<p>overrate d</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lets be perfectly honest almost every school in this nation (with the select few--Chicago, Duke...and a few others) is for Ivy-rejects. Kids who can't go to Ivy will go to places like Emory. Emory is a good school (top 25) but from what I heard it like Vanderbilt has trouble finding graduations jobs up north in places like NYC. Also you can't compare Emory to WUSTL--Wustl is far superior in reputation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bescraze -
As an adolescent, you have a very disturbing view of why people choose colleges. You seem to think everybody would go to HYP if they could, and then begrudgingly accept their place on your firmly established hierarchy below that. You should really grow to understand the complexity of college selection before making your own and finding yourself woefully disappointed because you simply chose a school based on rank and prestige, rather than the actual best school for you as an individual.</p>
<p>Frankly, a school's reputation and rank won't matter a wit to anyone after your first job. There are plenty of Harvard graduates who I wouldn't hire in a million years. They're just not very impressive people. </p>
<p>All you'll have is the experience you actually had that helped you grow while in college. That's only going to matter to you.</p>
<p>Bescraze,
Not sure of your sources and perhaps this is only what you have seen, but your thought that schools like Emory are just for Ivy rejects is far from the national reality. The Ivy colleges may have strong academic reputations, but are hardly universally appealing and themselves are quite different from one another just as Emory is quite different from other colleges in the South like Duke or Vanderbilt. </p>
<p>Outside of the Northeast, the Ivy colleges and especially the non-HYP Ivies, have only selective appeal as the local populations don’t have the same hyper focus on prestige. Sample the life and the media in other parts of the country and you will easily see a preference on the part of many for the strong colleges in their own regions (and this includes Emory and the South). </p>
<p>Travel the country and see students and people and business folks in all corners of the country and you will find enormous passion and affection for the local colleges coming from people who spend virtually no time at all thinking about the Ivy League, eg, Rice/UT/others in Texas, Stanford/UCB/UCLA/USC in California, etc. Furthermore, they know and appreciate the quality of their local colleges which regularly produce graduates that contribute mightily to the local life and the local economies. I think you are greatly mistaken if you believe that these colleges are full of Ivy wannabees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lets be perfectly honest almost every school in this nation (with the select few--Chicago, Duke...and a few others) is for Ivy-rejects. Kids who can't go to Ivy will go to places like Emory. Emory is a good school (top 25) but from what I heard it like Vanderbilt has trouble finding graduations jobs up north in places like NYC. Also you can't compare Emory to WUSTL--Wustl is far superior in reputation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, I can't even begin to describe the arrogance here.</p>
<p>A lot of smart kids in the South don't even bother to apply to the Ivy Leagues, though if they did, they could get in. No, instead of Ivies, they apply to Duke, Vanderbilt, Emory, Rice, Wake Forest, UNC, etc because they're more well known and highly regarded than the Ivies in the regions. Those are their first choices, and they don't even give half a whit to the Ivies or those attending them. Have you ever thought about that? Or does your small head think the Ivies are the only colleges in the world worth attending?</p>
<p>It's really, really disgusting how the overall vibe of CC teems with Ivy lust and hunger--not EVERYONE wants to go to an Ivy. And you're a good example of precisely why I didn't even apply--though I am not saying every single person is like this, a significant number of people at Ivies are completely arrogant and have this holier-than-thou mentality simply because they were able to get in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Emory probably chooses to spend its money in different ways or perhaps your application was redundant in some way to other students that they had already accepted.
[/quote]
Need-based financial aid is supposed to be awarded on the basis of one thing only: financial need. Whether my application was redundant or not would only matter if I was in the running for merit-based aid. I think it's pretty sad if Emory is choosing to spend its money in different ways because Emory's biggest problem by far is their yield and it's pretty hard to get the yield up when the school is obviously trying to rip off middle-class families.</p>
<p>lgellar, you have to keep in mind also that some universities will accept you but will give you a terrible aid package, for some reason, probably because they don't think you will come. Universities have got yield to consider too, as you've said.</p>
<p>How much a university awards you in financial aid indicates how much they want you--the bigger the aid, the higher their desire for you to matriculate. </p>
<p>I know a lot of kids turning down other great schools (including Ivies) and going to Emory because they got a full scholarship or a big financial aid offer--just because it was not in your case doesn't mean the same thing happened to everybody else. Likewise, the same at WashU and other universities that throw lots of money around in order to lure top students.</p>
<p>I'm sorry that Emory did not offer you as big an aid offer as Vanderbilt did--but somehow I doubt that you would've attended Emory even if it matched Vanderbilt's aid or gave you even more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
lgellar, you have to keep in mind also that some universities will accept you but will give you a terrible aid package, for some reason, probably because they don't think you will come. Universities have got yield to consider too, as you've said.
[/quote]
That doesn't really make sense. Improving financial aid improves yield. If a school like Emory doesn't think an applicant is going to attend, they can just waitlist the person and see if they respond. Purposely giving someone bad financial aid is the worst thing that Emory can do because then the person's really not going to attend, whereas if they gave the good financial aid, the person might consider it.
[quote]
How much a university awards you in financial aid indicates how much they want you--the bigger the aid, the higher their desire for you to matriculate.
[/quote]
That's fine, but a school shouldn't claim to be giving need-based aid when it's really based on how much they want you to matriculate. Giving aid based on how much they want you to matriculate is called merit-based. The problem right now is that universities are able to claim they meet full need even though they don't because FAFSA's such an outdated estimator of financial need.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That doesn't really make sense. Improving financial aid improves yield. If a school like Emory doesn't think an applicant is going to attend, they can just waitlist the person and see if they respond. Purposely giving someone bad financial aid is the worst thing that Emory can do because then the person's really not going to attend, whereas if they gave the good financial aid, the person might consider it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, Emory may want you, but probably not as much as Vanderbilt does. So they accept you, as opposed to waitlisting, but don't give you as much aid because they think you'll probably reject them anyway. Or they don't think you need as much money as Vanderbilt thinks you do.</p>
<p>And why do you think this is an isolated case where univerisities give TERRIBLE aid yet people still come in droves? Northwestern is extremely stingy about financial aid, yet people go there anyway and suck up the debt because they believe it's worth it. Not to mention the Ivies, where if you're not extremely poor enough to qualify for those grants or if you're not extremely rich enough to pay for the whole thing and not get so deep in debt, you're completely shafted and in huge debt.</p>
<p>The thing is, what Vanderbilt thinks is need-based aid for you doesn't mean Emory is gonna think the same thing, and vice versa. They use the same criteria, but often times universities do not offer one applicant the same package--one will offer more than another, or less.</p>
<p>Don't tell me every person you know is going to the school that offers him or her the biggest financial aid package. How about this small example--a kid turning down a full scholarship at a state school in order to go to Cornell where he gets jack squat in financial aid. Terrible financial aid doesn't stop someone from attending if they really wanna go--and besides, if you REALLY wanted to go to Emory, why didn't you try to negotiate for a better aid offer with Vanderbilt's aid package as leverage?</p>
<p>Like I've said before, you probably weren't even thinking of attending Emory anyway and a better aid offer would not have changed your mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, Emory may want you, but probably not as much as Vanderbilt does. So they accept you, as opposed to waitlisting, but don't give you as much aid because they think you'll probably reject them anyway.
[/quote]
If I'm going to reject them anyway, it doesn't matter what financial aid they give me. They don't give the financial aid to people that reject them! If they wanted to change me rejecting them, they would have to improve the financial aid. If they are not willing to do that, it would be better to waitlist me.<br>
[quote]
Terrible financial aid doesn't stop someone from attending if they really wanna go--and besides, if you REALLY wanted to go to Emory, why didn't you try to negotiate for a better aid offer with Vanderbilt's aid package as leverage?
[/quote]
For me, Emory's financial aid offer was the last straw. I shouldn't have to "negotiate" with a school for them to grudgingly make their school affordable. I think it really says something when a school with an endowment worth over $5 billion is trying to shortchange some of its less wealthy applicants. And this is a school that has a serious problem getting accepted applicants to enroll.</p>
<p>How do you reason for people attending Ivies in spite of none to slim financial aid? You think people gonna reject Ivies just because they didn't get any financial aid at all? You think that's gonna stop them from attending?</p>
<p>I got terrible financial aid at WashU even though they really wanted me, like flying me in to the Multicultural Weekend, all expenses paid (food, airfare, housing accomodations). They really rolled out the carpet for me and a lot of other WashU prospectees. But the thing is, they didn't give me a penny in terms of financial aid, and even after I tried to talk to them they ended up giving me a small scholarship that didn't really impact the big picture of the total costs.</p>
<p>The key words are "for me [you]"--I think for others, if a dream school gave terrible financial aid, they would haggle and try to get more money to attend. I'm sorry your experience has been less than satisfactory, but know that a lot of people will be getting good financial aid offers and bad financial aid offers, not just at Emory but at every other college too. I don't think it's fair to categorically say that your experience makes Emory terrible and stingy at giving aid. </p>
<p>Like I've been saying, what one university thinks is need-based aid for you does not mean another university will think the same thing. It's not like Vanderbilt is not rich either, but maybe Emory thought it'd be better to help out students poorer than you or whom they thought would be in much greater need of the money.</p>
<p>But hey, you're not going to Emory anyway, so just chill out.</p>
<p>And you keep dodging what I've been saying (haha), you never really wanted to go to Emory, so I don't know why you're all ticked at not getting the financial aid offer you thought you deserved. Your lack of effort in trying to get a better aid package tells me you never cared to attend anyway, so don't complain too much. Sometimes you just gotta talk to them.</p>
<p>Maybe you think it's below you to try to "negotiate" for better offers, but I can tell you that MANY people do this for a university they really, really want to go to, and will not let the act of "negotiating" for better aid stop them. What have you got to lose to try to get a better aid offer? If you never try, you never know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe you think it's below you to try to "negotiate" for better offers, but I can tell you that MANY people do this for a university they really, really want to go to, and will not let the act of "negotiating" for better aid stop them. What have you got to lose to try to get a better aid offer? If you never try, you never know.
[/quote]
The point is that if a university as well-endowed as Emory is going to try to shortchange my family, then it clearly has its priorities misaligned.</p>
<p>Harvard beats Emory by a long shot, at $35 billion to Emory's $5 billion, but they "shortchange" people all the time, depending on who you ask. It was considered a HUGE step when they introduced these programs that would let people poor enough to qualify to attend Harvard completely for free, which led other big names to follow in step, like Stanford.</p>
<p>I don't understand why you think Emory is the only university who does not give good financial aid offers based on what a person thinks s/he deserves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't understand why you think Emory is the only university who does not give good financial aid offers based on what a person thinks s/he deserves.
[/quote]
I know most universities don't give good financial aid offers, but the point is that Emory has the money to be fair about it if they wanted to.
[quote]
Harvard beats Emory by a long shot, at $35 billion to Emory's $5 billion, but they "shortchange" people all the time, depending on who you ask. It was considered a HUGE step when they introduced these programs that would let people poor enough to qualify to attend Harvard completely for free, which led other big names to follow in step, like Stanford.
[/quote]
Do you know that Harvard only had to spend $22 million more than it had in the past to implement this year's policies? $22 million is a drop in the ocean for Emory's endowment. Last year alone their endowment grew almost $700 million. And that includes payments/withdrawals they made.</p>
<p>Anyway, this is really digressing off the point of this thread, which is discussing Emory's national reputation.</p>
<p>lgellar clearly had a bad experience with Emory's financial aid, but that is not representative of all applicant cases for Emory. I don't know why he keeps whining about it if he clearly didn't want to attend anyway, so yeah--let me express my opinion of Emory.</p>
<p>Emory is very highly regarded in the South, but not so much on CC and in the North. Excellent place to attend if you plan on staying in the Southeast. Beautiful, gorgeous campus--the whole place is extremely well manicured and looks like a country club. A lot of JAPs are said to attend (Jewish American Princesses, for those of you who don't know), as well as a lot of presence from Long Islanders and people from NY. </p>
<p>I've heard that Emory is very preprofessional/grade-grubbing/driven, with the majority of people doing premed and business tracks. Though I'm sure there will be several exceptions, I think I can safely say a lot of people there just work to make the grade and don't really care to actually learn for the sake of it.</p>
<p>I think recently they're chipping away at the liberal arts education requirements for all Emory students, but they provide (or used to) a very solid liberal arts education. It indeed is a very rich school, and a lot of people who can pay the full ride to Emory attend--you will see a lot of rich kids there, no doubt.</p>
<p>I applied and was accepted to Emory, though I (obviously) chose not to go. To be honest, I only applied because it was a similar school to WashU in that both are strong in medicine and business (arguably Emory more so in business than WashU, but WashU more so in medicine than Emory).</p>
<p>
Using ACT scores to compare the schools you mentioned--and especially eastern schools like Penn, etc.--is not statistically advisable, given that, e.g., only 30% of Penn applicants (and 42% of Emory applicants, for that matter), submit ACT scores, compared to 95% of Penn applicants who submit SAT scores (and 93% of Emory applicants). The SAT offers a much more valid statistical comparison given that a substantially higher percentage of applicants to these schools submit those scores.</p>
<p>In the case of Penn and some of the other schools you mentioned, a comparison of SAT scores to those of Emory tells a different story than the ACT comparison:</p>
<p>Emory 1385</p>
<p>Penn 1425
Brown 1430
Chicago 1430
Columbia 1435
Northwestern 1435
Dartmouth 1440</p>
<p>I am sorry everyone here (applejack, Hawkette) tries to be ridiculously evenhanded, but you guys are living in a dream world. With the exception of Duke, a vast majority of students would prefer to attend an Ivy league institution instead of Vanderbilt, Emory, Rice, Wake Forest, UNC. Those schools, while good can not compare to the opportunities offered by an Ivy league institution (and the some comparable universities/ LACs ect.) What you fail to realize is that most people can go to a college and enjoy themselves, shocker! Once you narrow down the location, academic preferences, sports, greek life and aspects such as those...you want to go to the BEST college you can get into. Every kid at my school who is attending one of those institutions you mentioned has either failed to gain acceptance to a better university or felt he had no chance at them and tried to go to the next best. </p>
<p>Also where you go to college undergrad is important, its not necessarily life changing but it contributes to how you are perceived and yes your job applications. Emory has a good reputation in the south, but if your interest is in business or a similar sector dominated in the North, then it is probably not the bests choice (look at job placements if you don't believe me.)</p>
<p>Why do you think the Ivy league schools have the lowest selectivity rates, hmm because people want to go there. Emory/Vanderbilt has a very regional appeal, and that is the issue. You can essentially receive the same education at almost any university in this nation, ie you learn the same stuff. The difference will then be, who your peers are, professors, and what the prestige of your school is. Take allot of what you read on this forum with a grain of salt, in life people respect those individuals who were intelligent, motivated and determined enough to attend the top universities in our nation. Make your own choice. </p>
<p>Finally to dismiss my opinion, because I am in HS is the height of arrogance and truly shows the extent you are an egotist, only believing what you have to say. I may disagree with you, but I do not dismiss your oppinion or you as "stupid" or such.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the case of Penn and some of the other schools you mentioned, a comparison of SAT scores to those of Emory tells a different story than the ACT comparison:</p>
<p>Emory 1385</p>
<p>Penn 1425
Brown 1430
Chicago 1430
Columbia 1435
Northwestern 1435
Dartmouth 1440
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And Cornell's average SAT for Engineering and CAS students is 1430.</p>
<p>But I believe the biggest difference between Emory and the rest of the schools listed (save Dartmouth) isn't SAT scores. There are a lot of problems with the SAT scores in that they fail to control for the income-level of the test taker in that scores tend to be boosted among those who can afford a high-priced tutor.</p>
<p>Rather, the problem with Emory is that it just doesn't have the research prowess than any of the other schools have. If you really want to attend a university, attend one with faculty who are the leaders in their field. You will have very good exposure to them by the time you are a junior or senior.</p>
<p>Bescraze, you are extremely naive to think that everyone wants to attend an Ivy.</p>
<p>I can think of several people who've turned down Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, and Stanford for Rice. Guess they didn't want to attend an Ivy after all! And there are probably some people who've done the same for Emory, Vanderbilt, etc.</p>
<p>It's a little more complex than you think, about how people decide where to go.</p>
<p>Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Davidson, UNC, and Duke all will have very motivated driven people who will receive an excellent education as well. You will be surrounded by classmates who will help you grow academically and socially.</p>
<p>Going to an Ivy does not guarantee success, though I know it will greatly help. But to say that every person will prefer an Ivy over these "Southern Ivies" is ludicrous. </p>
<p>College is what you make of it. It's what YOU do after you get into college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once you narrow down the location, academic preferences, sports, greek life and aspects such as those...you want to go to the BEST college you can get into.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, people try to get a school that is a "fit." Though one may get into Cornell, he might not like the freezing winters or high suicide rates, and may opt to go to, say, Wesleyan instead (just a hypothetical example) because he finds his niche there. Ivies are not the "best" places for everyone to go to, even if people do succeed in getting in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Every kid at my school who is attending one of those institutions you mentioned has either failed to gain acceptance to a better university or felt he had no chance at them and tried to go to the next best.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I can think of several people who've turned down Ivies for "lesser" institutions. Your school sample is in no way representative of everything. My friend turned down UPenn to go to Northwestern--guess she won't succeed in life, huh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Emory has a good reputation in the south, but if your interest is in business or a similar sector dominated in the North, then it is probably not the bests choice (look at job placements if you don't believe me.)
[/quote]
Job placement is affected by where people want to work though. Nearly everyone who goes to school in the Northeast wants to work in the Northeast. On the other hand, at a school like Emory, you have a mix of people, with some wanting to work in the Northeast and some wanting to stay in the South. By the way, you do realize that the nation is generally moving south and west, right? The Sun Belt is where the future's at.
[quote]
Every kid at my school who is attending one of those institutions you mentioned has either failed to gain acceptance to a better university or felt he had no chance at them and tried to go to the next best.
[/quote]
Do you go to school in the Northeast?
[quote]
Take allot of what you read on this forum with a grain of salt, in life people respect those individuals who were intelligent, motivated and determined enough to attend the top universities in our nation. Make your own choice.
[/quote]
Most people realize that people change a lot though. When you get hired for a job coming out of college, people want to know how well you did in college, not how well you did in high school. And then after those first few jobs coming out of college, no one cares where you went to college, but rather how well you performed at your previous places of work. When you get hired for a job, they're not hiring the same person that graduated from high school necessarily.</p>