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?

124»

Replies to: Emory for Economics?

  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,328 Senior Member
    What the hell!? I was not speculating why students went there (like I really don't care). I was just saying that it's better for those who actually seriously care about academics than is the first 2 years on main campus and I would freaking know considering the fact that I went there (main) and the only thing that saved me from a "meh" experience was my AP credits. I've talked to students from Oxford and they told me what they did in their courses (and the syllabi support the fact that support their claims. They weren't lying). I don't care why they went there. Whether by accident or intentionally, they got a better experience than a lot of people on main. You're completely missing that point or ignoring the point that I'm trying to make by speculating on the quality of the students and their reason for going. You simply want to bash Oxford for it's lower talent levels. I don't care about their talent levels because I know that expectations are a bit higher for them than many on main, so at least their current talent level is being tested. Can many on main say that, uhhh no. Seriously, like upwards to a quarter of the freshman class gets into that freshman honors society for people over a 3.9. Do really believe that Emory is an extremely testing environment and the students are just so amazing that 25% get over a 3.9 freshman year. Higher ranked schools (mainly the very elite) with much higher incoming talent cannot claim such a feat, and for good reason. The academic environment is much richer and more challenging. Even the grade inflated top LACs probably can't claim that many freshmen above a 3.9 (maybe above 3.7-3.8, but not 3.9).


    You wanna know why most people came to main campus?....a degree from Emory, a top 20 university, not a particularly great educational experience, so I guess my camp and the Oxford camp are even, except on average, they'll get better training. Just saying. Luckily, I didn't have an average academic experience in ECAS.


    If I were on admissions, many people would not be at Emory.

    Also, are you an idiot (or are you being intentionally idiotic), you do know that it's main campus that also claims "the best of both worlds" right, not Oxford. That's also a talking point of main campus, and the "liberal arts" part. Well.....a significant portion of the student body avoids or opts out of it. They'll just choose mickey mouse GER courses.


    I need not be on an admissions committee to see reality. All that is required is my experience and observations. I don't need talking points.

    In addition, you then go on to dodge my claims by hollering about incoming talent over and over again. Again, I am making no comment on admissions schemes. I am making a comment about the educational experience and rigor of each campus. Vanderbilt's SATs are as far apart from ours (way above) as Oxford's are and yet we have plenty of courses and instructors that can take their analogs for a nice little ride. If you are truly trying to say that the two are the same (incoming talent=academic richness of school), then you would have to say that Vanderbilt and other schools with its stats are now much better than Emory academically and are suddenly equivalent to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Chicago, and Columbia. If you dare make this claim, I will pull up the course websites and disprove it.
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    But if you never went there yourself how would you know that they had a better academic experience?

    You're theorizing. You are using the model student as the typical OC student, which is not true. If everyone student at OC thinks like you, then yes, I agree with you.

    How would they get better training if they can't wait to get out of there (26% of the sophomore class left). Those who stayed probably didn't have enough credits to leave.

    I thought OC also uses the "best of two worlds" since they get the "smaller campus along with the larger campus."
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,328 Senior Member
    Thank you for saying that you're theorizing based upon the size you judge. I'm not theorizing. My friends told my how it works. I didn't take their word for it because there are things called syllabi that make it clear the differences. For example, I don't have to go to Vandy to know that this organic chemistry exam (this prof. gets a 2.1 difficulty rating on RMP BTW and a low quality rating): http://as.vanderbilt.edu/chemistry/Rizzo/chem220a/Exam_3.pdf

    is far easier and is of lower quality than:
    [url]https://****/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BSHJOYVJjS1Bpclk/edit[/url]

    from Emory. The fact that this is a recurring pattern for almost all instructors they have for the class except one tells me something (we have 3 instructors that rate higher in terms of quality and have much more challenging assignments and exams than perhaps all of their instructors. They maybe have one high quality instructor for it and the level of rigor does not come near Emory's top 2 and barely the 3rd).

    You need not attend both schools in question. If I'm referring to coursework, there are these things called syllabi and course websites that allow me to make comparisons especially if I have taken or am taking the course at the time. Of course, many people don't care enough about things like that and would just rather assume that the one with the better student body must provide the better education overall. Such a claim is completely and utterly false. Many differences have to with how the institution has shaped its academic and intellectual environment either overall or at a departmental level. So the example I show above is Emory beating Vanderbilt in terms of chemistry (this recurs for other chemistry courses and is not an anomaly). And then they will beat us in CS and maybe some quantitative fields at the UG level (though I was very disappointed with their intro/gen. physics and calculus courses. They appeared every bit as bad as ours. For math, not as much rigor as expected. For physics, good teachers, lacking intensity) and we will tie in biology related fields based upon what I saw (actually, I don't believe I'm saying this, but I think the biology instructors may be on the whole a tad better. No one heard me admit that that! Aluminum said it lol.).

    Based upon what I read from Oxford's syllabi (would be nice if I can get an assignment), they are probably beating us both in biology, physics, math, and definitely many non-science oriented courses.

    No need to attend. I really doubt the syllabi and course websites from these places are just a front. You may say that it's just an instructor based thing, but a lot can be said when there are several (or few) sections for a course and all instructors rate well in the categories that they should while another place does not. In addition, many places that do it well clearly control the quality and level of the courses tightly. Like if you look at Harvard's STEM courses, they usually have only one section or instructor per course and they are all pretty high level across the board, so it can be controlled. I feel like it's less controlled at institutions that don't really care quite as much. You get much higher variation across instructors at such places it appears.

    As for leaving, it's expensive, is harder than main campus, and people also have AP credit, so can leave earlier if they please. Part of the way research universities keep retention high is by "keeping students happy". A main contributing factor to most of our happiness is the lenient grading and low demands (Oxford doesn't really have this) with respect to our ability levels. This in conjunction with the "fun" social experience of college and amazing facilities makes for high retention rates. In addition, many students refuse to give up the prestige of a top university even if they have buyer's remorse. Given the amount of pre-meds here, if Emory went back to even being as challenging as it was perhaps in the 90s, I'm sure the retention rate would drop some and certain types students would avoid us (as they do Princeton, JHU, and Chicago now). Retention is partially a game of optimizing elements that satisfy the "costumers". Remember that universities, especially elites, function in a corporate model moreso than ever and the customer is always right! Notice how many of us (research institutions) try to woo students by showing off new facilities such as random luxurious amenities and dorms, not really the academics. An example is how a tour guide may be able to tell you so much more about the new dorms, Clairmont, and the DUC renovation and addition than they can about the chemistry building addition or Theology Building expansion. It's a fairly common theme across many research institutions (elite and non) and it clearly works for admissions.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    He's just aggravating you.

    no need to reply
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    Well you mentioned RMP. I don't consider RMP to be trustworthy. Anyone, and I mean anyone can go there and write stuff. If they received low marks in the class, they will say its hard rather than admit they did not study.

    Actually, CAS is more expensive than OC, so why would they leave early? Unless you are saying they want to graduate from college early. But you say they are passionate about their major(s). Wouldn't graduating early make it difficult to earn a double major?

    Aggravating? I just find it difficult to understand how OC has higher quality students in general...I'm not saying every CAS student is superior, I admit there are some Oxford scholars who actually chose Oxford because they got the scholarship. But that is a minority.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    He never said OC has higher quality students. He said biology (and a couple other) classes are more difficult there. And this prepares students more for when they leave Oxford.

    Which part of that is difficult to understand?

    He says classes are taught better and you hear "students are brighter".
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    I thought better classes create better students. I guess that's not the case. Then I wonder if better quality classes do not create better students, then what does create better students?

    Are they born with it?

    And how does he know it's harder there? How does he know those classes prepare them better?

    Are there stats to prove it? Are there stats claiming that in general Oxford continuees graduate at the top of their class?
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    I thought better classes create better students. I guess that's not the case. Then I wonder if better quality classes do not create better students, then what does create better students?

    Are they born with it?

    You're right. Student quality is a univariate function that uses only class quality as its input.
    Are they born with it?

    No duh. You were never around the people in high school who did absolutely no work but still understood every concept? And then went off to Princeton while you went off to just Georgetown? Those people were "born with it", and you were not.

    And how does he know it's harder there? How does he know those classes prepare them better?
    Here, you're just speaking out of your ass. He goes to school with Oxford students. He has seen syllabi. He's on first name terms with several professors who have mentioned this....
    Are there stats to prove it? Are there stats claiming that in general Oxford continuees graduate at the top of their class?
    I admit I don't know of any. But I base my statements off years of anecdotal experience. Whereas you base yours off of accomplishments these students had when they were 14-18 years old.

    I have heard of numbers to back these up, but I don't believe them at face value.
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    I'm not sure how the syllabi shows class difficulty, but I'll take your word for it.

    Who are the professors who mentioned this by the way.

    I've never met anyone who did no work and got into Princeton. I have met people who just "seem" do the homework and that's it. However, they pay attention in class. When I say they pay attention in class, they pay attention in class so that all they need is homework to practice what they learned. They don't need to study for tests because they review a little bit every night. You may be talking about these kind of people. I'm sorry you day dreamed about your fantasies during class, but that's common. It's ok.


    Yes I base my assumptions off their 4 years academic work in high school. You on the other hand, base it off what other people say. Personally, I'd rather go with their high school stats than what other people say about them. It's more reliable, which is why even fast food restaurants ask for high school GPA rather than the word of other people. But I guess you're the odd ball, which is fine.

    Like I said, I prefer raw stats than the word of other people. People have their biases. Numbers do not.

    A 4 is a 4.

    A 5 is a 5.

    But Professor Snape can say how his class is harder than Professor Flitwick.

    And you admit you have no stats to prove OC continuees are better. If they received a "better educational experience," they should be in the top of their class when they get to CAS. Since we do not have stats to prove their class rankings, we can not come to the conclusion they received a "better educational experience."

    Agree?
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    Let me spell this out for you.
    A syllabus shows the topics covered in the semester. If you compare two syllabi from the same course, you can judge which course has more difficult topics. From there, you can judge class difficulty.
    But Professor Snape can say how his class is harder than Professor Flitwick.

    Agree?

    Correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm not a comparative literature major), but these two teach different courses. IF they both taught Charms, then I'm sure most of Hogwarts would have one opinion or another.


    I won't say the Professors' name. Bernie can if he wants.



    I don't base my statements off of what others say. I go to class with these students. I see how they perform in class.
    Personally, I'd rather go with their high school stats than what other people say about them. It's more reliable, which is why even fast food restaurants ask for high school GPA rather than the word of other people. But I guess your the odd ball, which is fine.
    This might be your worst example yet.
    In the restaurant industry, NOTHING is more important than what other people (customers) say about you.
    Your GPA has nothing to do with employment at a fast food restaurant. In fact, getting employed at a fast food restaurant has more to do with the word of other people than it does your GPA.



    I am beginning to wonder whether you go to Emory. Not that it matters really, but your arguments are terrible. They're meant to provoke us... Instead of contributing something to this community.
    So, I'm done replying as well.
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    Let me spell this out for you.
    A syllabus shows the topics covered in the semester. If you compare two syllabi from the same course, you can judge which course has more difficult topics. From there, you can judge class difficulty.

    Allow me to disagree. Looking at the syllabi for BC calc and AB calc shows that BC has more topics. But those topics are not necessary harder. Indeed I received a 4 on AB and a 5 on BC.
    Correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm not a comparative literature major), but these two teach different courses. IF they both taught Charms, then I'm sure most of Hogwarts would have one opinion or another.

    Allow me to disagree. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way to find out which professor is easier is to actually take BOTH professor at the same time. I'm sure the Slytherins would consider Snape to be an easier professor than the Gryffindor. I'm quite positive Malfoy found Snape to be more bearable than Potter. Agree?

    And how many OC continuees do you know? Like I said, I didn't say every OC student is academically inferior. I just said the typical OC student is academically inferior to CAS student.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,328 Senior Member
    I hope you choose Vanderbilt over Williams if you were to gain admission to both, because they are both the same and Vandy has higher stats. :)
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    I didn't say it was impossible for them to get PH. D's and higher GPA.

    I just said on average the typical CAS student is superior to the OC student. That is because people rarely, if ever, change their work habits from high school to college.
    bernie wrote:
    I hope you choose Vanderbilt over Williams if you were to gain admission to both, because they are both the same and Vandy has higher stats.

    Are you saying Williams is comparable to OC?
  • aigiqinfaigiqinf Registered User Posts: 4,032 Senior Member
    Stats don't lie.

    As far as I'm aware, there is not enough extant data in this area. Following the lead of the Atlanta campus, Oxford now only publishes admitted students data--not enrolled students data. And while enrolled students data for the Atlanta campus is available in the Common Data Set, it is not for Oxford (as far as I know). Consequently, you can only compare admitted students data, not enrolled students data.
  • doryphorusdoryphorus Registered User Posts: 174 Junior Member
    I don't know what's going on here, but I would say, Just say 'no' to econ. Though I think 201 (with Francis, if he's still there) is pretty good, if you really want; you don't need the prereqs.
124»
This discussion has been closed.