<p>Just wondering do the majority of applicants apply to both? Would it be worthwhile to apply to both even though the chances of you going to Oxford are low? Even though you do not need an additional application you do have to mention it in your supplement essay right?
Thanks!!</p>
<p>The vast majority of applicants apply to both campuses (most of whom have no idea what Oxford actually is), but that’s just because it’s as easy as checking off a box. As I’ve previously written, Oxford is in many ways the polar opposite of Emory. We’re a small lac in a rural environment with only two grades. If you can see yourself here, great, check off the box. You have nothing to loose. If you know you’d be miserable in such an environment, don’t. An Emory degree isn’t worth being depressed for two years.</p>
<p>Sorry, replying from my phone so I can’t edit messages. You’re not required to write anything about Oxford and I know many people that didn’t and still were accepted. That being said, Oxford gets more and more competitive each year (the average stats have risen faster than almost every school in the nation), so what might have worked last year may cause someone to get rejected this year.</p>
<p>Thanks man yeah I probably won’t apply to Oxford as well because I might not like the liberal arts college feel. We should reduce the competition for those who really want to go there.</p>
<p>There’s a possibility that if you select both, you’ll get placed in Oxford, whereas if you had only applied to Emory you would have gotten into main campus. You never know. The university admissions office might say that they don’t consider that in admission decisions, but the Emory University’s admissions office isn’t completely honest as the whole world now knows.</p>
<p>No, there’s no possibility. Emory Main and Oxford decisions are reviewed independently, and while Emory used to offer applicants rejected during RD the possibility of applying to Oxford, Oxford’s admissions are now much more competitive, which means it no longer does that (only for those applying ED1 who didn’t apply to Oxford).</p>
<p>Oxford’s admissions have dramatically changed since you applied Trex.</p>
<p>The university has gone down hill dramatically since I applied. The school just uses a bunch of aggressive marketing tactics to spin facts in their favor. This US News and World Report scandal is a huge deal and didn’t get the media coverage that it deserves because Emory isn’t well known nationally. The current administration of the school is paid extremely well and they’ve utterly failed in their responsibilities.
In 2009 and 2010 they exaggerated the SAT scores by 40 points.
[Emory</a> misreported admissions data for more than a decade | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“Emory misreported admissions data for more than a decade”>Emory misreported admissions data for more than a decade)
The university is obviously having trouble attracting the type of students it needs to remain a top 20 school. Oxford students score on the bottom end, no matter what the university tells the students there to them feel better about themselves. The students that come from Oxford to main campus were “on average” a lot less intelligent than the rest of the student body. They would probably do well at other less competitive schools, but they just dragged down the rankings of Emory. We had a term for them, but I’m not going to repeat it here. If it has gotten more competitive to get in, it because more students want to go to a top 20 school and Oxford is the backdoor in. Also, the University may be steering more international students to apply. Oxford should have been made a historical landmark a long time ago. Probably the reason that Emory couldn’t do that was because it is so difficult to lay off tenured professors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, comparing the admitted students data from this last year to the corrected admissions data from the college of arts and sciences, the difference is far less significant than you would think. Of course, both schools have now switched to only reporting admitted students data, rather than enrolled students data, which makes it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the differences between the incoming cohorts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is empirically untrue. Data from Oxford students are not used to calculating Emory’s ranking in publications such as U.S. News. If you read the strategic plan, you’ll note that has been increasing enrollment and plans to continue to do so. Increasing enrollment at Oxford potentially allows the university to admit fewer students to the college of arts and sciences, increasing the admissions standards and metrics that are used in ranking the school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This criticism is quite correct. Oxford is no longer need-blind in admissions this year, possibly a test to see if it can be implemented on the Atlanta campus. Administrators are under pressure to admit more international students than they would like because of their ability to pay.</p>
<p>“both schools have now switched to only reporting admitted students data, rather than enrolled students data, which makes it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the differences between the incoming cohorts.”
Shouldn’t it be the opposite, Oxtard!</p>
<p>If anyone is reading this and wondering whether or not they should apply to Emory and/or Oxford, note that Trex’s opinions are in the distinct minority. Remember, the alumni, and to a lesser extent, the current students, who comment on College Confidential represent two extremes, those completely dissatisfied with their school, and those absolutely in love with their school. Please don’t use Trex’s opinions as a barometer for how the rest of the student body views Oxford, because the reality is 90%+ of the student body who started at Main don’t care enough about Oxford to form any meaningful opinions about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I believe you may have misread my post in your haste to be insulting. Especially for the College of Arts and Sciences, the admitted students statistics are not representative at all of the enrolled students statistics. That is, with the nature of yield, the College of Arts and Sciences admits students with far higher stats than actually enroll. Comparing the admitted students data is helpful for understanding the selectivity of the schools; however, it does not give us insight into the students who choose to enroll and constitute the current study body.</p>
<p>If you compare the corrected enrolled students data for the College of Arts and Sciences (available through the Common Data Set) to the enrolled students data for Oxford College for the last academic year (which used to be online), you would see that the differences between the student bodies are not as significant as you would think–and certainly not nearly as significant as they have been in the past. Unfortunately, the Oxford admissions office has decided to provide only admitted students data–following the practice of the College of Arts and Sciences–and Oxford’s enrolled students data are not available through the Common Data Set, or any other online publication that I can locate.</p>
<p>Actually, trex’s opinion is quite common. I along with many people I know share the opinion. It’s one of those things that you just don’t bring up in a polite conversation. The Oxford campus has too high an acceptance rate (40% ish), and the junior transfers from the college are indeed hurting Emory’s rankings. “Oxtards” is a highly offensive term, however.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please see my above post for an explanation of how Oxford actually helps Emory’s rankings.</p>
<p>The rankings only look at the stats of the enrolled freshmen students at Emory CAS. Neither Oxford, nor transfer students, have any negative effect on the rankings, and the existence of Oxford actually increases Emory’s perceived selectivity. Without Oxford, Emory would be forced to admit less qualified students, in order to maintain its current class sizes. </p>
<p>If transfer students impacted the rankings in any way, UC Berkeley, which proudly accepts hundreds, if not thousands of transfers each year would drastically fall in the “rankings”.</p>
<p>The problem with providing only admitted students data, is that the University can brag about the people who applied but had very little intention of actually attending. Maybe they got into better schools, or maybe they chose to go to a state school. I’d say that most people from big cities don’t want to go Oxford, Georgia for college. And why would Emory be forced to admit less qualified students in order to maintain its currents class sizes? They could just shrink the undergraduate student body. I mean the University is cutting back on departments. They probably will have to cut back on Emory Advantage. They have not done a good job in making the school more reputable. It would make perfect strategic sense to get rid of Oxford if possible.</p>
<p>Trex, I don’t even know why I’m bothering to debate with you, since you have absolutely no knowledge about Oxford, but whatever.</p>
<p>
Agree with you on this. Ideally a university should publish both statistics so it gives applicants a reasonable look at where they stand, and where they’re likely to receive merit aid.</p>
<p>
Just because a school is in a rural environment, doesn’t mean it has trouble attracting students from urban areas. Just look at Middlebury, Bates, Williams, Carleton and their respective acceptance rates. Considering how many students at these schools are full pay, I’m willing to bet quite a few students from urban or suburban areas have no problem with the rural setting. </p>
<p>Besides, you act as if Oxford is in the North Georgia mountains, 3 hours from any civilization. It’s not. It’s about 40 minutes from Atlanta, and 5 minutes from Covington. I come from one of the largest metropolitan regions in the US, and Covington has everything that I want. Plus Oxford regularly runs shuttles to Stonecrest Mall, which is an enormous mall about 15 miles from the school. If that’s not enough, freshmen are allowed to have cars, and plenty bring theirs. If there’s a big event an hour away, it’s usually possible to convince someone with a car to drive provided they get gas money. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oxford’s entering class is about 490 students. Do you realize how disastrous it would be for any university of Emory’s size if they lost about 900 students (some either drop out, or transfer to a different school at the end of their Oxford career)?</p>
<p>
That’s an issue of misplaced spending. Emory needs to learn how to reign in its spending on non academic pursuits. They’ve rebuilt over half of all freshmen dorms at Main in the last four years. That’s not necessary, and a waste of money. I can think of a number of other projects that just scream waste, but I don’t feel like typing out all of my complaints wrt the administration, particularly Wagner.</p>
<p>
No it wouldn’t. Oxford has the potential to be the flagship Emory experience. The only things comparable to Oxford are the honors colleges at major universities, which are extremely popular. If Emory invests a bit more money into Oxford’s student activities committee, hires a few more professors, and finishes up the new science facilities, Oxford could very well become the most popular feature of Emory.</p>
<p>It seems like there is a lot of controversy around the university recently? Besides the misreporting of SAT scores and spending cuts what other problems are there?</p>
<p>Other concerns are chronicled in some detail in recent threads on the Emory subforum. To avoid cluttering every thread with a rehash of those discussions, I’d respond to one of those threads.</p>
<p>ArchAngel0: There’s not a lot of controversy around the university. You mentioned the controversies, if you can even really call them that. I really don’t see how the cuts are much of an issue (granted, I’m a biased premed looking to be an NBB major) because students currently in those programs can still graduate with their planned degree. This should only really upset high schoolers interested in those specific paths at Emory. And the SAT misreporting was really just a numbers error…or Dean Forman has convinced me so that that’s all it was. Whatever, what difference is 40 pts on the SAT anyway…</p>
<p>I didn’t apply to Oxford because I wouldn’t want to go to Emory unless I was actually at the college. It’s in the middle of nowhere, and it’s small, and I honestly knew nothing about it. My decision to not check off the box was made when I knew that if I had gotten into only Oxford, I would have chosen to go to like the University of Pittsburgh instead. I know two Oxford continuees who are juniors now and they both despised Oxford. I hear that you make a lot of REALLY close friends because it’s so small but that that environment gets old/annoying after a while when everyone seems to know your entire life. I also hear that Oxford courses can be more challenging than main campus courses since the mentality is that they’re trying to get you prepared to move up to main campus…the location sucks too. The only really great stuff I hear about Oxford is on the Emory Secrets page, and I’d say that’s pretty sad.</p>
<p>While I disagree with you on the cuts aspect, it’s important to note that a non insubstantial number of students chose Oxford because they just wanted an Emory degree. They considered Emory because they wanted a major research university in a major metropolitan area and decided to stick through Oxford solely to get an Emory degree. Basically, they chose a school they’d be miserable at and complain accordingly. </p>
<p>I’ll gladly admit that there are things Oxford needs to work on: giving the student government more funding for activities, hiring a few more professors, reducing the bureaucracy, etc. But the reality is, very often the students that absolutely despise the school were the ones that should not have come here.</p>