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 for Economics?

13

Replies to: Emory for Economics?

  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    His grad cours(es?) is in Sociology.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    I should have gotten good enough to try grad. courses in history or political science but oh well. At least I did several special topics courses (I almost did a senior colloquium in political science, but then I had to accommodate anatomy :( ). Whatever. I guess I'm not as bad as some science majors ("I hate writing, I'll just use my honors thesis or research to fulfill a CWR").
  • aigiqinfaigiqinf Registered User Posts: 4,032 Senior Member
    lol Speak of the devil and one of his minions will appear.

    So, I went to Oxford. It has its challenges and weaknesses, but I think what's really unique about it is that it has true diversity and serves as a mechanism for upward social mobility (albeit, perhaps on accident). The best way I can describe my experience at Emory (both campuses) is that I've been pushed in many different ways--and that I've pushed back.

    While I'm hoping to go to a PhD program, my leadership has largely been outside of the classroom. That leadership has been more so in policy spaces than in the typical resume-padding and vague notions of school spirit ECs that characterize many Emory students. And that's one major difference I've seen between students at Oxford and at the College. At lot of students start at the College because they're really good at playing the game of school, but they're not really passionate about anything (except, perhaps, themselves). On the other hand, a lot of Oxford students have a lot of passion, but not the grade-obsession or the utilitarian view of college. Many, including myself, lack the preparation that many Emory students received in their private or well-resourced high schools.

    I'm econ/math, but largely by accident. I don't really identify with the major. I am taking graduate coursework in sociology and public health right now, though I decided against continuing in a grad history class this semester.
    I'm pretty sure aigiqnf has taken every course at Emory and completed every internship ever offered.

    lol Not really... particularly when it comes to the b-school.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    ^ AND he can code, too.


    One at a time, ladies.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    lol Not really... particularly when it comes to the b-school.


    You'll live without it. Chances are, the public health school can probably show you similar things, but probably do it better except for maybe some MBA classes. I had a friend a while back who transferred in and took a couple of MBA classes while in the BBA program (another example of how transfers are more willing to take advantage of Emory) and said they were really good.

    And like you, I try to avoid identifying with the biology major except for comedic effects lol.

    As for coding, I can only do basic matlab :( , no choosiness for me.
  • Joel96Joel96 Registered User Posts: 115 Junior Member
    Wow, this thread took off since I last checked it.

    So are you all saying that Oxford would be preferable to main campus in terms of academic quality (specifically regarding how well it prepares students for the BBA program)? I just found that a bit surprising. A little background info on me, I go to a school that's just a few minutes down the road from both campuses, and Oxford has had a reputation here as a sort of remedial (for lack of a better word) campus to prep students for their third and fourth year at Main (remedial way to strong a word, but you get what I mean). Is it more of a cultural difference amongst the students at the two campuses, or is Oxford really better academically?
  • Joel96Joel96 Registered User Posts: 115 Junior Member
    Also, which school will best prepare you for your intended major? I want to take courses that challenge me in my subject area so that I'll be prepared to get my BBA and MBA, but I don't want to overload myself to the point that it wrecks my GPA.
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    Joel96 wrote:
    Wow, this thread took off since I last checked it.

    So are you all saying that Oxford would be preferable to main campus in terms of academic quality (specifically regarding how well it prepares students for the BBA program)? I just found that a bit surprising. A little background info on me, I go to a school that's just a few minutes down the road from both campuses, and Oxford has had a reputation here as a sort of remedial (for lack of a better word) campus to prep students for their third and fourth year at Main (remedial way to strong a word, but you get what I mean). Is it more of a cultural difference amongst the students at the two campuses, or is Oxford really better academically?

    Not wanting to sound elitist but the truth is, its a backdoor.

    Of course there's plenty who also got into CAS but chose there but that is not the majority. Personally I don't have a problem with it. Maybe you messed up high school. Well, here's another chance.

    But, its a very generous offer and a backdoor.

    Stats don't lie.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    Go to CAS. If you're not intending to do research, then oxford isn't for you if you can get into cas.
  • Joel96Joel96 Registered User Posts: 115 Junior Member
    Okay. Is there any area where Oxford would be a better option than CAS, or is it just that main campus has more resources?
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    It's a backdoor that in general has higher quality than the front door though. For example, there are many lower stats. institutions than Emory or comparable universities that no doubt offer a richer educational and academic experience. A student who is not Harvard material may end up rejected at Harvard, but get a better education from a top 30 liberal arts school depending upon their interests. There are plenty of places that don't look that strong on paper (stats. wise) but actually do far more than pass through a bunch of students with high stats (not to say that the very elite schools do that, but I must say that many of the top 20s are mildly guilty of it). They actually attempt to make students better educated than when they came in as opposed to making them "pseudo-educated" (as in their grades will say one thing, and skillset another). Also, I would never underestimate any school with over a 1250 average (Oxford is likely slowly approaching 1300 and though main is slowly approaching 1400, you honestly can't tell the difference between many of us and them because it's almost like many on main pretend to be dumb to look cool or something. Such a behavioral pattern is not as common as it is at some other schools, but still annoyingly common. It's basically "anything but me seeming like an intellectual or nerd!" Plenty of people with lower stats are far more interesting)

    I feel like you should only come to ECAS with no second thought of Oxford if you're mainly looking to jump into research very early or want to exploit the many non-academic resources. However, unless you know how to and plan to play your cards right academically, then don't expect much until maybe junior year when you have more freedom of choice in your course selection. Also, I guess it's advantageous to start on main if you want to double major (as you should with economics) because you don't have to worry about cramming a rigorous GER load into 2 years. You can spread them over four years and easily fulfill requirements and electives for both majors at the very beginning.

    Again, I don't really care about backdoor and incoming stats. because it tells very little about educational quality. For example, HYPSMCChCt should be equal Vanderbilt, WashU, NU, and ND should be equal academically right? They suddenly turned into similar educational experiences to those places over the last 5 years right. The answer is of course no and you can go look at course websites and syllabi to prove it to yourself. Many of those schools are more like Emory academically than they are those suite of schools and yet have the same stats. It's kind of like saying Williams' academic environment is less rich than WashU's because it is over 50 points lower. You're comparing places with completely different educational approaches (okay, one could argue that most private research universities don't really have an approach that goes far from "keep the students happy and convince them that they are receiving a much better education than at a comparable public school").
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    bernie wrote:
    It's a backdoor that in general has higher quality than the front door though

    Wait what?

    I don't see how that is possible. I simply don't. Could you show proof? I'm interested.

    Something in their application must be lacking, otherwise they would have just went to CAS. And no, the applicant does not "chose" where he goes. The school decides. Some might get into both, but I'm willing to bet that if given both choices, the applicant would choose CAS.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    I'm not arguing that they're better. I'm arguing that the quality of courses and coursework is generally higher. I would try to get some of their science coursework for example and compare it to some of my introductory work, but it may be a while.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    I actually don't really need much primary evidence to make this claim. There are articles like this that seem to suggest Oxford is often a step ahead of the college in terms of implementing changes or better educational paradigms on a larger scale (for ECAS, I think I would count between 1/4-1/3 as a large scale implementation): The Nature of Evidence | EmoryWire Magazine


    In addition, it just makes sense. The focus at a research (even within the liberal arts unit of them) university is NOT teaching. There will be many great teachers, but most will be mediocre (which is often good enough for us). In addition, the demands and rigor of most courses will be lacking because we expect to get A's and the faculty members don't have as much time to challenge us as it would require more engagement with students beyond classroom time and also require "closer" grading.

    Oxford is more of an LAC model where the primary emphasis is teaching. In addition, they are much smaller and have less of the purely lecture based courses (which the literature shows to be relatively ineffective when it comes to developing higher order analytical skills of most students). INQ or even a normal humanities or social science course will likely have more discussion and more demands than the analogous courses most students would take in ECAS, which are predominantly lecture based (some intro. political science courses have breakout/discussion sessions, but I think often it's like another lecture/instructor or TA dominated venue more akin to recitation than anything else). With sciences, their classes are much smaller and generally have more interaction and much less multiple choice (not too long ago, all the faculty members who taught intro. biology at ECAS except maybe 1 per term used multiple choice ONLY exams. It's very difficult to test higher order thinking when you give such tests. In addition, students study differently for them in a way not conducive to success if there were to be any MC questions that do require analytical skills). There are of course exceptions where there are instructors that do case based courses that are very interactive (especially considering their size), but the fact is, a demanding biology course at Oxford is the norm. Interactive learning and a high workload is also the norm (I also base this off of syllabi). In addition, with about all of the intro/intermediate courses, the lecture instructor also runs a lab section. This makes a world of difference. Students more or less engage in a "real" project as opposed to a series of canned experiments. Compare this to general chemistry at Emory, which has great LECTURERS, but that's all they are, lecturers. The classes are large (though smaller than peer institutions) and interaction is nowhere near as heavy. The level of the problems on gen. chem exams has been basically reduced to a plug and chug type of situation (it's still hard relative to most schools, but necessarily in the best way. More of a "we're trying to trick you" type of way). Solving novel problems for novel situations doesn't come until you hit organic and then only if you choose certain instructors. The other half are no doubt lower than the instruction the average student will get from the guy at Oxford. I need not talk about introductory labs (biology is perhaps the most annoying yet most useful). General chemistry and intro. physics are basically labs that serve to give pre-meds something to do. I'm fairly sure no real skills are actually supposed to be developed. They are service labs that help to boost the grades of students enrolled in the service courses. Oxford labs more so resemble intermediate and advanced lab courses on main.

    Shamefully main campus of Emory is not the only top 20 I can make such statements about. Many research universities get to look like they provide a far above average education mainly because they bring in high talent levels. The experience inside the classroom on average is not particularly "special" unless you make it so. But again, many choose not to, despite being "talented". I would say that the classroom experiences at LAC model types of schools contributes a bit more to the development of most students than it does at research universities. It's a more even contribution from both the academic and extracurricular sphere as opposed to almost purely extracurricular where classes are often viewed as obstacles or "work that has to be quickly be done before you can do something else".

    Different educational models yield different academic experiences. If you're not the most outgoing talented student, but you do want a very rich academic experience (as in, you care about the quality and rigor of your courses as much as you do EC experiences), a research university may not be for such a person. They may end up being lost in a sea of mediocre experiences where people convince themselves that they are being educated far better than others when they actually aren't. An LAC type of experience is a way to more or less ensure that you optimize outcomes of in-class experiences. You can craft such a thing at a place like Emory (insert many peer institutions), but it takes some passion and motivation to do so. If you follow the crowd, you won't get it, though you can lie to yourself and say that you are getting it as you sit in large lectures with relatively low demands and little passion. When you're being subjected such mediocrity, remember to tell yourself, "this education is way better or the same as X because we're really talented!" lol. Because we all know that the busy researcher cares so much about your talent level when they teach you. One thing they do know is that they can make you happy by spoonfeeding material or making assignments and assessments easy or underwhelming (no busy faculty member wants to hear the complaints of students who complain about tests and assignments that try to make you apply the material or what we students say......"is not what they taught us in class" lol. They don't have time for it and if they aren't tenured, their evaluations will suffer). Again, you continue to get A's like in HS, and you stay out of their face because it's easier than expected. It's a win win formula in the quest for an "elite" education. I imagine many people just come to top R1 institutions for the EC opps, facilities, and prestige, and an "above average" academic experience (but of course, many places that don't cost 50k plus are "above average").
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    Your talking points sound seem to be very similar to those used by the admissions office and the administration in promoting OC. Do you or have you worked in admissions?

    It seems all well on paper, but that is not so in reality.

    In reality most students there only go there to get the result: Diploma from Emory. Just this year, more than 100 students from OC continued to main campus in the Spring. This is significant because usually they continue on in the Fall. OC has about 800 students total, so about 13% left early. In terms of the sophomore class there, we could say about 26% of them left early. That is high number of students graduating in my opinion. They don't have to leave early, but they chose to leave early. I wonder what would happen if only 74% of Emory's CAS freshman class returns next year.


    If they are interested in a LAC experience, they wouldn't have went there. There's plenty of other good choices out there; Oberlin, Davidson, Bucknell, Williams...

    The "best of two worlds" is just another talking point they use to sell themselves as an alternative.

    Lastly, what you say is all theory. Theory does not equal reality. Do you have any raw statistics?

    The only stats I have are high school GPA, class rank, and SAT scores of the freshman classes. And those stats do not show OC students to be in general of "higher quality." How they work in high school is how they will work in college, with a few exceptions.
This discussion has been closed.