Vanderbilt Chancellor Cites Most Important Issue Facing the School

A totally pointless post, except to acknowledge that I do, in fact, know the difference between the Chancellor and the online shoe store; however, auto correct does not. :))

The school can’t be moved. It will always be Southern.

The fantastic financial aid is helping Vanderbilt distance itself from being only for the rich. My family can personally testify to that.

And according to the article in the OP, they are serious about diversity.

Things are at least trending in the right direction.

Be careful with that assessment, because many of the places with great financial aid are not actually the best at recruiting or enrolling students that are great but have lower income (there was an article that explored this). What Vandy does more effectively and perhaps strenuously so is making it easier for upper middle class and middle class people to avoid huge loans (a worthy endeavor indeed as often these folks get screwed over). However, supposedly many more schools help out better with actual low income students, not necessarily through financial aid programs (though basically all of them now have it such that those below 50-60k attend for free), but through more aggressive recruitment and selection of Questbridge Scholars for example. The bracket targeted by Vanderbilt means that they likely want to yield those with higher scores and NM status more than anything else. Many other schools with a strong score range (I would say averaging at least 2000-2100) that is not as high tend to select and yield those in lower SES backgrounds in higher numbers. It doesn’t seem to hurt them that much either (Stanford is among such places along with several LACs). Places like Vanderbilt perform strongly (in enrolling), but not as strong as the financial aid offers would predict I think: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/amherst-a-leader-among-elite-colleges-in-enrolling-students-who-need-pell-grants/2014/03/25/9df8ab6a-b414-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html

Many of the schools above it I think actually have weaker or very similar financial aid program so it is some mixture of differences in the selection processes and whether or not the students who are admitted want to yield. My theory on stats clearly isn’t what is driving these differences though as Chicago does a little better than Vanderbilt, and WashU is just …not doing well at all (so maybe that model more so applies to them). Some complicated stuff is at play.

So does this mean if all stats are the same, an Asian will get in over a White person?

The old stereotype:

  1. White: VU has similar demographics to other top U’s. Relative to the population it is over represented with Asian students and under represented with all other races. To call it a white U is no more accurate than calling its peers Asian schools or international schools. So it’s time to drop this old stereotype.
  2. Rich: Relative to your state U’s yes BUT with 40% paying the full COA it is right in line with all the other top 20’s. It seems around 40% is the number all these schools need to keep the lights on. So, if you want to call it rich lets be fair and call all the top 20 U’s rich as well and drop the old stereotype.
  3. Southern: While located in the south a super-majority (66%) of its students live outside the south. Outside TN the most represented states are IL, NY, FL, CA, and TX. Again, similar to other top 20 U’s. Not exactly a southern crowd. So yes, time to drop this old stereotype as well.

It is whiter than most. Most schools are now hovering around 50-55% or lower when you throw in internationals. Vanderbilt may still be closer to 60% even after the addition.
2. That is not a good way to measure that. Financial aid packages at the schools with high endowments (including Vandy) off-set how many, say, middle and upper-middle income have to pay vs. the tuition. A more accurate way of finding out is doing what someone found out about Harvard and seeing where a student in a 40-50k household would fall % wise. I imagine Vandy would pretty much be the same (like middle of the pack) as everywhere else as indicated by the post I made above.
3. They stay outside of the SE…I am wondering if Texas counts as Southwest, I suspect so (and I also suspect that a huge chunk of the SW category would come from there). Throw that in, it comes closer to 45% (which is alright). Also, I don’t think people are referring to the demographics more so than the “feel” of the school which may remind people more of UVa, Chapel Hill, and Wake than some other elites. Often this feel along with the fin. aid was indeed an attractant. It won’t shed the stereotype until people agree that it also feels very different from those schools. Again, I don’t think Vandy is in the “Duke phase” yet where most students actually want it to feel different from that way. Either way, I imagine you will not hear the end of that stereotype for a while.

As a (minority) student, I feel this is incredibly pointless. Academics here need a lot of work, like their TA system

@derp125 I wouldn’t say greek life is the cause of the issue but that’s just my experience

I think the biggest problem Vanderbilt faces is justifying a $63,532 annual expense x 4 years for an undergraduate bachelor’s degree.

^That too

As a minority, I must say that the response to elite school social environments is very complex. Often many URM’s attending elite schools come from predominantly white areas or schools. I was from a low income area, but was in magnet and gifted programs all my life, so I always had a URM group and a core group of friends that was very diverse. When I got to college, I was used to mingling or balancing both “crowds” so to speak. I suspect there are many URMs like me, who are used to it and if they feel it’s comfortable, will definitely choose to mingle without trepidation.

@Suffer : TA’s: depends…if they are lecturing like the instructors, then unless it is a place at the level of HYP (or something like it), then it probably won’t be as good simply because the grad. students at other elites (in STEM) are good, but maybe not as good as those, so they can’t or won’t be willing to teach high level material. If you are one of these schools, better to allot TAs to their comfort zones. Like in biology or whatever, you may want to get them to host primary article discussion sections as opposed to recitation style sections. This allows them to discuss the area they specialize in and thus they are more likely to be competent. It depends on the roles assigned to them. I was pleasantly surprised when I went for coffee and saw how my school is now using graduate students. The general chemistry sections do not do lecture anymore (starting this year) but apparently are doing case based and problem based learning, so what they are doing is basically training the grad. students how to teach (or at least be competent in facilitating learning) by making them mediate the discussion and problem solving at each table. This makes sense to me because honestly, a lot of them are actually less capable of running recitations or mentoring sessions than strong undergrads. If they are trained early in a supervised (the pbl class-where the head instructor is directing things) or comfortable (the discussion sections I allude to), then they can probably get better at teaching. However, sometimes I am also worried about certain professors themselves and not the TA’s, I mean, I know they have competing demands, but some should try a little harder.

It is astonishing to see that leaders at many elite universities claim not enough is being done to promote diversity at these schools. Astonishing. Thousands of “non diverse” applicants are being shoved aside and ignored to make room for diversity at each of these top schools. Yet we have this wailing by Zeppos that not enough is being done. Bizarre. And simply astonishing. With current policies in place, diversity will explode on these campuses given a bit of time. Just give it time. Stop wailing and gnashing teeth to appear even more “progressive” and “apologist”. In the name of diversity we have already invented several “fields” of “scholarship” at some of the best schools which are barely more than an indulgence of grievances held by various diverse groups, and far from rigorous academic disciplines. I would say that most top schools are already appropriately aware, and honouring the importance of diversity.

I don’t think that’s the type of “diversity” he is talking about…as indicated by the demographics of the school. I think he is just trying to make the environment more “interesting” given the increase in non-white demographics (such as Asians). I don’t buy this argument that schools are “too” focused on it in the admissions process. The success of Asian applicants to many top universities and the socioeconomic demographics often show otherwise. Also with things like legacy admissions patterns at some schools, this naturally counters any measures to ethnically diversify a campus. They can and have only to a certain extent “solved” this. Other applicants get pushed aside for many reasons that extend beyond diversity initiatives. Even the deserving on paper can get screwed because there are simply too many applicants. Also, only taking the “deserving” on paper doesn’t seem to work for medium sized top universities. The more “holistic” admissions policies of some elites seems to have positively impacted output metrics (mainly prestigious scholarships among others). Stanford and Duke certainly are not doing poorly for example and they aren’t trying to post HYPM numbers.

Bernie I think it is a mistake to assume Vandy’s ADCOM is less holistic or that other elite U’s don’t value applicants academic profile as much as VU. An argument can be made that VU is more diverse and holistic in terms of elite skill sets of it’s student body. They have student athletes that compete at the SEC and national level that other elite peer U’s don’t have. Many of these students would have no chance of acceptance at peer universities. They have top musicians at Blair and their music audition carries equal or more weight than their test scores. Many of these students would not be admitted at VU’s peers but their musical talent gained them admission at VU. Vandy participates with Questbridge to bring truly diverse students to campus who otherwise would have little hope of attending a peer university. Many of VU’s peers have more pseudo-diverse students…they look different but otherwise are very similar to each other.
The top high school students have many options but the truth is more and more are electing to attend Vanderbilt. That is why you are seeing HPYM numbers. It’s not that VU is less holistic or that other elite U’s suddenly stopped caring about grades and test scores.

I wasn’t really saying that it is less holistic, I was talking in general…oliver was subtly trying to suggest that schools should pursue less holistic measures in admissions and that they place too much emphasis on diversity (this can have some truth, but I think it has been over-stated when you account for other patterns). But since you want to go there, places like Vanderbilt, WashU, and Chicago are certainly holistic, just perhaps less holistic than other schools. The incoming scores may be weighted higher at these 3 for whatever reasons…it certainly makes sense for the small contribution it could make to enhance the rank. Also WashU and Vandy give scholarships and could perhaps be setting high score thresholds for those that other other schools don’t do as much. This means that for other privates (or elite publics like UVa) that offer scholarships, it will be more random and less based on the scores (I think Vanderbilt has diversity scholarships for example, and even Asians can get them if they have very high scores…one such winner wrote an article about her plight through the elite school admissions racket and how she struck it rich with Vandy. Thank goodness that played out well because she likely deserved to be at a really good school). They have to be high objectively (as in maybe on average per person, higher than the school’s mean), but ultimately they will be looking for other things that perhaps may only be seen in many successful applicants to HYP (not humdrum successful applicants, but the unusually strong cases that were not necessarily numerically perfect, though HYP of course gets plenty of these).

Also, I never say that they do not value the “academic” profile. I think I’ve been arguing that these schools define and weight certain elements of the “academic profile” differently. They all have and clearly wanted high scores, but most are making a trade-off between the scores and other components. Maybe things like AP/IB, academic awards and competitions (especially things like debate, math competitions, others…), SAT II subject tests, and things like that matter more. Basically they are putting higher weight on alternative forms of academic engagement once students reach a certain (usually quite high as most top 25’s have a mean well over or approaching 1400/1600) threshold. The “character” of certain campuses certainly reveals this. It is very difficult to argue that students at one non-HYPM schools are, for example, weaker academically than another school with higher SAT/ACT’s. It may or may not be the case (and often isn’t) as we don’t actually know anything beyond those credentials (and of course GPA and the often under-reported class-rank stats). Other things compose “academic profiles” and can gauge the readiness and willingness for students to engage with what is supposed to be an intense academic atmosphere (and of course we also know that once in like the top 25, the correlation between incoming score range and overall feel and intensity of the academic environment is hardly predictable). Like a person who medals at IMO may be much more fit to take advanced math sequences than a student who merely scored 800 on the math SAT and a bit more, a 5 on Calc. AB. They probably both got 800 but are not equal. Some schools are more fine with just the 800 and some great non-academic EC’s, and some schools really really like academic EC’s in conjunction with that (these end up being either the nerdier schools or maybe like Stanford where they try to find ways to seriously gauge “innovation” and “creativity”).

I personally think one way to gauge the strength of a student body once the scores get this high is simply by trying to measure “ambition”. As in, how much do they use their talents, especially students in the upper range of ability at these schools. So one way could be to measure enrollment in top tier math and science courses (like, if you are Harvard, does math 55 and 16 maintain steady enrollment levels. Does Princeton and Northwestern keep steady enrollment or interest in their integrated science programs…that sort of thing) offered to freshmen or willingness of social science and humanities to enroll in special tracks if offered (HUME sequence at Princeton for example). To me the question is always, how fearless and ambitious are all the students as a whole, but especially the top talent. Does the school under or over perform in these terms with certain SAT ranges (like if you are approaching or have surpassed 1500 mean, your benchmark may be HYP enrollments in certain course types)? That can give some more information on “academic readiness” (for example, calc. BC is not enough to handle math 16 or math 55a/b at Harvard and its equivalents at Chicago, Caltech, and MIT). I guess I’d rather gauge by performance and enrollment patterns than the a “2 input” analysis (only GPA and SAT/ACT). Without knowing much else, we simply can’t really tell about differences in academic profile.

However with certain enrollment patterns, one can say…“okay, the students at this school are actually behaving and performing more like this lower scoring school than the ones in its score bracket despite the score difference” or vice versa. If the former is the case, you’re probably underperforming, if the latter, overperforming or performing well. Chicago is likely performing well in context of this sort of analysis as indicated by the fact that it even has similar programmatic offerings to HYP in terms of advanced options (one could argue that UChicago “baseline” classes are also tougher on average than other elites). WashU and Vandy are “alright” (as in pretty damned good, and indeed excellent in many areas but maybe not particularly special academically among elite schools…And that’s okay, because a) it cost lots of money to get up there and b) there are always trade-offs to trying to change the academics) but seem to look more like lower ranked and near ranked schools than those in their SAT brackets. I give WashU an edge in terms of STM offerings (I left out E, because it isn’t that special and Vandy’s is likely just as strong…both are as good as you would expect for elite schools) and levels of the courses (especially intro. and intermediate), but I know not much else outside of that other than both having great writing/English programs for undergraduates (both have been ranked at some point in time, a near top place for writers). I also like the way the psychology (which has a large Peabody contribution) and history program are set up at Vandy but haven’t compared it to WashU’s.