<p>One of the happiest AND brightest student bodies :)</p>
<p>Well it’s the only thing I’m good at so I’m glad I could contribute something :)</p>
<p>Although I should probably learn how to spell Tennessee correctly without having to google it first. That’s my goal before leaving. </p>
<p>Wow, it looks like Vandy has moved ahead of Columbia and Stanford on the SAT/ACT list. Vandy has moved well ahead of Duke, UPENN and Dartmouth. It’s not surprising JHU and Cornell have fallen off the list.<br>
Yes, Vandy has the happiest students in the nation and the word is getting out to top high school students. Why attend a top U and be miserable for 4 years when you can be happy, have a great quality of life, and love your university at Vandy.</p>
<p>I don’t care for pieces like this because these are SAT scores so it doesn’t really matter (like USNews clearly has figured that for some reason the wild differences between the scores of students at various schools isn’t making much of a difference in overall caliber of the schools) beyond a certain threshold (which is why the USNews week rankings don’t seem to be so sensitive to them changing and nor did they ever). Who says students at the other schools are miserable? Like Rice for example generally gets pretty high quality of life and happiness ratings, and so do WashU and Emory and yet they have not seen astronomical rises in SAT scores (and none of us have seen huge rises in rank over time, though I would say that WashU is solidly ahead of the other 3 of us in terms of caliber mainly because of their research infrastructure and likely the level of academics). Seems that extreme rises in SAT scores as shown by Chicago, Vandy, and WashU are very correlated with marketing campaigns (luckily for Chicago, the academic environment is a better match for the types of students it yields. I think WashU is too, I don’t really know about Vandy. I just suspect the other two are a bit more intense). However, when you look at the accomplishments of students upon graduation from classes where these rises became noticeable, you really don’t notice much of an improvement or change. The schools for some reason are yielding students that are more into or capable of completely different things regardless of SAT scores. Like if I could have a Rhodes or 2 per year, consistently have Goldwater Scholars, and get several UG fulbrights, PhD (especially in sciences) program penetration often more than competitors with higher SAT scores, I’m not going to be a school very worried about recruiting. Like, if I am Duke, Columbia, Stanford, and Penn, I am not really concerned about the schools with higher SAT scores for obvious reasons. The accomplishments of the students at these schools more so reflects the type of things the students are interested, the level of academic strength in certain divisions at undergraduate the school, and the overall type of environment (maybe intellectual environment or the level of support for those pursuing such awards) at each school. </p>
<p>With that said, I think what schools like JHU do right is focusing much more on the academic infrastructure. While they may not be rewarded for it by being able to claim bunches of high scoring UGs (as in unusually high scoring), the results speak for themselves and this can be said for many schools with scores lower than places like WashU
but with higher ranks. Again, it looks like, in many cases, the pace of student body “caliber” (I guess that is SAT’s, but it really could be immeasurable things like number of Siemen’s participants and top places, I"X"O particpants and top places, etc…in such cases you will start to see separations that don’ t really correlate with the kind of small differences in SAT more so than how strong the schools are in certain departments. As in a student wining Gold at IMO is not choosing Harvard or MIT over other places because its “fun” and prestigious. It is because it is amazing at math) has outpaced the caliber of academics by a lot. Schools that have managed to improve their undergraduate academics the most (while seeing any growth if any) have fared better in yielding better “results” from the students over time. Duke is such an example. It’s SAT’s are lower than many of the top universities and yet its UG students for years have been putting an extremely solid fight with the most elite institutions (they for example, now perform extremely well in PhD program penetration despite having had issues with the so called intellectual climate on campus). I’m sorry, you don’t get that by just attracting top scorers and it isn’t necessarily their “balanced” environment doing it (like Yale and Stanford are what I would consider the other balanced environments and yet places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and Chicago still are holding it down), it is making sure the academic caliber plus other resources are in place. The idea is, despite these changing of SAT score rankings over say, the past 5-10 years at top institutions (more than enough time for “results” to show for the ones that have risen a lot, like WashU), a pecking order has still remained. I am pretty sure it has to do with the academic environments. </p>
<p>Whereas things like quality of life, social life/environment, weather, and things like that can explain why certain high scorers are choosing some schools, it can’t explain why the disparity in “results” still persists despite the recent graduating classes at WashU or Vandy being as good or higher than say Duke, Stanford, and Columbia or other places for like the past 2-3 graduation cycles. I think WashU is more or less “ok”, but Vandy needs to do something to move forward to taking advantage of the “talent”. Either it needs to re-evaluate what “talent” is or it needs to enhance its academic environment even more (and most top 20s can use that, seriously). I just know I would re-evaluate things when I notice things like this. Emory, for example, should not come close to yielding the same amount or more Fulbrights than a place with 100 points or more on the SAT as it did this year. Nor should we look similar in any other metrics at this point. And places like Duke, Stanford, and Columbia should not be as different anymore either if you all are attracting similar students (I don’t think this is the case. I am willing to bet the composition of things like SAT 2 scores is different across these schools. Likely, you’ll have more at places like Stanford submitting, math, chem, and physics scores and getting “geeks” in areas that the school excels or is known for in whereas some schools are attracting high scorers that were not necessarily attracted to particular academic programs so much as an “experience”. They kind of just said, “seems like an extremely nice school with good academics to me” and showed up). </p>
<p>I imagine cross-admissions to these places being similar, but then different types of students choosing different places for different reasons (Like if I am a Tech nerd or geek, I am going to choose Stanford over many places and I certainly care less that the SAT scores are higher at another place. Given this, Stanford could care less either, because it will remain the catalyst of countless innovators in STEM fields, especially in technology) Like if you care more about the strength of certain academic programs or scenes on a campus, you’ll choose the school that is very serious about quality in that area. If you care more about the social environment and believe the academic caliber of the program is sufficient, then you’ll choose the school with the more robust social environment. The fact that you have Chicago (which is another one with an astronomical rise) and Vandy near the top of this list demonstrates that. The two schools could not differ anymore than they do now. WashU is a bit different as well and yet students choose it (WashU honestly seems like a place that a higher scoring student also considering JHU or Emory would choose. I don’t blame them, WashU has worked very hard to strengthen UG academics enough to truly challenge its student body, so if you’re very serious about pre-med or science, it isn’t a bad choice at all if you don’t necessarily want Princeton, Harvard or those sorts of environments). I believe some schools are riding on marketing and good fin. aid, and some schools are riding mostly on academic caliber and prestige (some are doing a nice mixture). Both are viable to get really high scoring students, but it will yield different types of high scoring students that have differing expectations and will probably have different outcomes (as in different types of success, not levels).</p>
<p>In my mind, skyrocketing SAT scores are just a sign of improvements to follow across the board. Higher caliber students and more applications will likely lead to better employer recruiting, better facilities, better faculty, more research, more prestige, etc. Campus is undergoing constant upgrades and it will only continue with trends like this – the Commons, Warren & Moore (brand new dorms), Rec center expansion, brand new beautiful engineering facility just broke ground. Plans for so much more. There is room for growth and the rising SAT scores is both fuel and justification. </p>
<p>Regardless of opinions about the value of stats and various rankings, coming in at #7 for SAT scores and #1 for happiness is nothing to scoff at. Not too long ago, a “brain workout” website used its data to rank Vandy students smarter than most of the top 20 schools – some people suspected it was a fluke but this data reinforces it!</p>
<p>Increasing test scores are simply a reflection of where high test scoring students elect to enroll. The next question is why. It would be short sighted to not recognize the sky-rocketing scores at Vandy and students surveys showing Vandy is # 1 in the country for happy students and not ask why. Something good must be happening on campus. High school students should take a look and see why.
Why are test scores going up at Vandy, Rice, Wash SL and dropping at JHU, Cornell, Brown?
Why are students happy and reporting a high quality of life at Vandy, Rice, Dartmouth, Stanford and a lousy quality of life at Harvard, Duke, and Northwestern?
The pecking order has little to do with the academic environment and more to do with money and prestige which were generated 100+ years ago.<br>
I agree certain U’s attract and enroll different types of students. Not better just different. Vandy puts more weight on leadership, community service and awards which may attract a different type of student than a U that puts more weight on research or STEM achievement. They will also produce different results as their students have different skill sets. </p>
<p>The “happiness” should not be scoffed at, the SAT scores should. For example, many other schools have front-loaded the facilities improvements (I don’t want to talk about Emory, it is extremely annoying almost. The facilities are excellent, but I am more concerned with what happens in them) and academic improvements. They didn’t wait for there SAT scores to go up. WashU didn’t do that, and in fact they have excellent facilities (just as much of the places “below” them) and still kind of lag academically behind places that have similar student bodies. They have been up there for quite a while with such SAT scores. I understand Chicago’s position, because they have always had the academic caliber and just needed to sell there school properly, so there is no lag there. </p>
<p>Also, don’t mention construction booms because many highered experts have criticized this as an attempt to merely continue to contribute to the consumer nature of highered, especially elite ed. We are just finding ways to comfort students and impress them with the shape of facilities. For example, you mention the new engineering building…will it be accompanied with curricular change in engineering and science education? Is there any evidence for that? That should be a concern when the SAT’s are skyrocketing. Will the education morph with it. For example, I was honestly very concerned when Emory started building this new chemistry building (mind you the chemistry building is already huge. It would maybe on its own encompass over 1/3 of your current Stephenson Center Space once compete). I was wondering exactly why we were doing it and if it would actually benefit undergraduates. Turns out that it is “supposed” to. I am still skeptical but I do have to concede that there is an attempt to make it more than just a new building with awesome architecture because we just received a 1.2 million dollar grant to “reinvent the chemistry curriculum”. Knowing how the chemistry faculty works right now, I would love to see how the money does this, but all I know is that apparently we’ll be one of the few top private schools (other than like MIT) with a large SCALE UP model class room instead of a giant lecture hall. My only question is who will use a pedagogical style that suits the space. Now keep in mind, we, like many other schools, are doing this simply because we want to be good at it or recognize a need to change, not because our SAT’s increased. So honestly, a lot of building projects and curriculum restructuring can occur without increasing selectivity (Clairmont at Emory is considered pretty amazing and much preceded us showing some modest gains in selectivity. Dorm renovations and additions are really nice here and yet that has no effect and nor did it follow some increase in selectivity. If anything, I suppose it is mainly meant to accommodate the higher enrollment levels we have). And whether or not it ends up launching an increase in selectivity, we know that schools who successfully implement such changes will be more dramatically improved than a place with less improvements but better test takers. Again, it is why places like Duke, JHU, and several others do much better than student body quality should dictate (at least when compared to other high scoring places I guess). </p>
<p>They have other things that go beyond building projects OR the building projects at each (because let’s be real, all elites have been going through HUGE building booms, whether it be student amenities/residence halls, academic buildings, or health care facilities) came with other things. And honestly, sometimes it doesn’t require new buildings to do things better. Like our biology and neuroscience undergraduate divisions have been “sneakily” adjusting their course offerings and pedagogy over time and instructors over time without the need for or any hint of a new building in sight. You can educate very well without having students with perfect SAT scores, and many elite schools have shown it by simply selecting students more interested in learning/academic engagement than the achievement orientation (we all have it, if we went to one of these schools, but some student attitudes generate different learning and intellectual environments than others. Like Chicago being much different from Vandy for whatever reason). I am basically saying that the SAT’s do not tell the whole story and nor do they necessarily tell us how the academic environment (rigor levels, “intellectual climate”, whatever) at such schools will develop over time. This seems largely to be based on student demand and some combination of administrative and faculty driven decisions and initiatives that ultimately drive where a school sees itself going in terms of its educational model. Like it is hard to look at JHU and say, Vanderbilt and predict that JHU would be the more academically intense school. Academic caliber or SAT’s won’t change curricula or intensity levels unless students, faculty, and admins suddenly start expressing need or desire for a change. It takes a whole cultural change which may not be in demand at many schools, but has been the norm at other schools even before they blew up (I guess an example of change toward more intensity is Duke. It seems their economics and physics department have ramped things up quite a bit). And also, this isn’t always just a random, instructor dependent thing. At Harvard, a school wide decision (across several science departments) explains how their science curriculum (especially for pre-healths) looks the way it does today. They had to mobilize the efforts of all faculty to be involved to make sure the changes were implemented across the board. In other words, this was an organized effort, it wasn’t just all of the instructors at random going out on a limb deciding that they would change how and what they teach. Some schools clearly care more about these things than others. They’ve moved beyond “brick and mortar” thinking for a while now. </p>
<p>Faculty members contemplating locating to a certain university, especially newer/younger ones fresh out of post-doc or something are not really looking at SAT scores so much as the caliber of the program they are joining and their potential role in it. Both older and younger faculty members are able to look beyond crap like when considering joining a university. They are looking at their salary and benefits (which will correlate with endowment and financial health of the university or dept. that they join) and likely the quality of graduate students they can get. For example, the new engineering building you mention is going to be very important for faculty joining that department. They will rightfully look at the facilities and assume it will attract better graduate students which is nice for a younger faculty member. Now an older faculty member (maybe one who you are attempting to poach from elsewhere) may also be considering the quality of research and faculty already existent in the department (as in, who will they get to interact with) and then compare it to other options. I am guessing the same thing is happening with our chemistry building. The “new curriculum” is just an added bonus for younger faculty members interested in teaching (as many are), but facilities and the potential to draw new and excellent talent are much more important, and most of this talent will be in the form of grad. students. Also, you must consider that research driven faculty (especially in sciences) are not going to be attracted to one high ranked institution over another simply because of the UG caliber. They will want to know if the research infrastructural is conducive to high levels of innovation. Departmental structure and decision making determine this.</p>
<p>The engineering facility is being built to provide state of the art research laboratories and a center for student-driven technology innovation. There is a focus on interdisciplinary work, which is already part of engineering but perhaps will gain more emphasis.</p>
<p>Anyways, I don’t think anyone came here to debate.</p>
<p><a href=“Construction of new Engineering and Science Building at Vanderbilt set to begin May 2014 | News | School of Engineering | Vanderbilt University”>http://engineering.vanderbilt.edu/news/2014/construction-of-new-engineering-and-science-building-at-vanderbilt-set-to-begin-may-2014/</a></p>
<p>I read that before (it is vague, like when our chemistry department claims it “wants to close the gap between research discovery and what is learned in the classroom using the new and redesigned spaces” which are supposed to signify blah, blah, blah). I just wonder what the actual plan is to facilitate those things other than just having the space. There isn’t really anything to debate. People should just be more cynical about highered (especially elite highered), regardless about the strong feelings we hold for our home institutions. Everything that glitters is not gold. Sometimes I believe the buildings put up by many of our schools serve the purpose of attraction and distraction. We should just start demanding actual excellence and change for UG’s and not just aesthetic excellence. Like, if I am taking gen. chem lab in a renovated laboratory, I should expect to do more than cookbook experiments from a lab manual (that’s just doing the same crap, with new beautiful benches and hoods) or if there is a new engineering (or any STEM) building, get the teachers to do something more than just lecture (or at least integrate more stimulating material or cases) in intro. STEM courses (if the instructors just do the same thing or if there is no experimentation, you just learn the same crap, the same exact way, in a much nicer auditorium. You still passively take in information and assessments stay at the same level). I think we are just all too easily impressed by the “tricks” that our schools do to attract and keep us. Maybe we just don’t expect that much from the academic aspects, I don’t know. I should never be glad that: “I am learning this course at the exact same level as my friend at X elite institution, but now I am learning it in a nicer building” (that is what some of us unconsciously do). It should be like: “Not only are we learning in a nicer building, but our teachers teach like X and the course is much more challenging than what my friend at Y is experiencing”. I would suggest being cynically proud of schools going through a building boom (as all top ones are) and question what it means other than more prestige from those observing the construction. I mean, the crap costs tons of money and explains why tuition continues to go up, so one should expect more than their comfort levels and ego to increase as a result. </p>
<p>I realize I’m coming late to this, but the topic is very relevant to me as I’m the parent of a student who wants to major in chemistry (possibly with a double-major or major-minor arrangement in business), and we’ve been strongly urged by her college adviser, who graduated with a different major from Emory, to apply there. I very much appreciate hearing about the chemistry department and vibe there.</p>
<p>Bernie mentioned financial aid as a factor, and I think this may be a much larger reason for the increase in SAT scores in some schools than has been discussed. For many if not most students attending private schools, finances are a HUGE part of the picture (there’re also a huge part for students attending public colleges also!).</p>
<p>With respect to Emory v. Vanderbilt, it seems that for my child Emory would be a better match. From what I’ve heard anecdotally though, as well as policy-wise, Vanderbilt seems in general to give better, sometimes much better, financial aid, so we’re urging her to consider applying there as well as Emory, Duke, Rice, and other schools. (I realize of course that the opposite could occur with respect to funding). If she were accepted to both but with substantially better funding from Vanderbilt, there’s a good chance that she would choose either Vandy or a public school where she’s guaranteed nearly a full ride rather than go into extensive debt (“extensive”, of course, being open to interpretation).</p>
<p>If Vanderbilt didn’t have a reputation for great aid and (I believe) a no-loan policy, she probably wouldn’t apply there. Re the two public schools she’s applying to, one is our flagship which is only mediocre overall (even the Honors College), the other is the flagship of a southern state which is very actively and purposefully increasing its scores and ranking by offering very generous scholarships to both in and OOS residents based solely on GPA and standardized scores. There’s nothing wrong with that, either - my child as well as my DH and I would be very happy to avoid debt with a full or near-full ride. So that may account for at least some of the happiness at Vanderbilt - get a lot of high-scoring students in by offering them money, and everyone’s (more or less) happy.</p>
<p>Of course money isn’t everything even though it’s hugely important - for example, if my child wanted to pursue a Ph.D. and career in chemistry (right now she doesn’t), we’d be more inclined to go into debt to choose Emory. And the fact that Emory has a better business school also makes it more likely that we’d accept a higher level of debt than we otherwise might. But everything has its limits, and while a$20,000 (for example) level of debt over four years might be acceptable, $60,000 in debt wouldn’t be. So a lot of things will come into play, funding being not the only thing, but probably overall the largest one component.</p>
<p>So in all, I wouldn’t be surprised if generous financial aid were a large factor in Vanderbilt’s improving SAT scores. It certainly wouldn’t be the only school to improve its standing that way - witness the southern flagship my child is considering. I’ve been told as well that the University of Texas (possibly just UT-Austin) became a nationally-known school after several years of offering generous financial packages not only to top students but to professors also - my husband described several faculty members as the school where he worked being called and asked ‘name your price’. </p>
<p>I know that this doesn’t apply to Washington U. - St. Louis, which has the reputation for offering little aid as well as being need-aware, but I think for a lot of schools as well as everything else in life - money talks.</p>
<p>No question about it, more and more students are following the money. Often times to their 3rd or 4th choice. We are seeing a bi-modal payer mix at privates with full pay and full need students. The upper middle class kids receive little aid but can’t afford the privates and are filling up the state flagship honors programs. Vandy may pick up some students due to aid (need and merit) but will also lose some due over cost as most students with the credentials to get in will have merit offers at other universities. .
Unless costs are controlled the privates will fight for a shrinking pool of students able to pay the full COA, need blind U’s will get lasik surgery, and need aid will dry up.</p>
<p>What Bud Said.<br>
Just as a reminiscence from a family that paid full price for Duke for son number one. He is happy and employed and we are grateful to add that Duke was his perfect fit emotionally, socially, academically. He works in a city with a huge Duke alum network…and those cities include Boston, San Francisco, Atlanta and DC among others. Huge mistake in 2008 (speaking of parental finances and lack of ability to offer much help to sons later…both of whom are grad school ready now) when housing values went down, income plateaued and job market and starting salaries in many fields became a huge worry for grads. Did the UVA and Va Tech grads fare just as well in the job market? Yes!! If they were among the most motivated hard working students.<br>
Don’t pay full price unless you can pay cash and not look back as parents. Unless you child will seek a hard sciences advanced degree which for the most industrious can be underwritten. Unless your child will seek a grad degree later that has any hope of being reasonable in cost.<br>
No one told us in high school that many many top law and med schools mandate access to parental income till age 28. Even if you are married with a spouse with an income.<br>
There are many top business schools in good cities with evening degrees. I know this because Duke son is working full time and going to Emory for an MBA now. He did win a 25% discount in tuition and evening MBA is way less expensive than full time. Full time however is way more about networking and internships. Son has a job that is better than an internship and not looking to move out.</p>
<p>Vandy '13 grad won a merit scholarship that covered tuition only for which I must take a moment to kiss the earth each time I mention it. He attended Vandy for less than instate at UVA. And what a world class education he received. Good thing because the world doesn’t need another lawyer and I am almost certain he will pay full price for law school next year. At a state U more than likely. The job market for new law grads is too lousy to justify full price full private pay.</p>
<p>Regarding strategy: Coach your son or daughter to be open hearted. A stellar performance in a state honors college can also lead to a fully underwritten grad school at a private. Yep. Thinking of the state flagship honors grad not accepted to Swarthmore, Davidson, Wes, etc who is going to Yale next year on a full ride in Physics for a doctorate. Stories like that make my day. Be smart. Be aware. Our kids need cars, smart phones, laptops, housing, insurance and a safe place to live in grad school. </p>
<p>Vandy son only applied to Vandy for merit money when the stock market crashed in October 08 and I had to tell him that we would not after all be able to send him to full pay private college…he was accepted to Davidson with offer, Rice, Swat, Haverford etc…and all his flagship with honors options. He told me “Vandy is at the BOTTOM of my list” even tho it was his father’s grad school home. Emory btw “lost” his merit application and although he was very competitive, they acknowledged his file was not reviewed. Since then the entire admissions staff has overturned due to other issues that dogged the office. Emory does have a more business oriented campus in my opinion in a city that has gobs to offer re field placements but that is only a factor. Money should be the crucial factor and it is your job to not make your child feel like a loser if there is no reduced tuition merit offer in April. That would be a crime. Instead…be a gunner in your state flagship or engineering college and hit the ground running. </p>
<p>Being wanted with a rare merit offer and having the pride of having earned reduced tuition when Vandy son knew his grad school path was going to be expensive won the day. </p>
<p>He wanted to win merit at Rice. Didn’t happen. There is no rhyme or reason. He was NOT more deserving than his peers at Vandy. All of these schools, including the state honors programs can be Pixie Dust in your student’s life. It really is all about how you understand and appreciate the institutions that are considering you. In this economy, more and more respect and self esteem is the prize of making a financially shrewd decision once your options are clear.</p>
<p>Vandy super-scores; Stanford, UPenn, Hopkins & Cornell do not.
<a href=“https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-score-use-practices-list.pdf”>https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-score-use-practices-list.pdf</a></p>
<p>You won’t believe what a hottie I look like when I can photoshop body parts from earlier in my life…</p>
<p>Requiring all scores has nothing to do with whether the school super-scores. I am pretty sure that Stanford superscores, and I suspect the other schools you name also do so.</p>
<p>@GMTplus7, how did you get that those schools do not super-score from that resource? To me it looks like zero of those schools you mentioned use the “single highest test date” method. I am certain that all these colleges report the superscore when tabulating their student demographics.</p>
<p>For example, Stanford’s and UPenn’s admissions websites clearly state that they superscore.</p>
<p><a href=“Standardized Testing : Stanford University”>Page Not Found : Stanford University;
<a href=“http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/freshman-admission/required-testing”>http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/freshman-admission/required-testing</a></p>