<p>@Caliboy1234: Tech is much more stingy with financial aid than elite private schools with lots of money. Also, engineering has the potential to not be “innovative”. I’ll explain…while many courses may have design components, so many limitations are often placed on the scope of the project or assignment to the point where innovation is squashed. In addition. many of the non-R and D sort of courses are essentially drilling/math contests and are not focused on getting you to think creatively or propose solutions so much as shoving content down your throat. It is no different from many of the worst pre-med rote memorization courses, but instead has more of a algorithmic problem solving component (but at least there is a problem solving component I guess, but innovation requires a leap into creative thinking and self-directed research and thought). I would argue that unless you plan to go to Tech and become deeply involved in the parts of the EC scene that focus on inventions and the like, you shouldn’t be so excited about the “innovation” aspect unless you plan to do BME which focuses on problem based learning which indeed is more conducive to inspiring creative thinking. However, with that said…Emory has crap tons of innovation and start-ups happening among the UG student body despite having no engineering school (one girl was just recently featured on Sharktank for her simplified box concept. Her majors are social science/humanities oriented. Go figure! She is also involved with starting up several other types of businesses or initiatives and is partially responsible for the theme of the new freshman dorm, Social Entrepreneurship). It is more or less becoming a movement on this campus. I assert that you could perhaps benefit from being a business major that takes the BEST natural science courses on the side because while engineering courses are indeed challenging, many are still not the right kind of challenging. For example, med. school courses are challenging because it’s so much content that you must memorize. This doesn’t make it rewarding (in fact, there is often poor retention when they are taught exclusively through lecture), just intense to no real benefit (you’re not learning how to apply or think about it in nuanced, real context, you’re learning only how to recall and recognize content and specific scenarios and their components. It’s not an ideal way to learn science). </p>
<p>For example, the best most rigorous, natural, physical, and computational science instructors and courses at Emory will actually teach you how to think about science or whatever creatively such that you will be able to generate your own ideas or grasp on the subject area. These instructors typically focus on giving you projects, open-ended or controversial problems, experimental analysis and design, etc. These qualities are actually kind of rare in many undergraduate STEM classes (hence why the HHMI throws money at institutions, including Emory to develop STEM courses like this) even at many top schools. Usually you may only see those type of STEM courses at the graduate level or very advanced level, but Emory has a fair amount of rare instructors who try to start developing you at the intermediate (and sometimes introductory, if you count the case-based biology instructors like Dr. Spell) level, and there is an attempt to promote even more of this. Some instructors I have taken or know are (course or courses taught are listed in parenthesis beside them): Eisen (cell biology, sometimes epigenetics- primary literature based, case-based, open-ended problems, presentation based), Nemenman (physical biology-open ended problems and very quantitative), Soria (ochem, advanced ochem lab, organometallic sometimes- problem/discussion based, extremely rare for chemistry courses, especially at private schools), Weinert (biochemistry 2, grad. bio-organic. He biochemistry and bio-organic course both make you write and defend actual research proposals), Beck (Organismal form and function, Ecology/Ecology lab. Data analysis based), Yokoyama (advanced molecular genetics-open ended problems that integrate a heavy quantitative biology component), Spell (general biology-case studies, multiple rich learning tools), Calabrese/Jaegar (computational neuroscience and neuroscience simulation lab), Frenzle (NBB 301/Neurodegenerative disease), Wyttenbach(NBB project lab- it’s in the name), Williams (Hands on behavioral Neuroscience-in the name), Easterling (specifically for Drug Development, but sign up via the grad. division for the project that really gets you thinking). Antia (population biology-quantitative biology, problem/primary lit. based). Again, most of these courses use teaching methods that spark (or in the case, set a foundation for as the case method would) creative thinking in science or are straight up project or problem based or may focus on very open-ended problems with various approaches possible. I used to bash science at Emory, but I believe the reason I did so is because most students were not taking advantage of courses like these and instead settle for “straight-forward” (plug and chug or memorization based) type of science and math courses where no actual science is done or even really considered (as in your interpretation or ideas don’t count at all. courses are not evidence based, and are indeed presentation of a collection of facts without emphasis of a relevant context), however it appears Emory has more science instructors and courses that integrate creative thinking/inquiry based learning than similarly ranked private schools. </p>
<p>For a little inspiration, note that the two founders and starters of solazyme were UG’s at Emory and the biology major was indeed influenced by the special courses in the curriculum as suggested by this article: <a href=“Oil Change | Emory University | Atlanta GA”>http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2012/spring/features/solazyme.html</a> . A famous biotech start-up from alumni from a school with no engineering component? This shows the power of intellectual curiosity and inspiring coursework from a liberal arts education (and sciences are a part of the liberal arts and should be viewed as such when done correctly), it’s just a matter of hanging with the right crowd (I know people that started the hack-a-thon, and many of them originated from the robotics club. UG’s participate in business and other types of case competitions which do inspire creative thinking about and presentation of solutions to real world problems). You don’t need to be at an engineering school for innovation. And many undergraduate engineering majors are too busy struggling with dull, but difficult coursework taught in uninspiring ways to even think of being innovative. Being surrounded by motivated peers and finding courses that teach you how to think can be much more beneficial. Business (and many other outlets such as hackATL and stuff like that) can help you harness, pitch, and implement your ideas. Now is really not a bad time to come to Emory if you are into innovation. You just have to take advantage of the academic and EC opps and not just come and go through motions expecting to randomly become involved in some project. And honestly, again that’s often another weakness I see with many engineering programs and students. Many will just settle for going through the motions to pass their coursework (they just become jaded or burnt out to the point where they forget why they do it). By the way, your reasoning for wanting to do engineering sounds exactly like the reasoning many pre-healths provide (outside of the shameless cliche “I want to help people”) and it isn’t good and doesn’t explain why you can’t get those things through other pathways such as the one I outlined throughout this post. </p>