Is Emory really that good?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
41

That is not what I said…they definitely are not. I am just arguing that places with similar social environments such as Duke, Stanford, and Yale have much more academic intensity and “cerebralness” (bad term-I’m sure it isn’t real) mainly because of their programmatic offerings at the departmental level that lead to much more opportunities (that students capitalize on) for students to pursue scholarly work outside of the class room while ALSO having traditional fun. Also, what you say is not true about academic differences. Some schools even within the same range are very much different academically in terms of their offerings and strengths. I don’t think people, parents, or students should just lump them together academically despite what you may see on the surface. This leads to stupid things like incoming freshmen at Emory coming thinking that our economics department is good and way back when, I remember when some came in thinking we have engineering. I mean, I’m sorry, I’ve compared course materials in certain disciplines at major (and non) schools and there can be stark differences! One school may not be as great at UG education than another across a set of fields. That’s just the truth. It is like trying to claim that something like Chicago’s undergraduate education in math, physics, or economics is the same as any other top school. It isn’t true. They pride themselves not only in their grad programs in such fields but how they teach much differently at the undergraduate level. People attending such schools actually do care about these differences sometimes. Also, since the social and academic environment are often linked, one could claim that the differences outside of it are perhaps in part of the differences in curricular and co-curricular offerings. I would be lying if I claimed that Harvard and Vanderbilt, Emory, or wherever are akk basically the same academically and there are receipts (actual materials and stuff) to back it up. Just because people assume the differences are not there or choose not to consider them does not make the claim true.

As for the “fun goes to die” comment: I’ve only heard this in reference to Chicago. The other schools are known for very high intensity and unique social traditions and EC offerings and so is Chicago to a large extent. I feel this comment comes from those that just don’t prefer or expect academics at that level.

42

Also, this is coming from a person that used to make the same assumption until I started digging. As I said, some schools just do undergraduate academics differently across a set of disciplines (I still have yet to find anywhere doing Integrated Science introductory courses on the scale and level that Harvard is for example- It is also a place where a course such as CS50 has become a phenomenon in and of itself) and I do think it makes a difference on the experiences and type of training a student may get at one school versus another. I just think students should want it all at the highest levels possible both academically and socially if you’re going to pay tons of money, so you should choose a school that is socially suitable but can also do what you are academic passions are extremely well even in comparison to similar caliber schools- as opposed to “pretty strong”- the reasons for its strength should be obvious, somewhat unique, and jump out as a reason to study it at that particular institution. To me the generic: “we’re great at this” shouldn’t be enough to raise eyebrows. Show the receipts, what cool things does it have that another similar place may not? Until marketing at schools can do this, I’d say that many schools are engaging in trickery and distraction by mainly just wowing tour groups away with fancy new buildings and facilities and making only generic claims about academics that go unproved. And that is not Vandy directed, we are all terribly guilty of that sort of thing and I think its dumb regardless of what students “are looking for”.

43

ebro35 “emory is better than vandy”…you seem strangely disconnected with reality. I wonder what can be done…

44

@oliver007 Could you present your case against his opinion?

45

@CrispyBullet : I know I couldn’t…and I have the receipts to back it up that they are at best the same caliber. Rank and SAT range isn’t good enough to prove anything. Especially once we start pulling output metrics outside of things like graduation rates or looking deeper into the academic environment as I always do. Currently one is more popular than the other, but it isn’t because of academics…Again, my evidence suggests that students do not know how to gauge this and just choose whatever “feels good” at the time. Many don’t even care. Again, the main cases I would choose Vanderbilt for academics is engineering (because we don’t have it), maybe CS/math (but now we have QTM, which we don’t. Also a much stronger non-STEM math culture), and physics…I guess (the intro/general physics courses were about the same), and of course things like education, communications, or whatever Peabody hosts. Outside of these things, there isn’t really any differences on the surface and if you look deeper it appears Emory has an advantage in several areas. Also, many consider Emory for things like business which are not really offered to the same extent there. The schools are so different in terms of their basic structure. Again, I can’t see why many willy nilly consider both. They must not do enough research.

46

@bernie12 I agree. Vanderbilt might also have better economics than Emory, but I’m not sure.

47

I would really hope that they do…would be sad if they didn’t lol. Fortunately, once QTM has consistent offerings, the effect of our mediocre and struggling econ. can perhaps be blunted by the quantitative training offered there. And then, you can always do math/econ. joint. Basically, there are many options integrated into the curriculum that allow students to avoid “just” having the training from our econ. dept. I know very few single majors. With that said, I’ve heard many of the advanced level instructors in econ. are solid (even if many are just visiting faculty :frowning: ). I think they still have the person from Yale teaching money and banking. Also, I meant they* don’t have an equivalent to QTM for UG’s.

48

https://colleges.niche.com/rankings/hardest-to-get-in/

Vanderbilt # 10 hardest college to get into in the USA. Emory # 48. Evey other criterion ranks similarly. You can get a good education at both, but overall there are more of the “smartest” kids at Vanderbilt. Just a fact. Not that big a deal.

49

crispybullet…I’m afraid that opinion needs no rebuttal, as it is certainly a random and unsupportable opinion, and likely to deflate on its own.

50

@oliver007 : Did I not just say that that doesn’t matter. Vandy’s academics compare better to Emory than they do schools with similar incoming SAT’s and admit rates…Hello, Chicago used to have a higher admit rate than its academic peers (in terms of academic rigor and intellectual environment)…It has become no more or less rigorous/solid academically due to the changes in its admissions. Neither has Vandy…Vandy was very similar in caliber to Emory in terms of undergraduate academics (and graduate) before and still is. The two are very different. Also, Vanderbilt’s SAT scores are largely a result of cherrypicking high SAT’s. You would have to also argue that Vanderbilt is a better school than Stanford to make such a claim. I’m sorry, as of now, it isn’t even Duke or many other places below Duke in terms of the intensity and offerings in its undergraduate programs. I could literally sit here, go to your STEM (and some non-STEM) course websites and compare Emory and Vanderbilt side by side and they will probably split. People are not choosing Vanderbilt for particular academic programs it is known for, but instead the “experience” (school spirit, nice campus, football, social scene). Often people applying to Emory and many other elite places have specific programs that they “know” are done very well at such schools. Seems like most people choosing Vanderbilt just “assume” that is the case because it is so popular (they will be more swayed by the social vibe). Admit rates often are a function of marketing and spamming and not academic quality in many cases. In addition, Vandy has always been a bit difficult to get into than Emory, yet in terms of prestigious scholarships and stuff like that, they are still the same level as us and often behind in Fulbrights. In many years, for Fulbrights for example, Emory closer to Duke than Vanderbilt (since 2012 cycle which would reflect the years when the SAT scores started to shoot up…we were either about the same or beat Vandy by quite a few). Clearly the school is doing something right to make its students competitive in certain arenas post-graduate. Goldwaters have actually fallen at Emory and yet it still generates the same amount of winners and honorable mentions (though we never really recognize these students in news venues). You know, stuff that incoming freshmen usually do not consider or know how to gauge.

My digging suggests that the schools are very different and that Vandy is obviously stronger in some places and Emory is clearly stronger in others. I used to believe they were similar in UG life sciences education, but my digging revealed that biology, chemistry (definitely here and even if not, our faculty is a bit more of a powerhouse research faculty in this field) and Neuroscience (this too…we’re actually really well known for our UG program in the area. It is, like Vandy’s, interdisciplinary but the main difference is that the dept itself offers more courses on its own and the co and extracurricular offerings through the dept seem a bit stronger) course offerings and instruction is in general stronger (and more robust IMHO…like the life science depts actually host their own study abroad programs…that didn’t seem to be the case ) at Emory perhaps because we are more involved in enhancing science education (we were one of the first schools to have a center for science education for example…it is something taken very seriously at Emory and honestly, the other 2 among the southern “Big 4”. Duke, Rice, and Emory seek grant funds from HHMI each year to enhance elements of science programs whether it be advising, mentoring, or curriculum related. Vanderbilt has not appeared in any of the like, past 5 cycles…I looked more into this to see if they were just doing their own thing by just going to their website and typing “science education”…maybe one article pops up about providing an inquiry based option for their bio 2 lab. At Emory, Rice, and Duke, several things pop up about science education or changes in their curricula) and many of the social science programs appear to have more money at Emory as indicated by the number of fellowships, scholarships (type, max amount of money granted), and opps offered directly through the depts (perhaps this is why our students are so competitive for Fulbrights despite the selectivity difference?).

It also appears Emory has more university hosted (as opposed to only departmental) internal scholarship (not internships) opps for continuing (One of the best being the Bobby Jones scholarship!) and graduating students which I found interesting (Vandy is obviously much more aggressive with incoming students and perhaps lesser so with continuing and outgoing-Vandy is more like “go on and apply for external awards”. I maybe only found one internal university disseminated , as opposed to department disseminated, scholarship. So if they have a bunch, they damn sure make them hard to find). And in terms of academic/curricular innovation, we’ve already been doing and are implementing at wider levels things suggested in Vandy’s strategic plan (they were suggesting that more cross-unit teaching be done for the sake of undergrads. We have already had things like our University Course and now are rolling out new courses hosted by a coalition that wants to do the exact same thing. It is also common in depts like Human Health) which should have honestly been happening as soon as their SAT’s shot up. Vandy is a great place, it just isn’t particularly better than Emory…only if you envision a specific type of college experience it is. Otherwise, one is very strong in some areas in terms of UG education and the other other areas. Students should find out what these areas are.

In addition, it seems the intellectual climate has always been different (interesting because Emory is much more “pre-professional” I guess-the major distribution confirms this. At Emory, business, biol, and nursing, are in the top 5) and this might be because of administrative and departmental behavior (and the fact that the social climates are a bit different as one would expect between a D-1 school and a D-3 school. Also the demographic diversity can play a role). Our formal undergraduate research programs seem to also be more robust as well ( the STEM one because of the center for science education) with several rather large symposia throughout the year. Some of them hosted by specific departments (like chemistry and biology having their own). Research culture appears much more institutionalized. For example: http://as.vanderbilt.edu/academics/academicresources/researchopportunities/ . http://college.emory.edu/home/academic/research/index.html .The equivalent to the new university wide (as opposed to center hosted) research program at Vanderbilt has essentially existed at Emory forever in comparison.

Point is…Emory is not as popular as Vanderbilt and likely never will be (never was I don’t think), but I think it currently does a lot of things better and I kind of wouldn’t trade it for more social “vibrance”. It certain prospective freshmen can care less about these sort of differences, oh well…they belong elsewhere. However, I won’t be convinced that Vandy is actually “better” than Emory in areas that I believe should matter much more than many high school students should consider more about. It has a social vibe advantage primarily. Also, being in headlights for D-1 sports helps popularity as well. I can’t support that one is better than the other overall but one can go look and see which one does what things better. Overall though, they are too different to compete in my opinion. Again, I don’t really even understand the cross-applicants to the places. Seems people will apply to any top school they can get into without really thinking about anything.

51

And for the record: I am more proud of Emory’s increase in applications this cycle due to what I primarily believe is an “Ebola” bump than I would be if it was just because our sports teams got lots of publicity. It means that students considered the school in higher numbers for things that are more relevant and central to the educational and personal development part which is a good thing. Unfortunately it meant more pre-healths :frowning: .

52

For whatever reason, Vanderbilt has become a more elite school. Emory is still a bit of a “safety” school, and unfortunately appears destined to stay “Emory”. Certainly a good school, though.

53

Again, you keep looking at admissions which are deceptive and complicated. I don’t equate elite (this would imply quality improvements-they have mainly seen improvements in infrastructure like most schools, in addition to increasing spotlight-this was bound to happen at some point) with popularity among high schoolers. Academics (and I think even many students), however, know that the schools are peers/very similar in caliber, especially in terms of graduate programs (ranks are very similar in NRC and US News for many programs). “Elite” among high schoolers is a popularity contest. You can easily change this. Note how Chicago suddenly changed its admission patterns. It did not suddenly become more elite. Again, Emory was always an admissions safety among students, having much lower stats than most top privates except Georgetown. Even JHU has not moved but so much in terms of admissions stats yet is still viewed as quite elite academically. I view Vandy as “hotter”, not more “elite” than before. There is no evidence of that. You can kind of tell because I think Duke can still win most students in admissions battles. Even Chicago may and it is characterized as the school where “fun goes to die”. When the student chooses based on the academics, they typically choose the best in their areas of interest. I rarely see Vandy win in that department unless it is significantly higher ranked (as in, in a completely different tier).

The weakness of Emory vs. say, Chicago, JHU, or WashU, NU is that it doesn’t have a strong identity yet. Prospective students think it is more like Vanderbilt than say, JHU or Chicago, and WashU (the schools it is much more like). The applicant pool is somewhat self-selected but not as much as those places…The “Ebola bump” the applicant pool received this year is kind of evidence of that. Only certain students would care about that as opposed to things like sports. Emory will be fine if it can develop a clearer identity it presents and also find a way to let the academics speak for itself (as does other high ranked D-3 schools such as JHU, WashU, and Chicago). Stronger leadership probably got those schools to that level academically. I think Emory has gotten more serious about that, but we’ll have to see where it goes and if it can sell like it does at those schools. I’ll be interested in seeing how the next application cycle goes. If Emory can sustain the “Ebola bump” numbers or do even just slightly better, it will be telling. In general though, seems JHU’s old admission’s dean is pretty good. Not really trying to rush growth, not selecting based on stats (this is obvious when I am seeing people randomly get denied by Emory, and then into Duke or Brown. I don’t think really this ever happened in the past), but choosing other qualities (mainly intellectual vitality/curiousity). I think it will help in the long run as the school is kind of going in different directions in terms of academics (the thing that matters at a D-3 school because we can’t bank on social environment to attract applicants). It isn’t good enough to just get people with high stats as their interests may not fit those new directions…or they simply don’t care or notice it. You have to recruit students who “buy” into it. Aggressive “Beauty pageant” admissions could be a quick fix for us but probably isn’t a good idea. It may attract a crowd that doesn’t fit.

And that’s what I think made places like Duke (and Stanford a while ago, and perhaps JHU) actually become “more elite” while also increasing popularity. It appears that their academic programs and intellectual environment definitely strengthened along with the rank (I actually saw some of their courses from a long while ago and then now, and there is a huge difference. In addition, they have become known for certain UG programs like economics that were not really on the radar before). And clearly their advising and programming works really well because they are pretty much the stereotypical elite private incoming stats wise yet outperform schools in the same or better ACT/SAT range bracket in many output metrics. Stanford seems to basically have taken this path a long time ago but one key difference with them today is their shift toward STEM (as in major distribution shifting sharply toward it, making them look more like MIT). They do those programs extremely well…

In general, I just separate elite from popular. Increased eliteness has to possess more substance than admissions schemes and more superficial things. For many places, the super academic elite qualities were there before the apps and stats shot up. And some places lag a lot with many lower and similar ranked schools still being better or similar in academic caliber. I think even USNews (or whoever contributes to survey based metrics) subconsciously recognizes this difference which is why Vandy hasn’t moved up as much in the rankings as even I would have predicted (Hell, if Penn and certain other schools can move so quickly upward, so can Vandy based on stats). I argue that the only reason Emory dropped from its rank is partly because of some bad press that could lead to worse ratings by counselors or whoever, along with the “selectivity” metrics. Vanderbilt would perhaps move high more easily if it had a larger endowment though. I will say that. However, you still have JHU doing very well despite its endowment.

54

You may be right in your reasoning. Reality is that Emory has not carved out an independent elite profile, and remains a kind of home for the many students from NY/NJ/PA etc who are turned away at the usual top 10 or so Northeastern schools as well as increasingly Duke/Vanderbilt etc. Would not be a stretch to anoint it the “Tufts of the South”. I agree that it is a very good school, though.

55

@oliver007 Yeah, but doesn’t Tufts get a more self-selected crowd? Tufts also deals with being in the wrong metro area if you know what I mean. Emory generally has a much higher profile than it in general (maybe because of its research impact and faculty). So compared to the other big 4 southern privates reputation wise, yes that could be about true. But it isn’t true academically I don’t think. I believe as of now it is kind of like Duke, Rice, and then Vandy=Emory academically. Vandy and Duke look more the same admissions wise perhaps because of the similar social environments that draw lots of students. Rice is also very different from the two, but like Chicago managed to do well academically while having a clearly distinct vibe.

Emory doesn’t deal from a real Tufts Syndrome…It seems to be disadvantaged in admissions because of its own doing of not having an identity or being aggressive enough in selling it. Given this, the key for pulling Emory out of the admissions “rut” (although being similar to Berkeley isn’t bad at all) is to establish an identity, mainly through academics, and then finding a way to successfully market itself. I’ve been saying for years that it is fairly bad at marketing itself. The Ebola phenomenon was a lot of luck that would do some good to sell I guess. But they should go beyond that. It used to (and still kind of tries to) try to sell the “work hard play hard” academic environment but I imagine students really looking for that sort of climate can see right through that crap, especially when they have places like Vanderbilt/Duke in mind ( I really don’t think that Emory should try to win over those cross-admits…I feel like it is wasting time…not because of the reputation difference but because a student who cross-applied to them probably has something different in mind than a student who cross-applies to say, Emory, Rice, JHU, and/or some LAC’s as a surprising number of Emory applicants do…indicating that a group of students feel we have a more liberal “artsy” feel despite all the pre-professionals. And weirdly people think its like Brown and Dartmouth for example. I would rather try to win those people over because they are maybe looking for things that we can actually do extremely well). And again, another method we could do is to just start buying students. I think this is really where we got hurt. It appears that Emory loses many cross-admits to financial aid battles and nothing else. Vanderbilt has begun to win over other schools more because of how much fin. aid and merit aid it is willing to give. Emory should become a lot more aggressive in terms of freshmen merit and need-based aid if it wants to win its admits over. It need not be the Tufts of the south admissions wise, but seems to choose that by being relatively passive in its efforts in comparison to schools with similar academic reputations.

What would be interesting to see is how different the students who do ED1, and especially ED2 (as in maybe denied or waitlisted first choice…who was the first choice) at either is. Both enroll like 1/2 of the class from those application plans (I don’t think they have ED2 but can’t be sure).

56

Unless graduate schools or employers have a clear preference of one over the other… there is no clear distinction.

57

I think it’s worth pointing out that as far as research output is concerned Duke is head and shoulders above any other southern school. Georgia Tech is probably its closest competitor.

It is difficult to quantify the quality of instruction that students are receiving but I’d be willing to bet that Rice and Vanderbilt are slightly superior to Emory in this regard.

58

@NerdyChica : Yes, I always recognize the uniqueness of Duke. As for instructional quality, No it isn’t, I checked up on this a while ago. Rice seems fine, but Vanderbilt is not. I could actually show you examples (for courses where I consider Emory weak such as physics and Calculus, it is around the same caliber at Vandy…For courses in depts where Emory is strong it seems like the top or even medium level instructors are leaps and bounds beyond theirs for biology and chemistry. ) from course materials, especially in STEM which is my interest. In addition, the co and extracurricular programs offered by many non-STEM and STEM departments seems to leave Emory with advantage. One problem with Vandy in STEM is that their section sizes are much larger than Emory’s, especially at the introductory levels. In addition, things like biology and neuroscience (neuroscience alone, not counting the electives in other depts) have weaker course offerings which is weird because they used to be stronger maybe some years ago. It appears their course selection has kind of slipped or Emory’s has risen over time, or maybe both. In addition, with STEM, Emory has a center for science education that has had a huge influence on teaching over time. Vandy has nothing of the sort and I think it definitely makes a difference.

I have an acquaintance there (junior) who basically admitted that their biology was just memorizing powerpoint slides and regurgitating the details on the exams no matter the instructor (except 1 which is avoided apparently). Emory and most (including Rice and Duke) schools have been moving away from that. Instructors do case studies and more engaging activities in lecture that apparently don’t happen there. The assessments emphasize much more problem solving. This persists through many or most of the advanced biology courses too where most of their instructors are ultra-standard but we have almost half that aren’t. The same could be said for chemistry as well where I found one instructor teaching advanced organic classes below that of the top (Weinschenk and Soria) sophomore organic sections at Emory. Their gen. chem sequence gives standardized (as in same exam for each section no matter the teacher) assessments that are more akin to our easier/medium instructors and much lesser so top ones (Mulford, McGill). It likely works out that way because to be fair they have to make the exam mostly based upon the book level problems. It would be hard to make more applied problems as it may disadvantage other sections unequally. But, in general, the way things are taught in STEM there is just very “standard”. Now the social sciences are likely hard to distinguish (because why bother?..they have a lower tendency to be more rigorous than standard anyway-I would say that it appeared that the psychology curriculum at Emory is tougher but this may be because it is more STEM/biology oriented to begin with. It also has a 2 semester intro. sequence as opposed to the standard “psyche 101” class. Other than that, let’s assume the instruction is equal), but the quality of STEM courses is easier to see (even without knowing the course content, you can tell which is demanding higher level thinking based on the types of questions asked and how they are presented on exams and p-sets). Again, it seems that our Center for Science Education has helped a lot in this regard as they help obtain curriculum development grants and also assist recruiting of STEM faculty, especially lecture track. They look for very specific things, mainly that the recruits and curriculum changes reflect current literature in science education (they have to actually give a teaching statement and tell what tools and pedagogies would be used in their classes). It has established what appears to be a stronger tradition of teaching well and with innovation (And there will be more with the chemistry curriculum overhaul-You can’t pull this off unless you already had a base of faculty who were interested or have their teaching aligned with the ideals of that curriculum). Rice has a similar thing going on which makes sense because it is a smaller school that is very into STEM.

I think rankings confuse people into thinking it is about academic quality when it is more about prestige and selectivity. You would think they all go hand in hand but not necessarily. Some schools operate differently from others historically and it has an impact on teaching quality and level of instruction in some areas that cannot readily be predicted by the ranking of the school. It takes a lot of digging but you can find out these things if you have a good eye. Also, many (especially ED folks) come to Emory largely because of the professors and who teaches here which means we have quite the reputation in that area. Vanderbilt has a reputation for great residence life programs, a beautiful campus, and school pride among prospective students. Are the academics solid, of course, but better than Emory at the UG level and in the classroom, hardly. Let us just assume they’re even when I throw out STEM from the equation. I could literally sit here and do an exhaustive comparison of STEM, especially at the intro. and intermediate level but it takes longer than this long post.

59

My impression is that the two are close peers in overall academic quality, but that Vanderbilt has pulled ahead a bit in terms of selectivity. They receive more apps, so they get to turn down more apps. Vandy seems to put more stock in test scores than some other elite schools, like Stanford, Cornell and Johns Hopkins – reflected by Vandy’s high SAT range relative to their overall rank and reputation.

Meanwhile, Emory’s increase in brand from the Ebola thing should put it on an upward trend and may continue to do so if the school keeps the “Emory-med-CDC” image in front of the public.

If I had a child who was choosing between them, I’d tell him or her to choose on fit and finances. There seems to be no difference between them in terms of quality.

60

@prezbucky : Vanderbilt will certainly when based on finances…no doubt about that. I just also think fit should include academics. Kind of like, I wouldn’t go to Emory for economics and some other programs (unless I already planned on double majoring or concentrating in something else done well) but would much more strongly consider Vandy, but I wouldn’t willy nilly choose Vandy for life sciences, but may consider Emory or places more known for stronger instruction and programmatic options in that area. I think they are even, I just think they are noticeably different in certain areas to the point where it should maybe catch someone’s attention thinking about those fields along with any other areas of interest. They clearly have “different” academic strengths to me that often are not taken into account, yet I think they should be. I just feel that you can find a good social fit with relatively mediocre academics in your area of interest at places that cost much less. One is almost better off going to their state honors program if you don’t take it into account. The ideal situation is when the student can of course have the social fit along with the academics of signature programs offered by the school. I suppose there is always give and take.