<p>But, you don’t understand, Bernie. Our ranking’s been dropping.</p>
<p>Our ranking, man! We’re not as good as Wharton! So, obviously we are slipping.</p>
<p>
. </p>
<p>One thing we agree on is that Emory’s English department should be ranked lower for the following reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Apparently aluminum<em>boat can not read. I have said early that I am an international student. Thus Emory’s English department have not helped in anyway to bolster aluminum</em>boat’s critical reading skills. </p></li>
<li><p>Your English should be better than mine since I am an international student. Needless to say I think my command of English is better than your command of any second language you may know.</p></li>
<li><p>The “E” in Emory should be capitalized.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Any of your ad hominin attacks on my character will be reflected in your writing and I suggest you stop attacking my character and start focusing on the argument.</p>
<p>Lol.</p>
<p>You are an international student. So the English department hasn’t helped me. I follow your logic. </p>
<p>Also, I’m on my phone. And I have better things to do on the 4th of July than make sure words are capitalized while typing on a touch screen phone. </p>
<p>People write how they speak when they are on their phones.</p>
<p>Btw it is ad hominem. Not how you spelled it. If you are going to correct others’ writing, make sure you spell words correctly.</p>
<p>
. </p>
<p>My main argument is as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Given its location, Emory’s business and medical program should be better.</p></li>
<li><p>I rephrase my original point that Emory will be in the top 30s to instead the top 40s because there are Emory-affiliates quite fine with the fact that they are not improving. If you are not improving, how will you stay where you are? Especially since everyone else is imrpoving. However, I say top 40s because the CDC and Atlanta will keep Emory in place</p></li>
<li><p>Emory’s ranking is gradually decreasing. It was ranked as high as 9 and now it is 20. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>What I am stating are facts. How am I a ■■■■■? Is every ■■■■■ someone who speaks the truth? Are you afraid of criticism?</p>
<p>
. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>I care little about where you are. </p></li>
<li><p>As an international student, why would I celebrate the Fourth of July? Do I expect you to follow Ramadan?</p></li>
<li><p>You are on your phone? Ok mate, I will take your word for it. </p></li>
<li><p>By the way, “Btw” is not proper English grammar. If you are going to tell others (especially someone whose English is NOT the first language), please actually be well versed in English. </p></li>
<li><p>Why would you expect my English to be as good as yours? Do you only speak English? </p></li>
</ol>
<p>
.</p>
<p>Wow, you really do need help in critical reading…</p>
<p>After you attacked me, I simply replied that your writing also has mistakes. The only difference is that you are an American, while I am not.</p>
<p>I’m not American. And I do follow Ramadan. </p>
<p>Since I said btw instead of by the way, your argument is correct. You got me.</p>
<p>Ok, I’ll finish this with a shorter than normal post. You are a ■■■■■ because your arguments of your points are stupid and lack perspective. They just throw numbers together with no context in an attempt to denigrate the school. You don’t attempt to find examples where other elite schools struggle or fell in ranking. You single Emory out as unique and then compare it to Rome because it was likely faultily ranked at 9 at one point in time (like Cornell being well in the top 10 at one point but now being 14/15-25 pretty consistently now). Your argument can be summed up as “some rankings sometimes go down at Emory, and that’s baaaaad! It’s going to slip out of the top 30!” LOL. It’s also ignored or not addressed when some depts went up or stayed strong in rankings (like some of the depts in Laney, Public Health, or nursing, and you even ignored law and decided to cite its ranking 2 years ago). ■■■■■. You merely want to belittle the school with your weak arguments. </p>
<p>I have disproven the premise of 1, 2 is stupid. A school could technically improve and its rank not move (Vandy for the past 3 years…). The main thing not improving is ECAS admissions (I’m sure this is why we went down. Again, the SATs were always lower than those other places, in addition, USNWR weighted HS counselor scores more, and a lot of these folks aren’t going to rank based upon quality moreso than lay prestige. Emory was just corrected to its rightful spot if you buy the validity of the metrics being used now. This has been even more so proven by the “actual” numbers which are closer or even identical to Berkeley’s), not the institution as a whole. Public Health got new facilities got the highest amount of apps. for some programs (Actually I think it was the masters in public health, the largest one. Plus, the public health school is just…well…amazing. And it started in 1990?). The med. school has a new curriculum (which is on par or better than many peers in terms of innovation, so clearly that entity is keeping up), B-school is still doing well, and its MBA program is getting really good press lately because of its placement data (MBA apparently also implemented a new curriculum). BBA still strong. Emory Healthcare still going strong (It’ll be interesting to see what the proton therapy center brings about. This is an example of a worthwhile facility as it is innovative). You are equating increased ranking to “actual” improvement. There isn’t much of a correlation. Once in the upper echelon (the top 30 and especially top 25 or so), it is a numbers game that can easily be manipulated. Just get the app. numbers up with marketing ploys and then boost your SATs and your rank becomes more fluid like Chicago for example. It already had high SATs, just needed to reject a higher percentage of applicants. This is not meaningful “improvement”. It is superficial. You are a ■■■■■ and since you are ranking obsessed, you seem to value this superficial improvement over actual improvement. I want to see actual improvement and innovation in UG, G, and professional education. I care more to see changes in the curriculum/research robustness/focus, if the changes work, do placement numbers improve, does student satisfaction increase, employer satisfaction w/alumni, etc. You know things that actually matter and lead to payoffs in the longterm reputation and well-being of the place, not short-term ploys to increase the ranking.</p>
<p>And I never said I expected you to follow the fourth. All I said was that I do.</p>
<p>Bernie - you’ve made some good points, thanks. I hope you are right. At the same time, I think Fwu has legitimate concerns and his views and concerns have merit. I believe this because, as I’ve stated, I have some of the same concerns. Actually, I think Bernie, Aluminum and Fwu want the same thing, which is continued excellence at Emory. Please everyone try to look past the personal and really try to appreciate the merits of the arguments.</p>
<p>Going in another direction, I’ve visited Emory about 15 times now, and each time I go the campus looks more beautiful to me. It really has a unique, unified, and very pleasing architectural look. Dare I say, better than Vandy and Duke??</p>
<p>
. </p>
<p>Really? Care to converse with me in some Arabic? You know just to make sure you are not lying?</p>
<p>
. </p>
<p>It seems as if you want Emory to stay at 20-25 and not improve…</p>
<p>With Emory’s resources, there is NO excuse for Emory to be in the 20-25’s. With Atlanta and the CDC, not to also mention the Carter Center…Emory should be in the 10-15s.</p>
<p>And what is wrong with rankings? How did you find Emory? Did you find Emory without the rankings? I doubt it, unless you know people who worked or went to Emory.</p>
<p>I actually didn’t know what Emory was until about the summer before my senior year. I had never even heard of the school until a friend suggested it to me. Also, I’ve been going through this thread, and Fwu22911 please just stop. I agree with on some aspects like when you said the administration is terrible. I’m not going to sit here and say that Emory is the perfect school because no school is. However, it just seems that your basically criticizing the school, and only using your flawed logic and rankings to justify your reasoning. If you don’t like the school, then you can transfer.</p>
<p>Actually I did find it (and I was not aware of the rankings until I came to Emory. I just chose Emory because it seemed like a solid school. I’m from a lower income background, so was often oblivious to all this stuff in HS). They came to my school (I am from Savannah). I wanted to do science and wanted smaller classes (not Tech), I went to Emory. I enjoyed my plight (my freshman year experience set the tone. It was excellent because I got to start off with more advanced or special courses). I think much more could have a similar experience had they chose that for themselves (if they weren’t afraid, that is. Too many people in college fear being challenged. I think it’s important at a place like Emory, because usually more challenging or innovative classes lead to establishment of great student-teacher relationships and also tighter friendships between students who end up collaborating in the classroom. Some of this is important for things like rec. letters and networking and some of this is just good for ones experience as a whole). </p>
<p>F: You took what I said out of context. Top 25-30 encompasses the patterns seen in all schools within that range, including the top 5,10, 15, etc. schools. I said nothing about anyones comfort with being top 20-25. And again, I don’t care. The school must always pursue excellence. You can only hope that such metrics reward it. The excellence pursued should not be framed by the rankings. Once you do that, I feel like you are actually putting a ceiling on your level of success. </p>
<p>K: We all have concerns (I don’t like the cuts, personally. The administration needs to be largely replaced or get its act together, but many schools, including elites have had periods like this…Emory will likely survive and move forward from the episode like they did. It just needs a clear vision and a clear plan to execute it going forward), but to paint some big picture (Emory sliding into the 40s and the fall of Rome) is ridiculous. There are no merits in it. The person is just citing that the rankings fluctuate (they do indeed fluctuate, for most entities, so its not consistent with the decline and “failure to improve” they portray). The arguments lack merit because they lack context and nuance and are thrown together in a completely biased fashion. You would not write a paper like that in a history or political science class for example. You would actually legit entertain other possibilities and perhaps even discuss some of the weaknesses in your own viewpoint or how evidence doesn’t always support support it. </p>
<p>About the architecture: I also really like the Gothic thing going on at places like Princeton and Duke (I don’t know if I think Emory has better architecture than Duke) I think the greenery helps out Emory’s architecture a lot. It is definitely very unique ,especially for the piedmont south and mixes very interestingly with the geography. Many people really like Vandy’s campus, but I just don’t like “bricky” campuses that much (being from the south, I am one of the few who does not find brick campuses like Harvard, Vandy, UGA, Chapel Hill as particularly refreshing, even if it is well-greened. I just find it a bit common place and kind of boring). I also like that Emory kind of like Duke, is surrounded by heavily forested areas (though ours is more like an urban forest). Lullwater and the Wesley Woods area is very nice in my opinion. I just wish Emory would finish many of its construction projects. For example, the landscaping near the new freshman dorms is not optimal and makes it seem as if that area is a completely different zone of campus (I think they will re-landscape it when the last freshman dorm is done, and they will green up and add grass so as to connect it to the rest of campus). I’m sure they’ll do a good job w/chemistry and theology though. Admittedly, what is very interesting about Emory is that it employs predominantly post-modern architectural (even with some older buildings like Callaway) components even though it is no, nor has an engineering school. So while its architecture isn’t as “grand” as the places with more classical architectural themes dominating, its buildings usually have a very clean finish and mix surprisingly well with the greenery. The interiors of older buildings at Emory are also normally kept in better shape than similar buildings at other places, which is very nice when you think about it. However, I’m more about what goes on in those rooms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a little like saying that America is about to implode and claiming that “it’s a legitimate concern because there are legitimate problems in America.” There are legitimate concerns with what’s going on at Emory, but none that legitimate what amount to alarmist rants based on a misunderstanding of current events and their context.</p>
<p>I guess there is not much to say/do if Emory’s alumni and current students do not wish for Emory to grow/increase in the rankings…</p>
<p>What a shame considering Emory has one of, if not the best potential to grow-being located in Atlanta helps B-School and law programs, the CDC helps the medical program, and the Carter Center helps with politics and public relations…</p>
<p>Those are unique attributes not found in Charlottesville (UVA), Chapel Hill (UNC), Williamsburg (William and Mary), Durham (Duke), Hanover (Dartmouth), Providence (Brown), Winston-Salem (Wake Forest), Ann Arbor(UMichagin) and countless others…</p>
<p>Again, we never said that, you are saying that (Really, who would ever say that they don’t want Emory to continue to grow and improve itself? Perhaps you?). Please don’t speak for us. It’s not like you are making suggestions. You are merely putting imaginary words into the mouths of those who have not spoken about these issues to any of us and complaining.You can speak such a lie as many times as you like. . </p>
<p>There is shame in nothing. The place, like other institutions, has growing to do. Even Atlanta and Georgia has improvements to make (for example, biomedical/biotech options in Ga are not as good as they should be). You make it sound like Atlanta is some perfect city (I mean, it couldn’t remotely pass that public transportation initiative). It is not, but it has already served Emory and Georgia Tech well in terms of giving them the propulsion to their current stature. It is now up to them to take the next step if they want to be any better (you can’t just use Atlanta. There are internal initiatives and programs to be develop that really have nothing to do with Atlanta). Currently, Atlanta as a resource has been leveraged quite well (do you think that Emory would be in this position if it had remained at Oxford?). Again, you seem confused in understanding the complexity of these issues and you only care about rankings and not actual quality so your opinion kind of matters less. I have real suggestions for improvements based upon my experiences and all you have is complaints about prestige and rankings. Good luck to you. In the meantime, avoid placing words into mouths that are currently not here to speak for themselves (such as all of the alumni and students not represented on this board). We’ll claim that you were right once all of those people develop a forum or press conference of some sort and explicitly express that they are not interested in seeing the increased health, growth, stature, and well-being of the institution. I’m sure no such day will come.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many of us are concerned about the future of Emory. I personally, however, resist your use of rank as the same as the only criterion of Emory’s “growth” or “improvement.” Moreover, I’m frustrated by your reductionist and intellectually dishonest presentation and analysis of Emory’s history and growth, as well as American higher education more generally.</p>
<p>Quality of education can not be measured. There is no way to compare an Emory education to let’s say, Montana State University if you do not use rankings. In a sense, I’m pretty sure Montana State University also gives a quality education to its students. </p>
<p>HOWEVER, Montana State University’s quality can not be compared to Emory’s quality. That being said, Emory is higher ranked than Montana State. As a university goes up in the rankings, people believe that its quality also goes up. That is why we have a ranking system. That is also why the top choices for colleges are always those that are higher ranked.</p>
<p>That’s nice. That totally explains why LACs are much more popular than research universities. It also explains why many of the top UG choices for college (according to USNWR) are PUBLIC schools that are ranked below the top private institutions (the metrics in USNWR disfavor public schools even if they are awesome, get crap tons of apps, have low admissions rates and rank very well at the graduate and professional level). The rankings are likely help to set up “tiers” of comparison. Within certain tiers, discussing differences in quality is pointless. If Chicago was number 1, for example, I don’t think people interested in HYP, Stanford, ,Columbia, etc will suddenly say well “I guess Chicago is better because the ranking this year says so. Guess I better take myself there”. I don’t know about you, but I think a lot of people know better. Once you discuss within a tier, the conversation usually degrades into who has the “best facilities”, “most fun”, and “hottest girls” or who has a good dept. in a particular area of interest who doesn’t. Also, closely ranked schools often differ dramatically. For example, I really doubt the same person strongly considering USC will necessarily be considering Emory, Vandy, etc even if they could get in (they may likely look at places like Berkeley, UCLA, Chapel Hill, UVa), so once again, you are being a simpleton on this one. I like how you use extremes as an example.</p>