@bernie12 I’m not necessarily looking to be at a target school. I really like it here so I wouldn’t transfer unless Emory holds me back from my goals significantly (which I don’t think will happen). I just want to know if I will even get looked at by the top IBs and if I will be at a disadvantage as Emory is a semi target and the people I know who got analyst positions at the top IBs go/went to Goizueta.
@TheTennisNinja : Indeed, and they were very good…also do you have to immediately be at a very “top” IB (I’m sure this is ideal, but really? Aim for those sure, but keep an open mind and don’t necessarily “gun” for them thinking that there is some ideal pathway you must pursue to make them accessible and that other options don’t matter, even those outside of IB do not matter)? Many outside of that block seem to pay well and be very fulfilling. The interview process will ultimately decide whether or not you are selected (that is where you can buddy up with GBS friends who have maybe gone through it to ask how that works and how you should prepare if selected for an interview). The best you can do is actually be excellent at what you do at Emory to gain relevant internships, take relevant courses that make you an asset and do well. You can do that without GBS. Those folks landing those jobs from GBS were likely really good EC/internship wise, stood out among applicants, and performed well. You need to do the same. Them simply existing in the GBS network was not enough to get them there though I’m sure it helped. GBS is fairly competitive, because again, it is like going to a place where there are many people pursuing it and top IBs likely know what they are looking for based upon selections from past cohorts. While you clearly will not have direct access to the network if outside of it, you will probably have more freedom in terms of how you craft your preparation, especially the academic portion of it. The Stanford and MIT story tells us that these IBs take lots of well to do STEM majors for example, so not even econ. is necessary. They are looking for “usefulness”, namely more useful than the rest.
FYI
Grading Policies
The Department of Economics recommends that faculty members who teach foundation courses adopt the following grade distribution:
A/A- not to exceed 35%
A through B- not to exceed 80%
C+ or below at least 20%
Faculty teaching empirical courses and electives may choose to adopt this or a similar distribution, or not adopt a distribution at all.
http://economics.emory.edu/home/undergraduate/major_minor_requirements.html
I’m not sure about the “recommended” distribution at Goizueta.
Note that this distribution is definitely more generous than intro and some intermediate level biology and chemistry courses.
@BiffBrown They are exactly the same GBS and econ core courses. The point is to have a course GPA somewhere between 3.0 and 3.3 (maybe like 3.15), which is “low” or indicates rigorous grading. Economics courses can get very simple (the easiest instructors will have HW and other assignments while also giving fairly straight-forward exams, such that averages are likely 80+) depending on the instructor so those who want to be rigorous use a curve to adjust means up to that range whereas easier instructors just have pre-set cutoffs that are higher than normal (many economics courses feature a syllabus in the course atlas and there are upper divisions with a 96 as a cut off for a solid A as well as higher cutoffs for other levels).
STEM introductory courses range from like 2.5-3.0 (from time to time, some teachers “cheat” and end up higher) with physical sciences (chemistry and physics) being this way for intermediate and advanced courses. Of course electives are typically more generous. If I had to guess, most biology classes are like 2.8-3.3 with most intermediates being near the higher end or middle of that (so like 3.0-3.15) and general biology being near the lower end (more like 3.0 on average, but there may be some easier sections as well as some sections that just suck…the students that is. There are self-selection biases after all). There are exceptions as some instructors in biology do choose to give rigorous exams (and these classes often have other components of the grade to get their overall average near B-/B or between B/B+) or employ no curve for “meh” exams or if exams are not relevant in a class, they may grade assignments more seriously than normal (I don’t say “harsh” on purpose. Leniency is the norm. Often anything beyond is just “giving real feedback”). Math is all over the place. If I had to guess, they do not have a recommended grading distribution at any level, but I am not sure. They may have it, but many faculty, especially the visiting faculty, choose not to follow any such thing (they choose to make their course very simple because many are visiting to do research and not teach). Looks as if their is some effort to control quality recently as there are less visiting faculty and graduate students/post-docs being used to direct courses above the 111/112 level.