@transfer0611 : No, academically it is VERY strong. In fact, I think it is stronger than Vanderbilt in plenty of places. It’s selection scheme actually is different (selects a lot more lower income students and of course that correlates with scores), but data from the last class on the new SAT shows that it is actually much closer to its near peers there now. For you to levy that accusation at Emory, you would have to do so with Stanford as well:
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-university-search/emory-university
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-university-search/stanford-university
*Also, reputation so about research and graduate program strengths) wise in many world rankings…Emory and VU are neck and neck overall and have some overlapping as well as different strengths in sub-categories despite Emory being a much younger research university and not having an engineering school
I don’t want to be mean and am not trying to: But I think you and we in general on CC need to grow up and learn how not to conflate academic quality with “selectivity”…they only correlate up to a certain (likely a surprisingly low from what I have seen) threshold. A lot of increases or changes in selectivity are manufactured by admissions offices and marketing teams differences between highly ranked schools are typically not explained by differences in the level of education provided (Chicago used to rank near where Emory was and yet always had MUCH stronger academic programs than several schools around and a decent amount above it. They got to their very high rank by changing marketing and admissions efforts…a “manufacturing” of sorts, and many schools have followed their lead which has led to an emphasis on SAT/ACT at many schools who are not HYP. You’ll notice for example, that Duke and Penn for years have had lower stats than Chicago, WUSTL, and VU…do you really think they provide an inferior education to those places? That would be as ridiculous as to assert Stanford does because it is also lower). A quick sampling of syllabi and course materials across these schools will demonstrate that this is just not the case. The results will often surprise you. Also, as a logical extension, think of the fact that LACs are typically less selective than similar ranked counterparts that are research universities, yet generally the level and quality of undergraduate education is more consistent and higher on average at leading LACs. And the reason I say “I don’t want to be mean” is because I used to subscribe to that faulty logic until I started investigating the academics/academic environment more closely than I did rank and selectivity and I also realized that these admissions and communications offices are essentially playing games to make them look ultra selective.
People like VU because of the social and academic balance, but for things that both offer, Emory is stronger in some things, if not MUCH stronger at the undergraduate level. I am mainly interested in STEM education, so I could say that UG biology, chemistry, and neuroscience appear a bit ahead of theirs (more innovation, better teaching emphasis, less focus on rote memorization), and about even in physics, math, CS, and economics, but I will give them a slight edge in physics because it needs to serve engineering at VU. Social sciences, depends on the department, but QTM likely makes Emory the more robust option for now and in fact they are one of the many elites trying to “copy” off of Emory’s rendition of the quantitative sciences major. I think Emory’s selectivity takes a hit because of a) intentional focus on recruiting low income students will decrease scores (its median family income is SUBSTANTIALLY lower than most of its private near peers, especially VU and WUSTL. Emory is barely above Georgia Tech and UGA in median income of student families), b) lack of engineering, c) lack of D-1 sports (students choices even when selecting among elites can be completely uncoupled from what they want academically. Most students are not interested in real academic differences between them. The same trends hold with regards to sports. D-1 sports will increase national attention and if the team does well or wins a championship, usually admissions can reap the rewards by marketing the sports and the “spirit” facilitated by its success), d) poor marketing.
When it comes to undergraduate teaching and how departments at a university structure their opportunities and teaching culture, assuming there is one, they are not usually taking relative selectivity into account. If a place is already selective (as is Emory), instructors will not change their modes of teaching to adjust for changes in selectivity. The MAY (if they care for undergraduates) adjust based upon what the academic literature says about teaching and what the job market claims it demands, but they are not going on the admissions website thinking: “hmmm maybe I should give this assignment because back then the median SAT was a 1350 and now it is a 1450.”. or “maybe I should try placing this problem on the test to see what these “better” students can do” That would make logical sense, but it just doesn’t happen because instructors have other things competing for their time. It is more convenient to do what they’ve been doing. I think Emory just benefits from being a teaching university more recent than many of its counterparts so there is a big focus on great teaching in the classroom. In addition, because Emory is like a wannabe Chicago or JHU (it wants to use its research U status to deliberately integrate UGs into research culture)…academic departments host lots more research fellowships and opportunities for undergraduates. I compared Emory to several near peers and I could tell it and WUSTL really cared about this sort of thing. VU had a lot, but they were usually independent of the academic departments. What this means is that if you are more academically focused or excited about becoming a part of a culture of a department when you join a major, Emory departments are more likely to have these more local cultures. For example, both schools have university wide research symposia, but even with just STEM, biology, chemistry, neuroscience, and psychology all have separate symposia and events this time of year.
The two schools are just different, but I wouldn’t say one is overall better unless one offers a major the other doesn’t. VU is much more “work hard play hard” whereas Emory is much more “cerebral” and “work harder and play sometimes” because many students are doing department specific co-curriculars. There also just seems to be a bigger culture of “using” UGs to teach at Emory in and out of STEM (as in the UG TA system is super strong), so lots of people’s lives, including chunks of their social lives are likely to be intertwined with their academics more heavily than at schools like VU. I think most who prefer VU prefer a bigger separation whereas those who prefer Emory do not mind or even like the two more intertwined. A lot of Emory students seem as if they would have been happy at much smaller LAC types of environments or places like Chicago or JHU.