<p>Both actually. They are a great deal larger in number, and their are indeed more (especially at Emory and many liberal arts based institutions). The student body is a lot more heterogeneous here for example. And I’m willing to claim that many groups/niches at such colleges that would be (or were) marginalized at a high school, go nearly untouched here. For one, the campus is relatively left-leaning, for two, no one really cares. There is so much to do on a college campus, that there is little time to devote to the social engineering you see at the high school level (where perhaps some niches are bullied or pressured to conform by others). This is what a stereotypical college environment is known for. It’s a 4 year period in which stereotypical socialization patterns are less valued. A person considered a nerd or loser in high school may easily become well-respected on a college campus ( this may come to the dismay of a very popular high school student or jock that may remain somewhat narrow-minded upon entrance into college. For such people, Emory or many top 20s are not for them). Whereas those popular in high-school that maintain the same pattern of behavior may be seen as obnoxious in many cases. Again, a more level playing field is established, especially at more liberal colleges and universities (which nearly constitute the majority now-a-days). There is also the fact that high-schools are often homogeneous and strongly influenced by its surroundings and the ideology/values of adults living in the area (if the area is full of snobbish/elitist adults, what type of atmosphere do you expect at the area’s high school? If a high school is amidst a community in a rural area known as a hotbed of racial bigotry. What do you expect at that high school?). Many colleges (especially private colleges) are what many consider bubbles and are to various extents insulated from such things. Emory can be considered very insulated from the perceived culture of “old money” in the Druid Hills community or most places that would even be considered southern for that matter.</p>
<p>Hunt: That’s unfair. Everyone knows that Emory isn’t a big party school (most of the party-animals here even complain that it isn’t sufficient compared to our peers) . To generalize in that manner is ridiculous. That statement is representative of a “person” who parties a lot. This is similar to a person who drinks a lot that assumes that everyone else does too, when in reality it is not the case. </p>
<p>While Rice and UChicago students may give more sophisticated answers, it is foolish to believe that those at either party less because of that. Rice has a football team on its side. D-1 schools are known for more vibrant party scenes, than say a D-3 school like WashU or Emory, no matter how intellectual the student body is. I would expect UChicago to have less merely because it may be a bit more rigorous and harsh-grading than most of us in the top 20 as it runs on more of a liberal arts model.</p>