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 University’s next president.... Top 10 University?

a1b2c3d5a1b2c3d5 Registered User Posts: 6 New Member
It's time for a President who can get Emory into the top 10. It's ridiculous with an endowment the size of Emory's it isn't an "Elite" school. For those interested, please take the survey at the bottom of this post:


"As we begin the selection process for Emory University’s next president, input from the university community is both vital and welcome. We invite faculty, students, staff, alumni, and friends to consider the following questions.

Your responses will be shared with the Presidential Selection Committee, but your identity will remain anonymous."



http://executivesearch.emory.edu/president/input-feedback.html
«1

Replies to: Emory University’s next president.... Top 10 University?

  • goldenbear2020goldenbear2020 Registered User Posts: 908 Member
    edited January 2016
    Top 10 is pretty ambitious. Emory would have to out-rank at least 6 of the following:
    8 Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Duke, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern

    However, top 15 would be awesome (tied with Cornell, as Vanderbilt and WashU currently are).
  • FreaksAndGeeksFreaksAndGeeks Registered User Posts: 60 Junior Member
    @goldenbear2020 I actually already see Emory tied with Vanderbilt and Wash U
  • thecoolboy1234thecoolboy1234 Registered User Posts: 364 Member
    Top 10 will take at least a decade to reach (massive funding for new programs, better marketing, stronger alumni pull)

    @bernie12 should know the most about this.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,391 Senior Member
    Again, top 10 is a shallow goal. 15-20 (as academically, most of those schools are not actually better than Emory) is easier if we just want to pat ourselves on the back. All that basically requires is gaming admissions without cheating and some better marketing.
  • merc81merc81 Registered User Posts: 9,808 Senior Member
    Currently, Emory places 47th by standardized scores when compared to all colleges. This is, of course, very high, but also represents an aspect of reality that tends to get overlooked when discussions of "top 10" status are introduced.

    (The 610 Smartest Colleges / Business Insider.)
  • MyOdysseyMyOdyssey Registered User Posts: 117 Junior Member
    @merc81 I'm not aware of any college ranking services that "overlook" standardized test scores. USNWR certainly takes that into consideration.

    Of the 46 schools ranked ahead of Emory on the Business Insider list, how many have entering class sizes larger than Emory's (around 2000). It's easier to have a higher average with a smaller class size.
  • merc81merc81 Registered User Posts: 9,808 Senior Member
    "It's easier to have a higher [SAT] average with a smaller class size." (#6)

    I'd say it's harder in that varsity athletes comprise 35-40% of the undergraduate student body at many top smaller schools.

    In terms of a directly homogeneous comparison to schools within Emory's own category, what has definitely been overlooked thus far on this thread is Emory's overall score of 76. Statistically, this would make an increase to even the 18th position (where the score is 82) challenging.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,391 Senior Member
    @merc81 I think 35-40% may be an exaggeration. Also, all you have to do is pretty much select at a high bottom quartile (remember that some athletes will indeed fall into the middle-50) and most of the athletes will fall below that (doesn't really matter how much below). If 75% of the students are above 1400, then it really has no effect, so all a school has to do is maybe select between 1400-1500 for 75% and that is indeed what some schools do. Less elite schools will start higher knowing they will yield lower (they are basically catching high scorers who were denied, waitlisted, or screwed by fin. aid at more elite schools). Emory has yet to jump on this bandwagon and could honestly at least start by aiming for 75% being above say, 1320-1350.

    As for the score: Not too sure how it works (maybe based on the new metrics, but on slightly older ones, these weaknesses took a while to catch up), because the other schools had no problems in past years raising their score which is how Emory started to fall in the rankings initially (its score would be like 81 and the others started pulling ahead). Also, Emory basically always had lower scores than the other schools (even when it was cheating) so that used to not be much of a problem keeping it in the top 20. I think it has been more negatively effected by bad press (which influences peer and counselor evaluation) and a lower graduation rate. Things like faculty salary also play a role. Emory has also increased its class sizes (which hurts, went from 7:1 to 8:1), and traditionally has had higher admit rates (still does) than other schools. It is quite amazing it is 21 if they held those metrics in high esteem. I suspect that it is overachieving in many other metrics that technically more selective private schools ranked below are not (because based on selectivity, several schools should be ranked higher if we talk about scores and admit rate). Again, if Emory played the rankings game with its admissions office without cheating, then it could probably tack on some more points. It doesn't seem hard to change admissions scheme at all as the schools I mentioned just kind up and did it one year and continued to do so (they first began a spamming campaign and the apps then started to flow in and then they dropped their admit rate and intentionally cherrypicked super high scores).

    Emory should consider doing it in moderation as doing it to an extreme hasn't worked for 2 of those schools in terms of improving the outcome of the graduates (post-grad. scholarships, placement, etc) but has stabilized them a higher rank than they would otherwise have been. However, I don't know if that is because of the students they recruit or the schools. Maybe Emory could just be good at scoring in those areas (post-grad success) already and even higher scoring students will make it appear more successful. I'm not sure. The thing I don't want to see at Emory is an "underachieving" student body that doesn't garner the amount of recognition it does now but comes in with higher scores than ever. It isn't good for the institution.
  • merc81merc81 Registered User Posts: 9,808 Senior Member
    edited January 2016
    @bernie12:

    For the purpose of my post (#7), I took the athletic participantion figure directly off the website of a top 20 (USNWR) LAC, where it states, "In any given season, 35 to 40 percent of the student body participates in a varsity sport."

    In a natural distribution it is impossible to "select" a bottom quartile without shifting the demarcation points of the other quartiles. (Though I think I understand your point on how aspects of this could, in theory, be manipulated, in a sense, artificially.)

    "Overall score" is simply a metric that relates more to absolute differences between schools than the less statistically relevant rank. If anything of value is being measured at all, then score is a more valuable indicator than rank.

    "The thing I don't want to see at Emory is an 'underachieving' student body that doesn't garner the amount of recognition it does now but comes in with higher scores than ever. It isn't good for the institution." (#8)

    This relates to the risk of an over-consideration of rankings and is a comment I concur with in its general viewpoint.
  • MyOdysseyMyOdyssey Registered User Posts: 117 Junior Member
    @merc81 What percentage of a LAC student body is comprised of "recruited" athletes? And what percentage of the student body at Emory is comprised of recruited athletes?

    Recruited athletes are the ones who one *might* infer have lower scholastic stats. In my limited experience, top flight LACs will allow walk on participation by students who were not among the best in their sport within their own state in high school.
  • 8bagels8bagels Registered User Posts: 401 Member
    From what I've seen, at the very top LACs (US News top 5, for example), at least in the mainstream mens' sports, there are very few walk ons. They are almost all recruited. I'd say at least 95% are recruited, on the teams I'm aware of, it's 100%.

    That being said, at those schools the majority of those recruited athletes have GPAs and SAT/ACT at or above the school average.

    It's fairly remarkable - to have such high numbers and great athletics - but they do manage to get those kids.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,391 Senior Member
    Emory is D-3, so not as many and more would likely make the IQR even if they were recruited.
  • MyOdysseyMyOdyssey Registered User Posts: 117 Junior Member
    @8bagels I wonder about how highly regarded LAC athletic recruits are in sports that have a national following. I imagine that in "preppy" sports like lacrosse, polo, crew, squash, etc, the LACs are able to recruit fairly well, although even there the very best athletes tend to get snatched up by the Ivies.

    In sports with a larger national talent pool, like tennis, I bet LAC recruits aren't anywhere close to being nationally ranked players. I can relay to you this story. There was a player from my home state who was the #1 nationally ranked player in tennis in 3 separate USTA age groups. He ended up playing for Harvard. Another kid, who had the same coach, never cracked the top regional rankings in the state (ranked below the top 100 in the state) and ended up playing tennis for Swarthmore as a freshman.

    The kid who played for Harvard was a great tennis player who was also a good student. The kid who went to Swarthmore was a great student who was also a decent tennis player. Very different athletic and scholastic profiles, though both played varsity tennis for their schools.
  • 8bagels8bagels Registered User Posts: 401 Member
    For tennis, hockey, golf and baseball etc. they get pretty good players. But, obviously these are players who put academics first and have the grades and test scores to prove it.

    Of course, overall the very best nationally ranked athletes rarely go to Ivy or NESCAC in most sports. They generally aren't academically qualified (like 95% of high school students in general), and generally spent most of the time on sports, not school.

    Ivy and top nescac recruit a lot of the same players in many sport - I've been involved and seen it firsthand. That's because the pool of academically eligible, realistically skilled athletes isn't huge. When you look at national rankings, at least 95% aren't going to be eligible at Williams or Amherst, or the ivies.

    Your Harvard example seems reasdonable., although athletically Harvard gets very different athletes than say, Brown. The kid who went to Swat may not have been in the top 100 in California, but he probably was 200 or 300s. Which, in a state with thousands of high schools is nothing to sneeze at. In addition, he probably had a good and sat or act that met or exceeded the Swat average. Which, nationally is a fairly rare bird.
  • bud123bud123 Registered User Posts: 704 Member
    In the metric driven world universities live in the USNWR is still the top dog. Their rankings are driven by wealth and prestige. Most of which were generated 100+ years ago. There is a strong correlation between wealth and USNWR rank and with 7B in the bank Emory should be ranked in the 8-15 range. Emory is like a kid with a 2350 SAT and a 2.2 GPA....underachieving but has great potential and great resources to work with.
    While U's hate playing the game they all need to play, and do play it as it brings money, faculty and students in the door. The money, top students, top faculty, and infrastructure allow them to continue their mission.
    Moving up is going to be a challenge:
    1. The 8 ivy schools have too much wealth and prestige to fall outside the top 20.
    2. UC, CU, MIT, Stanford, and Northwestern aren't going anywhere.
    3. Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, Wash St-L, and NDU are all red hot right now and "moving on up".
    4. JHU is a bit long-in-the-tooth, having trouble recruiting students and faculty, and stuck in Baltimore. It should be in the 17-20 range, but still top 20. Georgetown is a 19-23 U.
    5. CMU and USC are working very hard to move into the top 20 as well.
This discussion has been closed.