<p>I am currently trying to decide what classes to take my first semester freshman year. Through IB/AP exams and dual enrollment, I received 48 credits however my college allows only a maximum of 30 to enter. I have passed the IB Biology and Chemistry exams. For biology, this means I would get credit for 2 200- level classes, and for chemistry it is 1 100- level class and 1 200- level class (both cases include a lab). My question is, does it look better for med school that I was able to get credit for these lower level classes and take the higher 300- level classes to fulfill the pre-med requisite courses, or should I choose not to use my credit and take the 100- and 200- level classes to fulfill the pre-med requisites. (Note: I do not plan on majoring in bio or chem). If colleges do not look down on me taking the lower level classes to fulfill the requirement, I would much rather do this.</p>
<p>Thanks to all in advance.</p>
<p>As is often stressed: LOWER LEVEL =/= easier, in fact the curve is likely to be more severe. Which option will look best to medical school? The one in which you receive the higher marks. Also, upper level science classes tend to give you more personal exposure to professors and these professors tend to be higher in rank (ie not associate professor) : in other words you could establish an early relationship with a science professor at your Uni which could lead to recs and or research opportunities. However, if you have not been prepared well enough then you should take the lower levels first obviously, only you can really judge that...</p>
<p>caveat - UVAJack is far too strong in his statement. While it is true that in a number of cases, lower level classes end up being more difficult, it's inappropriate to make such an authoritative statement in the opposite direction. And there are plenty of variables in which things like a severe curve could be supremely beneficial to the right student (a large class with a lot of dumb people can be a great thing).</p>
<p>In other words, we can't make that decision for you, and it's a complex choice. You would be wise to find an opportunity to talk with your college's pre-med advisor, as well as older pre-med students at your school who can give you the scoop on what classes are good and more importantly which professors are good. With your credit, and the fact that you aren't going to be a science major, you have the opportunity to be choosy about who you take classes from.</p>
<p>I'd also ignore the worry about professor rank. A strong relationship and a well written letter is far more important than if the person is well known.</p>
<p>severe curve could be supremely beneficial to the right student</p>
<p>This statement really doesn't make sense. A strong curve means that the curve is shifted in the OPPOSITE direction of the "A" grade. It doesn't matter how many "dumb people" are in a class, your chances of getting an "A" are better in a class with a less severe curve (perhaps 15% A's) vs a class with a severe curve (perhaps 7% A's). </p>
<p>I'd also ignore the worry about professor rank. A strong relationship and a well written letter is far more important than if the person is well known.</p>
<p>No kidding. the point I was making is that building a relationship with full professors may lead to opportunities in research and the possibility of having a full professor recommending you as opposed to a "lecturer" or an assistant professor... Obviously their knowledge of you is important but this factor shouldn't just be "ignored". Plus, connections can have some meaning...</p>
<p>If I read his intent correctly, BRM isn't suggesting that the severe curve itself is beneficial -- only that there are situations in which a class (even if it has a severe curve) is still the right choice.</p>
<p>As a slight aside: If Bigredmed meant that upper level classes may have "smarter people" in them then I guess it could be argued you would be better off in the lower level classes. Quoting myself: </p>
<p>However, if you have not been prepared well enough then you should take the lower levels first obviously</p>
<p>This is the, once again, obvious issue at hand.</p>
<p>And there are plenty of variables in which things like a severe curve could be supremely beneficial to the right student</p>
<p>Yeah, it's not that I think you misread the actual words he typed. It's that I think he means something else.</p>
<p>I think the OP should look at my advice and Bigredmed's advice. The advice I gave is certainly not bad advice especially considering what I generally say on these boards I have learned by trial and error through my years bering a premed student. What Bigredmed said is true, but it is obviously true and certainly does not invalidate what I said. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Obviously knowing a professor in depth is important, but it certainly does not hurt if the professor is well established in his/her field. This is one thing I certainly have "figured" out during my ugrad years. It obviously is not necessary but certainly shouldn't be "ignored".</p></li>
<li><p>Obviously having lots of "dumb" people will make a class easier yet regardless, as I said, higher level classes will be less "weed" out in nature (since they generally are "getting into the major").</p></li>
<li><p>As I have said over and over it really boils down to : "if you have not been prepared well enough then you should take the lower levels first"</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I'll quit defending my post now. I don't generally do that yet they are not generally assaulted such as that....</p>
<p>1) I had a different construct of what you meant by "severe curve". That's where the issue lies, and isn't uncommon as people mean different things by curve, scale and grade distribution (which is what I'd call your example). Still, if a class is truly curved, and grades are assigned by how you do compared to the class average, then a class full of less capable students for a student who is well prepared is a good thing. My anecdotal evidence is my B in first semester organic vs my C+ in second semester organic in which all the students who got below a C had to retake first semester.</p>
<p>2) As for the professor rank. I'd still maintain that it's an ignorable feature in the grand scheme of things. My issue is that students shouldn't bypass getting good letters from junior faculty in order to get a poor one from senior faculty, just because the person is 'better known'. I equate it with obsession over institutional prestige that is so common on this website. In the end, the rank isn't going to account for much even if the letters are equal in quality. In my experience with neurotic pre-meds, I've found that they take things far too literally. I'm trying to elucidate the shades of gray here.</p>
<p>3) I didn't intend for it to be a personal attack, but I do reserve the right to call information into question if I think there's a problem. Basically if you had said "LOWER LEVEL doesn't necessarily mean easier" then I probably wouldn't have said anything.</p>
<p>Thanks to all. So essentially, while both the higher and lower level classes have their pros and cons, I should choose the class which I have a better chance of receiving an A in, which may not be the same as the class with the easier curriculum.</p>
<p>My issue is that students shouldn't bypass getting good letters from junior faculty in order to get a poor one from senior faculty, just because the person is 'better known'.</p>
<p>-Completely agree. However, one of my bigger regrets is not having the opportunity to work in a lab at my uni during my ugrad years (year to year consistently...). I think that if I would have reached out to upper level faculty, instead of the junior level faculty with whom I did establish great rapport, I would have had more connections with cetain opportunities.</p>