Would you take Tufts, Emory, Wash U over UVA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

I actually think Emory's test scores could be higher if they wanted it to be. I know several students from DS HS waitlisted to Emory this year, yet got into WashU, you can see some on CC.

This girl got into several great schools like Wellesley, and TUFTS didn't get into Emory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUvzjxmOzv4&t=308s

This one got into Princeton but also didn't get into Emory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzezcrmuuzo&t=350s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

Tufts didn't report top 10% for a few years and this was the reason cited. They started again 2 years ago because USNews assumed a low percentage hurting their ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.

I didn't say only Vandy did it. I just gave it as an example (a very successful example given where Vandy used to be ranked and the stats of incoming classes) of a strategy. Given how infrequently class rank is now provided, at least in private and affluent public schools, it does present an option for schools to optimize their reported stats.

I agree Tufts and Emory are more or less peers. If there is a school that can be argued to stand out from the original ones cited (WashU, Emory, Tufts, UVA) I would say it is WashU. However, given in-state tuition costs, I would not argue that that is significant if WashU is full pay. WashU has higher standardized test scores. If you took those standardized test scores to one of the other schools here, I'm not sure the outcomes would be appreciably different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.

I didn't say only Vandy did it. I just gave it as an example (a very successful example given where Vandy used to be ranked and the stats of incoming classes) of a strategy. Given how infrequently class rank is now provided, at least in private and affluent public schools, it does present an option for schools to optimize their reported stats.

I agree Tufts and Emory are more or less peers. If there is a school that can be argued to stand out from the original ones cited (WashU, Emory, Tufts, UVA) I would say it is WashU. However, given in-state tuition costs, I would not argue that that is significant if WashU is full pay. WashU has higher standardized test scores. If you took those standardized test scores to one of the other schools here, I'm not sure the outcomes would be appreciably different.

That's what I'm saying socially they may be peers but academically they are not. The other three schools are better. Look at the Rhodes Scholar outcomes, especially for Tufts a school that says it's a glorified LAC. And test scores aren't everything, they're not even the most important thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.

I didn't say only Vandy did it. I just gave it as an example (a very successful example given where Vandy used to be ranked and the stats of incoming classes) of a strategy. Given how infrequently class rank is now provided, at least in private and affluent public schools, it does present an option for schools to optimize their reported stats.

I agree Tufts and Emory are more or less peers. If there is a school that can be argued to stand out from the original ones cited (WashU, Emory, Tufts, UVA) I would say it is WashU. However, given in-state tuition costs, I would not argue that that is significant if WashU is full pay. WashU has higher standardized test scores. If you took those standardized test scores to one of the other schools here, I'm not sure the outcomes would be appreciably different.

That's what I'm saying socially they may be peers but academically they are not. The other three schools are better. Look at the Rhodes Scholar outcomes, especially for Tufts a school that says it's a glorified LAC. And test scores aren't everything, they're not even the most important thing.

I sure don't think of Rhodes Scholarships as being definitive. Emory, for instance, is 7 behind Sewanee, which has 1,800 students. Ole Miss has 26. And if you can't compare standardized test scores for some indication of admission selectivity, what is left?

I'm not going to argue Tufts if a better university across graduate and research programs than Emory. But we are talking about undergraduate here. If we were talking only graduate schools these two would easily be behind a number of state universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.

I didn't say only Vandy did it. I just gave it as an example (a very successful example given where Vandy used to be ranked and the stats of incoming classes) of a strategy. Given how infrequently class rank is now provided, at least in private and affluent public schools, it does present an option for schools to optimize their reported stats.

I agree Tufts and Emory are more or less peers. If there is a school that can be argued to stand out from the original ones cited (WashU, Emory, Tufts, UVA) I would say it is WashU. However, given in-state tuition costs, I would not argue that that is significant if WashU is full pay. WashU has higher standardized test scores. If you took those standardized test scores to one of the other schools here, I'm not sure the outcomes would be appreciably different.

That's what I'm saying socially they may be peers but academically they are not. The other three schools are better. Look at the Rhodes Scholar outcomes, especially for Tufts a school that says it's a glorified LAC. And test scores aren't everything, they're not even the most important thing.

I sure don't think of Rhodes Scholarships as being definitive. Emory, for instance, is 7 behind Sewanee, which has 1,800 students. Ole Miss has 26. And if you can't compare standardized test scores for some indication of admission selectivity, what is left?

I'm not going to argue Tufts if a better university across graduate and research programs than Emory. But we are talking about undergraduate here. If we were talking only graduate schools these two would easily be behind a number of state universities.

How about Fulbrights, then? https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-again-among-top-fulbright-producers. Or Marshall, Beckman, etc. Class of 28 UVA had 12 Fulbright Scholars; two Marshall Scholars, three Beckman Scholars, a Truman Scholar, an Astronaut Scholar, five Critical Language Scholars. And three Rhodes this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.

I didn't say only Vandy did it. I just gave it as an example (a very successful example given where Vandy used to be ranked and the stats of incoming classes) of a strategy. Given how infrequently class rank is now provided, at least in private and affluent public schools, it does present an option for schools to optimize their reported stats.

I agree Tufts and Emory are more or less peers. If there is a school that can be argued to stand out from the original ones cited (WashU, Emory, Tufts, UVA) I would say it is WashU. However, given in-state tuition costs, I would not argue that that is significant if WashU is full pay. WashU has higher standardized test scores. If you took those standardized test scores to one of the other schools here, I'm not sure the outcomes would be appreciably different.

That's what I'm saying socially they may be peers but academically they are not. The other three schools are better. Look at the Rhodes Scholar outcomes, especially for Tufts a school that says it's a glorified LAC. And test scores aren't everything, they're not even the most important thing.

I sure don't think of Rhodes Scholarships as being definitive. Emory, for instance, is 7 behind Sewanee, which has 1,800 students. Ole Miss has 26. And if you can't compare standardized test scores for some indication of admission selectivity, what is left?

I'm not going to argue Tufts if a better university across graduate and research programs than Emory. But we are talking about undergraduate here. If we were talking only graduate schools these two would easily be behind a number of state universities.

How about Fulbrights, then? https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-again-among-top-fulbright-producers. Or Marshall, Beckman, etc. Class of 28 UVA had 12 Fulbright Scholars; two Marshall Scholars, three Beckman Scholars, a Truman Scholar, an Astronaut Scholar, five Critical Language Scholars. And three Rhodes this year.

There were no Rhodes this year for UVA: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rhodesscholars-fileshare/final_winners_list_2018.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.

I didn't say only Vandy did it. I just gave it as an example (a very successful example given where Vandy used to be ranked and the stats of incoming classes) of a strategy. Given how infrequently class rank is now provided, at least in private and affluent public schools, it does present an option for schools to optimize their reported stats.

I agree Tufts and Emory are more or less peers. If there is a school that can be argued to stand out from the original ones cited (WashU, Emory, Tufts, UVA) I would say it is WashU. However, given in-state tuition costs, I would not argue that that is significant if WashU is full pay. WashU has higher standardized test scores. If you took those standardized test scores to one of the other schools here, I'm not sure the outcomes would be appreciably different.

That's what I'm saying socially they may be peers but academically they are not. The other three schools are better. Look at the Rhodes Scholar outcomes, especially for Tufts a school that says it's a glorified LAC. And test scores aren't everything, they're not even the most important thing.

I sure don't think of Rhodes Scholarships as being definitive. Emory, for instance, is 7 behind Sewanee, which has 1,800 students. Ole Miss has 26. And if you can't compare standardized test scores for some indication of admission selectivity, what is left?

I'm not going to argue Tufts if a better university across graduate and research programs than Emory. But we are talking about undergraduate here. If we were talking only graduate schools these two would easily be behind a number of state universities.

How about Fulbrights, then? https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-again-among-top-fulbright-producers. Or Marshall, Beckman, etc. Class of 28 UVA had 12 Fulbright Scholars; two Marshall Scholars, three Beckman Scholars, a Truman Scholar, an Astronaut Scholar, five Critical Language Scholars. And three Rhodes this year.

There were no Rhodes this year for UVA: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rhodesscholars-fileshare/final_winners_list_2018.pdf

The Fulbrights are nice, but you should recognize that there are 40+ doctoral institutions, 18 masters, and nearly 50 bachelors (LACs) cited as top Fulbright producing.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-Fulbright/245641/

[Anonymous]

Go Blue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.

Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent

Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.

Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No

No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.

There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.

I didn't say only Vandy did it. I just gave it as an example (a very successful example given where Vandy used to be ranked and the stats of incoming classes) of a strategy. Given how infrequently class rank is now provided, at least in private and affluent public schools, it does present an option for schools to optimize their reported stats.

I agree Tufts and Emory are more or less peers. If there is a school that can be argued to stand out from the original ones cited (WashU, Emory, Tufts, UVA) I would say it is WashU. However, given in-state tuition costs, I would not argue that that is significant if WashU is full pay. WashU has higher standardized test scores. If you took those standardized test scores to one of the other schools here, I'm not sure the outcomes would be appreciably different.

That's what I'm saying socially they may be peers but academically they are not. The other three schools are better. Look at the Rhodes Scholar outcomes, especially for Tufts a school that says it's a glorified LAC. And test scores aren't everything, they're not even the most important thing.

I sure don't think of Rhodes Scholarships as being definitive. Emory, for instance, is 7 behind Sewanee, which has 1,800 students. Ole Miss has 26. And if you can't compare standardized test scores for some indication of admission selectivity, what is left?

I'm not going to argue Tufts if a better university across graduate and research programs than Emory. But we are talking about undergraduate here. If we were talking only graduate schools these two would easily be behind a number of state universities.

How about Fulbrights, then? https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-again-among-top-fulbright-producers. Or Marshall, Beckman, etc. Class of 28 UVA had 12 Fulbright Scholars; two Marshall Scholars, three Beckman Scholars, a Truman Scholar, an Astronaut Scholar, five Critical Language Scholars. And three Rhodes this year.

There were no Rhodes this year for UVA: http://s3.amazonaws.com/rhodesscholars-fileshare/final_winners_list_2018.pdf

Sorry, The Scharzman, the "Chinese Rhodes". https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-trio-earn-schwarzman-scholarships-chinese-rhodes