It’s time for a President who can get Emory into the top 10. It’s ridiculous with an endowment the size of Emory’s it isn’t an “Elite” school. For those interested, please take the survey at the bottom of this post:
"As we begin the selection process for Emory University’s next president, input from the university community is both vital and welcome. We invite faculty, students, staff, alumni, and friends to consider the following questions.
Your responses will be shared with the Presidential Selection Committee, but your identity will remain anonymous."
Top 10 is pretty ambitious. Emory would have to out-rank at least 6 of the following:
8 Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Duke, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern
However, top 15 would be awesome (tied with Cornell, as Vanderbilt and WashU currently are).
Again, top 10 is a shallow goal. 15-20 (as academically, most of those schools are not actually better than Emory) is easier if we just want to pat ourselves on the back. All that basically requires is gaming admissions without cheating and some better marketing.
Currently, Emory places 47th by standardized scores when compared to all colleges. This is, of course, very high, but also represents an aspect of reality that tends to get overlooked when discussions of “top 10” status are introduced.
@merc81 I’m not aware of any college ranking services that “overlook” standardized test scores. USNWR certainly takes that into consideration.
Of the 46 schools ranked ahead of Emory on the Business Insider list, how many have entering class sizes larger than Emory’s (around 2000). It’s easier to have a higher average with a smaller class size.
“It’s easier to have a higher [SAT] average with a smaller class size.” (#6)
I’d say it’s harder in that varsity athletes comprise 35-40% of the undergraduate student body at many top smaller schools.
In terms of a directly homogeneous comparison to schools within Emory’s own category, what has definitely been overlooked thus far on this thread is Emory’s overall score of 76. Statistically, this would make an increase to even the 18th position (where the score is 82) challenging.
@merc81 I think 35-40% may be an exaggeration. Also, all you have to do is pretty much select at a high bottom quartile (remember that some athletes will indeed fall into the middle-50) and most of the athletes will fall below that (doesn’t really matter how much below). If 75% of the students are above 1400, then it really has no effect, so all a school has to do is maybe select between 1400-1500 for 75% and that is indeed what some schools do. Less elite schools will start higher knowing they will yield lower (they are basically catching high scorers who were denied, waitlisted, or screwed by fin. aid at more elite schools). Emory has yet to jump on this bandwagon and could honestly at least start by aiming for 75% being above say, 1320-1350.
As for the score: Not too sure how it works (maybe based on the new metrics, but on slightly older ones, these weaknesses took a while to catch up), because the other schools had no problems in past years raising their score which is how Emory started to fall in the rankings initially (its score would be like 81 and the others started pulling ahead). Also, Emory basically always had lower scores than the other schools (even when it was cheating) so that used to not be much of a problem keeping it in the top 20. I think it has been more negatively effected by bad press (which influences peer and counselor evaluation) and a lower graduation rate. Things like faculty salary also play a role. Emory has also increased its class sizes (which hurts, went from 7:1 to 8:1), and traditionally has had higher admit rates (still does) than other schools. It is quite amazing it is 21 if they held those metrics in high esteem. I suspect that it is overachieving in many other metrics that technically more selective private schools ranked below are not (because based on selectivity, several schools should be ranked higher if we talk about scores and admit rate). Again, if Emory played the rankings game with its admissions office without cheating, then it could probably tack on some more points. It doesn’t seem hard to change admissions scheme at all as the schools I mentioned just kind up and did it one year and continued to do so (they first began a spamming campaign and the apps then started to flow in and then they dropped their admit rate and intentionally cherrypicked super high scores).
Emory should consider doing it in moderation as doing it to an extreme hasn’t worked for 2 of those schools in terms of improving the outcome of the graduates (post-grad. scholarships, placement, etc) but has stabilized them a higher rank than they would otherwise have been. However, I don’t know if that is because of the students they recruit or the schools. Maybe Emory could just be good at scoring in those areas (post-grad success) already and even higher scoring students will make it appear more successful. I’m not sure. The thing I don’t want to see at Emory is an “underachieving” student body that doesn’t garner the amount of recognition it does now but comes in with higher scores than ever. It isn’t good for the institution.
For the purpose of my post (#7), I took the athletic participantion figure directly off the website of a top 20 (USNWR) LAC, where it states, “In any given season, 35 to 40 percent of the student body participates in a varsity sport.”
In a natural distribution it is impossible to “select” a bottom quartile without shifting the demarcation points of the other quartiles. (Though I think I understand your point on how aspects of this could, in theory, be manipulated, in a sense, artificially.)
“Overall score” is simply a metric that relates more to absolute differences between schools than the less statistically relevant rank. If anything of value is being measured at all, then score is a more valuable indicator than rank.
“The thing I don’t want to see at Emory is an ‘underachieving’ student body that doesn’t garner the amount of recognition it does now but comes in with higher scores than ever. It isn’t good for the institution.” (#8)
This relates to the risk of an over-consideration of rankings and is a comment I concur with in its general viewpoint.
@merc81 What percentage of a LAC student body is comprised of “recruited” athletes? And what percentage of the student body at Emory is comprised of recruited athletes?
Recruited athletes are the ones who one might infer have lower scholastic stats. In my limited experience, top flight LACs will allow walk on participation by students who were not among the best in their sport within their own state in high school.
From what I’ve seen, at the very top LACs (US News top 5, for example), at least in the mainstream mens’ sports, there are very few walk ons. They are almost all recruited. I’d say at least 95% are recruited, on the teams I’m aware of, it’s 100%.
That being said, at those schools the majority of those recruited athletes have GPAs and SAT/ACT at or above the school average.
It’s fairly remarkable - to have such high numbers and great athletics - but they do manage to get those kids.
@8bagels I wonder about how highly regarded LAC athletic recruits are in sports that have a national following. I imagine that in “preppy” sports like lacrosse, polo, crew, squash, etc, the LACs are able to recruit fairly well, although even there the very best athletes tend to get snatched up by the Ivies.
In sports with a larger national talent pool, like tennis, I bet LAC recruits aren’t anywhere close to being nationally ranked players. I can relay to you this story. There was a player from my home state who was the #1 nationally ranked player in tennis in 3 separate USTA age groups. He ended up playing for Harvard. Another kid, who had the same coach, never cracked the top regional rankings in the state (ranked below the top 100 in the state) and ended up playing tennis for Swarthmore as a freshman.
The kid who played for Harvard was a great tennis player who was also a good student. The kid who went to Swarthmore was a great student who was also a decent tennis player. Very different athletic and scholastic profiles, though both played varsity tennis for their schools.
For tennis, hockey, golf and baseball etc. they get pretty good players. But, obviously these are players who put academics first and have the grades and test scores to prove it.
Of course, overall the very best nationally ranked athletes rarely go to Ivy or NESCAC in most sports. They generally aren’t academically qualified (like 95% of high school students in general), and generally spent most of the time on sports, not school.
Ivy and top nescac recruit a lot of the same players in many sport - I’ve been involved and seen it firsthand. That’s because the pool of academically eligible, realistically skilled athletes isn’t huge. When you look at national rankings, at least 95% aren’t going to be eligible at Williams or Amherst, or the ivies.
Your Harvard example seems reasdonable., although athletically Harvard gets very different athletes than say, Brown. The kid who went to Swat may not have been in the top 100 in California, but he probably was 200 or 300s. Which, in a state with thousands of high schools is nothing to sneeze at. In addition, he probably had a good and sat or act that met or exceeded the Swat average. Which, nationally is a fairly rare bird.
In the metric driven world universities live in the USNWR is still the top dog. Their rankings are driven by wealth and prestige. Most of which were generated 100+ years ago. There is a strong correlation between wealth and USNWR rank and with 7B in the bank Emory should be ranked in the 8-15 range. Emory is like a kid with a 2350 SAT and a 2.2 GPA…underachieving but has great potential and great resources to work with.
While U’s hate playing the game they all need to play, and do play it as it brings money, faculty and students in the door. The money, top students, top faculty, and infrastructure allow them to continue their mission.
Moving up is going to be a challenge:
The 8 ivy schools have too much wealth and prestige to fall outside the top 20.
UC, CU, MIT, Stanford, and Northwestern aren’t going anywhere.
Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash St-L, and NDU are all red hot right now and “moving on up”.
JHU is a bit long-in-the-tooth, having trouble recruiting students and faculty, and stuck in Baltimore. It should be in the 17-20 range, but still top 20. Georgetown is a 19-23 U.
CMU and USC are working very hard to move into the top 20 as well.
@bud123 Emory is underachieving (actually hardly as I’ll explain briefly) versus the USNWR rankings and basically nothing else (a 2.2 GPA really…we still using input metrics to make stupid analogies? Output is what matters and explains how the school can have a more powerful alumni network and loyalty than schools ranked higher), so there really is nothing to complain about. No one at Georgetown complains…It is about impact. Also, Emory has no chance at being like higher than 15 even if it did like WUSTL and Vanderbilt with recruiting tactics…WTH are you talking about? Emory isn’t particularly underachieving and is actually overachieving considering it joined the AAU in 1995. Emory and Rice/Vanderbilt should have never been in the same tier this quickly just based upon that fact. Emory wasn’t relevant until like the 2000s and is already doing EXTREMELY well. The fact is, it should have never been but so high. Now it will have to follow the “correct” path to success and make its programs even better, market that, and then reap the benefits.
The “rush to top rankings” thing didn’t work (WTF Emory tried it, I don’t know, but it stemmed the SAT cheating). More paced and meaningful growth is more worthwhile. Better to gain a reputation that makes folks ask “why isn’t it ranked higher?” than to be constantly questioned about ones perhaps inflate high position and then only be able to point to freshman quality and other aspects of the school that are actually not particularly unique.
Not true. Emory/WUSTL/even Vandy is richer than and of similar wealth to Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown. And those 3 are not that prestigious.....2 of them are kind of small though. One could claim that their positioning is analogous to the sort of calibration one sees in MBA and law school rankings.
Uhmmmmm.....They are already at the top so it does not matter if they have subtle movements as they have.
3.Duke has been top 10 since the 80s. If you're going to make nuanced sense (rarely happens), move it to category 2. WUSTL has plateaued despite its gaming. Vandy will experience the same if it isn't careful as it is following the same formula. NDU and Rice are relatively stagnant as well (though Rice is actually quite a bit stronger overall in terms of impact. Again, Vanderbilt, Rice, WUSTL, and Emory usually are near or comparable to each other in various global rankings, NDU.....can't say the same unfortunately...sometimes can't really even say the same of GTown). There is no evidence that they are moving much relative to other schools. The only reason WUSTL and Vanderbilt did is because of the SAT cherrypicking but it doesn't really matter because many schools below it on the UG USNWR outperform or are on par with them in other important rankings both in and outside of USNWR.
JHU has NEVER had trouble recruiting faculty. I have no idea why people continue to crap on this school with no evidence. JHU has always been doing really well (especially academically) and now its SAT's are in parity with the Duke, Penn, Stanford, that class of schools (where the 25% hasn't hit 1400 yet). Also USNWR seems to have no problem with them.....stop the lies please.
5.What at least mildly relevant school outside of the top 20 isn't? Those 2 may deserve it (though I honestly find CMU's undergraduate programs more superlative than many of the schools it is competing with above and below it. Let's not talk about its STEM reputation.....wow!). The triviality of it all!
Without historical context and a more nuanced picture, this conversation is worthless. Emory and most schools ranked between like 15 and 25 still have quite a bit of work to do. I would say that Berkeley and Brown are so distinctive in their various ways that their UG ranking, which is already strong, is actually drowned out by either their overall reputation and influence (Berkeley) or unique UG environment (kind of both, but Brown’s is more notorized, kind of like Chicago or Columbia). I’m sure they desire higher ranks, but they aren’t in a position to constantly worry about it or feel pressure to increase it quickly. They simply “do them” and try to do good and not merely look good. Some places were trying way to hard to look good that they forgot the other part. Emory became one of those places for quite a while and still kind of does it today, but it doesn’t seem as bad and there appears to be an attempt to take other things much more seriously.
Kiplinger just came out with 2016 rankings. Their methodology uses quality measures for 55% and financial measures for 45% of the total. Emory fairs better than the “other ivies” Dartmouth, Brown, UPENN, Cornell, as well as Northwestern, JHU, Wash StL, and UND. Their methodology helps the LAC’s.
I don’t see the purpose of that ranking (other than to show that we all naturally attempt to buy students)…it shows many private schools in the top 20 being ranked near each other as usual. Thank you for adding useless information that isn’t very credible and does not add to a conversation about what Emory should and should not do other than market more and select a higher SAT range. Again many global/world rankings that try to measure something “meaningful” in a more meaningful way put certain schools in similar areas…as I’ve already suggested. You can go look at the USNWR global ratings where the group of schools I mention are indeed close by each other. So Emory, again is in good company but must still improve its global impact which it recently got serious about (literally a strategic plan JUST for that). I of course am more interested in what it can do to improve the undergraduate experience to make it more distinctive from any of these. Needs to put out even more superior products to move even further forward (clearly the current model allows Emory to overachieve considering its newness, it just needs to take it to an even higher level such that such performance is actually not a consistently surprising over achievement, but an expectation. No one should say, “wow, how is this school competing with these folks in terms of Fulbright winners”). Duke has been doing very well for a while because their academic programs have changed so as to produce great products that go on to lead in very high places (which means more impact and easier access for future graduates).
Also of interest is how Emory grads. have similar starting and mid-career salaries as near peers without having an engineering school and not being…well Chicago. I don’t think its the b-school doing all the heavy-lifting. The place doesn’t do a horrible job making those in non-pre-professional entities employable and the pre-professionals place quite well (pre-med overall rate is lower than most elites but its performance in terms of “top” school placement is still as strong as ever. MBA and Law School placement have always over-performed by a mile and likely still do. Law school being less desirable has likely strengthened the placements into the T14 even morel. Emory was like 32 for placement in 2008 which was basically counting the years where it had barely arrived on the relevance scene…And the enhanced prestige of the b-school has apparently landed the BBA program either in or near the top 10 feeder schools into top MBA programs for the past few years. However, this has become less relevant as students pursuing business now seem much more interested in finance and consulting and perhaps don’t consider the MBA as an eventual path when selecting a UG school. They tend to go w/finance placements instead).
Emory’s next phase should be: “Moving beyond relevance and humility. Enhancing Success even further and effectively telling everyone about it” lol. School is not even the best at effectively highlighting what it does already do superlatively well unless there is a huge event like E.Bola outbreak or something.