This could be the shortest post you’ve ever written on here.
Possibly, but I doubt it. Maybe a couple that were shorter.
@FLStudent97 Lots of people have those schools as goals (and good if their academic mentality and interests fits those environments and the curricula, but unfortunately many don’t investigate this enough), and they should also be able to recognize that some of the other selective schools they are admitted to (especially if a private) are honestly somewhat similar in offerings at the UG level, but attitudes of the student bodies make the difference. I think you’ll actually find that many students do not actually want to attend those schools for the attributes that make them different. Like, if I am a pre-med complaining about how tough some of Emory’s science courses are, I don’t actually want to be at Harvard (nor Stanford, MIT, Yale, or Princeton). If I am in Emory’s business school complaining about the curve or lack of prestige vs. a place like Chicago, let’s be honest, I would not want the intensity of Harvard or Chicago’s economics programs which require a heavy command of mathematics, often higher level mathematics (Hell, I honestly wouldn’t want to be at Wharton which requires or encourages students to take higher level maths)…when at Emory, many of these people fear and refuse to progress beyond calculus 1. The idea is that if many of these people with these so called aspirations actually believed in them (or knew what they entailed beyond just getting in), they would be demonstrating that they fit with such places when at whatever school they attend. I think the hype for these super elite schools has basically fooled a bunch of high scoring applicants into thinking that they are basically more worth it than the other schools simply because of the prestige factor. They forget about the competition and do not consider the “slight” possibility that some of those at the very top may indeed be academically different in key areas, and not in a way that will help them considering how rank and GPA sensitive prof. school admissions is. If pre-grad…by all means, go! Because the latter group can actually afford to not really be at the top of the heap and can take challenging courses without constantly worrying about getting an A. In other words, for the latter group, being more challenged is more beneficial than harmful (as they may look at undergrad as training/intellectual development whereas by the very nature of the admissions process and employment process for things like finance, others must treat it more like a stepping stone and certainly cannot risk their GPA and class standing as much)…but the others should think more carefully before just following the prestige and marketing tactics of these places.
I got accepted to WashU, Cornell, USC (full tuition + $8000 toward room&board), Tulane (full tuition), and UNC Chapel Hill. Would have gone to WashU if they had offered more money, but I decided to go to Emory with half tuition.
@literali :Any reason, you didn’t choose USC or Tulane? Was there something you actually liked about Emory that ruled everyone but WashU out? Like any programs in particular you are interested in that we do well? Also, you’re really talented…I honestly think you’ll get bored with a biology major, maybe try double majoring or squeezing your way into challenging courses in other departments. I know you can do a QTM major with biology or informatics as the concentration for example…seriously, find something that will challenge you early on or you’ll get tired of Emory quickly. You shouldn’t end freshman year saying: “I was dissappointed because the courses were not that challenging” as many top enrollees do. There are ways to get a solid balance of courses, some that will guarantee you a solid A, and some that you’ll need to use that brain (or at least do meaningful assignments) to do well in. Admittedly, I’m sure Dr. David Lynn would love to have someone like you in the ORDER seminar this fall 
(Ask @AlacrityPain about this…I recommended it to them too and I consider that poster top notch).
That’s funny - Asians complain that there are too many Caucasians.
.
‘No off-campus scene’. Bars, nightclubs - what?
.
‘No school spirit’ - no jocks face down on the quad on Monday morning?
@gritsparent : Let us keep in mind that apparently those things are what college is all about to many now. For it is the “stereotypical college experience” which we should all expect from out nation’s most expensive and prestigious institutions of higher “learning”…you know, we should should expect many distractions from learning or to only learn from social experiences such as bars, nightclubs, etc (I really hope this person was talking about Oxford. If talking about main campus, then one would have to say the same about places such as Duke, Dartmouth, and most liberal arts colleges which are revered in terms of the level of education offered), or cheering at a football game. While all valuable, can be over-rated and can perhaps serve to distract students from what are often lackluster academic experiences.
I turned down William & Mary, UVA, University of Richmond, Johns Hopkins, Brown, and UPenn for Emory. Overall it took me a long time to make a decision, but I’m satisfied with it. Also, I received quite a few outside scholarships to help afford it in addition to financial aid.
@ComDK1 : No inhouse scholarships (okay, those apparently are even hard for HYP admits)? And what academic interests do you have? Also, I suppose Emory is kind of like a weird cross between Penn and JHU I guess. Really well-known for things like life sciences, but JHU, healthcare related UG programs (don’t get me wrong, Penn is extremely good as well, but Emory and JHU are so known for them to the point that their fame in them overshadows the other programs they do really well for some reason…perhaps the amount of pre-healths) political science/history programs yet also having a HUGE undergraduate business community like Penn. The others, less like them I suppose.
A cross between Penn and JHU?
I completely agree. That’s a good comparison.
But, let’s also add the caveat that this doesn’t include the engineering departments at those schools. And this is in terms of student personality and career goals. Not necessary ability.
While the top end Emory students are as good as their counterparts at JHU and Penn, I’m not completely convinced that the mediocre and below average ones are.
Yes, I’m excluding the engineering…but a person coming Emory hopefully would not have that interest…at least I would hope so at this point, so its irrelevant. JHU and Emory aren’t that much different student body wise. I would say that the “okay” students are similar. Penn, maybe not so much. For JHU, it isn’t as much student body quality so much as it is the culture of intensity with the institution itself. It pulls off “intellectual pre-professional” better than many other schools. It places lots of people into top professional schools and graduate schools. If the culture pushes students, even with “mediocre” SAT’s to do great things (as places like Chicago and JHU always did before they had relatively high scores), then you’re going to get great results. As I’ve been expousing on here for a while, there is a reason some of the schools that suddenly have risen to the upper ranges of scores among elites have yet to get that far output wise. They don’t have a culture or infrastructure to take advantage of their talent as well. I would say that Emory is even doing better than some of these schools if you consider how we are less selective. Emory would probably able to maximize (currently it just optimizes and works with what it has) this by only getting to Cornell, JHU’s or Georgetown’s current score range. I don’t think we even need the ranges of Stanford,Duke, Penn, etc (I consider these “middle/normal range” for elites. May want to reconsider and include Hopkins).
I would try to boost the scores a little for rankings sake while continuing to select for other qualities that predict how outgoing or “aggressive” the students are. The latter pretty much explains why Emory does well considering its currently selectivity issues. It just needs to find a sweet spot score wise (that again, I doubt needs to be that high) and I’m willing to bet there will be an even noticeable difference output wise because a decent amount of the infrastructure is clearly already in place or is at least being put into place. I would like to see the Goldwater success bounce back (we used to outperform places with scores better than ours but now it is much more like: “performs pretty much the same” producing maybe 1 a year and/or some honorable mentions. Used to be consistently 2 winners/year) for example and maybe draw and KEEP those who have a viable chance at a Rhodes (though Emory is already at a disadvantage for being D-3 I guess as athletics are a huge part of the equation for that), and also branching into lesser known national/international post-grad. opps. I would also prefer we diversify the interests of Emory’s STEM population…The Hopkins model makes more sense to me. They have tons of pre-meds yet have it reasonably balanced by those who want doctoral degrees (they are one of the top producer of UG’s who go on to STEM doctoral programs) or to go into industry. I think Emory is more befitting to a Hopkins like vibe than Penn’s. Only problem is math, CS, and physics must get stronger or else we won’t be able to pull the students to do it.