Is Emory a waste of money?

@FourScoreFour : It is certainly very interesting. Emory is weird, or maybe not (the decision I am describing makes sense ethically, but what does being an elite university have to do with being ethical? It has more to do staying and certainly looking elite. Admitting lower income students ain’t the way apparently?), because it certainly admits more low and “middle” (as in by American standards, not by standards of those who typically attend elites) income students, but does not finance the grey area folks (basically upper middle income. The weird area where you are quite wealthy with respect to American standards, but any elite private or OOS public is a stretch) anywhere near as well. Many schools have gone toward a model of pivoting toward financing the latter (perhaps because they have higher stats, especially ACT/SAT scores).

However, let us be real, “admitting” (as in paying for them) them is never the problem. Many schools can easily afford to admit them, but the question is, why bother if they are not going to help as much with the score range or rank? Best to just go after wealthier students who have the higher scores who care more about Migos, the DUC, and “courses that fill too quickly” than their education. They’ll take up space on campus, fill the class and dorm rooms, and help the rank regardless of what they actually do while attending.

Since we’re discussing whether Emory is “worth it,” I’m linking an article from the Wall Street Journal on Emory’s Quantitative Sciences Major/Minor (QSS) and its creator Dr. Cliff Carubba:

“Economist Cliff Carrubba has created a degree program at Emory University that melds humanities disciplines such as anthropology, English and history with math and statistics.” MAURA FRIEDMAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

"Emory University in Atlanta has created a degree that marries traditionally qualitative disciplines such as anthropology, English and history with math and statistics. Economist Cliff Carrubba, who created the program in 2014, said his goal isn’t just to better equip students to master large data sets—it is to save the liberal arts.

“There has been an explosion in data and there’s a huge demand for people who know how to harness it,” he said. “Most students coming out of the liberal arts have at best a consumer’s knowledge of basic statistics, but they’re rarely trained to rigorously and effectively answer questions using data.”

If they can master those skills, they are significantly more valuable in several industries that are being transformed by the data measuring human behavior generated by email, web tracking and cellphones."

Now, schools like Dartmouth and Denison have started similar data programs that join data science with traditional liberal arts curricula.

Dr. Carrubba’s program requires students take seven classes in statistics, computer science and math alongside their other discipline. Data-management skills qualifies those students for roughly 15% more jobs after college, said Mr. Sigelman. Those positions pay a $13,000 wage premium.

“Ten years ago, marketing was pretty pictures,” says Jennifer Harmel, a vice president at Annuitas, an Atlanta company that builds long-term marketing campaigns and has interviewed some of Dr. Carrubba’s students for internships. “Today, it’s all about numbers and we have a hard time finding people who can understand both the numbers and the softer side of things.”

Isabel Goddard, a junior majoring in cultural anthropology, entered Emory planning to avoid math. But she quickly came to see the limits of qualitative research. When she heard about the Dr. Carrubba’s program, she dipped a toe into a statistics class and struggled, but she has stuck with it.

“If you can’t use the data, you’re at huge disadvantage,” she said. “It’s a whole different level of research.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberal-arts-colleges-in-fight-for-survival-focus-on-job-skills-1493051024

Meh, the school does enough to make these schools worth something. Students kind of need do more themselves to make their education worth something. It isn’t all about skating and having a great time all of the time. I kind of respect Goddard because she took a risk and didn’t back off when it did not work out perfectly the first time. She wants to train herself to become more competitive. Not just hoping to ride off of the brand of a highly ranked school.

oh…but I don’t really care about sports so that’s fine…it’s reassuring that Emory has stellar academics. but how does it compare to schools like BC or Tufts tho…

@Goforthestar : Similar but different, like most schools in its (Emory, basically those ranked 15-25 or so) ranking tier. And by that I mean will naturally have different academic strengths. I will say that it is often more “edgy”(innovative) lately in terms of the new programs it chooses to open and how it tends to run or teach in them at least in comparison to many private schools (publics tend to be ahead of the curve on pedigogy whereas privates merely rely on smaller class sizes and selectivity to keep “quality” education). That major above is one example, the Human Health major:http://s165322.gridserver.com/wordpress/curriculum/ (this is also known for its serious student teaching oppurtunities)
which, BTW, you would think just takes in all pre-meds do to it being may more easy/less “sciency” than STEM majors, but in actuality, much like the ILA program majors, also known to be quite innovative, requires senior projects.
With a senior project requirement, only students more deliberate in their interest in their interests and desire to learn will join: http://ila.emory.edu/programs/ so these do not become more or less default majors for folks.

The Voluntary Core was and still is a very interesting development: http://college.emory.edu/voluntary-core/about/index.html

There is plenty of evidence that can be found just by surfing the departmental websites, that Emory is very strong academically, often in ways that have a surprising “academic” slant. And by that I mean, offers multiple opportunities or even requires students to engage course work beyond a very basic coursework level (and sometimes just beyond course work in general). I think this is a part of being good academically. Do many departments actively try turn more of the great students into scholars by getting them much more deeply involved in the discipline? Or do the majors mainly just exist to serve up a menu of courses. At Emory, the more academic slants of departments likely exist to a) help revitalize the liberal arts, b) create more intellectual engagement on campus, c) prepare students better for whatever.

I think even the b-school is attempting to implement a capstone project or course.

*Part of the reason Emory can have so many departments moving in the direction of offering numerous fellowships/scholarships, and Study abroad opps (it is notable that even natural science programs at Emory have their own pet study abroad options which I did not observe as common elsewhere. In addition to this, Emory also has internal post-grad. scholarships such as Bobby Jones, again, not as common among peers at all), and re gearing many of the curricula towards what it would look like to help those who would actually work in the field is straight up due to faculty desire (the professors truly make Emory IMHO, especially the College. Much more warm and nurturing than some other places, even as its enrollment has grown, faculty are really accessible and try very hard to be engaging and even mentor students). Compared to peers, I do not think Emory College (or the b-school) has a huge or even large endowment, but yet it performs very well (again, despite lower scores and even admitting more low income students) vs. those places in terms of accolades, and some how finds a way to raise the money to support the things I mentioned above. Without a faculty that still cared about the students and the institution, I can tell you for a fact that things like the ILA and the Voluntary Core will cease to exist (hell ILA almost did bite the dust). Movements in the right direction in terms of educating students in meaningful ways simply do not happen at schools that aren’t good (and even many that are considered good).

*Also, your questions really don’t make much sense and just invite ■■■■■■ pretty much. How can one directly compare those schools overall? You need to figure out what your interests are and then go look on various departmental websites kind of like what I am trying to show you so that you see if the school offers anything interesting for YOU. There is no need to compare whole schools to each other. Even ones of similar caliber run and do things very different. Students and parents should be aware of this and align their logic and research goals (for selecting a school) with this fact and not with say…what tour guides have to say. Like it is hard to compare a place mainly known for its social sciences (Tufts) to a place known big time for Health and Life Sciences (Emory), but also shines in certain social sciences and humanities (namely, history, psyche, polisci, and English/Creative Writing,anthro. but of course polisci and its related area, international studies do not shine as brightly as Tufts in that are much like…life sciences at Tufts will not shine like Emory. In fact similar things could be said for GTown vs. Emory except both do share strong b-schools). Zone in on possible areas of interest and let us know and then you can research better or we could give more information. Otherwise, continuing this thread is useless.

If you are talking a school to do business at then Emory is stellar of course and in a good city to do it. Also, the movement toward entrepreneurship on campus (which may have been occurring since like 2010 or 2011) makes it a very interesting place to be. In such cases, I would have to give the b-school/Emory’s vibe an edge over those other places. For a business or entrepreneurial minded person, Emory looks like it is starting to spark.

"The Center for World University Rankings (CWUR) ranks Emory University in the Top 10 globally in seven subject areas based on the number of research articles in top-tier journals over the last 10 years. The CWUR rankings feature the top global universities in 227 subjects covering all academic disciplines in the sciences and social sciences.

Emory achieved Top-10 rankings in cardiac & cardiovascular systems (10); immunology (8); microbiology (6); pathology (10); social sciences, biomedical (10); virology (6); and women’s studies (10)."
http://news.emory.edu/stories/2017/04/center_for_world_university_rankings/index.html

It’s fairly obvious why Emory ranks highly in biomedical fields - particularly in immunology, microbiology, pathology and virology - given its proximity to the Centers for Disease Control and its work on HIV (specifically on an HIV vaccine) and other infectious diseases.

Emory has been an innovator in undergraduate education in the social sciences. There was an earlier linked article to the Wall Street Journal’s coverage of Emory’s quantitative sciences. However, this ranking is based on “research articles in top-tier journals over the last 10 years.” It’s a pleasant surprise that Emory ranks so highly in faculty publications in the social sciences.

The same can be said of Emory’s #10 overall world ranking in women’s studies.