<p>I am deciding on which to go to Emory or University of Notre Dame. I plan on doing pre med but I have been looking and looking and I just can't seem to find an answer. </p>
<p>Does anyone know which pre med program is better? </p>
<p>Which one has a higher med school acceptance rate? </p>
<p>Any information would be very helpful. </p>
<p>Thank you :D</p>
<p>Go to Emory. Both are great schools (obviously) but you will have more opportunities at Emory with CDC and the hospital.</p>
<p>I recommended typing this question in the Notre Dame forum as well because we are biased. I say the opportunities are equal, Notre Dame is well known for helping students find internships and research projects, Emory has the CDC and hospital but not EVERY student can work there obviously. Also as far as pre-med Emory is not “greater” if anything Notre Dame has more prestige. But as far as acceptance to medical school goes Notre Dame wins. If you google it the princeton review states “According to university statistics, its science pre-professional program has one of the highest acceptance rates to medical school of any university in the United States.” Do not ask me why this is the case as I do not know. But if you post it on Notre Dame you will see. I think you should base your decision on campus tours. The social life is probably equal (except notre dame has d1 sports), but im not a sports person so i love emory all the more. Good luck! No matter where you go, you can’t lose!! Remember talk to some ND peoples on their forum they are SOOO loving of their school haha they can talk for hours. but so can some ppl on here, emory is amazing! So just evaluate costs, tours, and what you like best!</p>
<p>oh heres the facts:
“The medical school acceptance rate of the University’s preprofessional studies graduates is 75 percent, double the national average.”
[Profile</a> // About ND // University of Notre Dame](<a href=“http://nd.edu/aboutnd/profile/]Profile”>http://nd.edu/aboutnd/profile/)
emory’s acceptance rate:
Acceptance Rate 48.5 (carrer.emory.edu)</p>
<p>Good luck and if your a genius which you prob are getting in med school should be easy for you for both scools! Just have a 3.5+ gpa and a GOOD MCAT score.</p>
<p>yawn, emoryguy980 is obviously a ■■■■■ from ND. As pre-med goes, Emory definitely has an edge over ND. Research opportunity goes without saying… if you want to do research, you will get a position, if not CDC, or whitehead, then for a professor. NIH funding for the two schools : Emory $262 million vs ND $11million. Biology ranking: Emory tied with Brown and Dartmouth at 34 compare to Notre Dame at 71. For chem, Emory at 38 vs ND 67. </p>
<p>[NIH</a> Awards by Location and Organization - NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT)](<a href=“http://report.nih.gov/award/organizations.cfm?ot=DH&fy=2010&state=&ic=&fm=&orgid=&view=stateorg&sumcol=fun&sumdir=desc]NIH”>http://report.nih.gov/award/organizations.cfm?ot=DH&fy=2010&state=&ic=&fm=&orgid=&view=stateorg&sumcol=fun&sumdir=desc)</p>
<p>Guys: Pre-med quality should not simply be defined by research ops. and grad. program rankings. The coursework matters too. Emory students forget this.</p>
<p>The person should find out more about the coursework at ND vs. Emory. If Emory is less rigorous, it can hurt their MCAT score, even though the GPA may be a lot higher. This happens to lots of students here, they take easy classes and screw up the MCAT somehow. So, if they come here, they need to avoid letting their peers swing them to the “easy” route or else their MCAT may swing right down to hell. Perhaps go on NDs website and look for some exams in a traditional pre-med intro/upperlevel course and see if it looks challenging. You won’t find Emory’s online, but I would be willing to provide you stuff and recommend teachers. The advantage of top 20 privates for pre-med is research ops. and rigor, however many idiotic Emory students don’t take advantage of the latter. Given this, they should have just attended UGA (regular, not even honors) or somewhere similar. Basically, lots of pre-meds here just wasting their parents’ money and taking up space of those who really want to be challenged/learn. It’s a phenomenon at many schools, but the frequency at which it happens here is both surprising and annoying. Too many students are anti-putting reasonable amount of effort toward getting an A. They believe they deserve As w/minimal requirements simply because they were awesome in HS. Unfortunately (or fortunately) that doesn’t work out for many. The curves either don’t end up being as generous as expected or they screw up the MCAT.</p>
<p>@bernie12 can you recommend some teachers for each subject?</p>
<p>Bio 1: Eisen or Spell (Escobar=Easy, but pretty bad. Can’t provide explanations for simple chemistry like acid/base. Basically can’t provide anything from outside of the book). Bio 2: Spell and Eisen’s counterpart-Passalauqua. She’s been a hit so far and she isn’t too hard. </p>
<p>Spell is traditionally a good lecturer with challenging exams (but not overkill, they are just very tricky MC). Eisen and Passalauqua present something new to the intro. bio series that a person truly interested in science/medicine should want, Problem/Case based learning. They are great lecturers, and instead of basing the class off of the book and traditional lecture methods they base it off of case-studies that put the content being stress in context of a real life-problem/disease. It teaches you how to think about science. Eisen’s exams are tough (he bases the exams around 1-2 case studies and will use them to test the key concepts, and it’s generally all short-answer/experimental design), but unlike Spell, curves. Passalauqua continues the case-based class for 2nd semester, but since she’s a noob, her tests are less brutal (she has to win over students before increasing rigor).</p>
<p>Gen. Chem: They’re almost all good. Most think Morkin is the best, but as normal at Emory, you pay the price. She’s generally regarded as the toughest because she emphasizes conceptual material. People love Mulford’s animated style of teaching. Weaver’s pretty good, but he is the opposite of Morkin. He’s hard b/c he tests mathematical concepts really hard. Mulford in terms of difficulty, is probably easiest. People generally like the “noob”(in this case, one who hardly teaches intros) who they sometimes rotate in each semester for 141/142. People liked Hill (had him for Inorganic, he’s pretty good, doing groundbreaking research, and is a supernerd lol) who will be teaching 141. People like the Kindt person teaching 142 this semester, though he also tests concepts really hard. Basically, no bad gen. chem profs. If you want a little exposure to what you’ll see in orgo., definitely go Morkin. </p>
<p>Orgo: Weinschenk for now. The others have yet to be judged. I know Liotta’s good, but he’s a push over so the class isn’t challenging and you will not learn much. Davies/Menger/Gallivan. Gallivan is good (most people said so, and I have him for grad. bio-organic now), the others don’t usually teach organic. I heard Davies was good for his bio-organic though (however, that’s a special topics that is really small), so if they are to teach when you take it, the jury is still out. Weinschenk is a great lecturer that gives tough exams. However, he gives you every possible resource to do well on them. He’s also a light grader. Both of these elements combine to give him the section with the highest average even if his tests are conceptually harder than the others.<br>
Also: Soria=Weinschenk if you can take freshmen orgo. However, he has a more “go with the flow” teaching style, tougher grading, and perhaps conceptually harder exams than Weinschenk. In Soria’s class, you’ll often learn (or be responsible on an exam) stuff only learned in advanced orgo. classes (especially second semester). His tests often require a great ability to stretch the imagination. If you take him, don’t let test 1 and 2 in 1st semester fool you. It gets way harder after that. The first two are just to keep people from dropping and allowing for freshmen to adjust. Weinschenk gives no such adjustment tests b/c their shouldn’t be any adjustment. Sophomores are already used to Emory rigor and know what to expect given Dr. W’s rep. Dr. W. has the advanced stuff, but in lesser quantities and it doesn’t come as a surprise. Often it is very similar or almost the same as something covered in a lecture, handout, or Problem Set. Basically Ws. tests are predictable (you also get Back exams in W’s. class, not in Soria. He increases difficulty dramatically each year anyway so they wouldn’t help. Soria adjusts to the talent level he observes/rather he’s annoyed w/the performance whereas W. doesn’t).
Physics=Bing, Roth for 141(Bing teaches both 141/142, Roth does 142) or maybe even 151/152 (they’ve gotten much better teachers so it’s good now.)</p>
<p>If NBB major: Take 301 w/Frenzel or Calabrese (provided Calabrese ever teaches it again). Frenzel is easier and smaller, and a solid lecturer. However, if you want the fall section so that you can take the supplementary neurosim. lab, Calabrese is probably good(he hasn’t taught it in a while, now Lui and Prenz are doing fall. Heard Lui was lame and Prenz is a noob so the jury is out).</p>
<p>These are your traditionally pre-med classes. Whatever else you take is up to you. Perhaps OFF(organismal form and function) w/Beck (excellent), Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy w/Starnes, Cell Bio w/Eisen, and/or Human Phys w/(Jaegar, I hear he’s one of the better teachers. Stokes isn’t around, and Seiglar is terrible)</p>
<p>thank you so much! :)</p>