@VANDEMORY1342 I don’t know that that’s true…I didn’t apply to BC, but I did apply to some schools that are very different from one another, and I have specific reasons for liking each–those reasons just happen to be different. It’s not as though people can only like one thing
@princessbex13 same here, i had like five or six very different criteria i wanted to be met at a “dream” college and so i applied to a lot of schools that filled 4 at least- giving me an array of (seemingly different) schools but then again that’s just me idk, college admissions still seems like a mystery to me lol
Do you think because the admitted so many students early with the release of scholarship infromation that less with get an acceptance tomorrow
@princessbex13 : It depends right, I find on CC, that there are many misconceptions about schools and their offerings/resources. As one poster pointed out some may say: “I really liked this aspect of this school” and others on the list may be substantially better in that arena but since their is already a pre-existing bias towards one, the feature at the other school is overlooked.
@Nomorelurker: Please don’t go into the inflation and deflation in STEM thing lol. There are so many misconceptions in this arena that it is insane (often students of some school will claim: “deflation deflation” and meanwhile try to say it is worse than other places based upon no evidence) . The only school I know of with TRUE deflation in STEM is BU (BU also has it outside of STEM which is the main issue folks have with it). Elsewhere there is just rigorous grading (no curve in “medium level courses” where averages in the course are above 75 or so or low course averages curved to something like a B-…this scheme is super common among ALL research universities. Some privates are more lenient in their lower division courses in terms of where to center the curve), hard content, and/or very rigorous examinations. The latter two may interact with the first. Like if I am Harvard and MIT, and I know for a fact that the intro. STEM courses are on average significantly more rigorous than peers (perhaps even near peers) in terms of the content AND the exam styles, it may not make sense to center a low average class to the same B- as other places where the course is pitched lower (perhaps substantially), so they may curve such classes to B or B/B+ instead of B-. You will see some places that like to have students whine about the “deflation”, but it is usually just the stereotypical rigorous grading seen at other schools. Some student bodies just choose to complain about it. What is funny, is often some will attempt to come for the HYP level schools about how “pre-meds benefit from inflation”. Again, one can go find course materials if they try hard enough and you will generally find HYP and several top 10s pitching intro. courses at a different level or incorporating content typically covered in advanced or intermediate courses elsewhere (so yes, even at a different level from other elites not quite in that tier). And then usually, the humanities and social sciences have a bit of inflation or at least higher grading everywhere.
There is a trade off for everything, those at HYPS pay for the softer curves by having to compete again very bright (and perhaps experienced) students in classes with harder than normal syllabi and examination styles on average (basically, they may be doing substantially more for a B centered curve than many others are doing for a B- centered course). Unless the analogous course at one’s school is comparable to the level of those places, there really is no point in comparing grading procedures. Knowing Emory, for example, I could maybe say that a couple of organic chemistry instructors there could level the playing field by grading more generously (because their sections are comparable or harder than many top 10 schools). The same could be said for Northwestern and WUSTL which are also kind of notorious but still do the classical C+/B- , B-, and B-/B centered adjustments. However, professors at each are typically sticking to either what they feel rigorous grading is or what departmental recommendations are for a course GPA.
@bernie12 that may be so, but I was specifically responding to the claim that people cannot like schools that are very different from one another–to me at least, that’s a separate discussion from preconceived notions about what a school has to offer 
Rejected from Northwestern, fingers crossed for Emory tomorrow!
Same @senioritisls
does anyone know what emory mostly focuses on when reviewing the applications? I have a great GPA, standardized test scores, & extracircs but looking back I re read one of my supplements and realized I don’t really like it anymore. Will Emory count one okayish supplemental heavily against me?
I have many friends who are Emory alumni (I am an alumni as well) and are very knowledgable about admission decisions. Emory tends to focus more on essays rather than your objective stats. So to answer your question, that one “okayish” supplemental will be somewhat of an issue when reviewed by the admission committee. They don’t want some bland genius who can score a 1600 but can’t make eye contact with peers of the opposite gender. [-X
Same @senioritisls @matt4isu
Same @IntApp2022 @senioritisls @matt4isu
Does anyone know what time the results will be released tomorrow?
The tweet said that it would be 6 PM ET.
6:00pm ET
Thank you!
For anyone that got an “other recommender” (not teachers recommendations) did it show up on your admissions portal? Mine does not, it only shows that the two teacher recommendations were received (a green checkmark). It does say on my commonapp, however, that Emory downloaded the recommendation. Do you think it doesn’t show up because its not a requirement for every applicant?
Probably @blue290. If it says downloaded on CommonApp I wouldn’t worry about it
@bernie12 , had read about grade deflation at BU as you posted yesterday, but also reportedly at schools like Wake Forest and many other universities around the country. Are you suggesting that there are not “weed out” courses in say organic chemistry at Emory or Wash U which are known to have rigorous pre-med classes? GA Tech has been taking the heat for their rigor to a point where strong “A” students in high school are losing their Hope scholarships in recent years. Some argue that students may have a “better” chance at a higher GPA at the state university, thus helping to gain future admission to medical school. I am not saying it is happening at Emory, but it may be something for students to think about when making a final decision about where to matriculate.
@Nomorelurker : No I am saying the opposite…Emory and WUSTL do have those weed outs. I highlighted organic chemistry at Emory, WUSTL, and Northwestern because they are known for extremely challenging instructors comparable or rougher than what you would see at an HYP level school yet the curve is lower. I am mainly saying that certain grading practices that some students whine about and call “deflated” at some schools are actually very common. Just some student bodies actually suck it up and don’t whine as much.
Georgia Tech is tricky because a) it is a STEM institute, b) it is in Georgia. Keep in mind that while Georgia Tech is excellent and gets a good share of students from some of GA’s best schools, it also gets a good share of high performers from “basic” schools. In addition, the course load of an engineering major cannot really be compared to say a typical natural science major or pre-med anywhere. Engineering majors usually require more credit hours to complete degrees and graduate “on time”. They aren’t concerned about having to often “double up” on sciences so much as triple up or quadruple up on STEM classes. So imagine a freshman engineering major at Tech coming in thinking: “I’m the stuff”…They are likely taking, general chemistry, general biology, physics, and math (Calc. 1 or higher) both of their freshman semesters.
Now, I know that general chemistry at Tech is on the easier side in comparison to many top privates including Emory (usually MC only because it is too large), biology there is about the same level, but different content (unfortunately MC only there), but beginning math and physics are VERY challenging (I think some of the instructors for physics and Calc. 1 and 2 are known as the “4 horsemen”). It would be comparable to having 2 courses in one’s schedule equivalent to Weinschenk or Soria at Emory for organic, but these are freshmen.
Doing any 2 in that combination alone may make for a higher chance of success, but doing all 4 is going to hurt unless you manage time really carefully and/or come in with a super strong background in some of them. I’ve only seen the strongest natural science majors at elite publics and privates take analogous schedules as freshman and they are usually graduate school or MDPhD bound and are well-primed for success with that level of intensity. The fact is, many especially those coming Georgia’s public schools are often not ready for that type of course load at schools as selective as Georgia Tech or Emory for that matter. Doubling up may be a challenge to many. Again, many came from schools where it was comparatively effortless for them to succeed. The training wheels come off in many intro. and intermediate STEM classes.
In fact, I have an anecdote (it is a ratemyprofessor comment from someone about Dr. Soria’s freshman organic I believe, fairly recent) to share that indicates the sort of high school mentality of learning and how they think college learning should work:
“I know that many people liked Jose’s class but it was not right for me. I am the type that needs a textbook and practice problems to really understand the concept. Jose’s tests are based on the notes he gives during class (attendance mandatory) but it is a very difficult application of the concepts. I was unclear on how to study.”
There is a lot of “code”(The class did have a textbook for example…Jose just doesn’t follow it chapter by chapter…he will connect different concepts to illustrate a point or application, so sometimes it looks like he “jumps around”) in this comment that ultimately spells: “I expect you to spoonfeed me material and tell me exactly how to study for the exam. You should also only just teach what is in the book”. I have taken and TAed for this course and can tell you there is plenty of practice problems given: He gives students a list of textbook problems to complete in between exams as well as his own higher level group session/supplemental problems led by TAs. In addition, he gives problems (ones he designs) for bonus points to be worked in groups between each exam (most are higher than the book, but slightly lower than group session problems), and in-class bonus point problems as well. The most revealing piece of code is when this person felt the need to write “attendance is mandatory” as if that is anomalous or something that should not be the case. It suggests they expect simplified material that can be learned exclusively from the textbook such that they could just stay home if they want to and then follow the book and still ace the exams. The fact is, he is a top instructor at an elite university, so he is not really following the textbook (the textbook is more like a reference to get foundational concepts and check competency by doing the lower level problems in the book. Dr. Weinschenk is sort of like this too) and works in more advanced material and concepts as he teaches. And naturally, he tests high level applications and asks for students to derive models to explain things…what a shock? How does one study? By actually doing all the problems (you know, the problems that apparently don’t exist) offered seriously, reading, participating in class (Soria uses Socratic method and active learning heavily and even calls students to the board), going to office hours. I mean, face it, many folks just really need to learn to adapt their study habits to different situations. “I am unsure how to study for it”? Sometimes it is not all about studying. The exam style is meant to test whether you are able to sort of “think on your feet”.
This really just goes to say, that only some of what goes on Georgia Tech is attributed to “rigor”. The math and physics instructors are like what I described Soria’s class. Imagine the tons of students there and elsewhere that have the same attitude as the person who wrote the somewhat questionable comment on RMP. Many students, especially freshmen, are just not accustomed to learning at this level and with a degree of independence. They are still “only cover what is in the book and then only test that material” mode, which is kind of just not science at all.
@bernie12, great points. GA Tech also gets plenty of students from outside of GA too, including many who did not get into MIT for example. There seems to be certain arrogance that GA Tech is the toughest of the GA schools, factoring in Emory as well, but no doubt that is very subjective and may be major dependent. Do you think weed out classes are a good thing? There is a lot of talk lately about the mental health of students and that GA Tech is trying to address this issue for freshman.I agree that many students may not be ready for the rigor of GA Tech, WUSTL, or even less rigorous universities.
Decisions are coming soon…