Is Emory really that good?

Like doubleeternity, my D has more loans than we would have liked, since we’re in the donut hole income category. I agree that Emory is not providing enough financial aid to middle class families (Rice, Vandy and Tulane are more generous), whom I’m sure they’re losing students to.

To return to the OP’s question “Is Emory really that good?” If my D’s experience (she’s a junior now) is any indication, their faculty do care about the undergraduates and the education she’s received so far has been excellent overall. She’s had 2 seminars with TA’s who weren’t so hot but the faculty in her major subjects have been quite good, with high standards. Emory seems to do well preparing students for Fulbright scholarships and other postgrad awards. Professors (even visiting scholars) don’t give out easy grades to everyone. My D’s visiting creative writing professor last spring only gave out 3 A’s and bluntly told students it wasn’t enough just to show up on time and do assignments; he said there is a certain degree of talent involved.

@PiccoloMom1995 : Okay, so my friend’s experience is not merely anecdotal about the creative writing program. Ouch!!! but excellent if the feedback and skill-development was good, That sounds very Princetonian…I usually only hear of such folks (outside of STEM) in maybe political science or psyche and there is this one person over in econ. (for econ. stats, still teaching and running a Chicago level course with the amount of theory and mathematical ability required. That proofs based econ. stats class is ultra tough). And TA’s, yeah, they’re always hit or miss…depends on how much they value teaching. Also, for some reason, Emory rarely loses students to Tulane. The only time that happens is when the student qualifies for merit aid there…But the other two…yeah, gotta do something. Looks like they are now trying to throw unanticipated merit aid at folks. I’ve heard reports on here that some students have been getting liberal arts scholarships out of the blue for example. And it didn’t seem they applied for the scholarship program.

Speaking of creative writing: http://college.usatoday.com/the-10-best-american-colleges-for-writers/

“1. Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia): Ask anyone for the best schools for writers, and Emory will inevitably emerge. With a plethora of outstanding minds flocking to and from Emory every year (be it guest lecturers, students, or alumni), it is no wonder why Emory would be a prime place for a budding writer. Emory offers extraordinary flexibility to its students; the only required course of all English majors is Poetry. E Students looking for more personal settings with professors will be happy to find that most English classes cap at 15 students, while the largest cap at 25.”

Yep,and Natasha Tretheway is the director of the Creative Writing dept too. http://creativewriting.emory.edu/home/people/faculty/index.html . Weird cause usually people that high profile don’t take on departmental director roles like that/ AND she teaches freshman. And English as a whole at Emory is just excellent n general. So many good instructors and mentors there (like Rusche and Morey). The whole unit puts a lot of thought behind how it trains graduate and undergraduate students (as indicated by their willingness to discuss changes and new developments in their curriculum). Many departments, no matter the school, don’t seem to care but so much.

I just found this and it is interesting and makes me question things: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/upshot/making-top-colleges-less-aristocratic-and-more-meritocratic.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

My guess is that robust financial aid packages is mainly to help out middle class students (admittedly a noble cause because that is the worst area to be in today). I wonder if Emory technically has enough resources to have more robust fin. aid while also maintaining the level of economic diversity we have which is very high up (when corrected for endowment maybe the higherst among high ranked medium sized privates according to that chart) much like Harvard and Columbia, or would we use the program to begin safely admitting wealthier students with higher scores and then getting them to yield. The latter, depending on how we do it would perhaps be at the expense of many of those who would qualify for Pell Grants. It may be possible that Emory has lower stats because it attracts and then decides to admit more of said applicants that are high achieving but don’t consistently have absolute tippy top stats like you often see among those at these types of schools who are from families in higher income brackets.

Maybe Emory could do something like using more robust merit and need-based aid to raise the “quality” of the middle income and wealthy students it admits and enrolls without necessarily turning down those who fall in the Pell Grant bracket (and these folks, like I was, are likely in the Emory advantage Loan Replacement range…below 50k). This would raise the SAT/ACT average while at the same time widening the IQR (the bottom quartile will move up only but so much but the top, a lot). I suppose I’m just noticing (because I had never really seen this data) that other schools with more robust fin. aid programs do not necessarily have more economic diversity. It seems for some schools like Emory, the admissions scheme is a very delicate balancing act which is probably why we haven’t attempted to go in the direction of rapidly raising the SAT range yet. It probably wants to just be in a position to mainly raise the statistics of those who fall within certain income brackets by making it less burdensome to attend. My guess is that they could have decided to just turn down more of those with great (vs. national averages), but not stellar (lets say 1300-1500)scores who fell into certain brackets, a long time ago if they didn’t care. This especially refers to the years where Emory was relatively “hot” and could have successfully pursue such a strategy to raise the stats without worrying about yield.

This is also sad when considering the score report scandal in retrospect (I get the feeling the distribution may have been like this for a while and definitely so by 2008/2009 when the economy sunk, yet they still continued the bad reporting). The scores are pretty darned good for a school with this many Pell Grant awardees (actually they are darned good period Anything 1350+ average is exceptionally high in a national context). There should have been nothing to be ashamed of but I guess those doing bad deeds in the admissions office felt it was so necessary to look exactly like the other top privates on paper when it came to scores and GPA’s.

However, overall, this adds some more evidence that Emory is “that good” overall. Despite its follies it obviously has a conscience, even in an area as dicey as admissions (which is important for how prestigious the school looks, but yet is also important in terms of how it is viewed from an ethical standpoint especially as admissions at these types of schools is being questioned more and more).

If the top privates do not control runaway cost inflation the number of students in the donut hole will continue to grow and the pool of full pay students will decline. Most top private U’s are made up of full pay and no pay students. Those in the middle don’t receive enough aid and can’t meet the expected COA. The percentage of students in the donut range is growing every year as cost blow up. These students end up at merit aid U’s and at the honors program at the state flagship as these U’s market for these top students.

State flagship honor programs are full of upper middle class students. Honor programs were set up to recriut these students. Top students from high and low income families can go wherever they want. If the top private U’s seek more diversity they need to incude aid to the donut hole students or continue to lose these top students. As the number of full pay students decline universities are looking overseas to find more well funded students but there is a ceiling to this pool of students as well.

I personally rather just have more of the very top students go to the state flagship honors programs, especially if it is an elite public school. Many of the latter (and even less elites) do things better than most top privates at the UG level even for non-honors students, especially STEM. I think they are beholden to different stakeholders which is why. LIke, if I am Ann Arbor, Madison, Minnesota, I’m going to try to have the best and most innovative STEM programs because I know I will likely be sending tons students off to industries within the state or throughout the midwest. These industries are likely to hold them accountable so producing mediocrity in high numbers is dangerous. At privates, students tend to go to grad. school and other professions and thus looking good on paper is perhaps more important because they will continue to learn in a classroom environment or work in an environment less associated with their major (the only difference is research jobs where mainly research experience will help) that may be less “hands-on” than say a pharmaceutical company or chemical plant. If they can do that already, they’ll likely continue to do well no matter their undergrad. training.

Well, Emory could try paying the best students to come. Example: full scholarship + $2,500 per semester for four years. What an offer!

@CrispyBullet Stipends!!! Yaah. Although, if a school did that, I would totally have strings attached such as expecting a high level of scholarship (fortunately many scholars are indeed like this now, but sometimes…just no) and not just high grades. I would perhaps require senior projects or an honors thesis from said students. Again, I don’t see the point of just harboring “the best” students. They need to be put to work. We don’t want to end up lagging behind the new shiny stats we bought with those funds in terms of output metrics or reputation.

One thing Emory needs to reconsider is the special programs and courses it used to have in STEM (we have a start elsewhere with things like the voluntary core. Plus things like the QEP are more likely to help these other disciplines than STEM). Many higher ranked schools can attract the best in particular areas because they have tracks that directly cater to them, such as Integrated Science Programs, Grand Challenges funded tracks, or honors courses for freshmen. Emory used to have honors courses, the INSPIRE program (I was in this one-it was clever because they would invite all admits to apply), and things like the Drug Discovery Track in the chemistry program…all which disappeared as the economy tanked. These had great outcomes overall and did attract many higher caliber students who were willing to go down the roads less traveled and achieve higher than normal levels of success. They also stood out. One could claim that a founding member of solazyme was a product of “old Emory” when it had all these programs (which suddenly disappeared in 2008-2009. :http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2012/spring/features/solazyme.html?utm_source=newscenter&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=spring12-news .I literally witnessed the course offerings and programs I speak of go “poof!” despite their success. With that sort of thing, could be time for a new STEM Renaissance at Emory (you know beyond our pre-health program). Maybe chemistry will kick it off.

Also, programmatic options such as QSS need to be marketed more effectively. There is a concentration for biology folks in QSS that I’m sure hardly no biol or NBB majors know about, much less prospective students. Without such marketing a more quantitatively or computationally oriented student who is thinking life sciences will just go to the biology dept website and see a very standard curriculum when there are indeed other options for them. The person will then proceed to look elsewhere. You can’t pay folks to come if they don’t apply in the first place because they see nothing special. All the special stuff is nicely “hidden”. Other places have their social environment and have learned how to sell it, so now Emory must sell what it does best. Seems to be trying a bit harder than before admittedly.

@bernie12 Then does Emory have personnels competent and invested enough to market effectively?

@CrispyBullet : Perhaps, but marketing is likely a top down thing and whatever admissions markets is a result of whatever positive messages the university wants to push. So until recently it has been kind of confusing I suppose. Also I guess I should be using the term “showcase” instead. I’ll be the first to admit that the admissions office under Latting is far more superior and aggressive. He seems to project Emory as more “human” than before. For most of the time I was there, Emory’s admissions was pretty much as generic as others and trying to portray this “work hard play hard” story by placing emphasis on the social lives of the students it did feature. Now, there has been a shift to actually showcase what they are doing professionally and academically (and through that certain opportunities would be showcased) so it is certainly a start. At one point I thought Emory was going to go to the “grow app. pool fast” strategies doing things like dropping supplemental essays altogether or making it basically a repeat of the common app. personal statement, but it seems they are actually trying get a different type of student intellectually. However, the academic diversity attempts are going to be more difficult unless things like the QSS major and some new programs are showcased via the admissions office.

You can’t attract students in new areas of strength if they don’t know they exist. I’ve never even seen an ILA/IDS major featured and it is among the most unique and top ranked among such programs and there is nothing more that will attract a more curious mind than telling them that there is a department that basically lets them craft their own major and interdisciplinary academic pursuits. When it comes to that, my guess is that the admissions office may be as removed from all Emory has to offer as are many students applying. As in, the admissions office knows well that NBB, business, biology, nursing, and English/Creative writing are super strong programs just as applicants do. However, things like the chemistry, history major, political science, religion, environmental science, and newer programs that get lots of funding get little spotlight. I also get the feeling that many tour guides come from the cliche areas of strength so naturally will discuss those in more depth, so it’s possible something like English gets hardly ever gets no more than the “we’re top ranked for writers” pitch as opposed to anecdotal experiences with it. I know I’ve seen loads of pre-meds and STEM folks as tour-guides. Maybe an effort should be made to intentionally balance or have better talking points for programs outside of the guides’ interests. There is also the fact that special opps that target freshmen seem only get notice after a student is enrolled.

For example, I would tell prospective students that things like the Voluntary Core exists along with the fact that you can get into SIRE as a freshman (because many students always wonder if they can easily become involved in research early. At Emory, it is a resounding yes and there are programs such as SIRE that serve as a venue). It just needs to give certain programs or successful students in them, a bigger spotlight. It isn’t enough to just list it if we’re really good at it. Emory’s homepage and other outlets (including the Wheel I guess…) showcase programs and courses but naturally a student may not surf around that much on Emory’s website if interested in applying. They’ll just go straight to the admissions page. So if the admissions page isn’t featuring these things, they may very well never see or hear of it. I think it is honestly just as simple as refeaturing/ripping some of the Emory News stories on the admissions page which they have done before (like the “shaping the freshman class” one-they ripped that from an Emory magazine article) and then they dressed it up nicely as a main feature on the admissions page. They just need to do it for things that are not directly admissions related but do ultimately function as marketing or showcasing.

It likely has nothing to do with them being incompetent, in fact evidence shows otherwise. It may have more to do with them simply not thinking about this because no many other schools bother to. Again, most schools stick to flashy campus photos, statistics, specifics about applying, showcasing social opps, their city, and perhaps new construction (which is basically having the same effect as flashy campus photos). Emory’s office has dramatically improved but is ultimately doing something very similar to that with slight deviations or “Emory twists” (I am Emory was good while it lasted for example…and was cool in that it even featured incoming students at one point). If I were them, I would be hard-pressed to see what else needs to improve. Because based on what other schools do, we are now doing everything “right” (as in, finally replicating their strategies at an acceptable level).

Tier 1: Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, Caltech
Tier 2: Chicago, Columbia, Penn
Tier 3: Brown, CMU, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern
Tier 4: Emory, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Rice, Vanderbilt, WUSTL
Tier 5: Boston College, NYU, Tufts, USC

Tier 1: Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Yale
Tier 2: Caltech, Chicago, Columbia, Penn
Tier 3: Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern
Tier 4: Emory, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Rice, Vanderbilt, WUSTL
Tier 5: Boston College, CMU, NYU, Tufts, USC

For this one: categorizing Caltech into Tier 2 is ridiculous. Also, CMU should at least be in Tier 4. Actually, CMU is on par with the schools in Tier 3 for pretty much all the majors it has to offer.

I’m trying to see why this matters at this point

@universityofcc Just curious. What determines these tiers? And once you leave the top 25 or so, are tiers still comprised of 4-6 schools? I mean, once you’re at Tier 15, I’m surely there’s not much of a discernible difference between 60 and 70.

Bernie, It’s something to do, fun, sparks debate, and is a break from reviewing taxes. Calicash make any size tiers you want…its CC.
Kiplinger top private tiers:
Tier 1: Princeton, Harvard, Vanderbilt, Rice, Yale
Tier 2: Duke, Cal-T, MIT, Stanford, Emory
Tier 3: Dartmouth, Brown, UPenn, Cornell, Northwestern
Tier 4: UND, Georgetown, JHU, BC, Wash STL

That’s dumb…and makes no sense and basically everyone knows it (if only for the reason I cited in the other forum-you likely use this one because it puts a certain school in good company. I personally don’t care if it puts mine there because the methods are questionable at best…has to be legit for me to take some pride. I’d rather take pride in things that can be more easily demonstrated whether they translate directly to such rankings or not). It is much like when that one agency (maybe a bunch of kids) came up with “which students work the hardest” and had places like Vanderbilt and Brown right next to MIT with Harvard behind them. I mean, we all know some students certainly over-report and inflate, but also the sample could be biased because as one commenters essentially wrote: In many cases: super hard-working students likely wouldn’t have time or find time to fill out the survey. Naturally MIT and Hopkins end up near the top because a) they are actually tough and b) there is more of a “woe is me culture”. However, to say that Harvard students work less hard than those at Brown and Rice could likely be proven untrue by a larger sample size and the reality that the courses at Harvard are in general more challenging.

I suppose that I am less interested in discussing the various metrics and rankings of prestige and more so interested in discovering stuff about the education and intellectual environment at each and find out how they differ. I’d rather go on departmental websites, school newspaper websites, find syllabi and coursework to “expose” us all and find areas that are consistently strong and/or should be improved at each place. However, an education is someone everyone is willing to pay for and not get so it matters little as a comparison point and we let prestige (which is more historical than anything especially when you talk some elites) predict quality and rigor of education.

In addition, beyond a certain tier, students (like talking top 30-40 here), students are going to ultimately choose the environment (often social) they like best even if they suspect or even know they can be better educated elsewhere (especially if “better” may be more stressful).

Bernie, as for rigor and which students work the hardest I have a formula for that too. I don’t have time to review the tests and syllabus of thousands of classes but there is a general way to see which schools have more rigor.

  1. Look at the SAT:GPA ratio of the students. A U with an average 1400/3.3 is more rigorous than one with a
    1200/3.6 ratio.
  2. Grade inflation U’s tend to have less rigor as human nature is to exert the least amount of work to attain a goal.
  3. STEM heavy U’s tend to have more rigor.
    Of course when looking at an individual it always comes down to what they put into the process.

    I also give more weight to the opinions of students currently at the universities as opposed to 60 year old guidance counselors or researchers from international universities. Most of these adults have never set foot on the schools they are ranking.