<p>If I am taking the basic pre-med classes, but not majoring in a science, lets say i want to major in economics, how hard would it be for me? I will probably work my ass off in college because I could have worked a lot harder in high school but I got lazy and I realize its not fun gettin low grades (B+s,) when you know you can get (A’s), its frustrating… my sat score was a 2200 but my gpa was a 3.8 unweighted(what the hell) Class Rank-Top 15 percent(■■■, should have worked harder)…THIS IS IF I GET OFF EMORY’S WAITING LIST lol, lots of if’s…</p>
<p>This is BS. I go to Emory. Most of my classes have a B- class average (2.7). Sure, a lot of the frilly english major classes hand out A’s to suck ups and politicians. But not the ones you will have to take to become a doc. The biology program failed out or dropped out 40% of the people who took intro bio. That just leaves the really smart kids to fight over not getting a B- in Neurobiology, the average. I earned an A, but it was ridic. Most kids did not do that well.</p>
<p>Emory is grade inflated like every other top institution except engineering schools. Also, pre-2007-8 intro. bio gave D/F/W to that many students, it’s no longer like that. Also, the B- average could be worse. Keep in mind that most tougher science courses are curved “up” to even get there. They could pull the stunts seen at public schools and let the average sit at C/C+ instead. Or they could even let the average sit at exactly wherever it was. So if the average was a 65, then average will be a D. Public schools do this all of the time. Most profs. of harder courses at top private research institutions curve averages to B-/B, and this is actually generous. Also, the average grading gpa here hovers between 3.35-3.4, which is lower than most Ivies but in line with most non-Ivy “liberal arts research university” peers. Whoever claimed Cornell is deflated is not quite telling the truth, though it’s average is lower than most of the other Ivies, it is still about 3.32 or so. Grade inflation isn’t good and there needs to be a balance. Too many people get through here without learning a thing because of it. Also, keep in mind that grade inflation doesn’t merely come from applying curves/adjusting grades upward, it often comes from profs. that choose to water down course material simply because they don’t want to put much time into the course. This latter type of inflation defeats the purpose of paying all of the money to attend a top school. Applying a curve or adjusted scale to a course in which a good prof. (say Dr. Weinshenck or Soria, some of the bio, chem, or, NBB profs, or even Edwards in Psyche) makes the material and exams challenging makes more sense. These teachers are what makes the school worth attending. If one wants the latter (normally these teachers are awful or on the low-end of mediocrity), it would make more sense to attend a cheaper state school known for teachers like that. That way it ensures higher grades without even needing to rely on inflation. Why waste money if you are willing to sacrifice quality so that you won’t be challenged at all. You could and should pay less for low-quality teaching. Why one would pay more? I don’t understand. The prestige only goes but so far(in context of med. school it doesn’t go that far at all. One should choose to go somewhere that they really want to attend for whatever reasons). If one is only concerned about getting into prof. school as opposed to becoming prepared for it simultaneously, then one should go to a school where all courses are easy. Plus, paying less also reduces the stress associated with attending institutions like this, which also contributes to higher grades.</p>
<p>I see no grade inflation here. Lol, most kids here work their butts off to get A/B’s. It definitely is not just handed to us.</p>
<p>Yeah, but at many tough public schools, classes are graded on such a harsh curve that it is difficult for one to get a C. The average graduating GPA here indicates that not that many grades below the B-range are given. Most of them are probably given in the sciences. But even for a science major it is possible for such classes to not compose a majority of their curriculum. Even in some sections of upperlevel courses, it is rather easy to obtain a solid B with only a moderate level of work. We just have to “study” hard because many of the tougher professors compensate for the lack of a graded workload by designing exams meant to defeat students (I actually have noticed that the caliber/complexity of exam material in tougher courses at many top 20s including Emory manage to blow many non-top 20 counterparts out of the water). This is probably the story at most top private schools (other than LACs which are notorious for heavy workloads). At engineering schools, and some public schools for example, one must manage the workload and reasonably difficult exams. In other words, they literally “work” so hard that it is less likely that they’ll have time to prepare specifically for the exams. At Emory, with plenty of exceptions admittedly, one gets plenty of time to prepare for the toughest exams. However, in a sense Emory and similar schools take a lot of discipline. In sciences, most teachers will not use your grade as gun to hold to your head and say, “you better do this P-Set or else your grade will suffer”. Emory just let the exam indicate your level of discipline or even creativity Professors like Soria, Eisen, and Weinshenck (Orgo,bio, and Orgo. respectively) design exams that require not only mastery of material, but some level of intuition and creativity so that you can handle material you have never seen before. The fact that these types of exams (ones where it’s simply you know it or not, and one could have easily found the answer in the textbook or notes) exist in the sciences indicates the influence of the liberal arts curriculum on some professor’s teaching style. They attempt to teach at a level that requires students to go beyond memorizing problems out of a textbook or from P-Sets designed by the prof. This style is more likely at a private school, especially a top one, because there is a great deal of freedom allotted to profs when designing their course. What one would find at many public school is a large degree of standardization in courses like organic chemistry (for example, many public schools, including Georgia Tech, administer an ACS standardized organic chem. final at the end of 2nd semester. If I wanted ease, I much rather have had that than Jose Soria’s finals) and biology. Here, they can teach how and what they want, and you will just have to go along for the ride.</p>
<p>Haha, I have Eisen’s bio exam tomorrow. Funny you mentioned him.</p>
<p>I’m sure you’ll do well. You have to admit that he is one of the tougher bio 141 profs., if not the toughest, but one of my friends (a TA) told me you guys were doing well (I’d imagine better than the students last year). I get to take him for cell bio next year.</p>
<p>We’re doing okay…On the first midterm, our class had the lowest class average of all the bio classes, but we’re doing much better now! haha does he still do case studies for cell bio?</p>
<p>Does anyone know when grades come out on OPUS for fall semester?</p>
<p>Today’s supposed to be the last day…</p>
<p>That’s what I’m thinking. All my grades are up. The last day to submit them was supposed to be yesterday.<br>
ch0iminy: You’ll probably be most prepared for bio 142 if it ends up being a hard year because all the other bio 141 sections were quite easy this year (maybe with exception of Calabrese), including Spell’s class. I have no idea what that means for 142 and what you should expect. Good luck, your background from Eisen’s class should be really helpful.</p>
<p>Sorry, another random question: Can professors see your grades from other classes? Like, your GPA and stuff?</p>
<p>can someone please list all the professors to avoid for freshman sciences? or list their names in order of difficulty.</p>
<p>Your taking the easy way out and I shouldn’t do this
In order from least to most difficult with explanation on who you should choose despite difficulty…
Bio 141: Escobar<Spell=Calabrese<Eisen (tests can be tough, but averages are close to other sections by the 2nd exam, yet he still curves up, plus he does case-study based learning which is really beneficial to pre-meds. Again, excellent lecturer, so students do well on exams. Weinshenck effect). Choose anyone but Escobar, he sucks.<br>
Bio 142: The teachers with multiple choice tests are actually near standardization as of last year (it could change this year). So Escobar=Spell=Shepherd. However, Campbell offers multiple choice/short answer hybrid (which is lower risk, because of partial credit). Her tests are easy-moderate like the other three, but people complained because most of them got used to the multiple choice tests from 141(Eisen was only one with short-answer/essay). Karla P. is new so it’s a ? for now. She was one of Eisen’s grad. TAs, so she may do short-answer/essay/case based exams.
Chem. 141: Weaver=Mulford<Morkin. Morkin is the best lecturer and is most likely to curve at the end to raise it closer to Weaver and Mulford’s average. Her exams are not difficult enough to warrant avoiding her. The only reason her exams are slightly harder is because she asks some conceptual questions in context of real-world problems sometimes. All of these teachers are reasonably difficult for a gen. chem. course.<br>
Chem. 142: They are all equal mainly because 142 is very standardized and mathematical based. Both Kindt and Morkin try to integrate conceptual problems. While Mulford and Weaver (especially Weaver) go crazy with mathematical concepts. I would still choose Morkin as she normally has higher averages second semester (though it’s not because the tests are easier).</p>
<p>Physics 141: Everyone else<Bing who is the best lecturer in the dept. as he specializes in physics education. All of Bing’s exams are somewhat challenging for a non-calc. based course. Roth is moderate throughout and a decent lecturer (but it’s at 8:30) The rest give moderate-easy mid-terms, but design finals to take the students out. Given that, they all end up moderate. But in my opinion, none of these are true physics courses and are easy, including Bing’s class.<br>
Physics 142: Everyone else<Bing. Same as 141, but bunches of Noobs teaching other sections. Just choose Bing here.<br>
Physics 151: Real physics: 1 prof. with huge curves or buffer grades (changes each year)
Physics 152: Changes each year, so I won’t bother describing. </p>
<p>*For chem. and bio- I really shouldn’t give you this because the difficulty of profs. from year to year is inconsistent. Like this year, most of the bio 141 profs. were easier than the year before including the “tougher” ones. In chem. there seems to be rotation. Sometimes they’re the same difficulty with different testing styles/emphasis. Sometimes one is significantly easier than the rest (some years, this is Mulford and some it is Weaver). However, the ones that were easy one year could be much tougher another. Like last year, Weaver decided to be tough and had lower averages. Morkin stayed normal, but had the highest averages, while Mulford stayed normal and had averages between the two. Kindt was like Mulford. It varies so much each year. And I know “politics” governs the difficulty of the bio sequence each year. Bio’s difficulty is a lot like a roller coaster since they reformed it in like 08’. Obviously they can’t decide rather they want it to be a weedout or not. Given this, I would go with a prof. disconnected from the multiple choice format (because if your prof. steals Spell’s test and they suck as a lecturer, you could be screwed, especially if they aren’t feeling generous enough to curve that year). These profs. tend not to care much about this stuff and just teach the best they can. Eisen, Campbell, and possibly Karla will be examples of profs. with this mentality. Eisen and Campbell are almost guaranteed some sort of curve for those worried about grades.</p>
<p>thank you so much 
so Einsen, Campbell, Bing, and Morkin are the ones that teach the best and prepares you the most for the exams?
wait so TAs do teach undergrads? I though emory college only had professors that taught undergrads 
also, do people who want to major in nursing tend to have the same classes as pre-med people?</p>
<p>No, nursing majors normally don’t have all the same courses. They even get a special orgo. (I don’t think this is fair). For bio, you could go with Spell. She is the best lecturer overall and she makes the exams that the others steal when they are too lazy to make their own. Campbell is simply the most experienced non-multiple choice lecturer so far (perhaps Karla will de-throne her). It’s just that if you go for a multiple choice prof., don’t go with Escobar or Shepherd. It’s just always risky because you never know how hard they’ll try to make their MC exams in a certain year. A hard MC exam (especially with mediocre/sucky lecturer) is problematic in the sense that it’s all or nothing. But taking Spell could be worth the risk. Campbell is more of a safety choice for if you are not great at MC like myself. I do much better with short answer/essay questions. So with bio, choose the exam style you like and choose Spell or Campbell if you can. I’m confident that Eisen>>than the rest (even spell) in 141, so the tougher exams are worth it. 142 is always the grey area. But the rest you have are right.</p>
<p>I had Eisen for Bio141 and Spell for Bio 142. Spell is a much better lecturer (probably the best for bio 141/142). I def learned a lot with Spell but my grade was lower. Eisen’s test are def easier and the average for the class was higher. So if you want to learn more go for Spell and if you want easier go for Eisen (although its not easy by any means!).
I had Campbell for bio370 not 141 or 142. But she was hands down the easiest teacher I have every had at Emory. She is she teaches her 141 class the same way I would say go for it.
For Chem 141 and 142, I had Morkin. She was amazing and I became a chem major b/c of the class. Take it :). Although, the tests are pretty difficult.</p>
<p>from what I’m reading, we get to choose the teacher that we want?</p>
<p>Most people think Eisen is the hardest, and this year he had the lowest averages hands down (Spell’s were actually kind of close to Escobar’s). The year before, Eisen and Spell had about the same average. Some of her exams were really tough though, while some were easy. Seems like she wanted to achieve her 75 average. Most people prefer Eisen’s lecturing from what I hear. And you can’t compare them for 142 b/c Eisen doesn’t teach it. All I know is that I had Spell for a special lab, and that she was really good, but her specialty is molecular genetics, so that may explain her even greater aptitude in teaching 142. As for Campbell, she never taught 141 since I’ve been here other than summer which doesn’t count because science classes are watered down over summer b/c of the time crunch. She taught 142 my year and had the lowest averages and had to be curved up closer to my section. She apparently didn’t teach well that year though. But some people said she lectured reasonably well over summer and in 370. I heard that in 370, she used the same tests as she did before and that many people got a hold of them, and the grades became terribly inflated (several of my friends who took it this year told me about this). Easy or not, I wouldn’t ever take her for 370 b/c she clearly isn’t putting enough effort into it if she re-uses the exams. </p>
<p>Never compare 141 averages to 142: There is no correlation. My understanding about 142 last year was that Orloff had the lowest averages, but was a good lecturer. Spell’s were actually consistently in the high 70s. I’m guessing you’re more like me and you aren’t as good at multiple choice, especially when it’s really tricky and wordy (though I certainly worked hard and made it work in L’hernault’s 142 class. His questions were really annoying. Apparently Spell is the same way). I’m basically saying that it was probably easier for you and not others. That’s why I’m gonna stick to telling this person to choose the testing style they like best. But I still would prefer Eisen for 141 because of the case-based learning. That is extremely useful and intellectually stimulating whereas the rest are just traditional intro. bio courses at a tough school. </p>
<p>As for your inquiry on TAs: No, not many TAs teach courses here (at least not during the semester). Perhaps some post-docs do teach, but I wouldn’t consider them TAs. Many are really good. And this is most typical with freshmen English courses and a couple of sections of calc. 1 and 2. The SI sessions are indeed led by undergrads. It’s basically a peer-lead problem solving session. They choose undergrads that did really well in the course to lead these sessions. The prof. releases a P-Set, you try to work it on your own, and then you go to these sessions to work them with your group leader and peers. Unfortunately, I actually like the way my freshmen orgo. prof. broke away from SI and did his own thing. The actual SI seems to encourage people to merely come and record answers. It employs the leader as moreso of a teacher than a guide or ally for an attempt at solving problems. The way Jose Soria does it inspires more collaboration between the leader and the students and thus requires students to be more proactive and ask questions as they solve the P-Set (as opposed to asking them as they watch the leader solve them) or at least propose what they view as a viable answer. The leader just uses their knowledge of organic chem. to guide the students in their effort. I guess it just fosters less passive learning. However, on the good side: Some SI leaders run the SIs more like a recitation session and since they were in the class as the teacher lectured, they can give a rehash of the material. This can be very useful and effective.
Emory83: Of course you get to choose.</p>