<p>These rankings change constantly. They are relatively irrelevant, as long as you go in a school that somewhat match expectations based on your creds. In other terms, I would not recommend going to a school that is not in the top 50 with a perfect SAT score, but going to #12 or #21 doesn’t make much of a difference imo. </p>
<p>@Biud : Yeah that’s generally my opinion. At that point, if you have a very high SAT and are considering, say the more selective schools in the top 40 or so, you choose based upon what you want academically and socially. Like some high scorers may like the academic intensity of a place like Chicago or Princeton whereas some may just want something like Vanderbilt, ND, Emory, and places with those sorts of environments (relatively laid back compared with places known for very high academic rigor and/or tougher grading). Going by the rank at some point is just naive. You could end up with more than you can handle or less than what you wanted (like Duke is not more intense than say…Northwestern or something…so if you went their expecting higher intensity than nearly ranked schools and are mainly there for academics, you won’t necessarily be disappointed so much as slightly underwhelmed vs. if you went NU, Dartmouth, or even JHU). And in some cases, using the rankings of closely ranked schools as a differentiating factor is simply splitting hairs for no reason.</p>
<p>THat was a typo, I meant to say “now if it dropped 10 points or something…” in other words THAT would be bad. But seriously dropping a notch up or down isn’t a big deal with that level of colleges. Seriously I’d freaking go to anyone of of the top 10 for graduate school, with the exception of Columbia (I don’t care for NYC).</p>
<p>@bernie12 Where would you personally rank Emory?</p>
<p>@CrispyBullet Maybe between 20 and 30 where it is now. Perhaps tied with some of the places still in the top 20 (such as Vanderbilt, ND, Rice, etc.)…I think I would move some public schools up quite a bit and some privates down some. Some of us (privates) seem to be benefiting from size and amount of money(endowment) which can indeed have a positive effect on undergraduate education, but that positive effect seems often blunted by the general fact that the places are huge research power houses. Places like Emory are still excellent IMHO, I just think they need to get a little more serious about UG education to be considered some “gold standard” top 20 or whatever we like to consider ourselves. The caliber and intensity of some of us hasn’t quite caught up to the prestige among those who create or heavily rely on USNews Rankings. Schools like us are not penetrating academia the way we should. We are not really producing top scientists and folks of specific fields as much as we should, nor are we producing those who go on to run very elite institutions. Schools in our tier are clearly excellent at making a HUGE mark in the “Big 3” professions, but progress in the former leaves a lot to be desired unfortunately. The research environment is hardly even conducive to accommodating or acquiring Nobel level faculty (though admittedly our humanities are doing well in attracting or at least gaining close relationships with very top faculty or members of those respective fields).</p>
<p>The “Emory tier” of private schools have a ways to go before they get to being universities that are actually extremely comparable to the very elite peers (many in the top 10 or Berkeley and maybe UCLA for example). This is both at the UG and grad. level. It takes hell-a-vision, leadership, and strategic investment to get at those levels. And most importantly, it takes time. I used to try to convince myself that places like Emory are very similar to say…Harvard, except less selective (ok, even schools with the same “selectivity” based on SAT scores now-a-days are not close to schools of that caliber), but it really just isn’t true (not even at the undergraduate level for the most part)…While those places are far from perfect, they clearly function in a way that explains their level of success. And places like Duke got where it was by really really working to enact certain changes that propel them forward. As opposed to showboating with marketing campaigns and admissions statistics, they actually got to work, it was that simple. We have to see if Emory will stop messing around with all of its talk and plans of improvement and actually implement it seriously. I honestly think Emory could benefit from some more leadership changes to actually get things off of the ground…and I’ll leave it at that (you can figure out what I am saying).</p>
<p>@franko5150 : I wouldn’t, the top 10 schools differ so dramatically from each other that it is ridiculous.</p>
<p>I guess we just disagree there. I don’t think they differ so dramatically. I think that is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Tier 1: H, P,Y,S, MIT
Tier 2: CU. UC, DU, UPENN, Vandy, Dart., Wash. SL, Cornell, Cal-B, NU
Tier 3) NDU, Rice, Emory, UCLA, CMU, Brown, JHU, Georgetown,
Tier 4) UVA, UM, Tufts, WFU, NYU, UNC, W&M, UCSD, UT, USC</p>
<p>Note, Caltech off list as it is a one-on-one research center not a national university.</p>
<p>@bud123: I disagree, Move some of the tier 2 places down to Tier 3. Like JHU, Brown, and even Georgetown are on par with say Vandy (ignore SAT score differences which are not but so relevant beyond this league). Berkeley is actually better than many of us in terms of UG in my opinion, though their resource situation makes class sizes larger (but you can still teach poorly or well with large or small class sizes). I honestly put Chicago and CU up there with tier 1 in terms of UG education. Many of the places you list for Tier 2 (like Vandy, Cornell, and maybe NU) are no different from tier 3 academically. JHU, IMHO is actually better or on par with some of those, and so is Brown, NDU, and Rice. It would fall something like that if you just looked at selectivity (actually, Cornell would maybe come down as well), but if you look at academic environments/experiences and rigor, the teirs just do not hold up…I agree with an expanded tier 3 and maybe a special tier 2 (like with CU, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Cal-B) in terms of academics. My idea is that some schools academic environment has not caught up to selectivity, whereas some place’s (like WashU, Rice, JHU, and UCLA…maybe Emory which I think can still do better. I am just still surprised it is comparable academically to schools much more selective SAT/ACT wise. That either reflects well on Emory or poorly on the more selective schools) are indeed on par with or better than places that are more or similarly selective. Like you aren’t gonna switch a Vandy and Emory student and convince anyone that Vanderbilt or Emory are different academically other than the offerings regardless of the scores. Whereas, you may switch a CU, UC, or NU student and there will be a noticeable difference (perhaps because of academic calendars or just general attitudes toward academic focus and intensity at each school). I guess I am ranking these schools by institutional and academic character more so than anything else. I also believe tier 3 should definitely include many of the tier 4 schools you listed (especially UVA, UM, USC, and UNC. They don’t differ much academically from many places you list as tier 2 or 3). I would also move to include Georgia Tech.</p>
<p>@franko5150 I mean that if I am considering Duke, I may be much less happy with Chicago, Princeton, Harvard, MIT, or Caltech and may much better with places like Stanford, Yale (both Stanford and Yale are known for having a sky-high grade inflation, and while having more rigorous than normal academics , in fact likely more rigorous than Duke, are viewed as less academically stressful than some of the other places immediately compared with them), and Columbia (maybe?). Institutional and academic intensity (or type of) is much different between these places. I would not willy nilly choose a top 10 because it is a top 10. If you are just into prestige, there are even differences there. But thinking of what type of academic and social environment I want, these places are very different and are not interchangeable no matter how USNews ranks them. </p>
<p>*I wonder how I would position these places if I were to do a science education ranking (which is my interest): I believe it would look much different, keeping some Ivies and very elites in tier one while also moving several public schools up to tier 2 or 1. Unfortunately, some of our favorite privates would all be tier 3/4…but who needs an innovative/rigorous science education when we can just learn on our own because we’re smarter than normal lol?</p>
<p>@bernie12 I think it’s worth noting that other schools are also trying to improve at the same time. So it is possible that Emory can improve qualitatively but still remain the same in the rankings because every other school did, too. </p>
<p>bernie, IMHO Georgetown and Hopkins are a bit long in the tooth. Yes, engineering at Hopkins is top notch but they are riding the halo of their medical school for 75 years now. Yes, GU has a top SFS school but they are not as well rounded in other departments. If Brown were not associated with the Ivy league it would not be in the top 25. </p>
<p>The state flagships have a different mission which hurts them in the ranking. However many are becoming giant private U’s that abandon the B+ in-state student in favor of the well funded high test scoring out-of-state student. While the top public U’s offer an elite education they still offer more ways to slide by with little time, effort, or work. </p>
<p>Yes, I will add GA Tech to tier 4. U’s in the southeast (or outside the northeast and CA) don’t get much love in most rankings.</p>
<p>@bud123 : I kind of just view most selective private schools as “well-rounded” and “much better than average” at undergraduate education but not necessarily amazing. Most selective private schools are the same as the elite public schools you mention: HOD at Vandy, some of the “softer” majors at other elite selective schools. There is hardly no difference. Also, Hopkins is pretty solid in many non-science areas (as in more solid than near peers). Just because the other disciplines they excel in (such as several languages, international studies/polisci, and many others) don’t get attention does not mean they are riding on medical discovery and the engineering school. JHU is actually pretty good and rigorous all around and has less grade inflation and a higher workload (even in social sciences) than many schools comparable in rank. Don’t underestimate places like JHU in other areas just because it is extremely well known for the area you mention. The way I gauge the UG education in depts. is simply by looking at course offerings and other opps (undergraduate fellowships, study abroad oppurtunities, concentrations, UG specific departmental research symposia, experiential opps. and service learning programs, etc. An example might be how I find that undergrad neuroscience and chemistry is much more robust at Emory, but physics and math are generally superior at Vanderbilt. When I can, I try to come across a syllabus or a course website/content or something. </p>
<p>Sometimes I am surprised at how strong depts are at some schools that rank below you or that you think are over-rated and sometimes you are shocked at how weak depts are at schools many respect (like economics being extremely weak at Emory for example). And then you just have schools that are not just merely “well-rounded” but are extremely solid in almost all of their offerings. They established the foundation for the success in these areas before becoming extremely selective. Other schools just lag greatly. Could also have to do with student demand for academic excellence. Some schools just have more demanding students than others.</p>
<p>@CrispyBullet: Some places are mainly just improving quantitatively (better marketing yielding higher scoring students) and quality of life metrics. Many are hardly focusing on improving academics for their higher scoring student body. However, rankings (especially USNews) don’t measure stuff like this…If you accounted for stuff like that (which, again, is not what students nor most parents care about), then I think you get kind of a different ballgame altogether. Calling on my interest in science education, an example of what I’m saying is. You are not going to see the current chemistry faculty members at places like Vanderbilt and NDU start to suddenly teach their courses at or higher than the level of say Dr. Weinschenk, Soria, Mulford, Gallivan, or McGill simply because the schools scores have increased tremendously. Nor will these schools implement things like case studies in general biology classes to be at the forefront of science education. Don’t get me wrong, Emory instructors are not doing this to contribute to us becoming a leader in science education, but the condition is more ripe for instructors to teach at those levels (without much resistance) or in those ways because of the institutional character and things that have already been set in place that do not necessarily exist at comparable schools (such as us and WashU having a Center for Science Education). </p>
<p>It takes rather deliberate effort to change aspects of academics at a school (because you have to either hire new faculty that are willing to implement the changes or convince current faculty to try new things…of course the latter is actually significantly more challenging than the former. Admittedly an example of a faculty driven academic improvement effort is displayed by the Voluntary Core and the creation of Lancaster’s section of Comparative Politics for freshman). Things must already be in place or have to be put in place regardless of any improvement in selectivity or quality of life for academics to significantly improve. I honestly see places like Emory trying harder than some others in this arena. However, one cannot expect this to influence the ranking or anything. One can just hope it provides a better experience or better training for students going forward. Unless it is fairly radical, these things do not receive much external attention (however, I suppose if chemistry is successful, maybe?). Also, why should external sources care when not enough students attending the institution where the innovation is occurring also don’t know or don’t care? Perhaps the difference at the very elite schools and why they can often implement widespread change is because the students do know and do care. Such places also tend to be good at garnering widespread faculty AND student support and feedback with regard to such changes. Like Harvard students I’m sure noticed when gen. chem and gen. biology disappeared and turned into LifeSci 1a and they raise hell when it isn’t taught well, but at a place like Emory, a dramatic change or overhaul to a departmental curriculum could essentially go unnoticed to undergrads as long as it doesn’t affect course load or requirement size. </p>
<p>But in terms of metrics that influence the USNews rankings, you are indeed correct. What you are saying is true.It just masks things that should actually matter in my opinion. </p>
<p>Equating quality with US News Ranking is like equating money with success. They’re oversimplified measurements of value and quality with way too many exceptions. </p>
<p>@bernie12 This quote of yours deserves highlighting: [“Also, why should external sources care when not enough students attending the institution where the innovation is occurring also don’t know or don’t care? Perhaps the difference at the very elite schools and why they can often implement widespread change is because the students do know and do care. Such places also tend to be good at garnering widespread faculty AND student support and feedback with regard to such changes.”] I think this is a very important observation. Emory tends to attract pre-professionals (medicine, law, dentistry) and pre-business people, who (understandably… to a point) generally worry more about their grades and future than learning. Learning to them is just a means to an end. I think it will be very difficult (but not impossible) for Emory to change an environment like that. The root is deep. </p>