<p>The “happiness” should not be scoffed at, the SAT scores should. For example, many other schools have front-loaded the facilities improvements (I don’t want to talk about Emory, it is extremely annoying almost. The facilities are excellent, but I am more concerned with what happens in them) and academic improvements. They didn’t wait for there SAT scores to go up. WashU didn’t do that, and in fact they have excellent facilities (just as much of the places “below” them) and still kind of lag academically behind places that have similar student bodies. They have been up there for quite a while with such SAT scores. I understand Chicago’s position, because they have always had the academic caliber and just needed to sell there school properly, so there is no lag there. </p>
<p>Also, don’t mention construction booms because many highered experts have criticized this as an attempt to merely continue to contribute to the consumer nature of highered, especially elite ed. We are just finding ways to comfort students and impress them with the shape of facilities. For example, you mention the new engineering building…will it be accompanied with curricular change in engineering and science education? Is there any evidence for that? That should be a concern when the SAT’s are skyrocketing. Will the education morph with it. For example, I was honestly very concerned when Emory started building this new chemistry building (mind you the chemistry building is already huge. It would maybe on its own encompass over 1/3 of your current Stephenson Center Space once compete). I was wondering exactly why we were doing it and if it would actually benefit undergraduates. Turns out that it is “supposed” to. I am still skeptical but I do have to concede that there is an attempt to make it more than just a new building with awesome architecture because we just received a 1.2 million dollar grant to “reinvent the chemistry curriculum”. Knowing how the chemistry faculty works right now, I would love to see how the money does this, but all I know is that apparently we’ll be one of the few top private schools (other than like MIT) with a large SCALE UP model class room instead of a giant lecture hall. My only question is who will use a pedagogical style that suits the space. Now keep in mind, we, like many other schools, are doing this simply because we want to be good at it or recognize a need to change, not because our SAT’s increased. So honestly, a lot of building projects and curriculum restructuring can occur without increasing selectivity (Clairmont at Emory is considered pretty amazing and much preceded us showing some modest gains in selectivity. Dorm renovations and additions are really nice here and yet that has no effect and nor did it follow some increase in selectivity. If anything, I suppose it is mainly meant to accommodate the higher enrollment levels we have). And whether or not it ends up launching an increase in selectivity, we know that schools who successfully implement such changes will be more dramatically improved than a place with less improvements but better test takers. Again, it is why places like Duke, JHU, and several others do much better than student body quality should dictate (at least when compared to other high scoring places I guess). </p>
<p>They have other things that go beyond building projects OR the building projects at each (because let’s be real, all elites have been going through HUGE building booms, whether it be student amenities/residence halls, academic buildings, or health care facilities) came with other things. And honestly, sometimes it doesn’t require new buildings to do things better. Like our biology and neuroscience undergraduate divisions have been “sneakily” adjusting their course offerings and pedagogy over time and instructors over time without the need for or any hint of a new building in sight. You can educate very well without having students with perfect SAT scores, and many elite schools have shown it by simply selecting students more interested in learning/academic engagement than the achievement orientation (we all have it, if we went to one of these schools, but some student attitudes generate different learning and intellectual environments than others. Like Chicago being much different from Vandy for whatever reason). I am basically saying that the SAT’s do not tell the whole story and nor do they necessarily tell us how the academic environment (rigor levels, “intellectual climate”, whatever) at such schools will develop over time. This seems largely to be based on student demand and some combination of administrative and faculty driven decisions and initiatives that ultimately drive where a school sees itself going in terms of its educational model. Like it is hard to look at JHU and say, Vanderbilt and predict that JHU would be the more academically intense school. Academic caliber or SAT’s won’t change curricula or intensity levels unless students, faculty, and admins suddenly start expressing need or desire for a change. It takes a whole cultural change which may not be in demand at many schools, but has been the norm at other schools even before they blew up (I guess an example of change toward more intensity is Duke. It seems their economics and physics department have ramped things up quite a bit). And also, this isn’t always just a random, instructor dependent thing. At Harvard, a school wide decision (across several science departments) explains how their science curriculum (especially for pre-healths) looks the way it does today. They had to mobilize the efforts of all faculty to be involved to make sure the changes were implemented across the board. In other words, this was an organized effort, it wasn’t just all of the instructors at random going out on a limb deciding that they would change how and what they teach. Some schools clearly care more about these things than others. They’ve moved beyond “brick and mortar” thinking for a while now. </p>
<p>Faculty members contemplating locating to a certain university, especially newer/younger ones fresh out of post-doc or something are not really looking at SAT scores so much as the caliber of the program they are joining and their potential role in it. Both older and younger faculty members are able to look beyond crap like when considering joining a university. They are looking at their salary and benefits (which will correlate with endowment and financial health of the university or dept. that they join) and likely the quality of graduate students they can get. For example, the new engineering building you mention is going to be very important for faculty joining that department. They will rightfully look at the facilities and assume it will attract better graduate students which is nice for a younger faculty member. Now an older faculty member (maybe one who you are attempting to poach from elsewhere) may also be considering the quality of research and faculty already existent in the department (as in, who will they get to interact with) and then compare it to other options. I am guessing the same thing is happening with our chemistry building. The “new curriculum” is just an added bonus for younger faculty members interested in teaching (as many are), but facilities and the potential to draw new and excellent talent are much more important, and most of this talent will be in the form of grad. students. Also, you must consider that research driven faculty (especially in sciences) are not going to be attracted to one high ranked institution over another simply because of the UG caliber. They will want to know if the research infrastructural is conducive to high levels of innovation. Departmental structure and decision making determine this.</p>