<p>I am a resident of Georgia and hope to pursue a degree in chemistry on the premed track. My issue is that I do not desire to seek an engineering degree and am led to question the strength of GT's premedical program (their med school admittance rate is slightly above the national average). I understand that Georgia Tech is a wonderful institution, but I fear that if I desire to pursue admission to medical school, I might encounter difficulties concerning internship opportunities, advising programs, and GPA at Tech that would not be as much of an issue at Emory. On the other hand, I wonder if the cost of Emory is worth the quality of education and unique opportunities (I know there are other threads discussing this). I love both campuses and have nothing against Georgia Tech, but I know that many other people have had to make the same choice that I will soon make and would love to hear from some of them. For an in-state premedical student, is Emory worth $150,000 more than Georgia Tech? If so, why?</p>
<p>tech is known for engineering so unless you want to do that, going there will be pointless. emory is known for their premed so if you are going into that emory is the right choice. as for cost, it really depends on you. do you want to spend that money? emory owns hospitals and stuff so it has more resources for premed people than tech. also, if you get HOPE, you still get $3600 from it that can be applied to emory. you also get another $750 from the tuition equalization thing they have at ga. from what I hear from friends, the intro sciences at tech are awful. they are used as weed out classes and intro bio have 60% fail rate. I think emory tries to help the students more than tech because well, it is smaller and tech’s professor doesn’t really care considering that there are over 250 in a class.</p>
<p>I find this quite funny, I was reading a post that said Princeton vs state school (free vs costly) and everyone said state school no reason going in debt (some did say princeton) but the fact you said more than 250 is a blatant lie. I have MANY friends at pre-med at tech who said thats a lie. Idk the legitamacy of the rest of what you said but I have lots of friends who chose tech over emory for cost. You guys could argue going to Emory instead of Harvard haha (thats a good thing you love your school) but dont go attacking a school you dont know much about</p>
<p>and by 250 i mean students.</p>
<p>ilikepizza. Intro. classes at Tech are lamer because of the size, not the difficulty. Intro. bio at Tech is easier than Emory’s so I don’t know what you’re talking about. It has like a 3.1-3.2 average GPA throughout all of the sections. Emory’s is somewhere in the 2s (only Escobar’s section may go near that 3.1-3.2 average). It was actually Emory’s intro. bio sections that weeded out (C-/F) 30-40% of the people before 2008(just when I came in, lucky me. I just escaped it). This means that bio here was once analogous to Tech gen. physics in terms of weed-out capability. The gen. chem averages are comparable, Emory being about 2.7-2.9 (all sections combined, of course Mulford’s may have a 3.0+) and Tech’s at a 3.0-3.1. Basically, there isn’t much of a difference in difficulty except for physics. However, I hear that bio majors at Tech, like those here, don’t really have to take the physics 2211/2212 series(= to our 151/152, but much harder at Tech), and even then, they can take modern physics which is easier. No doubt that most orgo. classes here are a bit (at least, as in tougher profs. are wayy more challenging as their orgo. sequence is essentially standardized as they must take an ACS final. Emory profs. can teach w/e they like/want or find relevant and hold students responsible) more challenging than theirs b/c they require more than memorization, even an easier prof. requires some extrapolation I didn’t see that on theirs. Theirs is always “label this, predict the product, do this trivial mechanism on a non-complex molecule, or predict the structure indicated in the NMR, calculate this given these numbers” whereas Emory says: “Here’s a drug or catalyst, let’s explore how it facilitates this process”. Even easy teachers ask at least a couple of questions that require more than mere memory.
.Biochem, I don’t know, I’ve only seen Tech’s survey biochem (which we don’t have and pre-meds probably can’t take). Basically, the toughness of the required pre-med courses will probably be higher here b/c there are so many pre-meds . So lets not go with difficulty. If money is a problem, the person should shuffle on over to Tech. Tech pre-meds do just fine. Emory only supports you grade wise b/c there are way more non-science classes that if you work hard enough, are guaranteed GPA boosters, but the natural sciences here and at Georgia Tech are grading very similarly (there honestly isn’t too much variation across schools when it comes to grading in the sciences. I think some of the schools up north may be exceptions) and you pre-med pre-reqs may be more intense content wise over here, so throw that misconception away. </p>
<p>Emory, however, is generally a more supporting environment for a pre-med.
Teaching quality in these key pre-med courses is also generally higher at Emory from what I’ve seen. </p>
<p>Actually, EmoryGuy. I sat in intro. bio chilling w/a Tech friend once, and it is around it at least 200(probably more). The class was well over twice the size of Emory’s 85-92 student gen. bio sections. So it isn’t a blatant lie. Those classes are jumbo compared to ours, though maybe not quite 250. Either way, the fact that they are 200 person sections, the teaching wasn’t good (one women was so bad, I almost thought she was a TA, she was worse than Escobar), and the average is still 3.0+ indicates that their intro. bio series as not as series as ours. I don’t know how to judge gen. chem. Seems similar (seen exams) except we have less MC (theirs was all MC) and more app. questions. No doubt that most orgo. classes here are a bit more challenging than theirs b/c they require more than memorization, even an easier prof. requires some extrapolation (I didn’t see that on theirs).</p>
<p>Also, Emory has a med. school admittance rate only slightly above average. That is more so up to student mentality/drive. Emory also technically weeds out lots of students who still apply for some reason (it will not discourage an applicant at all. Now-a-days it has pre-health advising so it’ll get better). Perhaps the difference is the number of admits getting into highly prestigious schools. Maybe Emory has an advantage here, but I can’t say for sure. But yeah, never judge pre-med program quality by looking at those rates. For example, looking at Emory’s, you’d never know that most of those who would generally be considered competitive do indeed gain admission. Same probably goes for Tech. A lot is behind those rates.</p>
<p>I’ve taken my son on tours of both UGA and Tech this year. The tour guides at both talk about 300-student chemistry classes.</p>
<p>I have a friend who is a freshman at tech and she pretty hates her intro bio because it is very large and even though they do have curves, there is always that one kid that get 95+ so it pretty much ruins it for everyone else. she said to me that the fail rate is like 60% and passing the tests are very hard. she is very smart and graduated with 4.00 gpa in hard classes. she warned me that those who didnt take ap bio have even a harder time with it. also, my ap physics teacher and ap chem teacher pretty much warned that the intros at tech are ridicules and one of their goal is to weed you out. classes gets smaller after the intros and the other weed out classes. @emoryguy, the 250 people I was talking about pertains to intro classes.</p>
<p>also, keep in mind that maintaining the gpa (which they just raised) for HOPE is hard and many people loose it after the first year.</p>
<p>go to tech if cost is a super major factor</p>
<p>I find that most Tech students over-exaggerate difficulty of Tech (we know it’s hard, but I don’t think it is for the reasons they site. My friend often sites the sketch teaching and use of TAs to lecture/sub “often” in upperlevels and cores. Basically the teaching is sometimes not adequate to prepp. students to the level exam they will be given. Emory generally does prep. Often tests are fair, but hard, yet you were adequately prepped). Normally when they are not doing as well as expected, they expect that others are doing the same. The average GPA does not support these hyperboles to any extent (I don’t call 7? average in a science class as failing). Sorry. Also, I don’t think that’s how the curve works. If the average of the top 5% is X, they come up w/some formula to get them to a 100 and curve the rest by a fixed percent. It’s actually much more generous than Emory’s intro. bio in which the class has a target average and will adjust whole sections up or down to achieve it. Often to avoid being adjusted downward, a prof. will crash the average by designing an exam where most will fail and then curve it back up until the average is out of the range for adjustment (Escobar did this my year, Zimmerman’s bordeline grades were curved down that year). Also, currently gen. chem is doing the same thing. The profs. often hint at the fact that there is a target exam average 75-77. So, if it goes to 80+, they’ll design an exam that yields a 6? average to get it back down. Some won’t wait until the final. It’s really interesting. Almost all orgo. sections are held to a B- max. Biochem lets the average rest at where-ever, normally a C (and if it’s a little lower, they’ll recenter to a perfect C).<br>
Many courses here are as tough or tougher, but you have more people from affluent HS’s so the transition isn’t as rough from them. Most people going to Tech or Emory had high GPAs and took hard classes. My friend took intro. bio last semester and he hates bio and he got an A. The averages of the exams were in the 70s just as at Emory (where sometimes, depending on prof., it’s 60s) and then the class was curved so that the average was close to or higher than a B at the end. Only the problem based learning classes at Emory implement any significant curve. The others, essentially aim for a 75-77 average and let it rest there. It guarantees that the average is between C+/B-. The weed-out aspect comes from the size and teaching quality. Some are probably doing well while others are doing poorly. Larger size makes getting help much harder and generally makes the prof. less accessible. Given that, you’ll hear more complaints. The Emory intros. will give you smaller size and good teaching quality, but are often just plain hard content/expectation-wise. so the goal is to successfully use all of the resources available to get an edge (SI, e-pass, office hours, review sessions, studygroups w/e. And not to mention, get a prof. who is a good lecturer or your grade will generally suffer in a supposedly easier section). Also, I’ve seen the material covered in their bio and some exams, it isn’t the same. It is essentially standardized and the exams are about Escobar level. They don’t come close to Spell, Passalaucqua, Shepherd, or anyone else teaching. They are probably only easier than when Corces was teaching, but now he only does upperlevel. </p>
<p>About 60% from Tech lose HOPE, amongst Ga. students at Emory, while much less, it’s still about 40% (probably mostly science majors). That grade inflation is not as supportive as one would think. This reflects badly upon Ga. students. Luckily I’m surrounded by Ga. peers who are doing well, but unfortunately I know too many who are not at both schools.</p>
<p>It seems your are a bit of a “noob” tech is way harder the emory. Emory’s program will always be a joke compared to tech, I took one Emory course.</p>
<p>Tech is way harder than Emory overall, but not in natural sciences. I stand by that statement. Again, I’ve seen the work from several classes there, and in hard sciences, math, and engineering (which we don’t have of course) is it harder, but natural sciences…uh no. One class is not representative. It could have been a humanities or social science class for all I know. It could have even been taken over the summer (where the better and more difficult profs. don’t even teach). I’ve looked at the grade distribution from Tech natural science classes and not even they support your claim, sorry. These distributions are readily available via their website online by the way</p>
<p>Tech has a A/B/C system instead of a A/A-/B+/B system… That’s going to affect your GPA a lot, which is crucial for med school</p>
<p>aluminum, that won’t much of a difference except in classes that typically yield a bell-shaped distribution. For Tech, this is math and physics, and for Emory, this is most of the chemistry classes (and a few popular bio classes like NBB 301, which of course NBB majors, who are mostly pre-med, take). At Tech, a bell-shaped curve puts the average at like 2.0-2.3 (because C is at the center of the grading scale), whereas at Emory, the lowest a class goes is 2.5 because the center is C+/B-, and normally the harder classes automatically yield or are curved to a B- which is a 2.7). If you take 2 classes at each school that are moderately difficult to easy, then you have like 25-30% (like 3.0-3.2) students getting A grades. At Tech, all 25-30% get a solid A whereas at Emory, some of them are getting A-'s. However it evens out because a decently (but not amazing performer) performing student at Emory in the natural sciences will have a mixture of B+/A- which yields a 3.5. At Tech, a similar student will have a mixture of As and Bs which yields a 3.5. The trick at Tech is surviving those intro. math and physics courses where much of the class gets a C and there are plenty more Ds and Fs than an Emory course would be allowed to give without drawing attention of a dean or some authoritative 3rd party (you get what you pay for when you come to Emory. Maybe not a better education than Tech, but a softer distribution in difficult classes).</p>