<p>Schools like Columbia and Emory are simply never compared because they share nothing in common.</p>
<p>They are both semi-urban/urban and top 25.</p>
<p>I agree Columbia is a better school all around, it attracts much stronger students and places them much better, but Emory isn't THAT much worse that you can't put them in the same category lol. </p>
<p>I think Columbia's top 10 vs Emory being top 20 btw.</p>
<p>I still don't see how they can be in the same category.
Weaker applicants and student body than all the other universities.
People get in with much lower scores and not as impressive EC's/achievements a lot of the times. And since when was Emory a TOP, prestigious university to the degree of the Ivies?</p>
<p>"I still don't see how they can be in the same category."</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>"Weaker applicants and student body than all the other universities.
People get in with much lower scores and not as impressive EC's/achievements a lot of the times."</p>
<p>But not necessarily to this. The reason I don't see them in the same category is because the two schools essentially stand for different things. Their student bodies are very different in that a very large portion of its student body is Southern and so is its prestige. It is a recognized university, but recognized as a prestigious "Southern" institute.</p>
<p>Columbia, on the other hand, also draws a lot of students from New York, but its applicants are very ethnically and culturally diverse and not particularly concentrated from a particular region. You will not feel an ounce of predominance of a particular culture on campus, while I'm sure you would be feeling the Southern culture if you went to Emory.</p>
<p>I think Hawkette is trying to find reasonable alternatives to the tippy top schools, she's looking for schools that would fit the bill for students who in other years would have found a home in the top ten.(Am I right Hawkette?) For some it's logical that these students will turn to the next tier and schools like Emory.(And why not, these schools are pretty amazing in their own right...the theory should be that high scorers will land next slot down and everyone wins as the talent pool widens...let's face it, Emory kids are very bright, a top scorer isn't going to be that much brighter)</p>
<p>But I'm wondering if the trophy school mentality will actually hurt the schools you're thinking of Hawkette. They are known,(often well known) but known as second best to some people. Just look at how offended people in this thread are that you would mention Emory in the same breathe as Columbia and it's peers. </p>
<p>What I'm seeing in my own experience is that people are looking further afield, at the exotic and less known. People are following a money trail, searching out small LACs that while unknown to many have a very well heeled population. I've been suprised at some of my friends children's choices. I see people turning to the South for options but not necessarily where one might expect.</p>
<p>From my own experience, higher education has become involved in a self-perpetuating myth--that only the brightest and most talented students can be found at x schools. This allows ivy league schools to call each other peers and to perpetuate the notion that their schools are leaders in education, producing the most successful alums. This allows them to command top tuition dollars and to keep them selective, as the nation's "brightest" kids apply each year. The problem is that amazing schools are left on the side, even though they continue to shine. I would say a place like Rice is an example of such a phenomenon. Despite its impressive grad placement and the amazing education it provides, it would be a true rarity for an ivy league school to call Rice a peer institution. This is because doing so would imply that a non-ivy league all the way in Texas had a similar reputation and would hint at the daunting possibility that students could possibly choose Rice over an ivy. Without mentioning the specific ivy league school, one of the presidents of such mentioned that the peer institutions of his/her own included the rest of the ivy league, Stanford, Duke, Georgetown, and Northwestern. This interview was published in some magazine as well. Just from this interview, it is possible to catch a glimpse of that myth to which I was referring. All of the schools mentioned in addition to the ivy league are almost considered ivy peers by default.</p>
<p>However, what about the plethora of great schools that were not mentioned, including Rice, Vanderbilt, etc.</p>
<p>^Agree with columbia</p>
<p>in regards to the emory argument:
I don't see why people are so caught up in this whole prestige thing. Yes, columbia is probably more prestigious because it is a member of the ivy leage and everythihng, but i really don't think that that makes it a better school. Your comparing two different things. They are both amazing schools and offer the same caliber education. And this thread's topic is cross applicants. Tonnnns of kids I know applied to columbia and upenn and such. Lots of them got in and came to emory anyways. And those would be the kids who actually go to the school that suits them best rather than the more "prestigious" institution. anyways, i'm starting to ramble.</p>
<p>rishi, i don't think people choosing emory over columbia happens as often as you would suggest</p>
<p>Revealed Preference (notice the schools surrounding columbia):</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Brown
8. Columbia</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>UPenn</li>
</ol>
<p>Now notice Emory's rank, as well as the schools surrounding it:</p>
<ol>
<li>Bates College</li>
<li>Connecticut College</li>
<li>Kenyon College
64. Emory University</li>
<li>Washington University in St. Louis</li>
<li>Occidental College</li>
<li>Southern Methodist University</li>
</ol>
<p>edited for objectivity, i'd rather hear discussion.</p>
<p>Outdated in my opinion. All of that information was on 2004 information, yet notice the trend in Emory acceptance rates:</p>
<p>2004: 42%
2005: 37%
2006: 31%
2007: 26%</p>
<p>... Arguably a lot has changed.</p>
<p>^^ where is that information from and can you contrast it with the change in columbia acceptance rates?</p>
<p>nevermind, found them</p>
<p>columbia:</p>
<p>2004: 12.8%
2007: 8.9%</p>
<p>= 30.5% drop</p>
<p>compared to emory's 38.1% drop</p>
<p>and we know from taking economics that at the upper levels, diminishing marginal returns are exhibited</p>
<p>so i would argue that they have both gained in selectivity equally and thus retain their relative relationship from 2004.</p>
<p>Emory Data: <a href="http://www.emory.edu/PROVOST/IPR/ir_factbook.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.emory.edu/PROVOST/IPR/ir_factbook.htm</a> and <a href="http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2007/04/06/News/Admissions.Admission.Rate.Drops.To.26.For.2011.Class-2827553.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2007/04/06/News/Admissions.Admission.Rate.Drops.To.26.For.2011.Class-2827553.shtml</a></p>
<p>Columbia: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/admissions_2006.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/admissions_2006.html</a> and <a href="http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2007/04/05/News/Cc.Leads.In.Admissions.Selectivity-2825227.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2007/04/05/News/Cc.Leads.In.Admissions.Selectivity-2825227.shtml</a></p>
<p>2004: 10.9%
2005: 10.7%
2006: 9.7%
2007: 8.9%</p>
<p>... Much more consistent. So comparing 2004 Columbia to 2004 Emory is not all that accurate.</p>
<p>I'll lend you a hand... that 8.9 number is for Columbia College.... that 12.8 number is for Columbia University. </p>
<p>Columbia College: 18%
Columbia University: 19%
... Compared to Emory College's 38.1%</p>
<p>The original post was meant to loosely group schools and not necessarily as a statement about which are peer schools. I think that those who protest Emory’s comparison with Columbia do so in haste and without full understanding of how the school and the South have evolved over the past decade, but I understand the perspectives expressed, especially from those who make them from a Northeastern perch. </p>
<p>I am saying that Columbia and Emory ARE statistical cousins today though the student quality, as defined by SAT scores, looks pretty lopsided today in favor of Columbia. Columbia clearly carries greater historical prestige and would dominate Emory in any focus group located in the Northeast. However, I would contend that in the South, the scales would fall the other way though perhaps not as decisively. Emory is clearly gaining more interest as a result of the ballooning of top high school students. One example of this is the 15% increase in applications year-over-year to Emory. </p>
<p>Historically and still today, IMO there has been a fear among Northeasterners (and other parts of the country to a lesser degree) about going to college in the South. Old prejudices die hard, but the facts on the ground pretty clearly show that places like Atlanta, Houston, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham are vibrant, growing cities and each is home to a college that can legitimately compete with virtually all of the best colleges in the country. </p>
<p>And now as the demographics insist they must, top high school students are looking at a wider circle of schools. That includes Emory and the other top Southern schools and many other fine and prospering institutions all across the country. This is the window of time for those less known, less appreciated schools to most improve their visibility, their quality, and their reputations. Is that being factored into the college search process and the decision about where to apply?</p>
<p>From my experience, what Hawkette is saying is quite right. I had been told multiple times that I would love Rice, but my family ruled it out for me because it was in Texas.</p>
<p>Columbia College does not equal Columbia University acceptance rates btw, the engineering school has a different site on collegeboard.</p>
<p>yea, hawkette is right. my family didnt want me to appy in the south due to their own notions and thoughts about the south (read=stereotyping an entire region). the closest school to the south for me was duke, and that really isnt the south. I dont know, it seems like you can count the number of prestigious southern universities on one hand. Emory, Vanderbilt, Rice, Duke, UNC, UT-Austin...ok more than one hand.</p>
<p>i did not read 3 pages of comments in between,.</p>
<p>but what i do have to say, is emory DOES NOT belong in that list . i know a person with 1200 on the SAT with no EC's and leadership, who got in. with a lot of money</p>
<p>now my point is, the list clearly said, " with high prestige"</p>
<p>*just the fact that so many people are arguing against emory, shows it does not have prestige. *</p>
<p>People who say that prestige does not matter need to understand that in the workplace, getting an interview and your first job WILL depend on your university. These companies will most likely hire from a prestigious university rather than some really "good," but not so well-known university. They want to look good too. I'm not saying it's impossible to get the job at a really great company if you go to a not so prestigious university; it's just more difficult.</p>