<p>Also, we are approaching the 1996 peak. We're much closer to the 1996 peak than we are to the 2002 low. Medical school spots are increasing at a 2% rate while the number of applicants is increasing at a 6-7% rate. We are not on a downward trend. We are on an upward trend. In fact, we should reach 1996's numbers either next year or in 2009.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1.) Usually, advanced courses have the intros as prereqs. In that case, you can't substitute courses for intro material unless you have AP or IB credit for the intro material.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, sure you can. It happens all the time. I've done it myself several times. </p>
<p>Prereqs remind me of the scene in the movie 'Pirates of the Caribbean' where the evil Barbossa explained to Elizabeth that the 'rules' of the Pirate Code aren't truly rules, but are just 'guidelines'. Course prereqs are just snapshots of suggested prior knowledge for a particular class. But often times, that prior knowledge is actually unnecessary, or only a small subset of that prior knowledge is necessary. </p>
<p>As a case in point, I know quite a few Berkeley chemical engineers who completed all of their upper division chemistry and chemical engineering courses, but who had never actually completed the entire first year of their general chemistry course (the Chem1 Series). By that, I mean that they had all completed Chem1A, but not Chem1B, even though Chem1B is a formal prereq for the upper division chemistry and ChemE courses. The truth is, you don't really need to know much of what is covered in Chem1B to proceed to the upper division, and what you do need to know is probably only encapsulated within a few chapters that you can review yourself in your spare time. You certainly don't need to know the material of the entire class. Furthermore, while Chem1B is prereq formally speaking, the truth is, nobody is actually going to stop you from entering the upper division without it as nobody is going to check. {Incidentally, this is why Berkeley is thinking of either eliminating Chem1B or modifying it to make it more useful, because as things stand now, 1B really isn't very useful at all.} </p>
<p>Hence, what happened is that a number of chemical engineers simply skipped Chem1B and proceeded right to the upper division, did very well, and then years later petitioned to have that class waived from their degree requirements using their superior performance in the upper division as justification. It worked; they never had to take that class. For example, the guy who won the Departmental Medal as the #1 graduating ChemE student that year pulled off this trick. </p>
<p>Other interesting examples have to do with those people who earn graduate degrees in subjects for which they don't have a corresponding undergrad degree. There are people at MIT who pick up master's degrees in subjects for which they don't have an undergrad degree. A clear example would be what happens in the MIT LFM program (the dual-degree MBA + master's engineering program); the program has a rule that states that you can't get your master's in a particular engineering discipline if you already have an master's in that same engineering discipline. There are many people who already have an engineering master's who enter the LFM program, and so they are forced to choose a different engineering discipline as part of LFM. Hence, I know of guys who already had MS degrees in EE who entered LFM and hence weren't allowed to get another EE degree, and so were forced to choose, say, Materials Science, ME, or some other engineering discipline for which they had no formal undergrad background. Now, most of those grad engineering courses in their new discipline have prereqs that they would not have completed. But it doesn't matter. Nobody ever checks. </p>
<p>Heck, recently there was a woman who had a PhD in EE from Stanford and was first author on 10 journal publications and 5 patents (and was co-author on numerous other patents and publications) who entered LFM. Clearly the program wasn't just going to let a person that accomplished in EE to just get a master's in EE. That would be a silly waste of time on everybody's part, especially hers. So she earned her master's in Materials Science, a field for which she had no formal undergrad background. MIT didn't try to prevent her from taking MatSci courses just because she hadn't fulfilled the prereqs, and MIT would have looked perfectly silly if it had tried.</p>
<p>The truth is, if you want to violate prereqs, usually nobody is going to stop you and even in the rare cases that they do, you may still be able to get away with it as long as you can make a reasonable justification as to why you don't need the prereq. In particular, most schools provide great latitude to the prof who is teaching a particular course, and if you can convince that prof to let you in the course, very few schools will still try to deny you, as very few school administrators want to put themselves in the position of overruling profs over which students should be allowed to take their classes.</p>
<p>Ah, here goes Sakky again confounding the issues. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Engineering is not the same as Science. What Berkeley or MIT grad students do has little to do with pre-med science courses and the importance of pre-reqs. These are bad examples.</p></li>
<li><p>It is true that few pre-reqs are binding or required. They are guidelines, but for a reason. Many folks get killed in a course if they don't have the background. And maybe the reason Sakky found his upper division courses easier is because he learned something (gasp, gasp) in his pre-req courses? (Sakky, you gotta consider the alternative explanations.)</p></li>
<li><p>Getting graduate degrees in different disciplines happens all the time. And this has nothing to do with the importance of (a) prerequisites, since grad programs for good reason don't have them, or (b) of prior knowledge or preparation, which grad schools do expect. In fact, if you don't have the background, they will probably insist that you take the appropriate undergrad courses to GET the background. Happens all the time.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So Sakky, rare exceptions such as those you like to present are entertaining but hardly informative regarding decisions normal folks need to make. </p>
<p>Being able to find an exception does not mean a guideline is flawed or not applicable.</p>
<p>Back to the topic...
A good way to "win" in pre-med classes is so sabotage other people's labs or pull fire alarms during tests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ah, here goes Sakky again confounding the issues.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ah, here goes newmassdad confounding the issues. </p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Engineering is not the same as Science. What Berkeley or MIT grad students do has little to do with pre-med science courses and the importance of pre-reqs. These are bad examples.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How so? It's the same idea - you often times don't have to complete prereqs in order to take upper division courses.</p>
<p>In the case of Berkeley chemical engineering, Chem1B is a prereq to the rest of the upper division chemistry courses that are required of all chemical engineers. Yet, as I mentioned, some chemical engineering courses skipped them completely and just took the upper level chem courses. If they can do that, why can't premeds? </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. It is true that few pre-reqs are binding or required. They are guidelines, but for a reason. Many folks get killed in a course if they don't have the background. And maybe the reason Sakky found his upper division courses easier is because he learned something (gasp, gasp) in his pre-req courses? (Sakky, you gotta consider the alternative explanations.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, how exactly could I have learned anything in prereqs I never took? Gasp, gasp indeed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
3. Getting graduate degrees in different disciplines happens all the time. And this has nothing to do with the importance of (a) prerequisites, since grad programs for good reason don't have them, or (b) of prior knowledge or preparation, which grad schools do expect. In fact, if you don't have the background, they will probably insist that you take the appropriate undergrad courses to GET the background. Happens all the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's precisely what I'm talking about. That particular MIT LFM woman in question had precisely zero background in materials science. She obviously had extensive knowledge of EE, but none in materials science specifically. But MIT let her pursue a master's in Mat Sci anyway. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So Sakky, rare exceptions such as those you like to present are entertaining but hardly informative regarding decisions normal folks need to make.</p>
<p>Being able to find an exception does not mean a guideline is flawed or not applicable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, actually, that's exactly what I am talking about. Nobody is saying that you should always ignore prereqs. I never said that.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that there are cases when you may ignore prereqs, as some prereqs aren't truly required and others can be effectively fulfilled by just doing some relatively simple background reading. You can obtain this information by, for example, talking to people who had taken the class before and who can really tell what you really need to know for a particular class. </p>
<p>The takehome point is that just because a particular class says it requires a certain prereq doesn't mean that it actually requires that prereq.</p>
<p>You can also sabotage others' alarm clocks.</p>
<p>eh, sometimes harder classes don't necessarily mean a bigger curve. Normally, after the 1st test, the students who couldn't pull through and realized that their GPA would most likely suffer by staying in the class drop out. So, as the semester rolls along, the curve gets smaller and smaller...and if you're at a competitive university, the curve is almost non-existent.</p>
<p>Just try your best and study hard. But overall, I think the most important thing is to find balance in your life..juggling a social life and school. Unfortunately, I've found that studying has taken a larger chunk of my time. But you never know, everyone is different.</p>
<p>Good luck to you!</p>