<p>Okay. Is there any area where Oxford would be a better option than CAS, or is it just that main campus has more resources?</p>
<p>It’s a backdoor that in general has higher quality than the front door though. For example, there are many lower stats. institutions than Emory or comparable universities that no doubt offer a richer educational and academic experience. A student who is not Harvard material may end up rejected at Harvard, but get a better education from a top 30 liberal arts school depending upon their interests. There are plenty of places that don’t look that strong on paper (stats. wise) but actually do far more than pass through a bunch of students with high stats (not to say that the very elite schools do that, but I must say that many of the top 20s are mildly guilty of it). They actually attempt to make students better educated than when they came in as opposed to making them “pseudo-educated” (as in their grades will say one thing, and skillset another). Also, I would never underestimate any school with over a 1250 average (Oxford is likely slowly approaching 1300 and though main is slowly approaching 1400, you honestly can’t tell the difference between many of us and them because it’s almost like many on main pretend to be dumb to look cool or something. Such a behavioral pattern is not as common as it is at some other schools, but still annoyingly common. It’s basically “anything but me seeming like an intellectual or nerd!” Plenty of people with lower stats are far more interesting)</p>
<p>I feel like you should only come to ECAS with no second thought of Oxford if you’re mainly looking to jump into research very early or want to exploit the many non-academic resources. However, unless you know how to and plan to play your cards right academically, then don’t expect much until maybe junior year when you have more freedom of choice in your course selection. Also, I guess it’s advantageous to start on main if you want to double major (as you should with economics) because you don’t have to worry about cramming a rigorous GER load into 2 years. You can spread them over four years and easily fulfill requirements and electives for both majors at the very beginning.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t really care about backdoor and incoming stats. because it tells very little about educational quality. For example, HYPSMCChCt should be equal Vanderbilt, WashU, NU, and ND should be equal academically right? They suddenly turned into similar educational experiences to those places over the last 5 years right. The answer is of course no and you can go look at course websites and syllabi to prove it to yourself. Many of those schools are more like Emory academically than they are those suite of schools and yet have the same stats. It’s kind of like saying Williams’ academic environment is less rich than WashU’s because it is over 50 points lower. You’re comparing places with completely different educational approaches (okay, one could argue that most private research universities don’t really have an approach that goes far from “keep the students happy and convince them that they are receiving a much better education than at a comparable public school”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait what?</p>
<p>I don’t see how that is possible. I simply don’t. Could you show proof? I’m interested. </p>
<p>Something in their application must be lacking, otherwise they would have just went to CAS. And no, the applicant does not “chose” where he goes. The school decides. Some might get into both, but I’m willing to bet that if given both choices, the applicant would choose CAS.</p>
<p>I’m not arguing that they’re better. I’m arguing that the quality of courses and coursework is generally higher. I would try to get some of their science coursework for example and compare it to some of my introductory work, but it may be a while.</p>
<p>I actually don’t really need much primary evidence to make this claim. There are articles like this that seem to suggest Oxford is often a step ahead of the college in terms of implementing changes or better educational paradigms on a larger scale (for ECAS, I think I would count between 1/4-1/3 as a large scale implementation): [The</a> Nature of Evidence | EmoryWire Magazine](<a href=“http://www.alumni.emory.edu/emorywire/issues/2013/december/of_note/story_1/]The”>http://www.alumni.emory.edu/emorywire/issues/2013/december/of_note/story_1/)</p>
<p>In addition, it just makes sense. The focus at a research (even within the liberal arts unit of them) university is NOT teaching. There will be many great teachers, but most will be mediocre (which is often good enough for us). In addition, the demands and rigor of most courses will be lacking because we expect to get A’s and the faculty members don’t have as much time to challenge us as it would require more engagement with students beyond classroom time and also require “closer” grading. </p>
<p>Oxford is more of an LAC model where the primary emphasis is teaching. In addition, they are much smaller and have less of the purely lecture based courses (which the literature shows to be relatively ineffective when it comes to developing higher order analytical skills of most students). INQ or even a normal humanities or social science course will likely have more discussion and more demands than the analogous courses most students would take in ECAS, which are predominantly lecture based (some intro. political science courses have breakout/discussion sessions, but I think often it’s like another lecture/instructor or TA dominated venue more akin to recitation than anything else). With sciences, their classes are much smaller and generally have more interaction and much less multiple choice (not too long ago, all the faculty members who taught intro. biology at ECAS except maybe 1 per term used multiple choice ONLY exams. It’s very difficult to test higher order thinking when you give such tests. In addition, students study differently for them in a way not conducive to success if there were to be any MC questions that do require analytical skills). There are of course exceptions where there are instructors that do case based courses that are very interactive (especially considering their size), but the fact is, a demanding biology course at Oxford is the norm. Interactive learning and a high workload is also the norm (I also base this off of syllabi). In addition, with about all of the intro/intermediate courses, the lecture instructor also runs a lab section. This makes a world of difference. Students more or less engage in a “real” project as opposed to a series of canned experiments. Compare this to general chemistry at Emory, which has great LECTURERS, but that’s all they are, lecturers. The classes are large (though smaller than peer institutions) and interaction is nowhere near as heavy. The level of the problems on gen. chem exams has been basically reduced to a plug and chug type of situation (it’s still hard relative to most schools, but necessarily in the best way. More of a “we’re trying to trick you” type of way). Solving novel problems for novel situations doesn’t come until you hit organic and then only if you choose certain instructors. The other half are no doubt lower than the instruction the average student will get from the guy at Oxford. I need not talk about introductory labs (biology is perhaps the most annoying yet most useful). General chemistry and intro. physics are basically labs that serve to give pre-meds something to do. I’m fairly sure no real skills are actually supposed to be developed. They are service labs that help to boost the grades of students enrolled in the service courses. Oxford labs more so resemble intermediate and advanced lab courses on main. </p>
<p>Shamefully main campus of Emory is not the only top 20 I can make such statements about. Many research universities get to look like they provide a far above average education mainly because they bring in high talent levels. The experience inside the classroom on average is not particularly “special” unless you make it so. But again, many choose not to, despite being “talented”. I would say that the classroom experiences at LAC model types of schools contributes a bit more to the development of most students than it does at research universities. It’s a more even contribution from both the academic and extracurricular sphere as opposed to almost purely extracurricular where classes are often viewed as obstacles or “work that has to be quickly be done before you can do something else”. </p>
<p>Different educational models yield different academic experiences. If you’re not the most outgoing talented student, but you do want a very rich academic experience (as in, you care about the quality and rigor of your courses as much as you do EC experiences), a research university may not be for such a person. They may end up being lost in a sea of mediocre experiences where people convince themselves that they are being educated far better than others when they actually aren’t. An LAC type of experience is a way to more or less ensure that you optimize outcomes of in-class experiences. You can craft such a thing at a place like Emory (insert many peer institutions), but it takes some passion and motivation to do so. If you follow the crowd, you won’t get it, though you can lie to yourself and say that you are getting it as you sit in large lectures with relatively low demands and little passion. When you’re being subjected such mediocrity, remember to tell yourself, “this education is way better or the same as X because we’re really talented!” lol. Because we all know that the busy researcher cares so much about your talent level when they teach you. One thing they do know is that they can make you happy by spoonfeeding material or making assignments and assessments easy or underwhelming (no busy faculty member wants to hear the complaints of students who complain about tests and assignments that try to make you apply the material or what we students say…“is not what they taught us in class” lol. They don’t have time for it and if they aren’t tenured, their evaluations will suffer). Again, you continue to get A’s like in HS, and you stay out of their face because it’s easier than expected. It’s a win win formula in the quest for an “elite” education. I imagine many people just come to top R1 institutions for the EC opps, facilities, and prestige, and an “above average” academic experience (but of course, many places that don’t cost 50k plus are “above average”).</p>
<p>Your talking points sound seem to be very similar to those used by the admissions office and the administration in promoting OC. Do you or have you worked in admissions? </p>
<p>It seems all well on paper, but that is not so in reality. </p>
<p>In reality most students there only go there to get the result: Diploma from Emory. Just this year, more than 100 students from OC continued to main campus in the Spring. This is significant because usually they continue on in the Fall. OC has about 800 students total, so about 13% left early. In terms of the sophomore class there, we could say about 26% of them left early. That is high number of students graduating in my opinion. They don’t have to leave early, but they chose to leave early. I wonder what would happen if only 74% of Emory’s CAS freshman class returns next year.</p>
<p>If they are interested in a LAC experience, they wouldn’t have went there. There’s plenty of other good choices out there; Oberlin, Davidson, Bucknell, Williams…</p>
<p>The “best of two worlds” is just another talking point they use to sell themselves as an alternative. </p>
<p>Lastly, what you say is all theory. Theory does not equal reality. Do you have any raw statistics?</p>
<p>The only stats I have are high school GPA, class rank, and SAT scores of the freshman classes. And those stats do not show OC students to be in general of “higher quality.” How they work in high school is how they will work in college, with a few exceptions.</p>
<p>What the hell!? I was not speculating why students went there (like I really don’t care). I was just saying that it’s better for those who actually seriously care about academics than is the first 2 years on main campus and I would freaking know considering the fact that I went there (main) and the only thing that saved me from a “meh” experience was my AP credits. I’ve talked to students from Oxford and they told me what they did in their courses (and the syllabi support the fact that support their claims. They weren’t lying). I don’t care why they went there. Whether by accident or intentionally, they got a better experience than a lot of people on main. You’re completely missing that point or ignoring the point that I’m trying to make by speculating on the quality of the students and their reason for going. You simply want to bash Oxford for it’s lower talent levels. I don’t care about their talent levels because I know that expectations are a bit higher for them than many on main, so at least their current talent level is being tested. Can many on main say that, uhhh no. Seriously, like upwards to a quarter of the freshman class gets into that freshman honors society for people over a 3.9. Do really believe that Emory is an extremely testing environment and the students are just so amazing that 25% get over a 3.9 freshman year. Higher ranked schools (mainly the very elite) with much higher incoming talent cannot claim such a feat, and for good reason. The academic environment is much richer and more challenging. Even the grade inflated top LACs probably can’t claim that many freshmen above a 3.9 (maybe above 3.7-3.8, but not 3.9). </p>
<p>You wanna know why most people came to main campus?..a degree from Emory, a top 20 university, not a particularly great educational experience, so I guess my camp and the Oxford camp are even, except on average, they’ll get better training. Just saying. Luckily, I didn’t have an average academic experience in ECAS.</p>
<p>If I were on admissions, many people would not be at Emory.</p>
<p>Also, are you an idiot (or are you being intentionally idiotic), you do know that it’s main campus that also claims “the best of both worlds” right, not Oxford. That’s also a talking point of main campus, and the “liberal arts” part. Well…a significant portion of the student body avoids or opts out of it. They’ll just choose mickey mouse GER courses.</p>
<p>I need not be on an admissions committee to see reality. All that is required is my experience and observations. I don’t need talking points.</p>
<p>In addition, you then go on to dodge my claims by hollering about incoming talent over and over again. Again, I am making no comment on admissions schemes. I am making a comment about the educational experience and rigor of each campus. Vanderbilt’s SATs are as far apart from ours (way above) as Oxford’s are and yet we have plenty of courses and instructors that can take their analogs for a nice little ride. If you are truly trying to say that the two are the same (incoming talent=academic richness of school), then you would have to say that Vanderbilt and other schools with its stats are now much better than Emory academically and are suddenly equivalent to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Chicago, and Columbia. If you dare make this claim, I will pull up the course websites and disprove it.</p>
<p>But if you never went there yourself how would you know that they had a better academic experience? </p>
<p>You’re theorizing. You are using the model student as the typical OC student, which is not true. If everyone student at OC thinks like you, then yes, I agree with you. </p>
<p>How would they get better training if they can’t wait to get out of there (26% of the sophomore class left). Those who stayed probably didn’t have enough credits to leave. </p>
<p>I thought OC also uses the “best of two worlds” since they get the “smaller campus along with the larger campus.”</p>
<p>Thank you for saying that you’re theorizing based upon the size you judge. I’m not theorizing. My friends told my how it works. I didn’t take their word for it because there are things called syllabi that make it clear the differences. For example, I don’t have to go to Vandy to know that this organic chemistry exam (this prof. gets a 2.1 difficulty rating on RMP BTW and a low quality rating): <a href=“http://as.vanderbilt.edu/chemistry/Rizzo/chem220a/Exam_3.pdf[/url]”>http://as.vanderbilt.edu/chemistry/Rizzo/chem220a/Exam_3.pdf</a></p>
<p>is far easier and is of lower quality than:
<a href=“https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BSHJOYVJjS1Bpclk/edit[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BSHJOYVJjS1Bpclk/edit</a></p>
<p>from Emory. The fact that this is a recurring pattern for almost all instructors they have for the class except one tells me something (we have 3 instructors that rate higher in terms of quality and have much more challenging assignments and exams than perhaps all of their instructors. They maybe have one high quality instructor for it and the level of rigor does not come near Emory’s top 2 and barely the 3rd). </p>
<p>You need not attend both schools in question. If I’m referring to coursework, there are these things called syllabi and course websites that allow me to make comparisons especially if I have taken or am taking the course at the time. Of course, many people don’t care enough about things like that and would just rather assume that the one with the better student body must provide the better education overall. Such a claim is completely and utterly false. Many differences have to with how the institution has shaped its academic and intellectual environment either overall or at a departmental level. So the example I show above is Emory beating Vanderbilt in terms of chemistry (this recurs for other chemistry courses and is not an anomaly). And then they will beat us in CS and maybe some quantitative fields at the UG level (though I was very disappointed with their intro/gen. physics and calculus courses. They appeared every bit as bad as ours. For math, not as much rigor as expected. For physics, good teachers, lacking intensity) and we will tie in biology related fields based upon what I saw (actually, I don’t believe I’m saying this, but I think the biology instructors may be on the whole a tad better. No one heard me admit that that! Aluminum said it lol.). </p>
<p>Based upon what I read from Oxford’s syllabi (would be nice if I can get an assignment), they are probably beating us both in biology, physics, math, and definitely many non-science oriented courses. </p>
<p>No need to attend. I really doubt the syllabi and course websites from these places are just a front. You may say that it’s just an instructor based thing, but a lot can be said when there are several (or few) sections for a course and all instructors rate well in the categories that they should while another place does not. In addition, many places that do it well clearly control the quality and level of the courses tightly. Like if you look at Harvard’s STEM courses, they usually have only one section or instructor per course and they are all pretty high level across the board, so it can be controlled. I feel like it’s less controlled at institutions that don’t really care quite as much. You get much higher variation across instructors at such places it appears. </p>
<p>As for leaving, it’s expensive, is harder than main campus, and people also have AP credit, so can leave earlier if they please. Part of the way research universities keep retention high is by “keeping students happy”. A main contributing factor to most of our happiness is the lenient grading and low demands (Oxford doesn’t really have this) with respect to our ability levels. This in conjunction with the “fun” social experience of college and amazing facilities makes for high retention rates. In addition, many students refuse to give up the prestige of a top university even if they have buyer’s remorse. Given the amount of pre-meds here, if Emory went back to even being as challenging as it was perhaps in the 90s, I’m sure the retention rate would drop some and certain types students would avoid us (as they do Princeton, JHU, and Chicago now). Retention is partially a game of optimizing elements that satisfy the “costumers”. Remember that universities, especially elites, function in a corporate model moreso than ever and the customer is always right! Notice how many of us (research institutions) try to woo students by showing off new facilities such as random luxurious amenities and dorms, not really the academics. An example is how a tour guide may be able to tell you so much more about the new dorms, Clairmont, and the DUC renovation and addition than they can about the chemistry building addition or Theology Building expansion. It’s a fairly common theme across many research institutions (elite and non) and it clearly works for admissions.</p>
<p>He’s just aggravating you. </p>
<p>no need to reply</p>
<p>Well you mentioned RMP. I don’t consider RMP to be trustworthy. Anyone, and I mean anyone can go there and write stuff. If they received low marks in the class, they will say its hard rather than admit they did not study. </p>
<p>Actually, CAS is more expensive than OC, so why would they leave early? Unless you are saying they want to graduate from college early. But you say they are passionate about their major(s). Wouldn’t graduating early make it difficult to earn a double major?</p>
<p>Aggravating? I just find it difficult to understand how OC has higher quality students in general…I’m not saying every CAS student is superior, I admit there are some Oxford scholars who actually chose Oxford because they got the scholarship. But that is a minority.</p>
<p>He never said OC has higher quality students. He said biology (and a couple other) classes are more difficult there. And this prepares students more for when they leave Oxford. </p>
<p>Which part of that is difficult to understand?</p>
<p>He says classes are taught better and you hear “students are brighter”.</p>
<p>I thought better classes create better students. I guess that’s not the case. Then I wonder if better quality classes do not create better students, then what does create better students? </p>
<p>Are they born with it? </p>
<p>And how does he know it’s harder there? How does he know those classes prepare them better? </p>
<p>Are there stats to prove it? Are there stats claiming that in general Oxford continuees graduate at the top of their class?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. Student quality is a univariate function that uses only class quality as its input.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No duh. You were never around the people in high school who did absolutely no work but still understood every concept? And then went off to Princeton while you went off to just Georgetown? Those people were “born with it”, and you were not.</p>
<p>
Here, you’re just speaking out of your ass. He goes to school with Oxford students. He has seen syllabi. He’s on first name terms with several professors who have mentioned this…</p>
<p>
I admit I don’t know of any. But I base my statements off years of anecdotal experience. Whereas you base yours off of accomplishments these students had when they were 14-18 years old.</p>
<p>I have heard of numbers to back these up, but I don’t believe them at face value.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how the syllabi shows class difficulty, but I’ll take your word for it.</p>
<p>Who are the professors who mentioned this by the way. </p>
<p>I’ve never met anyone who did no work and got into Princeton. I have met people who just “seem” do the homework and that’s it. However, they pay attention in class. When I say they pay attention in class, they pay attention in class so that all they need is homework to practice what they learned. They don’t need to study for tests because they review a little bit every night. You may be talking about these kind of people. I’m sorry you day dreamed about your fantasies during class, but that’s common. It’s ok. </p>
<p>Yes I base my assumptions off their 4 years academic work in high school. You on the other hand, base it off what other people say. Personally, I’d rather go with their high school stats than what other people say about them. It’s more reliable, which is why even fast food restaurants ask for high school GPA rather than the word of other people. But I guess you’re the odd ball, which is fine. </p>
<p>Like I said, I prefer raw stats than the word of other people. People have their biases. Numbers do not. </p>
<p>A 4 is a 4.</p>
<p>A 5 is a 5.</p>
<p>But Professor Snape can say how his class is harder than Professor Flitwick. </p>
<p>And you admit you have no stats to prove OC continuees are better. If they received a “better educational experience,” they should be in the top of their class when they get to CAS. Since we do not have stats to prove their class rankings, we can not come to the conclusion they received a “better educational experience.”</p>
<p>Agree?</p>
<p>Let me spell this out for you.
A syllabus shows the topics covered in the semester. If you compare two syllabi from the same course, you can judge which course has more difficult topics. From there, you can judge class difficulty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong (because I’m not a comparative literature major), but these two teach different courses. IF they both taught Charms, then I’m sure most of Hogwarts would have one opinion or another.</p>
<p>I won’t say the Professors’ name. Bernie can if he wants.</p>
<p>I don’t base my statements off of what others say. I go to class with these students. I see how they perform in class.</p>
<p>
This might be your worst example yet.
In the restaurant industry, NOTHING is more important than what other people (customers) say about you.
Your GPA has nothing to do with employment at a fast food restaurant. In fact, getting employed at a fast food restaurant has more to do with the word of other people than it does your GPA.</p>
<p>I am beginning to wonder whether you go to Emory. Not that it matters really, but your arguments are terrible. They’re meant to provoke us… Instead of contributing something to this community.
So, I’m done replying as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Allow me to disagree. Looking at the syllabi for BC calc and AB calc shows that BC has more topics. But those topics are not necessary harder. Indeed I received a 4 on AB and a 5 on BC. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Allow me to disagree. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but the only way to find out which professor is easier is to actually take BOTH professor at the same time. I’m sure the Slytherins would consider Snape to be an easier professor than the Gryffindor. I’m quite positive Malfoy found Snape to be more bearable than Potter. Agree?</p>
<p>And how many OC continuees do you know? Like I said, I didn’t say every OC student is academically inferior. I just said the typical OC student is academically inferior to CAS student.</p>
<p>I hope you choose Vanderbilt over Williams if you were to gain admission to both, because they are both the same and Vandy has higher stats. :)</p>
<p>I didn’t say it was impossible for them to get PH. D’s and higher GPA. </p>
<p>I just said on average the typical CAS student is superior to the OC student. That is because people rarely, if ever, change their work habits from high school to college. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying Williams is comparable to OC?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as I’m aware, there is not enough extant data in this area. Following the lead of the Atlanta campus, Oxford now only publishes admitted students data–not enrolled students data. And while enrolled students data for the Atlanta campus is available in the Common Data Set, it is not for Oxford (as far as I know). Consequently, you can only compare admitted students data, not enrolled students data.</p>