Good points. All are incredible institutions and will take a yeomans effort to succeed
@CU123 : There is no such thing as a “pre-med major”. Pre-medical students at both must choose an offered major and can major in whatever the hell they want, and plenty do major in things outside of the life sciences.
@stressedhelpme : Uhmm…regionalism in terms of medical school admissions applies at a state level for PUBLIC medical schools (many prefer in-state students of course and preferences can be super strong). If applying to privates, your school of choice should have no impact. Only your performance and overall impact/record should. Even with that, lots of luck is involved. You really will need to pick a place that will make you happy and then strive to do as well as possible and be sure to do more than just make A/A-. Rec. letters matter so being able to get close to and receive mentoring professors who teach key STEM and non-STEM courses as well as those who run your selected ECs will really help to ensure they right a super strong reference letter for med. school and other endeavors. The “competition” goes beyond grades. You need to have an impact on some of the instructors and they you. STEM professors tend to like students, pre-health or not, who take an interest in the material beyond acing the exams and assignments and this is something hard for many to grasp or pay attention to especially in early years where they are so worried about being “perfect” for medical schools. At Emory, there are many instructors who actually love students who receive a B grade (B/B+ of course. I suspect it is because) in their course (and especially if it is a sequence course and the student makes a B/B+ 1st and then improves to the A range second. I think it is because many are better teachers/more passionate about the actual material than just acing the course and then forgetting stuff) and in the case that the course is more challenging than normal (where a B would be an A in a standard level course so anything B+ and higher is ultra strong), even for Emory or any elite, they will select them as problem solving session leaders. You want to become one of the students they like well enough to at least be strongly considered for those positions.
@bernie12 OK, will then lets go with EXACTLY what the OP said, biological sciences and economics, still thinking UCB…ridiculous.
@CU123 : Economics UCB I believe (okay, why would I give Emory a chance here at all…for undergraduate education? I hear they are “working on it”…but I doubt it has made that many changes you know…other than making the 100 series HUGE), biology, maybe Emory simply because it is kind of more cozy (and there are other elements that I think makes it stand out even from some comparable privates like VU and some others). All depends on how you define better though.
@CU123 ??? Berkeley is great for Econ, definitely better than Emory. Biology would go to Emory though.
But yeah, as an incoming Cal freshman, Cal is known for not being ideal for premed (grade deflation). Emory would be the better choice.
@rosaliefontaine : That grade deflation thing has been way overhyped…and is not a distinction from Emory. The grading patterns in the pre-health courses are extremely similar and in chemistry can go lower (every pre-health STEM course I looked at on the site @ucbalumnus showed in another thread had a course average between 2.6 and 3.0, with most being at least a 2.7, a B-. This is the same as Emory). That hype needs to end unless you are comparing to certain Ivies and top 10 schools. STEM grading across most top tier publics and privates is strikingly similar. Some just complain more than others, and that is how some places become “known” for something. It does not necessarily reflect reality. Some echo chambers are larger than others.
Also, grade deflation should mean curving down or intentional restriction of A grades. The reality is that most challenging courses have low exam averages, say low 70s and lower (meaning they are designed to challenge the smart students. Grade deflation suggests manipulation of grades in otherwise unchallenging courses) The course average in such cases would be C-/C, D, or worse. They re-center the grades at the end of the semester to some higher average, usually the middle of the scale at “less inflated” (not deflated. Again, that implies downcurves from high grades…which would also imply a course too easy for students at the school. Also implies grades stay flat or decrease over the years. This has not been the case at Berkeley. There has been increases followed by plateau) schools including UCB, Emory, VU, JHU, WUSTL, Penn (maybe Dartmouth and Columbia as well for intro. at least), and other elite publics. The center of the scale with +/- is C+/B- , and most recenter to B-. This is harsh compared to some places that curve to B for all challenging courses (admittedly, the level of some Harvard pre-health courses, makes them deserving of the B centered adjustment) OR extreme cases where some curve to more like B+.
Either way, that type of grading in STEM is still very commonplace. Schools seem to have varying level of inflation, and actual deflation seems rare (Princeton tried this…). Again, some departments and instructors may use that if they do not want to actually challenge students.
I like evidence, so here are google drive links to 3 syllabi: of courses taken by many at Emory
Gen. chem: https://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/file/d/1N4cUg2bjePxgEu8zRwFlaj-E4MxBdIbM/view?usp=sharing
Explicitly mentions B- target.
Even an upper division NBB core course, NBB 301 mentions a B- target. In fact, I think all 4 core NBB courses have that target including the research/writing seminar (that’s just mean and atypical for any school):
https://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/file/d/1SruHfkdKjj-wCJ6AzMW9UAiKZRTDH8d-/view?usp=sharing
(She basically just makes harder exams to account for the extra things done to help in class sessions to achieve her target)
And this is the “flipped” version in the spring. The one in the fall, which is a standard lecture also aims for it.
The fact that “aim” for these suggests that they design exams that will essentially yield it. The case they always mention where they say: “We will not curve down” is almost never relevant because if they are above the target because they under-estimated the students, they will usually write an exam that yields a low enough mean to get it back down or even force an up-curve. It appears UCB does the same thing.
here is Weinschenk’s ochem syllabus (even though it is old, trust me, it doesn’t change): https://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BUjd3YWtoRHVPeU0/view?usp=sharing
And when he says “typically”, that is what he means. Sometimes it is lower (1 year, may have actually been this one, 1 section only had 16% A/A- and the other 22% A/A-…if his B distribution was normal, then it was lower). He still remains the most popular instructor.
These patterns apply for physics, pre-health math courses (calc. 1 and then the life sciences second semester calculus course), and most biology courses though there seems to be a little more freedom in biology. Really just depends on the professor, but most adhere to the B-/B type of scheme especially if the course falls in the distribution requirements categories. Typically if things are to deviate, it would be those teaching electives which makes sense.
Berkeley’s pre-health/STEM grading is nothing new and I just don’t want false expectations of softer grading and grading curves for the pre-health and pre-med aligned courses at other schools. Even when you get “softer” curves, you usually pay a price of the course being more intellectually rigorous, smaller, and a more self-selected crowd.
Hi everyone - thank you all for your thoughtful and thorough replies! 
Just to be clear, my focus in college will definitely be biology - econ/possibly different humanities major is something I’ll probably just pick up. I’m pretty sure that I’ll stick to premed, but anything can happen of course!
@bernie12 thank you for your replies! So just to be clear, you think the rigor at both schools is comparable? Also, I see what you mean about getting close to teachers for recs/etc. - in that case Emory would definitely win over Berkeley
@CU123 could you elaborate on why you think Emory would give me a better chance at med schools?
Does anyone think that either school would have stronger support for premeds?
I think the general consensus here is that Emory is the better choice? Unless anyone thinks otherwise?
@stressedhelpme : As long as you are going into life sciences, yes they are very comparable in intensity and grading, despite courses generally being delivered a little differently on average. I don’t want to take sides on this because even as an Emory grad, I really respect Berkeley for undergrad. STEM, in both life and physical sciences.
" I’m pretty sure that I’ll stick to premed, but anything can happen of course!"
Please keep an open mind. I find that students get the best education (STEM or otherwise) when they do not have their primary academic identifier as some pre-professional track such as pre-health. When it comes to pre-health, you become more prone to bandwagon effects and peer pressure when it comes to EC and co-C selection as well as course selection. Your goal should be to learn as much as possible in the coursework and majors of interest and doing so may require you to defy peer pressures and conventional wisdom within a pre-professional track. For example, if you are too soft a biology major and dodge all the more rigorous courses and instructors because you need to keep a high GPA for pre-med and you don’t want to risk having to work hard for less than an A grade, then if you change your mind (say you consider graduate school) or decide you may want to take a gap year and find a science job (say a lab technician) you may find yourself less competitive because many such opps value more rigorous courses and exposure to the field in question. If you identify as a life sciences major strongly considering medical school, it may result in an approach that takes the longrun into account better and one that makes you more resistant to peer pressures that may get in the way of you learning. You also have an MCAT to deal with and it is heavy on analytical and experimental thinking, so you may want to ignore advice (and there will be a lot) that tells you to avoid instructors who demand those skills at a high level because they are “too hard” (usually they do have harder exams, p-sets, and content as well as a self-selection for tougher more intrinsically motivated students who know of the professor. Nonetheless, usually such instructors have curves or bonus point systems that give students who put in the work or learn how to properly study a much bigger shot at success).
I find that those who just get in there and buy-in to what those instructors try to impart, do well enough (B+ and higher) and maybe even become rec. letter and TA worthy. Again, with easier instructors who are aware that they demand less in terms of those skills, it is harder to impress them. Being an A student won’t cut it. Usually if you perform below your desired level in course at the level I describe, it has added value in future courses that have some of the same elements but at a lower level (or even higher. Professors love fighters. I had a good friend who ended up at UMiami med who scored B and C+ in Soria’s frosh rganic chemistry course and returned 2 years later to his organometallic course and scored an A and got a strong rec. letter as a result. Dr. Eisen, who teaches cell biology and epigenetics has this dynamic as well. One friend who scored a hard fought B in Eisen’s cell biology returned to the much tougher and more focused Epigenetics course the very next year and pulled the A. He got a super strong letter for medical school and even when he scored the B, he got one supporting his REU in immunology at Columbia the summer following his junior year). These and other courses become easier to you than it is to others who haven’t taken such instructors or previous courses that focus on more analytical thinking and problem solving. Worst case scenario is that you experience a huge upward trend in your major or in STEM courses in general and end up with a strong MCAT. And your STEM and overall GPA will likely remain competitive (because a B grade here or there hurts little if you are beasting other classes because they are comparatively easier).
I think this advice goes for whichever school you choose. Avoid getting caught up in bandwagon effects and hype. It may cause you to make decisions that prevent you from testing your limits and reaching your full potential. Of course you’ll want to balance, but if you aren’t going to ever do this (sadly many pre-healths won’t and I can kind of understand why), then the purpose of attending a supposedly rigorous elite private or public for STEM is defeated. You may as well go to less selective options, rack up As in courses pitched below your abilities, and use the extra time on your hands to party, socialize, or even study for the MCAT (since the courses are less likely to have attributes that help you prepare…which would make studying more difficult than if you did take such courses).