<p>I don’t know what top 40ish material is because I don’t judge people in that manner. Who am I or you to do so (That is really stuck up)? As for the data thing, I never said it was (what are you talking about. I said that the data simply don’t provide the whole picture ). Selectivity doesn’t govern intellectualism. The nature by which (and one’s willingness to learn for the sake of learning) a person learns does. A could easily compare UChicago to other universities with student bodies that have similar statistics and it is still obvious that UChicago has a more intellectual student student body. Duke has similar stats to HPY now and yet we all know that HPY have the more intellectual student bodies. Normally, intellectualism of the student body/school is determined by the overall culture, history, and orientation of the university. I school with a highly motivated, accomplished, and intelligent student body may be more pre-professionally oriented due to the environment and curriculum at the school. Emory, Vandy, and many of the top schools are like this. It is natural that more liberal arts oriented schools either attract or “make” more intellectual students. People that believe intellectualism is governed by SAT/ACT scores and GPA are full of crap given that, more than often, overachievers in these areas only scored that high for the sake of making it into a top college. Most didn’t do well simply because they liked to learn. They are primarily multiple choice based and are extremely predictable to the point that most of the wealthier students on main campus can afford to use several prep. (and can afford to retake several times) books and tutorial services to gain a huge edge. They barely measure intelligence so give me a break. I’ve started and will finish at main campus and still can’t see differences in intelligence levels between the two. I’m not going to be like: “Oh, Oxford student, you’re doing well in this organometallic course, but guess what, you are still dumber than me because you scored 1200 on your SAT”.
Once you are on either campus, put high school behind. Regardless of whether or not they entered as a “top 40” caliber student or not, I observe that they are often more interested in actual learning than many of peers on main once they get here. Perhaps Oxford is more transformative than main campus to people who go. Who knows? Again, all I know is that, without seeming particularly smarter than Emory students, they seem to be more interested in learning in receiving an academic challenge than many here (A greater proportion pursue non pre-prof. graduate work for example).<br>
Your anecdote is irrelevant in terms of a discussion on intellectualism. You stated that your friend merely hated the campus. What useful information. I’m sure many people hate Emory’s campus. Guess we’re dumb and people who hate our campus are not “top 40 material”. Seriously, what the hell is that?</p>
<p>Also, Berkeley is slightly (according to Common Data sets, their 25% is quite a bit below ours) less selective than Emory, but I certainly think it is more intellectual than Emory.</p>
<p>UChicago is slightly less selective than Duke, yet “magically” attracted a more intellectual student body. Oh damn, must be a miracle or fluke, not the culture of the school. Come on dude. Keep in mind that students matriculating Oxford have same qualifications as those who go to UGA and better than those at Mercer. They could have gone to those instead. A person not really as interested in academics would easily say “screw Emory” altogether and would have gladly gone to UGA if rejected from main campus (or even have transferred from UGA to Emory). Most won’t choose Oxford over UGA just to be affiliated with Emory in the end. Those who chose it thought it was a worthwhile oppurtunity. Regardless of stats., like most liberal arts schools, it has kind of a self-selected pool in the first place.</p>