Emory CS worth transferring away from?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
1

I’m an incoming freshman for the class of 2020. My interest in CS came very very late; it wasn’t until I commited to Emory that I realized that I had a passion forit. ( Initially thought I was going to do Finance )

I have a decent amount of friends from Emory and according to them, even though 99% of the programs at Emory are outstanding, the Computer Science program is incredibly unimpressive. The course selection is severely limited ( just an extension of math dept. ) and the job placement for top silicon valley software engineering jobs is quite mediocre. A lot of them are recommending me to strongly consider transferring.

In case I want to delve deeper in CS and actually be competitive for the more prestigious jobs, would it be a better idea to transfer? It seems like even the most outstanding CS students at Emory end up just going to Consulting or some sort of Atlanta start up.
There is the Georgia Tech program, but I really don’t want to graduate in 5 years. I’m already looking into transfer admissions for Cornell, Rice, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, USC, UT - Austin, Georgia Tech ( don’t want to pay OOS tuition though ) etc.

Really disappointing that a top caliber school like Emory is so weak in a field that is catapulting itself in such gargantuan importance and relevance in modern society. Am I underrating the CS program?

2

@HeinekenB : Is there any reason you need to immediately (right out of college) place at a top silicon valley job considering that most tech related jobs for tech majors pay really well? Also, before you speculate on what outstanding students do. Be careful. Some may be less prestige driven and more pay driven, meaning they account for the fact that somewhere like Atlanta has a much lower cost of living in comparison to say…silicon valley. A friend of mines at Emory tells how his sister who just graduated from Cornell (CE) near the top of her class turned down Google to get a near 6 figure job in Atlanta because the buying power is substantially higher with that income in Atlanta versus a seemingly higher pay in California. She knows what she is doing. The top Emory students get prestigious and well-paid positions for those just coming out of college even if it isn’t in silicon valley (and sometimes it is in silicon valley).

In addition, you also need to be careful with the whole “mediocre” thing. There are only a few CS programs for UG’s known to be particularly elite and most lie at places like H or other schools with very top engineering schools (in which case the CE division is much better than CS in many cases). Whether CS is worth it depends on if actually couple it with other interests (and maybe double major and use both majors for some project. Being engaged beyond the grades is what makes an outstanding applicant. Exactly what did you accomplish with the skills). If that is your only interest and you plan to just make grades, and apply for internships and jobs then perhaps Emory’s CS degree will have little power. But due to the relatively large and growing start up culture (our Hack-a-thons are nearly the size of Penn’s) and access to Atlanta which is becoming an ever growing place and a top place to do start-ups, Emory isn’t a bad place to be in the case that you plan to fully engage the opportunities and not constantly worrying about…well…this.

Also, before you pass judgement, you may end up pleasantly surprised at some of the teaching. I would honestly just hit the ground running at Emory if you are a CS major (maybe do the fall hack-a-thon, you may enjoy it). Check out Atlanta Tech Village. Check out Georgia Tech and what they have going on. No need to be limited by a major. Tech majors are empowered by opportunities in the area and Atlanta and Emory have plenty of them. Also, it is a fairly poor start to contemplate transferring before attending. That starts negative energy from the beginning and you are more likely to look for things that are wrong to confirm you and other folks biases If you set low expectations, you will find a way to have them met.

Also, do a little more research. You don’t need to do 3-2 to transfer or take advantage of Georgia Tech. You can just transfer outright or even cross-enroll in courses over there. Also, note at Emory, your computational training is not limited to CS. The physics, math, and even biology departments have courses that a more applied in nature that can help gain you experience and make you more able to pump up the resume. More cross and interdisciplinary is typically more marketable than a straight up CS degree and typically makes one more versatile in job selection.

3

Just to clarify: Especially just now looking at your last sentence (was in a rush leaving my lab).

a) Most schools are not great at UG CS education in the first place. Also, if one thinks it through, you wouldn’t expect Emory to be not among the mediocre considering it does not have engineering.
b) Getting trained in computing is not limited to formal training through a CS degree. Many get math and computational experience from elsewhere and apply it to their field of interest (you can get it from on and off-campus fellowships and internships). If you have any other interests and are genuinely interested in computing(which I would hope, I hope you aren’t just jumping from one high paid discipline to another just because), you can easily make something out of it. Typically those recruited to good positions in silicon valley or elsewhere did very interesting things with the skills they gained during college or beforehand. It usually isn’t the dull student with the 3.9 in CS but moreso what else the high caliber student was able to do. The top programs hardly “make” those students what they are and many of them already have lots of experience and perhaps come in with tunnelvision about where they want to end up.

At Emory, since CS isn’t a traditional strength and typically not what students come for, so you can’t really look at placement stats and say:…“mediocre!” especially since many such people were not necessarily aiming for the positions (to actually judge placement, you must first know the amount of applicants) you allude to in the first place. To say placement is poor suggests that most people applied and failed which can probably be said for applicants to those places even from the schools that send the most to such companies. It is kind of like if a school sends 120-200 Fulbright Applications and then places near the top in a top producers list whereas the school sending 1/3 of that volume manages to gain half the amount of successful applicants (as school with 150 gets 26 and school with 50 gets 13). One would hope that a school that floods a company (or whatever) with applications and is prestigious would be well represented at the company. Emory isn’t among the schools that floods such places with applications so how could one really know? Many Emory students(even those pursuing something like CS or math) have more of a business, entrepreneurial, or math (so may pursue grad. school) slant in the first place so placement stats can definitely reflect selection biases.

In the meantime, stop worrying about landing some prestigious company as a pre-frosh after graduating and focus on doing well and enjoying the social and academic portions of college. This way, you can ultimately be ensured that you will place well and be paid well or in a good position. Folks really need to calm down with the prestige stuff. Just do as well as you can and it will likely pay off even if it isn’t in silicon valley. It is more than possible to be very happy without working at those places. And for the record, do not associate the word mediocrity or essentially look down upon those who placed in consulting or an Atlanta start-up. I don’t see the problem with that. I’m sure they are doing pretty darned well. Come down to earth some. That commentary of yours came off as a little snooty to me, especially from a person who hasn’t gone to college and is likely not in the workforce in such a capacity. Basically saying that those likely high paying jobs “are simply not good enough” does not read well which is why you get this rant from me.

4

@bernie12

Yo, thanks for the thorough reply! Sorry, if I came off as snobbish; didn’t really mean to. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the start up/consulting gigs ( jobs like these sound really awesome ), but USUALLY the top CS programs tend to pipeline a huge portion of their students to the huge “fancy” jobs in Silicon Valley. I was just making an observation that Emory doesnt usually tend to do the same.

Yeah it is really naive of me to already consider transferring when I haven’t even attended the school yet.

I guess CS success at Emory is more predicated on self-drive and innovation rather than just straggling on a top GPA from a “name brand” Computer Science school. I guess my only concern is that Emory’s completely unranked. Not that rankings are like the gospel, but it can be a little concerning - like someone could think that attending PodunkU would be similar CS-education wise to Emory. Also I think there is a lot of value of being in a Hacker/CS/Engineering sort of environment.

I guess the distinction is that Emory has a very strong intellectual climate with Really smart students, not to mention the connection with Georgia Tech.

Just wondering, isn’t the hackathon that Emory runs business based rather than the more tech startup-focused stuff that Penn/MIT runs? Also how common are Emory/G-tech collaborations between students? Is it common to see any sort of tech start ups created here? I know there was recently an entrepeneurship and venture management club started at Emory.

5

I think you’re referring to HackATL, which is a business hackathon with somewhat of a tech focus. It’s been pretty successful, check out eevm.org for more info about it. There are multiple tech and nontech startups that are created here. I’ve even worked on a nontech startup with one of my friends (we got some funding through some of the competitions we competed in last year :slight_smile: ) There are even many entrepreneurial competitions that you can compete starting from your freshman year. EEVM was started about four years ago, and it’s, I would argue, one of the largest clubs on campus. The club actually won an award last year for the best student organization from OSLS. There are many computer science and business students within the organization who are working at fantastic companies (Deloitte, Goldman Sachs, Google, Lazard, etc.) Don’t underestimate this school. As Bernie said, there is a growing entrepreneurial spirit at this school, and I would at least give it a chance before you think about transferring.

6

@HeinekenB : Rankings typically apply to graduate divisions, not undergraduate divisions of arts and letters entities which is what CS is at basically every school (CE can receive UG rankings because UG engineering rankings do exist). And trust me, there are many cases where UG education is far inferior or superior to the graduate education and research. For example, Emory’s chemistry department ranks pretty well (like in the 30s via USNews and 20s NRC) when you talk about the doctoral program, but it actually isn’t that great and I’d come here for chemistry as an undergraduate any day as many of the teachers are excellent and in general, it is a bit more rigorous than peer (especially those ranking near Emory, I’d say most schools between 15 and 25) schools. In fact, there are quite a bit of instructors who choose to pitch their undergraduate courses at the same level as VERY top schools or higher. Cannot say the same for those who teach graduate division courses. When I look at biology, the graduate division is definitely superior, though the UG opps and courses are certain comparable or a little better than at least some of the near peers simply because more faculty care about teaching biology effectively so do much more than lecture and design memorization based exams. I would still have to say that I’d rather be a graduate student in the biological sciences at Emory. Some departments have trickle down effect in terms of grad vs. UG quality and in some cases they seem disconnected. Biology seems somewhat connected (graduate students are actually used to run primary literature discussion sections in many intermediate courses corresponding to concentrations in the graduate division) chemistry seem disconnected (undergraduates used to basically TA for all the best instructors), CS and math are mildly connected at the intro. level (as grad. students may completely run intro. labs or in case of math, intro. calc. classes). NBB is nicely connected and kind of represents the strength of the graduate division (it shows in advanced and special topics offerings).

And again, be careful with the “pipeline” term. When it comes to finance and technology, I feel like some of the most elite schools have become a pipeline only because their students’ goals are so narrow that those companies end up flooded with applications. In my opinion, this is not a good thing. To a prestige whore, having those schools well-represented at such companies makes them awesome, but to a normal person or education analyst, there would be concern as to why there isn’t much more career aspiration diversity. In fact many articles have debated if tons of these students essentially “sell out” or are squandering their other talents for the easier path to job security (that doesn’t employ their actual talent which could be highly paid but just gets them “somewhere” quicker even if it isn’t what they want to be. Some folks would admit that they essentially settle for such positions because of the bandwagon effect and security). Outside of those schools, you’ll notice that students tend to pursue a larger variety of careers even those that don’t pay the absolute highest. Perhaps more folks are not under as much pressure and are driven by aspirations to serve so non-profits, teaching, and other jobs that pay decently for a good student but are less lucrative overall are far more common, but do not make the mistake that students outside of those schools are for the most part pursuing the same exact type of jobs as those places. There is a reason newer elite schools feel a bit different than those places. Many more students choose different paths (hell, even look at Stanford, which at one point was a new elite. Lots of students began just starting their own companies instead of working for others. Chicago always had and still has a bigger service and education orientation though unfortunately the finance craze has taken over at both, though less than some peers).

And again, even those getting merely a top GPA from a CS namebrand school aren’t just going to feed into silicon valley. They had many other accomplishments. That is part of going to an elite school. Other accomplishments in the field of interest are expected and that is part of the reason applicants from those schools are successful. Your idea of name branding and just having to make the grade at such schools is likely incorrect. A person from podunk school majoring in CS would probably have less of a chance than an Emory or any student from a selective school simply because the latter student was more well connected and resourced so as to build their resume and participate in things that make them standout. It isn’t about the program and its courses so much as the “scene” and opportunities attached to the school. For example, the B-school wouldn’t be as interesting if it weren’t in freaking Atlanta. There is no doubt that this allows both faculty and students to gain experience and learning opps that wouldn’t exist otherwise (you can used case studies based on and sponsored by fortune 500s based in Atlanta for example).

And yes, start-ups are becoming much more common at Emory:http://news.emory.edu/stories/2015/02/er_entrepreneurship_ecosystem/campus.html

There have been some noteworthy examples: http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2015/spring/of_note/Students.html
http://apply.emory.edu/discover/featured/swimsharks.php

Also, interestingly enough, Tech students come to our hack-a-thon because they don’t have one like it. They have inventureprize which is a completely different focus, but they highly attend Emory’s…shows what a motivated student body w/no engineering can do.

7

I think that there’s a bit of Emory bias here - a lot of good advice overall, but I disagree on a few things:

Upper division course offerings are pretty important, as well as having a CS department that isn’t just an extension of the math department.

CS is very much about what you can do and what you have done - limited offerings is not going to help there. The CS environment type does help, and will be better at a lot of other schools. While there are only a few schools that are considered top of the line in the industry (CMU, Stanford, MIT), there are 1-2 more tiers after the that - the “known and solid” (Rice, Cornell, USC) and the “known but not for CS” (Emory). After that, then you hit Podunk and the rest. Jumping up between those two tiers isn’t nothing.

All that said, I don’t think it’s probably worth it to transfer. Emory’s name will get your foot in the door, and from there you just need to make sure you’re capable by graduation. While that may be harder at Emory than others, I don’t think the difficulty difference is worth a transfer if you’re happy otherwise.

Do make sure to capitalize on as many upper-level offerings as possible - they do go a long way IMO, even if it isn’t directly.

8

@PengsPhils : Of course there is an Emory bias, but recognize that Emory doesn’t really suffer from truly limited course offerings (the upper-division courses are actually quite good and cover important things. What I don’t care for and has been semi-corrected is the lack of say…MATLAB, but they added a special topics 2hr course on it and the computational modelling course held by several departments uses it and python as the main programs in a project based course). I looked at offerings at schools considered similar caliber and size (places like Vandy, ND, etc) to Emory within the CS (not CE) depts and offerings are very similar, so the reality is that for its tier of schools, it is merely quite average in CS course offering wise and has never had a large graduate program in the area (in this arena, physical minus chemistry and computational sciences lag FAR behind natural sciences at Emory and even things trying to repair that are slanted toward an interface with the life/natural sciences. Lots of effort going into recruiting physical biology and computational neuroscience/biology folks and developing courses more oriented toward that). What concerns me is the rapidly growing demand for the courses (which has been discussed in strategic planning documents). Considering the faculty for CS isn’t large, this could eventually put strain on those upper-division courses but I think they’ve been dealing with this for the past 5 years (I think Stanford is apparently concerned about their even more increased enrollment but they are honestly more equipped to handle it), and somehow they are holding up (I think they hired this new faculty member that my friends REALLY enjoyed for their upper level courses. He was very challenging however, but nothing wrong with that if one is serious about working in such a field).

IMHO, the bigger difference is the environment. The other schools (the other two tiers you named), in terms of an actual Tech environment are just far better than most no doubt. They have excellent offerings and formalize opps to do something with what you learn. Also, a larger Tech community on campus certainly helps.

I’m guessing that Emory can only have the stuff discussed above taking off because of the increased interest I allude to (as indicated by course enrollments), however, how the dept. will fare 5-10 years from now if it continues, I don’t know. I would recommend Emory start trying to recruit undergraduates interested in the computational life sciences and maybe just creating more courses in those depts to ensure that strain isn’t put on the intermediate and advanced CS courses, which as you say, are very important. Typically Emory’s solution to strain on them is to make them substantially larger which can be a quality killer at a school where instructors do not traditionally deal with large section sizes in the dept (you’ll have less hw or more close-ended hw or much easier exams, all sorts of things watering down the courses to make grading easier). That coupled with the comparatively smaller graduate enrollment (can be dispatched or used to deal with higher enrollments or larger amounts of assignments to grade) could spell “not so good” things. The pride of not so well known depts at Emory (all those I mentioned) is that the quality of advanced and intermediate courses is usually excellent due to the very small section sizes. Physics is known to have very good and very challenging upper division courses for those who major for example (while the lower divisions are terrible) which cannot be said for every STEM dept. with large enrollments (biology…the quality and intensity in advanced and intermediate courses is extremely variable and it largely correlates with section size. Some courses are less intensive than gateway courses in terms of the workload and amount of problem solving involved. You don’t really see that in CS, physics, or even math. If I had to grade 100+ exams or assignments as a busy faculty member, I likely water down my course too!).

9

I took the OP’s evaluation of upper division electives at face value. Looking specifically now, it’s certainly not incredibly lacking - it could more for sure, but that’s not too bad. Still, the department size does limit opportunities.

I agree, the environment is the biggest difference.

10

@PengsPhils : I actually think it was much worse at some point in time, but when I started looking 2-3 years ago, it appeared to have improved a bit (like parity to comparable places that are also not known for CS). I think the advent of majors like QSS (quantitative social science) and larger demand certainly played a role. Also, more people in non-CS majors are looking for Tech related jobs (though not at places like Google) so end up minoring or taking upper-divisions for experience and fun. If only that fervor can turn into something more tangible on campus besides entrepreneurship or if only Emory would perhaps allocate more funds to strengthen the program in light of the increased demand however I think Emory overly focuses on “traditional” strengths or developing programs out of or connected to them more so than ones that traditionally struggled and are now showing some promise (or it could be trickle down and how well the graduate programs are doing). It would be interesting if one day, Emory could make the community in the CS dept or among CS-interested folks similar to what is seen in chemistry for example. That dept. is the epitome of a STEM dept. making students feel like they are a part of something bigger than just their classes and grades. They have lots of rigorous teaching, events geared toward undergraduates, study abroad programs, and several scholarships internal to the dept (not seen to the same level at many “near peers” as I call them). I have my bones to pick in terms of their grad. program (behind the scenes) and how some instructors choose to teach, but overall it is somewhat of an archetype for a program that doesn’t have a huge population of majors in comparison to the natural sciences. Also shows what can be done when the program and its faculty are well-funded. They even get money to experiment with curriculum reform. I think the top CS depts at other schools have UG programs that have basically achieved that status and are very important on campus because of it.

11

I’m no expert with Emory, but based on my experience and knowledge on CS departments, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. The fact that CS is barely separated from Math is sign enough.

In order to get to the level of “known and solid”, they need separation from Math, a lot of research funding, finding a department specialty or two and running with it, probably a revamp of their teaching philosophy, some marketing and publicity, and then to boot need CS students looking at Emory. That is going to take a lot of time to get there, if they ever even try. I don’t see a need for Emory to try - they got their program to the standard CS level, and going any better would take so much effort when Emory has plenty of other things they could focus on.

12

Yes, I agree after some thought. They would also simply need better computing infrastructure. I actually got this computational sciences scholarship (trust me, I am far from an expert, but the scholarship will help develop me some more) and am curious about how Urbana-Champaign runs its programs (I am going to an institute there in two weeks. As a computational/structural biologist/chemists, places like CMU and UIUC are king!). I just want to see what those environments are like, though obviously they are excellent because they have designed important software in many fields and host remote clusters (Blue Waters at UIUC). The point is, they put as much effort into that infrastructure and becoming great at those disciplines as Emory has in many natural and life sciences subjects and of course…healthcare. It took decades and lots of investment for Emory to truly become relevant in any of those fields and even more to become as good as it is today so when you put it the way you did, it may indeed make more sense to capitalize and improve off that success and further strengthen those programs or make new programs stemming from their success.

In terms of attracting undergraduates, I don’t know if Emory can truly afford a jack of all trades model (usually schools with much stronger campus life can get away with this because the social aspect of the school is ultra appealing). Needs to be really good at some things and needs to milk the success. It is basically the only reason Emory remains relevant to UGs today (students tend to be attracted less to the social environment and school as an abstract concept but more to specific programs known to be done extremely well). The best it can do now to get better is to further innovate in current strengths and certainly market much better (this school likely lags in reputation and selectivity because of poor efforts in this arena. Like, on academic grounds, I don’t think we should be loosing students to “near peers” for interests such as neuroscience, chemistry, psychology, and perhaps several other things, but unless their strengths are marketed, no one will think or care that they are distictive).

13

@bernie12

There’s a few different CS department models out there, and frankly I have beefs with even some of the big names even.

There’s the ones that try to group it with Math, which (when taken to its full potential) ends up producing a bunch of theory, some good research in math-heavy areas, but lacks strongly in practical application, and really clashes with Industry. UChicago is a pretty good example there. Emory, if it were to bloom to its full potential, would probably end up in this category. Personally, not a fan.

There are the college that say it’s an Engineering discipline - while it often is interdisciplinary with engineering and can share some of the same problem-solving skillsets, this approach often leads to a terrible teaching style in my experience. It does lend itself very well to research, though. UCB overall fits this well (not perfectly, and they do a TON of things right - only using them as a mainstream example), but many schools still classify CS as an Engineering.

The best philosophy in my mind is, of course, having it as it’s own separate discipline that integrates often with others. More and more schools are going this route, and when you do, you often get better teaching as well as offerings. After all, it doesn’t look good to have a whole department be lacking in class depth. Within this approach, there’s plenty of different schools of thoughts within it, and those will play out over time.

I don’t know much about UIUC beyond its rank, but looking at its department, it seems to be somewhat in two of the categories - it has its own CS department, but the degrees are still offered through either the Engineering department or the Arts/Sciences college (for math dual combos). Historically, the CS department was established in 1972, within the Engineering college. Better than fully lumping it in with Engineering for sure in my book, but I’m a bit of a purist personally in separating from Engineering :stuck_out_tongue: Everyone doesn’t share there - take that part as personal gospel. I’m also coming from attending the oldest pure CS college in the US by technicality, but there is a difference for sure. Whether it matters depends on who you ask.

To try to tie all of this back to the OP, transferring not only gets a prestige bump, but likely will get a department philosophy change as well. I think that’s a big positive. Still, as most here have agreed, it’s not worth the hassle of transferring if the OP is otherwise happy at Emory, as it will serve just fine. However, each of the 3 philosophies can grant vastly different opportunities and cultivate very distinct cultures. In industry, all three philosophies will work (though I have my suspicions on the results if someone ran a study on it - no one has, though, and if they did, few to no employers would care). They will see your experience, the name of the school for a split second, and will go from there.

14

@PengsPhils : A big thanks for actually caring about how undergraduate (or programs in general) programs structure can influence the experience of undergraduates. Some, especially prospective students, like to believe that it is the overall rank of the school that matters so will do stupid things such as go to the slightly (I lets say between 5 and 10 spots or even less) higher ranked school with generally weaker programs in their area(s) of interest because they don’t bother to check (so I actually do appreciate the OP for checking). They seem not to understand that a lot of differences, especially among the highly selective ones (like top 30 or 40 or so and definitely top privates) in ranking, in the past decade or so, has to do with popularity ratings and selectivity scores more so than actual program quality. The latter seems like a legit metric until you realize that a new Dean of admissions can simply come in and change the whole admissions scheme (Chicago being an example) with no other goal in mind other than to rise in rankings (and they’d be right to some extent. However, what is sad when I see the academics at a school fall behind a student body. That is the academics are the same or easier than “less selective” schools in the same tier).

Comparing ranks at some of these schools is honestly splitting hairs reputation wise and it would be foolish to think that the overall rank will correlate with the coursework at these schools, particularly when you look at different departments or pre-professional programs (CMU for CS and many tech related fields all day over most of the top 20 schools. I could even say the same for Georgia Tech and some other schools like Berkeley and Michigan with STEM in general). Regardless of overall US news rank, some schools have just traditionally been superior at some things and the program and course level reflect it. These programs will have more well-taught (As a life/natural sciences person, there are obviously schools in the top ranks that have put much more effort into teaching quality and curricular innovation than at peers and it often shows in the funding patterns, program sizes, and simply whether or not they have large initiatives or sometimes centers specifically for STEM education. Emory is one of them and trust me when I say it appears to make a BIG difference, especially in natural sciences) and/or more challenging courses in certain disciplines than a slightly higher ranked school simply because that is their forte that they’ve put lots of resources in. If students and parents only look at subtle differences in overall ranking and reputation, and don’t bother to say…sit in a class or find course materials, they’ll never know. However, I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that, unlike the OP, most prospective students flat out don’t truly care about the academic quality and what they’ll get out of the education. The goal is to merely signal (perhaps with as little work or even learning as possible).

College, even at elites, is dominantly a social experience which is kind of okay, but to simply not care at all to the point where you are merely willing to matriculate at any high or decent ranking school without knowing what the academics (and the environment created by them) are like (beyond what a USNews score tells you)…is disappointing. It is why I hardly care anymore when a student at an elite school complains about the quality and level of courses they take (and let us be real, often students are only concerned about difficulty of a program or instructor so will try to take all easy instruction and then eventually start complaining that the teaching quality wasn’t great or that they weren’t challenged…I always find that laughable. Some folks even on here, when making a thread about an academic discipline will first ask “How difficult is this major?” and then proceed to ask “will doing it make me look good to grad. schools and employers?” basically not wanting to work hard, but wanting the major to signal something to outsiders. What they forget is that the best schools for the subject with the best outcomes also tend to have more rigorous instruction and that students at such schools a) welcome it or at worst b) accept it as a fact of life, but they don’t fear it.). The fact is, they would have been better going elsewhere if they truly cared, even if it ranked lower or was…gasp!! A public school that is not Berkeley! College, even the best among them, is an “interesting” place. I’m guessing it was always that way.

There is also this idea still roaming around in UG and prospective students heads that it is merely the major or degree doing all the work and functioning independently from experience in that discipline which baffles me. The goal of taking the courses is to become functional in the discipline I would think. Unfortunately grades often aren’t enough to signal that despite being a great start. However, this lends itself back to wanting the degree but not really wanting the training that they need to become functional beyond the ability to make a grade in the course. I think this mentality by UG’s has led to watering down of STEM curricula at many schools because instructors have given in to the fact that students are not aiming for careers or functionality in those areas but merely want to get through it. Kind of isn’t good for the US, but watevs.

15

My son just completed his freshman year at Emory and loved it. He felt challenged and engaged in every way. I am not an expert on all the “ins and outs” of all the majors, but my advice as a mom of a current student is to open your mind and welcome all the new experiences you are about to have as an Emory student. My son started out thinking he might be a political science major. This past year he has taken a couple of sociology classes, 2 economics classes and a CS class for the first time ever. He loved all of these classes in addition to other interesting courses. He is now thinking of the QSS major and he is definitely taking another CS class as a sophomore just because he is interested. This summer he is also participating in an Emory summer abroad program and taking foreign language. My point in mentioning all this is because you have no idea how your interests will change and develop. Luckily Emory gives you time to experiment with various subjects before selecting a major. My son is no longer planning on a political science major but he still loves political science and will stay involved in campus activities that involve his interest. Good luck and enjoy your summer!

16

@HeinekenB see above

17

@LKK9699 : Your son’s Emory experience is what I hope others experience and sounds a lot like my freshman year where I knew I was likely going to major in science but dabbled in other things that I really enjoyed and interestingly enough, from that experience, almost every semester I took a political science or history course, usually the small special topics ones, but even my large one, Arab-Israeli Conflict, certainly did not disappoint.

18

@HeinekenB To give you some perspective - I am a 4th year at Emory and although my double major was outside of the CS department I have been employed by the IT department and can tell you that most of the student co-workers I met throughout my three years as an employee graduated from the CS/Math department and have successfully landed jobs at top tech companies in the Valley - not a few, but just about every single one that I got to know. Emory is a great school and if you are driven enough, it will be a great place for you to spread out from regardless of what you choose to pursue.