@anxiousmess123 and @zhonginator
Sorry, it has been a while on here, but evidence tells me that the thing about the grading curve is more like a half truth. The fact is, for pre-med requirements, the grading patterns and distribution targets are similar at both (Emory is one of the lower grading privates in STEM and overall and Georgia Tech has experienced a good bit of inflation to make the two more similar than different). Like there is a 78 page Georgia Tech factbook floating out there that gives average GPAs/grades given for that fall by college and the college of science and engineering both had averages pretty much on par with other selective universities (maybe only a tad lower as is typical for public schools)
You can also go look on Georgia Tech’s course critique (if pre-med, type in courses like 1510/1520 and you can even look at professors per term grade averages. Some of the most popular ones have like a B+/A- average in recent semesters. Do the same for chem 1211/1212k, chem 2311/2312 or 2313, physics 2211/2212, and whatever maths you’ll take) to confirm the following, with exception of some unusually hard grading physics and math professors at Tech, the averages of the following: General chemistry, general biology, organic chemistry, and maybe even general physics is typically between B- and B (2.7-3.2 course GPA) which is the same grading standard at Emory for intro. STEMs (chemistry courses, for example, openly specify on the syllabi that a B- is the target average for the course. Bio, physics, and math are not as open about it but in a normal year bio is like a B and the others are more like B-) and even intermediates in certain departments: Course Critique
HOWEVER, in this case, you are really comparing apples to oranges because you are talking about doing BME at one school and biology at another. A BME major is going to take more math and more challenging and lower grading core courses in general AND will generally have a much heavier courseload than a pre-med or anyone in a standard life sciences major like biology anyway. There is also the fact that the two schools handle teaching many key STEM courses very differently (both content and pedagogy). I think that things like math, CS, and physics are generally much more challenging (in terms of raw complexity of intellectual demands) at Tech, but Emory’s professors in things like chemistry, neuroscience and biology can be a bit more challenging because those are Emory’s strong suits at the undergraduate level and much like how Tech has a lot of professors that push students to do higher level problem solving and critical thinking in things like CS, physics, and math as early as possible, Emory has professors in the life sciences that do the same (plus the chemistry curric. at Emory is just on some other stuff).
The main reason you would have a harder time at Tech grade wise is because you are trying BME (which honestly, is very risky if you are a tunnelvision pre-med but less risky if you are open to do other stuff in science in case pre-med doesn’t work out) and BME is hard at any university and definitely at selective universities like Georgia Tech. If you did biology at either, it would basically be the same grade wise with different teaching styles/flavors and a different selection of electives. You should really think about this, and maybe consider just going to whichever is cheaper and realize that BME and biology are dramatically different choices but that Tech gives you both choices and that doing biology at Tech doesn’t come with a GPA penalty (vs. Emory at least. Again, the same way Tech may challenge you in math and physics sequences is how Emory will punish most in gchem and ochem). Definitely don’t choose based upon some notion of a softer or harder grading curves. The differences there aren’t big enough when you compare similar courses. The only real GPA advantage is that Emory’s geneds are plentiful enough to allow you to take enough non-STEM courses that could perhaps pad your overall GPA.