By Stephanie Fang
The Emory Wheel‘s Oct. 24 staff editorial “Thoughts on College Enrollment Process” reflected on the enrollment process for students in the College of Arts and Sciences – highlighting several problems it has perceived with the system and recommending potential solutions to University administration.
However, one specific criticism that the editorial mentioned seems misguided because it demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the program at hand.
At the moment, the College grants early enrollment appointments to students in the Emory Scholars Program – a privilege that the Wheel editorial finds problematic for two primary reasons. First, the editorial argues that the University should reevaluate allocating this privilege to Scholars – who, they claim, are chosen on the basis of academic merit in high school and therefore should not receive such an advantage in college. Second, the editorial suggests this privilege creates what they call “unfair access to courses” because other College students may be just as “engaged with and interested in” certain classes as Scholars are.
While certainly passionate (among other adjectives), the Wheel‘s criticism of early enrollment for Scholars lacks substance due to a poor understanding of what the Scholars Program entails and a lack of evidence that indicates how this privilege might adversely impact enrollment for other College students.
First, the editorial inaccurately portrays the Emory Scholars Program – demonstrating little understanding of what the program entails as well as little effort to obtain that understanding. The editorial claims that because Scholars are chosen “based on high school performance,” their early enrollment times unfairly reward them for past achievements that could no longer be relevant to their current academic lives. A five-second Google search takes me to the Emory Scholars webpage, where there is a description of the program’s parameters – “outstanding rising sophomores and rising juniors may also become Emory Scholars through the Dean’s Achievement Scholarships” (DAS). Students who have performed well while at Emory and who have received the DAS access the same benefits as those who are selected for the Emory Scholars Program during high school.
Additionally, the Emory Scholars Program is unique in offering upperclassmen the opportunity to join; many other institutions limit admission to their merit scholarship programs to incoming freshmen (examples include the University of Virginia, Washington University in St. Louis, Duke University and many other comparable institutions).
Every single College student is eligible to apply to the program and to receive the DAS should they meet the necessary metrics. Though the Wheel editorial claims that certain Scholar perks such as early enrollment creates unequal academic access, there is no inequality of access here other than that which is generated by personal performance and initiative.
Second, the editorial provides no empirical evidence to substantiate its claims that Scholar early enrollment creates “unequal access to courses.” Without any data on the number of Scholars in the College who are actually granted this privilege, the editorial cannot reasonably evaluate any impact resulting from it – especially considering that many College students are often able to enroll for courses that were originally closed to them through add/drop/swap and professor permission to overload.
Furthermore, the editorial fails to address other groups of students who are granted early enrollment appointments or students whose AP credits have given them the academic standing to enroll before their class peers.
Third, the editorial recommends that University administration reevaluate Scholar early enrollment to ensure that it is “not simply a benefit with no impact on Scholars’ decision to accept” their scholarships and matriculate to Emory. It is difficult to quantify how much early enrollment or any one particular Scholar privilege induces individual students to accept their scholarships at Emory. However, it is worth noting that many merit scholarship programs at other universities offer similar academic privileges to the students that they have selected. If the Emory Scholars Program does not offer comparable benefits to the students it has chosen, it is at a competitive disadvantage to these other scholarship programs.
Lastly, the Emory Scholars Program requires that all students maintain at least a 3.4 GPA each semester in order to remain in the program. Scholars aren’t granted certain privileges solely on the basis of past achievements as the editorial implies; they must continually perform well in order to retain those privileges.
In closing, the Wheel editorial board is entitled to its own opinions on Scholar early enrollment. However, it should have better researched and supported the claims that it made against this privilege as well as the Scholars Program in general. Though comments throughout the editorial like “[Scholar early enrollment] creates a hierarchy of students in which the education of a select few is given priority over the remainder of the student body” may certainly sound sexy, they ultimately fall flat with no support – melodrama rather than anything constructive.
Emory Scholars is a wonderful program that provides recognition for academic potential and intellectual curiosity, drawing competitive students from all across the world to the University and rewarding current students for their successes while at the University. I am grateful for all the opportunities the program has given me, and I know that it has not only shaped my own College experience but also those of many of my peers. I urge us not to forget all the good that the program does – especially when evaluating it in light of poorly researched claims against it.
– By Stephanie Fang, a College senior from New Orleans, Louisiana. She is a former news editor for The Emory Wheel.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
Just because our Emory Scholars get a high GPA each semester doesn’t mean they are intellectually curious or enriching our university in any way. Most Emory Scholars that I personally know have no investment in the University itself nor do they really care to engage in intellectual activities. They’re slaves to their GPA.
And may I remind you that high GPA doesn’t necessarily equate to being a good student. Just ask any professor what a “good student” is and I’m sure they wouldn’t say “high GPA” as the first thing.
I can add a personal anecdote as well and say that nearly every Emory Scholar I know is extremely involved in campus and they give back to the university and its students far more compared to other students.
High GPA may not equate to being a good student, but it definitely is strongly correlated with being one. Given the same courses, someone with a 2.0 may be a better student than someone with a 3.8, but if I had to choose, I’d be willing to rely on the 3.8 GPA individual being a better student.
And how do you define “good student”? Because I think our definitions are probably divergent from each others’…
I think we can define the term “good student” as someone who performs well academically but has a broader concern about the world. He or she is a “change agent” who actively works to improve his or her community. A good student may do it through an academic medium or an artistic one or through something else entirely. If you look at a school like Duke, their version of the “Scholar’s Program”–such as the University Scholars Program and A.B. Scholars Program, is providing resources for these “good students” effectively, allowing them to take risks without financial burdens, and work as “change agents.” The Emory’s Scholars Program definitely has been created with those goals in mind. I’m sure the program is working actively to improve their resources and streamline their goals–but there’s no question that the investment in these Scholars enriches the Emory community.
Just finding this old thing, but context matters in terms of evaluating what constitutes a good academic performance. Emory is a very pre-professional school where GPA’s are obtained often strategically. GPA can have questionable meaning because course and instructor selection biases can play a HUGE role in GPA. A student can boost and keep their GPA high by basically taking easy courses, majors, or instructors (especially in the case of multi-section courses). For example, in a single semester of a chemistry course, instructors level of instruction and exams can differ dramatically. Moreover, students are very aware of who teaches at what level. A person very desperate to hang on to a certain GPA is going to take less risks in that arena (I’ve even seen some scholars, especially pre-healths, do weird things like select the easiest instructors for multi-section courses. There was one recent graduate who was Scholar who was notorious for this practice. They don’t select courses that give harder exams and have more competitive students, they select ones they are confident they’ll be near the top of the curve . RatemyProfessor and hearsay help ensure they are correct in their decisions). Citing an extreme difference isn’t a fair way to make a point, because differences in course selection can account for a difference of probably at least a grade level.
I would have to look closely at the transcript and instructor and course selection to find if the difference between a 3.5 and a 3.8 is actually due to one simply being the stronger student. Some students at Emory are like singers who consistently dodge high notes in live performances, so we never really see what they can do in a particularly challenging classroom environment (they are not willing to test the upper limits of their talent for whatever reason….okay, we know that professional school admissions and scholarship stipulations certainly limit the incentive to do so). It is too big an assumption that because Emory and similar schools are “elite” that they offer mostly or consistently rigorous instructors….and even if that part were true, grading standards are certainly not consistent.
Also there is a different between a good “scholar” and a good “student”. Emory has many great students, but because of what I allude to above, the level of scholarship may be less than optimal. If students dodge challenging courses even when they are supposedly the “best” that has been recruited to Emory, good luck getting them to passionately engage in other forms of scholarship (or merely even caring about their classes beyond a grade). Even faculty know that there is a difference: With that said, I’ve seen many very strong scholars…..at the same time, I have seen many more non-scholars that are both strong performers (high GPA’s at the upper-limit of their talent-gladly took the hard instructor within and outside of their field of interest even if they knew a grade below A was inevitable) and are also good “scholars”.
The latter group just seemed less risk averse when it comes to things like course selection and other intellectual endeavors. Maybe it is because many Scholars are really just high-throttle pre-professional types and many of the non pre-professional types fly did not apply for the program and typically fly under the radar at Emory. I mean, I’ve seen Scholar freshmen drop difficult courses when a B grade was a threat. That’s just sad…..that is not the type of academic fearlessness and resilience I expect from a Scholar. I honestly think it may be better to just surprise select RD admits with large merit scholarships regardless of whether they applied to the program or not. It may get more legit students who are realize that they are at Emory to be challenged and to engage in a high level of scholarship, not to be patted on the back with a free-ride and then being allowed to coast academically (and some of these folks have the nerve to claim the College didn’t have as challenging academics as they thought….the fact is, many chose that for themselves and it was deliberate which is why I laugh when they transfer for that reasoning). Emory must be careful to choose students truly willing to engage what it offers, Scholars or not (but especially Scholars as it costs money to recruit them).
Let’s be clear. These scholarships are in place to attract students who, without a full ride, would be headed for the Ivy League. Ask any Emory Scholar where else they were looking for college. The very top schools offer no merit based scholarships. They don’t have to. One could make the argument that had the Emory Scholar funds been invested in faculty and specific departments over time, Emory would be enjoying greater prestige today.
So I’ve heard that that’s why the Scholars Program exists — it’s just an imitation of what Duke and WashU do. And how’s that working out for them?
How is it that these students, bound for the Ivy League yet pulled in by the Emory Scholars program, don’t end up in more Goldwater, Rhodes, and Fulbrights for the University? My argument is that despite supposedly attracting “top students” (whatever that means), the Scholars Program is not enriching the College any better than regular admissions can do. Because last I checked, those who’ve won awards for Emory recently (i.e., in the last 5 years) on the national level actually weren’t Emory Scholars.