So while choosing from schools on a list many people look at admit rate, (which is honestly not the best way to choose schools but whatever), and Emory is a highly ranked university. However, its peer schools seem to have such low admit rates. Schools like vanderbilt, wash U, georgetown all have admit rates below 20 percent while Emory is at 27. I’m not saying admit rate reflects the quality of the school but I was wondering if that means its “easier” to get into this elite school than other ones or is Emory just not one of those schools that cares very much about its admit rate/statistics. It is a little baffling considering emory is so highly ranked and well regarded yet it seems quite “easy” to get into its undergrad. Not hating on the school I’m just curious if anyone can shed some insight on what seperates emory from these other more “normal” elite schools. Thanks!
Actually Emory’s admission rate was 23.2% last year, which is still a tad higher then its peers such as WUSTL, Georgetown, Rice, and Vanderbilt. The difference is that Emory’s PR department is not as effective as marketing as other schools. WUSTL, Chicago, and Vanderbilt all got their rates to drop by spamming students to apply to them. This represents why they have such higher applicant body. The exclusion of D1 athletics is also a blockage to increasing awareness.
@mclovin64 : Vanderbilt and WashU (and Chicago, though honestly, their student body quality didn’t need higher scores) are the sketchy ones as they are much higher score wise than schools with arguably better acacdemics. And yes, I agree with @FreaksAndGeeks, spamming students endlessly and marketing “fun” gets you farther than marketing academics. Also, I wouldn’t look at the scores that much. Emory outperforms Vanderbilt and WashU when it comes to Fulbright and other things (I think even top professional school placement) and has traditionally lagged quite a bit behind them in terms of score range (Vanderbilt has been ahead in that area since maybe 2007 before their “spam” era when they changed their admissions scheme to heavily increase the score range…unfortunately the level of academics there has not responded to it so places in their score range such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princeton have much more intensive academic experiences and many schools below their score range, which is basically…everyone else in the top 25 or so has academics on par or a little better/more intensive than them. Duke, Penn, Stanford and Hopkins didn’t make it into the top 10 by endlessly and suddenly jacking up their score range. They select on it to a decent extent and then use other quality metrics probably much more than those two).
Interestingly, I recently reached out to the Dean of the College (and a while ago admissions) about finding some effort to increase aggression of marketing (Emory should be keeping up with GeorgeTown I think. Emory’s stats were about the same as GeorgeTown’s about 2-3 years ago and then GT’s started to increase gradually as they should and Emory stayed flat), primarily to recruit more students befitting to some of curricular enhancements about to take place, especially in the sciences. For example, Emory shouldn’t be losing great life sciences interested students to Vanderbilt…that just doesn’t make sense as programs such as NBB, chemistry, and biology have much better instruction at Emory (I’ve also compared research resources and other special opportunities in those areas and Emory was quite a bit stronger. I pretty much give them the physical sciences and math of which they aren’t much better in). The marketing via admissions at Emory is almost “too humble” and nowhere near as flashy as other schools (I mean look at how flashy some admissions websites are).
Emory also does not have engineering which is another point of separation…in this economy, interest in pursuing that has taken off. Emory should definitely try harder, but not go in the direction WUSTL and Vanderbilt did (weirdly, not everyone applying to Emory applies to those and even stranger, there are people at those schools who got waitlisted or denied by lower scoring schools such as Emory, Rice, and others), I think that would ultimately hurt in terms of the types of students we get and the type of intellectual environment the school is trying to improve upon.
There is also a matter of fear and choice. I feel that stats could have been increased last year with the larger applicant pool, but they chose not to select at a higher score range before (they said that the admits had the same stats as the previous year which had 2.5-3k less applicants). They aren’t ready to risk the yield I guess or would rather target groups such as Questbridge Scholars, many of whom may not be the highest scorers but are still great academically and can contribute really well to intellectual and extracurricular life (again, the purpose of that program is to redefine success). They could also ONLY choose scholars finalists that are in the top quartile of the score range (it is suggested that many elite schools offering merit scholarships essentially do this, especially the two I mentioned) but chose not to.
Efforts by some schools to game the ranks has worked for them in terms of ranks but has not really impacted on reputation. At least that is how it seems to me. Wash U is a perfect example. It can be near the top of the US News ranking but I"m not mistaking it for one of the elite schools. I would say about Wash U that those paying full should thank those on scholarship since the objective scores and grades of those on scholarship allow so many full pays to come without a big dip in the numbers. But there are a lot of legacy and low numbers. And that is true of many not need blind schools. And it seems like it is those schools that are gaming so hard but not improving their academics r their reputation. Maybe the lions share of their effort goes into attracting more applicants-most of whom they know they won’t accept.
Hats off to the schools that don’t game (in admissions). Gaming harms students and does nothing for the reputation or academics of the school. Hats off to schools that don’t use the common app. Hats off to schools that don’t try to recruit applications from students they know they won’t accept. Good for Emory if it is avoiding the game!
@lostaccount : Well, honestly, the “improve the academics, market the improvements, and then watch them come” seems to have worked well for the places I mentioned (like Duke, Stanford, Penn, Hopkins) who, again, have kind of lower stats than some schools in their tier but have students who become leaders and win international fellowships and scholarships in high numbers. Having world class programs allows such schools to attract students strong in areas that help the school to send out extremely high quality “products” (the students) that go on to get lots of attention. This along with insane research investments is what fuels their continued success. It appears that some schools are attracting the students and then trying to build the world class undergraduate programs later (or not, the students they attract may be content with the status quo which is why they can remain quite comfortable with what they are doing now in terms of recruitment).
What many other schools are still doing is: “Look at our beautiful campus, facilities, and the great time everyone is having outside of the classroom” along with “look at all this money we are prepared to throw at you to come if you have tippy top scores”. Marketing usually pivots away from things that happen in the classroom. Perhaps they hope that students will simply say…“it is as good as anywhere else at this level so I’ll just come here for the nicer campus”. Of course, often the very best students don’t think this way and are more into how the particular school will serve them academically. They cannot be as easily fooled (they may be the types that looks at the faculty in their areas of interests or goes on a tour and decides to attend a class or find a way to spy on one). They aren’t as easily distracted by gimmicks.
ahh I see, so it really does come down to marketing. that makes sense: my classmates and I all recieve huge beautiful letters from Uchicago and some other schools with students relaxing in the very nice campus. It seems quite fake to be honest as most of us have very little chance of being admitted. Many people though Uchicago was genuinly interested in them but I really dont think that’s the case.
Any school with an admit rate in the low 20’s is still a highly competitive school. And since Emory got spanked a few years ago for reporting incorrect data (enrolled vs admitted, or admitted vs applied-- I forget at the moment), they are going to be very careful about what they report.
@jym626 : Yes, kind of annoyed that they are no longer making CDS data public which can more or less be extrapolated from college board. I mean, everyone knows that Emory’s stats are (and were) lower than the other schools with or without misreporting (it was still a bit behind even with the additional 40 points on each end). Also, I’m thinking the difference is that Emory told on itself (I guess). There could be others doing weird stuff but it wouldn’t become obvious and nor would they basically snitch on themselves. It’s all about keeping this image and Emory played that game and lost. Had to go in a different direction after that game was up (actually kind of glad it is). And also, it was admitted versus enrolled. I personally discovered the weird discrepancy before the new Dean came forth with. I always noticed how the admissions website back then AND US news reported higher numbers (these numbers were identical) than the CDS on the institutional research website. I’m guessing they sent USNews a manipulated CDS or simply sent them some other type of “acceptable” information that had the scores of admits on there. Either way, Emory students are quite strong academically despite Emory maybe being the only private school in the top 25 with below a 1400 mean of enrolled students.
It’s honestly hard to tell the difference between them and some schools with much higher ranges. And some schools in the much higher score range seem different from each other in terms of academic ability (or more like inclinations-as in tolerance of higher than normal levels of academic intensity). WUSTL, VU, and maybe ND have similar incoming profiles (scores) to HYPM, but the difference is kind of well…obvious and is reflected in the differences in intellectual climate and levels of academics at each place.
With that said, I still don’t think it would hurt for Emory to aim for GeorgeTown level (or even Cornell) incoming stats for enrolled students.
@FreaksAndGeeks when i do a google quick search it says 27%. but I guess the 23 percent you’re refering to is just for ECAS. Does emory count oxford in its admit rate/yield as well…
@mclovin64 : The idea of Chicago selling fun is hilarious (Chicago is not the same type of fun as places like say Vandy or ND yet I’m sure its brochures try to tell a different story. Emory and Chicago are more similar to each other than they are to schools in that category), but that new strategy has been very effective! Remember that they had a Dean of admissions before who was consistently posting Emory level app. numbers each year and then suddenly when the new one comes in: Boom! They basically let go of the idea of the self-selected pool of applicants (like seen at many top and elite private engineering schools) and just start to compete with Harvard and them (an article featuring their new Dean of admissions highlights this-the idea that they “deserve” more applications). Some of their alumni worry what it will do to the character of their student body and intellectual environment over time but honestly I feel it is more appropriate for them because their academics are intensive enough and designed in a way to more or less shape the student to fit its environment.
The other schools employing the same strategy don’t really have that and so they may kind of just be selecting and drawing lots of generic (accomplished but in more of a resume padding type of way- maybe a bigger pre-professional slant than at other schools in their score range which typically send much more students to say, graduate school) high scorers that will not really go on to be shaped by the academic offerings. Those schools will be more known for their relatively laid back environment, and great amenities and/or social environment/vibrance which is perfectly fine unless administrators expect something else (such as more vibrant intellectual climate). Scoring well on the SAT does not automatically translate into intellectual drive (could be an achievement orientation to learning). If it isn’t purely innate, then it has to be facilitated and most schools take a relatively “hands off” approach to this aspect which doesn’t work if the school isn’t attracting the more intellectual types in the first place.
I think you’re giving Vanderbilt less credit than it deserves, but I digress. I think Emory’s issue is it’s stuck without a real “hook” from the perspective of many applicants. Schools like Stanford, Vanderbilt, and Duke are popular because they seem to provide a great balance of prestigious academics and social life. Meanwhile, the Ivies, MIT, UChicago, and the like provide the idea of an intellectual environment that will provide a great path to a successful future. Emory is unfortunately stuck in limbo - it doesn’t have the high-level sports, nor quite the prestige of the Ivies and similar schools. Its unique draws are more subtle - proximity to the CDC, traditions, and the like. I think that because Emory seems like a less prestigious cousin of many schools, it is often overlooked.
@bernie12 so the quality of a school is simply measured by the SAT scores of its incoming class?
Isn’t that almost as random as ranking based on popularity via number of applicants?
Or ranking by how rich the school is via endowment?
What is Emory hiding that they wont release their CDS or fat book? Thats disappointing.
lol typo-- *fact book. Its also on collegedata but the fact that the school wont release it is unsettling.
Here are Emory’s peer schools:
http://provost.emory.edu/news-events/news/2014/april/benchmark-schools.html
wow I didn’t imagine Emory would have so many elite peer schools. I was thinking schools a little “lower” like NYU etc. but idk Emory definetely seems a little like the odd one out, those enrolled tests scores/gpas I search up differ quite a lot from the admmited students sections lol. But in the end Emory’s academics and reputation is still strong and thats what mattesr I guess.
The 27% that shows up on google is for two years ago. Their last year rate was 23.2
http://apply.emory.edu/discover/fastfacts.php
The rates for Oxford and Emory are seperate
In my belief, Emory’s most similar schools and schools with equal prestige are WUSTL, Georgetown, and Brown
@collegebobollege : I don’t really give Vanderbilt tons of credit (I used to actually think Emory was the one behind academically, even in comparison to Vanderbilt, but it has either a) Improved or b)I didn’t learn how to look deep enough to really investigate it. I found a couple of courses and departments they had that were really good and thought it reflected on the whole dept or school and thought maybe it should be a benchmark school. Now that I’ve looked closer I’m kind of like: “Wow, Emory needs to step up its marketing somehow”) academically because, in the area I did as an undergraduate, I have yet to see the appeal because often those fields are done much better at several of their peer schools including Emory, so that is where my criticisms are coming from (and I feel that getting near perfect scoring students should be an impetus to immediately change that). If I evaluated them objectively, I would say they are doing a great job especially outside of that realm, I just don’t think it is great enough to warrant an academic preference for it over other elite private schools. However, again, Vanderbilt basically doesn’t market as if it is either so I guess I am not being fair there. Students are indeed attracted to the balance you speak of. For example many of their social sciences are done well, most majors that have an association with the Peabody School are done extremely well, and of course their music school is awesome, and they have a very vibrant social atmosphere that reflects the more stereotypical college experience people want.
It is just when I do closer comparisons (as in hitting up departmental websites) of course and fellowship/scholarship offerings from many popular depts (especially the sciences and social sciences such as history or political science), I believe that it is something they should work on because the offerings (research fellowships, theory-practice based learning, large travel or research grants for UG’s), even at other schools in its class of “balanced” schools such as ND, Duke, Stanford, GT appear to be more robust to me. I was curious about my hunch and wanted to go see how much (and the amount of funds associated with) internal scholarships (other than say a Dean’s achievement scholarship) were offered for non-freshmen either through the institution or a particular academic department and it just paled in comparison to many other schools. No surprise that their new strategic plan involves so called “immersion Vanderbilt” to get students more immersed in the academics (outside of just the classroom). The fact is, you must be willing to invest the money in it (having high scoring students isn’t going to lead to students heavily immersing themselves in their academic discipline if the programmatic option is very limited or non-existent), just as they have for freshman scholarships. I think it is part of the reason why a place like Emory can do so well in terms of post-grad placement and scholarships despite its relatively low stats. You simply find ways to really empower (and support) the students to take their academic endeavors to the next level. However, this also means that EC and academic life on the campus cannot be ultra decoupled as it is at some schools (or else depts would offer all these opps and no one would take advantage of them because they are simply doing too many other things).
With that said, Emory still and always will have a lot of work to do…I just don’t criticize it as badly anymore because I realize that it honestly isn’t bad, even in comparison to higher ranked peer schools. What you said does need to be addressed however. The weird thing is, one of the former university presidents (I’m thinking Chase) envisioned Emory as going more in the “Chicago” direction and when you look at some of the academic offerings and level of some courses, you can kind of see remnants of an attempt to go in that direction. However, now it just appears confused as marketing has tried to sell “work hard play hard” (and a very pre-professional slant which I’m sure Chase was trying to diminish when things such as the Scholars program was established. Duke did something similar, but I think they were much more aggressive with recruiting to that program and tried to throw money at more students. Today, the enrollment has grown a lot over the past 5 years and the amount of scholars per class is only now hitting the 30’s so basically that mindset has become more “dilute” over time) to students and those are indeed the students that tend to come expecting that. It no doubt likely has an effect on the faculty over time who expect something different (and indeed some instructors have admitted to close friends of mine and me that they have changed their grading patterns or methods of teaching due to the differences they observed. There are plenty that hold their ground, but I’m not surprised when a select few decide that it simply isn’t worth it anymore).
I’ve personally always advocated for Emory trying to sell its academics or “courageous inquiry” more than it selling “work hard play hard” as while it will not necessarily drive app. numbers up, it could get more applications from those who fit (this is kind of paying off with the new admissions dean as you now get students drawn to some of the new programs and notoriously good ones such as Creative Writing which was not as heavily advertised before he came. Before him, it was almost like a pre-med/pre-business marketing machine!) better into what it does offer academically and socially, because the fact is, it is a not a GT, Duke, ND, or Vanderbilt and many prospective students can kind of tell. Also, if you market in a limited number of areas, as I mentioned, you tend to only draw from a smaller pool only interested in those areas of strength. It is one thing to have selection due to intellectual climate like Chicago did, but another to limit to narrow academic interests and tracks. And of course, naturally, if in Emory’s position, where students doubt the “eliteness”, admissions folks or whoever should find ways of expressing that the school performs just as well as the others if not better than some of them in certain areas. Gimmicky stuff will have little appeal if students don’t believe in your competitiveness in the first place.
@ClarinetDad16 : But they used to have it within Emory’s own websites if you wanted it, now it isn’t there. They have this thing called an “academic profile” which hasn’t been updated in years…so they are likely just making it hard to find. As for quality, I don’t know. Given that I cannot claim to have known how to investigate things like academics and stuff like that deeper as a senior in HS, typically the only thing that stands out to you is popularity, admit rate, and SAT scores. This means that students buy into the hype and adcoms know it. Not many students are going to go judge curricular and student body quality by say…recent:Goldwater numbers, Rhodes, Fulbrights, etc…
However, I will say that clearly the amount of money can be linked to “potential” academic strength. Emory, for example, is much stronger academically and has more robust programs than it would if it had less money. However, it is obvious the place is inefficient because schools such as Duke and Hopkins have achieved much more robustness academically and in terms of research infrastructure with similar and lower (Hopkins) endowments.