<p>This thread is to encourage a discussion regarding what Emory's ranking will be in the popular U.S. News Rankings 29th/2013 Edition. Recently in September, the 2012 U.S. News Rankings came out and had Emory move down a couple spots behind Vanderbilt, Rice, and University of Notre Dame. Who thinks Emory will return to its original spot and move up, or will it fall again? Why?</p>
<p>Emory’s ranking did not move at all this year. For what it’s worth, it was #20 in 2011 and 2012. Speculation this early is also very difficult. A great deal will depend on the 2016 class profile, which is nowhere near complete.</p>
<p>[Early</a> Line on Early Admissions - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/2012-early-admission/]Early”>Early Line on Early Admissions - The New York Times)</p>
<p>I apologize for the mistake, Emory dropped from the rankings a couple years ago when it was tied with the schools that are currently 1-2 ranks in front of it. Recently the New York Times released a introduction to the accepted percentages of of the ED/EA profiles for the class of 2016. From another thread, it appears from this new released information that the RD percentages of students admitted will decrease due to the 17+% increase in ED applicants, thus helping the scoring in the U.S. News Ranking methodology. At this point it is certainly speculation, but considering that the U.S. News methodology also consists of many other factors other than the incoming class of 2016, it is possible to mull over some of the improvements and adjustments that Emory University will possible make.</p>
<p>The other factors haven’t really changed much (at all?), the changes in admissions practices will be the most significant. But, we don’t know anything about the class profile aside from the ED1 results and some derivative projections. This will be, I think, a more productive thread come March–when we’ll know more clearly what the class of 2016 actually looks like. </p>
<p>All of this being said, one might argue that the USNews ranking methodology does not favor Emory’s current undergraduate strategy. So, the resulting rank may be somewhat unpredictable either way.</p>
<p>Mmm, I understand. I am interested to see how Emory will allocate their economic resources this year seeing as they have one of the largest endowments in the nation.</p>
<p>Hopefully those resources won’t be allocated to something trivial like gaming the rankings, but instead something that will actually improve programs/program space and thus attract more (and more importantly, more interesting. This will need to be done by bringing much more attention to strong programs and happenings in the college/university outside of the well-known and established ones like the pre-prof. tracks and their commonly associated majors) students down the line. Also, most top 20s have the largest endowments in the nation. Anyway, I would guess 20 again. Our rank will not change over night. I hardly care though as it seems to change based upon changes (sometimes only slight) in incoming class profile or admit rate (indicators that a) we’re getting lucky, b) we are being used as an adequate backup and c) more people are finding out about the quality. None of these measure actual increases in quality) and not the actual quality of Emory. We can reject as many students as we want and accept and even yield students with higher stats, but if our offerings don’t increase along with these, we won’t be able to impress, retain, or gain but so much loyalty from incoming classes. Emory needs work in these areas (as indicated by the retention rate) and lack of D-1 isn’t the reason. Chicago students for example display lots pride in the academic and unique EC opps./events offered there. </p>
<p>For Emory students, this isn’t enough (maybe because our offerings aren’t unique enough to distinguish us from peers). Until it is deemed as deserving of such pride by the student body, these small fluctuations in rank will afford temporary ego boosts or deflation when USNews ranks come out, but will only be superficial in a sense. Kind of like: “Well, we went up again in rankings, but are actually proud to be here”. For some reason students at similarly ranked schools are, but we whine a lot. We need to actually get better, not merely get a better rank (for example, even if we become ranked 14 in the distant future, it doesn’t mean we’ll attract more intellectual students like some of those schools between 10-15 if the adcoms don’t change the admissions scheme some. Instead we’ll attract the same pre-professionals we had before, but they’ll have higher SAT scores and will have had to compete against more applicants to gain admission. Is the school really different or better?)</p>
<p>Also, by March, we’ll have an idea of what our “prospective” class looks like, and not those matriculating. Emory has an uphill battle as the schools with the large sports scenes have become quite popular and it doesn’t really stand out among the more academic/intellectual oriented top 20s (most of whom have huge names). A lot of this comes down to actual and perceived student culture which is something very difficult to change (it’s a liberal arts type school with a historical pre-prof. fervor out of this world. Intellectual/artsy students won’t come in droves b/c of this, and many of the pre-profs. will choose higher ranked places if they can, especially those w/more stereotypical campus scenes). Emory seems to be stuck in a rut. I love this place, but I believe this is the truth and it’ll have to work to get out of it.</p>
<p>I didn’t read the previous posts.</p>
<p>The only number I care about is % of students who matriculate out of total accepted.</p>
<p>As long as rankings stays within the top 25 or so, that’s the only number that matters. </p>
<p>Unless we’re trying to impress the local idiot at Burger King (which actually happens more than I’d like to admit).</p>
<p>In Atlanta? Can’t see it happening in many other cities outside of Georgia. Yield is pretty steady, however, I think they should honestly accept less if the yield is steady because the class sizes have grown a bit large (as in to a point where it’s becoming uncomfortable and the university may have to eventually scamble to get a plan for more sophomore housing options). Instead, we accept more or the same with a steady or even increase in yield, which is not that good. I think my incoming class was around 1300, now we have 2 classes with over 1350 (too sharp an increase in a very small amount of time). Something isn’t right about that. On top of this, it seems as if the science depts, for example, still haven’t figured this out especially chemistry. For 2 years straight, they underestimated the amount of students and thus awkwardly scrambles at the last minute to accommodate people in gen. chem and orgo. The funniest is the scramble for part 2 of the sequence. I mean, come on, they could not have seriously believed they were going to weed out students from first semester (and in gen. chem’s case, did they ever think about the incoming students who APed out of 141? There will be than enough of them to replace the very few who lost interest or were weeded out).</p>