I know this has been discussed here and there. oxford’s acceptance rate is 30 plus where as Emory is 20 plus I believe. When some one has gotten an acceptance into both oxford and emory, do we have to worry about the acceptance rate when considering the quality students that might be attending oxford vs emory? love oxford for the leadership opportunities it gives and the ‘experiential learning’ curriculam. for some one who wants to do something in literary arts and stay on pre-med track, would you advise emory over oxford? torn between the two since really love the oxford for what its worth but the acceptance rate is causing some hiccups. any advise from the current students and experts??
@jrParent : You think that acceptance rate is a commentary on the academics all the time (I know some schools that are ranked higher than Emory main who should envy our literary arts opps. for undergrads and the nature of our science teaching)? If anything, it is a function of marketing and amount of applications received. The SAT scores at Oxford are not too different from main. Liberal Arts oriented courses are going to probably be smaller and more serious at Oxford, and so are introductory science courses (bio and chem mainly). Main campus is very special in the literary arts because of the faculty, but going to Oxford first is not going to set your child back and if anything, they’ll have a much better science experience. Also, the quality isn’t really that different. Both campus are a bit stronger than most flagship public institutions (with obvious exceptions of UVa, Chapel Hill, Berkeley, and Ann Arbor). Emory main may have an average SAT of 1370-1390 and Oxford is more like 1300ish. Needless to say, these students are really good. Oxford students tend to have lower HS GPA’s than main, but they are still about an A- average. Never let “selectivity” be conflated with academic quality when the incoming states are already significantly higher than normal at the places you are comparing. Often more selectivity results in the irony of an underwhelming curriculum. The students you matriculate will only become as good as the academics and EC opps. offered to them. Even some selective universities fail to challenge the great students they have in the proper fashion because teaching is not as emphasized at such places. But regardless, you know Oxford has an influence because it successfully send people to Doctoral and prof. programs. Emory is lopsided to the prof. programs. An inspiring academic and mentoring experience would usually result in many more people pursuing a PhD. Seems Oxford is much better at that.
The point is…you also want a school that will actually employ the talent of your child, not one that merely affirms they are smart…any school can do the latter and that is what most try to do (even if inadvertently). Oxford and liberal arts like colleges tend to work at least a little different. It is much harder to get through them without being challenged in a good way. I’ve found that many instructors, even at very selective institutions like main, water down their material and courses because they don’t want a) to piss off the students who have constantly been told that they are “perfect” and are special snowflakes, and b) Have a research commitment that is valued more so would not want to demand much from students because then they have to assist them more and that takes away time from research. Needless to say these mix and sometimes create toxic combinations at research universities. I’d much rather send my child to the place with very solid students (even if not “perfect”) that actually has an educational orientation IF my child cared about learning, being inspired/engaged w/academics, and the like. If the child just wants independence and maybe views the elite college as primarily a stepping stone to a professional school, then perhaps just go to main. Once the students are reasonably good, it is what the college actually does with them, and many elite research universities are very average in that category. They pretty much just rely on the talented students doing stuff for themselves, such that a mediocre education doesn’t matter. They “harbor” talent so to speak.
To give more qualitative evidence of how random this is (and the idea that course rigor/level of instruction of good students is instructor and institutional/departmental culture dependent): Let us compare Emory and Vanderbilt (because some of their course materials are just kinda out there). Keep in mind that their SAT’s are significantly higher than ours, yet for science and math, you find courses that are roughly the same overall and Emory advantages in chemistry and even significant parts of the biology curriculum. I know organic chemistry best, so here is a visual comparison: A Vanderbilt instructor’s exam (apparently the level does not go much higher than this, and this is considered a difficult instructor):http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Chemistry/omrg/teaching/Practice%20Exam%203.pdf
An Emory instructor deemed as difficult:https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q=chem%20222
Now, without even knowing organic chemistry, I can look and tell that one assessment style is much more demanding than the other just because of the format. I can find maybe 2-3 more Emory instructors that are significantly beyond this person’s (As in the Vanderbilt instructor-btw, you may say that it is dated, but I also have exams from recent, and they are the same type and level despite the improvement of Vandy’s student body over this 10 year period). I can likely repeat this for several other chemistry courses. The conclusion I can come to is: “Despite the differences in stats, Emory has a more hardcore chemistry department”. I would find the opposite in math and physics I would imagine. Biology may win at Emory simply because many more teachers have been trained in teaching/we have a Center for Science education that has successfully influenced many biology instructors. So given this, you’re going to see more instructors who teach and assess differently from what is commonly seen in biol depts. The same could be said all around for Oxford vs. Main. They (Oxford) have deliberately put a lot of effort into innovative/inquiry based science curricula so obviously you have a different culture and level of instruction than you would see at a school with good students that does not have specific goals in that arena and is more traditional. The fact is, often departments and schools don’t change their attitudes and level of instruction on a large scale once selectivity reaches a certain threshold. To do that takes deliberate and focused efforts. Whether or not those efforts occur reflect more so what the institution wants (culture) than how statistically amazing the students are. Like places like Chicago were known to be rigorous and innovative curriculum-wise WAY before they had “perfect” students. It is simply part of the ethos and values of the school.
@bernie12 - thank you very much for the insightful response. I have seen your comments all over here on this board and I thank you again for being such a great contributor. yes, what draws our kid to oxford is the ‘experiential curriculum’ offered at oxford and she is a oxford scholar and when she attended the scholars weekend, she was very impressed with the English class she attended which she is planning on majoring and thoroughly impressed with the interaction she had with the professors in her individual and group interviews as well. the faculty’s commitment and passion to teaching really showed up in the parents’ information session as well. no doubts that oxford has an amazing faculty and no surprises in reading that oxford students do well at the main as continuing students. and the peer scholars we met during the scholars weekend definitely made us realize we are going to be with some amazing kids but that was only a bunch of kids selected as scholars and the current freshman and sophomores we met were also great! but after your thoughtful responses, more convinced that oxford is no doubt a good choice for pre-med track and majoring in Liberal arts.
And in simple terms, keep in mind that FAR fewer students apply for Oxford than they do for Emory - probably due to locale (Cant really compare the appeal of Atlanta vs Oxford) and (since more students prefer a large campus). Since they have a proportionally smaller pool, they select more kids out of that pool.
@viewthroughkohl0 - yes, that makes sense!