<p>@esimpnoxin No, it doesn’t mean we’re different so much as students are serious enough about their interests to demand the content offerings that such depts would offer which I believe is significant. And no, top 20s are no exception. In fact, I would argue that many public schools are better off in this arena because of the greater socioeconomic diversity along with more diverse course offerings. There is a tendency toward pre-professions at top schools, especially privates (gee, I wonder why…) that could mean that most are not going to get as many students excited by say…marine biology as my friend who goes to UGA. Professions, while high risk for admissions, are after all viewed as “safe” routes to monetary success. And of course we’ve seen better in AP classes! Compare the size of such classes and the instructional methods (in my AP courses, there were much more than just lectures and exams. We had activities and the like happening in the class room) Literature suggests that instructional methods used in lots of college classes (top 20s are no exception unfortunately), especially STEM classes are not conducive (nor are they asking for) to high levels of intellectual engagement. Emory isn’t really different here. What does make places like Emory, Georgia Tech, and Washington University, and many public schools different is that there is an active effort to do something about it. </p>
<p>As for your observation with the Mulford thing. You are correct, especially at the freshman level and I find the trend disturbing (what I find disturbing is that prospective chem. majors are now doing such things). In fact, Mulford used to be the most popular (now people are stupid enough to avoid him and McGill and take noobs. The same can be observed in biology). Now he has cooled off so much that he doesn’t even fill (same with folks like Soria, Spell, and Eisen). Also, keep in mind that past classes are “post-phmo”. I believe that the phmo on its own has done a lot to discourage students in science (especially pre-healths, even if they have strong HS backgrounds) from challenging themselves. Some people in phmo do indeed know which instructors are who. You must also keep in mind that freshman year is a year of immaturity and “newness” where many have not really found an interest. Over time, people develop them and become more engaged in independent projects or whatever. </p>
<p>As for sophomore level, people are not trying to avoid Weinschenk. Again, he is usually the first to fill (as in both sections). The only time there is competition for first to fill is when a really easy (and decent, notice how Menger can’t really beat any of the “big 3” ochem instructors this cycle, not even Soria) instructor like Liotta appears. And on top of that, Liotta has to offer less seats (as he does) for the phenomenon to occur. It is not all of the students’ faults. I believe that phmo has caused a fear driven system of course selection at Emory among science students that was not as strong as before (for example, freshman ochem with Soria could easily get 60-70 students before phmo, now when it is taught by Liotta, it can’t even really fill and he only offers 45-50 spots. I have heard flat out that they tell pre-healths to just retake gen. chem even if they have extremely strong backgrounds so what I say has some validity. They have even told students to major in certain things to protect their GPA’s). So one major problem is that students fear based concerns and stereotypes are being reinforced by what many consider to be authority figures. Just be careful. But seriously, many upper level courses are better simply because the instruction is better. Soria and Weinschenk for example, use Socratic method and call on a significant number of students (they know names). This has a more profound effect on learning than having more or less a volunteer system. Many biology courses use cases and pbl modules (even upperlevels). You don’t find these things at many other top 20s, sorry. But in general, you have to essentially force students to engage when class sizes get large (which is why many upperlevel/intermediate biology courses have discussion sections) so it is difficult to compare it to high school (maybe a good freshman seminar is more comparable and in many cases superior, but a lecture class with very standard instructional techniques, forget it. Students will just assume that they must take down everything that comes out of the instructors mouth instead of stopping to think or ask legit questions beyond the clarification level). Students may be eager to learn and be challenged, but when they are told that their grades matter so much more and then are told specific ways to optimize them by adults who are in a position of counsel, you generate a terrible cycle. I would almost consider dismantling or revamping phmo except the faculty controlled components like sophomore holistic review and composite letter. </p>
<p>I challenge you to take Weinschenk or Soria if you did not take summer ochem as you may notice a difference between those and freshman level science courses simply because of the way they run it (Soria is a bit more unique, but you may be afraid of him, so I don’t know about that). </p>
<p>Also, I am more so talking about the aftermath of taking the course more so than how people react when selecting. Usually students are appreciative of the stronger but much more difficult instructors whereas I’ve seen ratings at other schools for difficult (but actually easier than our counterpart) courses and students claim that “they taught above our head” or that the tests did not emphasize what was directly taught indicating that students at such schools are much less comfortable without the spoonfeeding sort of situation and expect memorization to work. In such cases applied questions are not only considered difficult or challenging, but unfair. Seems like Emory students just have more of a habit of getting over or expecting it to be that way.</p>