<p>Those things are kind of measureable. Academic rigor or engagement can at least begin to be measured as how much time do students spend on coursework. They (Businessweek I think) do this when ranking undergraduate business programs. There are also academic engagement surveys as well. These can gauge academic rigor and “intellectual engagement”, with the latter often being measured by things like how many seminars or speaking events students attend, and how many books they read for kicks in spare time. Major ranking agencies just seem to care less about this type of stuff and in my opinion it makes a difference. It is very possible (especially with my generation) for students to be amazing test takers and hoop jumpers but to lack the level of engagement expected when one attends selective schools (and sometimes such engagement, as shown in that article, could lead to inspiration of a big idea. I know last time this was discussed at Emory (like 2007ish in the Academic Exchange), Emory was actually performing well (as in better than many) vs. peers in such surveys. It may still be the case, but I am unsure. I am willing to bet this though, some places haven’t changed position regardless of scores going up because again, campus culture has not changed with the scores. If that doesn’t change, going .from a 1375 to a 1475 average will not make a huge difference. Perhaps if the school remains the same, the GPA’s will increase and that’s all. Excellence beyond numbers (beyond graduating GPA’s, prof. school placement rates ) has to be promoted I suppose. </p>
<p>I think it’s the reason Emory has themed freshman (and some upperclassmen dorms) dorms (and places like Yale have a very effective residential system that contributes to what I’ll call the “intellectual extra curricular” scene there. The places aren’t just there to make students feel comfortable. They have a seemingly clear agenda). You want to capitalize on the talent of the individuals and direct their efforts to engaging in certain issues of the day like the sustainability dorm, arts and innovation, and the new social entrepreneurship are the best I think. They can do a lot on their own, but elements that run the university have to actively encourage them or create resources to facilitate the creation and implementation of ideas. And again, great classroom experiences can indeed be inspiring (especially when smart folks are involved!). The ORDER class I always recommend is a good example. Publications and initiatives are sometimes generated by freshmen taking that course, so really good schools are very good at creating classrooms that function as a catalyst for EC endeavors. EC’s and academics aren’t necessarily separate spheres at such places (I feel that places with more rigorous and inspiring classroom settings end up actually having more interesting EC scenes and innovation. In honesty, even at top schools academics can turn into a sideshow, albeit a more rigorous than normal one). Anyway, my who take-home message is to just be careful when considering selective schools. Ensure that the school is actively putting the brilliance of the students to use. I think Emory does okay here (better than some), and could get better (as the QEP and academic and reslife engagement folks are trying to). If I were the OP, I would come to Emory and maybe double major (in fact I would recommend doing the Quantitative Social Science track with Econ. as the substantive area) and try to get involved with the many things going on with the start-up scene at Emory. In such a case, the quality of the econ. program wouldn’t matter as much because they’ll A) take advantage of the campus culture to propel them and B) pursue excellent coursework in other departments.</p>