@bernie12 The answers are:
-Yes, but collaborative as well (yes the two can go together)
-The best STEM courses are more difficult than equivalents at some peers (I would say they are comparable to or even better than “upper Ivies” and even easier/medium level ones will be at least a bit more challenging (in some way) than the comparable courses at much less selective schools.
-No, a “high” (let us say over 3.3 STEM and over 3.5 overall. These are typically the magical ranges at selective schools. Most people with 3.5/30 get in to medical school) GPA is doable.
-Yes, the teachers, especially the more rigorous teachers are very helpful. This is especially the case in STEM where most of the most rigorous instructors are lecturers. Their whole purpose is undergraduate teaching and non-research mentoring (these harder instructors who teach well tend to write the best rec. letters and hint: getting an “A” in their course is not required to receive an amazing rec. letter, and they will vouch for the fact that their course was taught or tested differently than most undergraduate courses in the letter).
-Absolutely not. Even freshmen get a decent amount of access
-Yes, the more rigorous core and even some of the “easier” non-core ones certainly help. These easier courses I recommend are mostly in the biology department, they are evolutionary biology and Beck’s organismal form and function course. Your chances of getting a very good grade without overexerting yourself are good, but they also stress data and experimental analysis. Many who took such courses said that some MCAT passage based problems were strikingly similar in style and some said that there was sometimes even overlap in content which is not really what the MCAT is about, MCAT is more about using a solid content foundation to extrapolate things about new and unfamiliar scenarios, which is what those two courses excel at. The better instructors in the pre-med. core courses facilitate this, but naturally have more rigorous grading and examination styles. I say with effort, even in these harder instructors who teach well, you shouldn’t go below B in any of them as the average is usually B-/B in gen. chem, gen. biology, organic chemistry, and both physics versions. Being prepared for the MCAT by an instructor usually means more of the “right kind” of rigor versus equivalent HS classes. Since the test stresses critical thinking, problem solving, and data analysis, teachers who build toward this process are best for smoothing the preparation process.
This usually means that if you take an instructor emphasizing these skills, it may feel hard or uncomfortable to you initially because you are used to memorization and tests that get you to directly spit back the answers the teacher or book gave or those that ask you to repeat solving a problem type in homework or lecture. You could skip the prep via classwork, but I really don’t recommend it unless you are a genius test taker that is comfortable relearning content and learning problem solving in areas like biology for the first time come MCAT study time. These individuals are rare and the high scorers at Emory tend to follow patterns for who they took for key courses even when you account for how well they did on SAT/ACT, so it isn’t a matter of dodging or avoiding such rigor as VANDEMORY hinted toward (and trust me, many try it), but managing and balancing it to ensure that you optimize the GPA and MCAT. What you really do not want is to come from EMORY(or any selective college/university) with a high GPA and low MCAT. It will look extra suspicious considering that a far above national average SAT/ACT was required to get in, suggesting that you should be good at testing. A low score will signal that the courses you took didn’t help or had too much inflation. You certainly do not want a low GPA, but a mediocre (let us say you had a 3.5 or even a 3.4something) one with a solid MCAT often can get you in somewhere without much doubt being cast. I saw some friends get into MDPhDs with that sort of combo (because the MCAT was superlative), but the reverse brings a lot more shocking results (where 3.85+ applicants struggle much more than they should to gain admission because the adcoms see where they screwed up the MCAT at least once).
Some teachers seem to dramatically close gaps that exist according to those scores whereas others merely reinforce them. For example, 2 students take Dr. Weinschenk for ochem and score a somewhere between B and A. If one had 1350 and another 1450-1500 on SAT, it is much more likely that both will score 33+ equivalent on MCAT than if they both say…took Jui. Same could be said for those that take Spell for general biology, Mulford/McGill/Soria for the general chemistry sequence, Bing for one of the physics courses. There are just some notable self-selection and added value effects happening for those who take certain instructors at Emory).
CS:
-It is basic with good placement (an advantage of being in a smaller department is the more personal mentoring you get from faculty which helps with placement)
-Doesn’t matter, some teachers are and some aren’t. There isn’t an ultra high premium on a super high GPA from a CS program, just do decently, learn as much as possible, do projects, take internships/other venues that allow you to apply your skills. It isn’t about the coursework and your grades so much as how far you push your skills and whether or not you can prove that you have such skills. Experience is much more important. Treating that sort of major as just a series of classes is a HUGE mistake.
-Already answered. It isn’t elite, but should do the trick, and what you get out of any CS program is really up to you. Like in project based courses where you choose a project, taking on an easy or challenging project is up to you. Note that if you do QTM with CS, you may be even more competitive for a bigger variety of careers (you can also take courses such as bio 212/phys 212: Computational Modelling which will teach you to apply computational skills across many fields and problems).