit the "One Click Download" link for the article.

The superspreader model asks us to think of knowledge as a retrovirus that we can measure according to the influence the carriers of the knowledge impart upon other institutions. Hence, intellectual superspreaders tend to put their imprints on academic and other institutions to a degree that less prolific institutions cannot.

[superflush]

I started to mention the endowments as a caveat to my arguments. I agree with you, and I know there's a big difference between the schools in that regard. But you ignore the part of my statement where I say that it may take Tulane up to three decades to catch up to those other schools. I'm not trolling for tulane, really. I just think the school has enormous potential. I also know faculty from the school, and I have learned that there's a movement to bring Tulane up to that level. Tulane isn't my favorite university, and, while I think the law school is very good, there are other so-called non-T14 schools I would attend first.

When I said that "schools that may not be ranked the same can be similar in prestige and quality", I wasn't literally saying that Tulane was already in the same league with the other schools. I said that it "should be", as in, the university has the potential to be in that league and needs to up its game and become one of those schools.

Okay, fair enough. I guess I skipped over the part about it taking 3 decades. Tulane isn't quite in the league with those other schools, but it is close, and it isn't unreasonable for them to aspire to be there.

[superflush]

Obviously YP is disgusting, but if a school is concerned with its yield and also concerned with increasing their median LSAT then it is indeed a good strategy to accept the majority of applicants at their target median, say their prior year's 75th, and WL those applicants above their 75th who do not demonstrate a sufficient desire to attend said school in their application, or who demonstrate a desire to practice a type of law that the school is not necessarily strong in.

Obviously American finds this practice beneficial (see American LSN as before), thus I think that you are quite naive to not even consider that a school might clutter acceptances around its targeted median, while also WL'ing applicants with better numbers. This does not mean a rejection, just that the applicant needs to demonstrate further emphatic interest in attending said school ...
I am not necessarily saying that Tulane practices this to a great degree, I am just saying that prior to this week this "163 assumption" seemed to hold. In fact, it was the only LSAT number that maintained consistency throughout the past few years. For this consistency to break for the first time this week (with the only evidence we have LSN) suggests that something in the process may have changed. My initial question was whether this has resulted in Tulane, like a lot of other schools this year, reaching a threshold in the number of acceptances it can give out, thus forcing the school to WL those applicants, or whether something else was the cause.

For you to be dismissive of this as even a possibility gives evidence of your inability to think beyond your foregone conclusions. For this, I have sympathy for you, and as a result, I shall from now on discontinue this conversation on my end in order to limit your embarrassing yourself in future rebuttals.

If I were to be embarrassed, it is only because I am actually trying to converse with you. It is not working.
Let me be clear, "cluttering all your acceptances at your median" or "admitting all the people at your median over applicants with higher lsat scores" is not a good strategy. I'm sorry you disagree.
WCL is an edge case. Because for some reason, people with T14 numbers are applying there even though they give out horrible aid. It's a rich kid's school for rich kid's that can't get into better schools. At a school like Tulane, if you have T14 numbers, you should get a great scholarship, and some of these students doattend Tulane. WCL isn't a good standard to go by, it is an anomaly. I don't know why you think that just because they do this that it is a good strategy or a strategy that should be used by other schools.

[BriaTharen]

Not to be completely off topic/debate, but just throwing in that I sent in my withdrawal form to Tulane today (I was a 160/3.2). I hope this clears a space for someone who is waitlisted and really wants to go there! Good luck!

[mailmanstalker]

WTF complete 4/9 again

[DeSilentio2728]

Anybody watch Treme last night? Looks like HBO has another show that is special/remarkable, along the lines of The Wire.

[tkicker182]

Withdrew today freeing up 25k/yr scholly. I hope this helps one of you.