Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Emory or Tulane? Torn.


Replies to: Emory or Tulane? Torn.

  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    The time you get admitted to the b-school clearly doesn't matter (despite the program only being 2 years, it's doing as well and better than most 4 year programs). And basically everyone gets in that has solid grades in pre-reqs and GREs. Admit rate is 80%. You can spend your ECAS years developing a background in something useful like a math/cs background a in addition to the biology courses that they are interested in.
  • carmenitacarmenita Registered User Posts: 8 New Member
    Emory has higher numbers.
  • SouthernHopeSouthernHope Registered User Posts: 2,085 Senior Member
    To me, this note sums up what has gone crazy about colleges today. i read the OP's original note and I think, "there's not a college in the U.S. that wouldn't benefit by having this kid in their class" only to read the replies to see that most people don't even think he'll get in. It's nuts. The emphasis on grades (who cares if somebody has a 3.7 vs. a 3.9 or a 2020 vs a 2180) and stats....its truly crazy.
  • SOSConcernSOSConcern Registered User Posts: 3,784 Senior Member
    I was on Emory's campus one time, and was not impressed. A friend's DD and SIL are taking out big student loans for Emory MBA's. Will see if that works out well. I would be leaning to Tulane based on prior knowledge and all the comments. The $$ difference due to scholarships might be a big factor. Good luck.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    edited February 2014
    Yes, because that one time is good enough to get a real feel or to be "impressed" with any place. What is this big deal with being "blown away" by being on a campus (I feel as if people get these feelings because they had pre conceived notions of what the place will be, positive or negative, and then naturally, they see and place emphasis on things that fit those pre conceptions)? I never felt that and had visited schools perceptively better than Emory (and some just flat out are), but I couldn't feel that they were better based on that visit (I just knew by doing research before hand. Even then, I had no expectations and was not always able to tell the differences by a single visit). I thought Emory was beautiful (but so were many other schools) and clearly the academics were great in many areas (because it was a very specific visiting program, I got to sit in classes and the ones I went to were indeed above average, even for Emory or "elite schools"), so that was nice...I guess. However, many other schools invoked virtually the same (I however, visited an LAC and did a weekend there and the classes were small which was interesting) feeling. They were all "good" or at least met the minimal expectations I had. I wasn't overly impressed or blown away by any of them. I feel like for that to happen, I would need a week or 2. Not, one visit and suddenly "I'm not feeling this".

    And of course, if I was OP, I would go to the cheaper school. Also, I don't think MBAs are relevant to the OP, just saying...
    As for the stats. craze: It is kind of dumb, but it's the nature of the admissions arms race. All the schools want to claim that they have statistically perfect students (rankings love it, alumni love it, the administration loves it, etc). By perfect, we mean, "knows how to earn amazing grades and circle the right answer on multiple choice tests nearly 100% of the time". And then what you find is that it hardly takes a "perfect" student to perform well at most of these schools. Many schools' academic rigor is in fact still below the caliber of the student body (however, students and the administration would never admit that. Students always refrain to "well, it's way harder than my local or flagship state school where I would have gotten a 4.0l!" As if that should be where the bar is set). You also find that many of these high stats. students are over-rated when removed from a "standardized" academic situation. Sometimes, schools aren't selecting the best test takers that respond to a challenge well or with any enthusiasm. Many places get the "stick to the formula" (whatever formula they used to get there) types. If a school is fortunate enough, the other credentials of the students will suggest that a majority do indeed have awesome qualities that go far beyond good test taking, making the grade, and resume padding. While you hope that this latter scenario is indeed the case for most enrollees and admits, I imagine many places fall short here (partially explaining differences in intellectual climate across schools).
This discussion has been closed.