How bad is this Oxford College bitterness over at main campus?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
41

<p>[National</a> Trends in Grade Inflation, American Colleges and Universities](<a href=“http://www.gradeinflation.com/]National”>http://www.gradeinflation.com/)</p>

<p>Look at the chart toward the bottom.</p>

<p>this could be useful. I don’t know about Emory though. I have seen a recent (I think) publication that displays the men and women separately, and women had GPAs reflecting the one published, while men had about .1 lower. However, they did get it from an Emory publication. But I think Emory wants to make itself look good by posting higher GPAs to show that the student bodies are improving (wants to claim that it no longer is trying weed-out students, and is trying to obtain the best performance possible, especially considering the increasing qualification of students entering the school). Yeah, but as you will see, we have only as much inflation as most other schools, even some publics. </p>

<p>Digression: I recently got to see a Georgia Tech general chemistry exam. Our general chemistry classes are harder. Despite all the hype about GT being really hard, I think our intro. bio and chem. classes are definitely more difficult. The class size just probably yields a higher GPA some years, depending on the profs. and whether they curve or not. And when they do curve here, it’s not very generous and may only be given to certain students. Normally the averages in intro. courses are slightly below or above B-(2.7) which is on par with Tech bio and chem. Though, I’d imagine Tech gets infinitely harder as you go along to do more math and physics/engineering based courses. But many of life/natural sciences departments like NBB, Biology, and chemistry (even though theirs is more comprehensive) gives theirs a run for the money. </p>

<p>Also, as for grade inflation, and average GPA at various schools, it is kind of difficult to get much from it. For example, most large public schools have significantly lower average GPAs than top privates. UGA has a lower average than Emory. Does that mean they are more difficult? No offense to any UGA fans, but I seriously doubt it. I think even UGA students are willing to recognize that the school is not as difficult as Tech or Emory. I would imagine that many students fall through the cracks at very large institutions, no matter the difficulty, but at a more difficult school like Tech, that will drive averages even lower. Things like overall student attitude and competitiveness may be able to explain why peer schools like John’s Hopkins and Vandy (I heard that they are kind of cut-throat too, especially pre-meds) would have a lower average GPA than we do. Less collaboration may lead to lower GPAs. And again, peer institutions with a more liberal arts focused curriculum (like U Chicago and perhaps Georgetown) may be tougher also because they make their humanities and social sciences more difficult by avoiding easy grading and providing a heavier workload. Lots of things go into these numbers.</p>

42

<p>The 1997 “study” is almost 15-yrs old. Many schools (Northwestern, WashU, USC) have gotten significantly stronger in terms of caliber of students. Northwestern and WashU now have higher SAT than half the Ivies; it’s reasonable to assume their LSAT averages have gone up more than many others’.</p>

<p>Also, the 1997 “study” is silly in the sense that it tries to paint with a board brush for the whole school when in reality, GPA <em>can</em> vary a lot among different colleges/departments within the same school. I know that at Northwestern, the overall GPA has been “inflated” by music/journalism/music/communications schools; students in those schools have significantly higher average GPAs (3.5-3.7 was last reported) even though they come in with lower SAT than those in the arts and sciences/engineering (average GPA there was last reported as 3.2-ish). Organic chemistry sequence is known to be probably the toughest in the nation with a B-/C+ curve; for comparison, Cornell’s orgo is curved to a B average despite what that 1997 study says. Also, Cornell has seen steady rise of average GPA since 1997, according to it median grade reports publicly available on its website.</p>

43

<p>Were you saying that orgo. was the toughest in the nation in general? Or were just talking about Northwestern. If the former, I agree. It’s normally curved to a C-B- here too. Sometimes the grading scale is adjusted so that averages will be a B-. Like my orgo. class made it difficult to get an A, but the B-range was expanded to 75(B-)-89(B+).</p>

<p>Yeah, and Emory has also dramatically increased the caliber of the students. It’s nowhere like what it used to be. Do you go to NW by chance Sam? How’s it?</p>

44

<p>Disagree with you Beretta, no way they admitted the “wrong guy.” They did a superb job filling the space for “village idiot.”</p>

45

<p>^Village idiot? What’s that? The addition of quotes only makes it more confusing.</p>

<p>I’m sure they also did a superb job admitting people who call others “village idiot.” Of all the people who read my posts you’re the only one who decided to respond with elementary school level insult. This only shows how much more mature others are compared to you. In fact, you’re the only one in this forum who first started to insult someone else.</p>

<p>You can call me whatever you want. I’m not gonna respond to your reply.</p>

46

<p>bernie2012,</p>

<p>I graduated from NU; maybe I shouldn’t be so presumptuous to say it’s the toughest but I am pretty sure it’s one of the toughest. I knew this girl from Penn at my church taking orgo at NU during a summer and she said it’s the toughest class she ever had. She majored in bio at Penn. When more NU kids started taking orgo elsewhere, NU decided not to recognize those credits except if they were from Harvard. But couple years ago, even that exemption was taken away.</p>

47

<p>Stanford does the same and, like NU, they apparently don’t accept Harvard’s credit anymore . Yeah, but I think most non-chemistry majors think organic chem. is the toughest class they’ve ever had. Same goes here, it can be brutal. As for the transfer credit, I am glad the exclusions included Harvard. It’s always like :“well, we have to recognize Harvard credit b/c it’s number 1, even if it may be easier than a similar course here”. The Harvard reputation goes a bit far sometimes. By now, I am sure there are many peer institutions with more difficult courses.</p>

48

<p>bernie, how hard is the organic chem? How hard as in do a lot of people work their butt off only to pull off a B or even a C?</p>

<hr>

<p>K looked up Village Idiot. It means the dumbest person at a village/place. Never heard of it until now. That guy must have hell of a list of insult words. </p>

<p>But, wait, English is my third language so that might be the reason.</p>

49

<p>what’s your first language? :slight_smile: and what else do you speak?</p>

50

<p>^I don’t know, I’ve got amnesia since…</p>

51

<p>It seems that profs. in classes that pre-meds take want the average to be C+/B-. Normally the median will end up at a high C+ or a B- after curving, so despite the somewhat extreme difficulty of some professors, it’s really not that hard to grades in those ranges. Dr. Weinschenk, who is notorious, curves his average close to a B-, normally his average is between 67-72. Dr. Soria, my professor, adjusts the grading scale so that 75 is B-. His finals are horrible however, and many people go into it with like B+/A and come out either barely with a B- or with a C+. It can pulverize people with a C-range grade. When I took it, I swear they 5 times harder than the midterms. Luckily he spared the freshmen this year, so that their mid-terms were more similar to the difficulty of the final. He prepared them really well.</p>

52

<p>^Well, future doctors would want a GPA of around 3.5 at least. Killing people with C+/B- is destroying their GPA in that regard. So the question is, blame on the teacher for being overly difficult or the student for not studying enough/not talented enough? I refuse to believe the “not studying enough/slacking off” part; don’t believe that Emory has many of that kind of students to drop the average so low.</p>

53

<p>I’ve said this many times. Many of the professors are not viewing their job as: “My job is to create as many doctors as possible, so I’m going to make this as doable as possible”. Their goal is to teach the subject to the best of their ability and challenge people with the material so that they know it really well. They are teaching for love of the subject, not to mold people’s careers. I think that’s how it should be. I am actually surprised when teachers in gen. bio and chem ever scale grades. Not so much in orgo. I think curving the class to C+/B- is generous. They could leave it at the D+/C- range if they really wanted. I say curving to a C may also be reasonable. And that’s one class that will be the most difficult for many people (perhaps other then chem. and NBB majors), hopefully their performance in gen. chem and bio will cushion the affects of a mediocre orgo. grade. Unfortunately, the experience in gen. bio, gen chem., and orgol at Emory are so subjective, because the profs. are so different in teaching style. For example, having a different line-up of profs. for the second sequence of a course could be helpful or hurtful.</p>

<p>Let me elaborate on that: My friend had one teacher for gen. chem 1 semester, and a different one second semester. He did fine first semester, but struggled second semester (even though he admitted that the 2nd sequence prof. was more effective at conveying the material overall). She covered more concepts relevant to organic chemistry (since she also teaches that) in first semester, and that style carried over to second semester. He was not exposed to that first semester, so often would not perform well on those exam questions which would murder him. And the problem was, there was no chance for a real curve (which is rare enough) because she was also tough first semester and only those who did well carried over to her second semester, and they kept the averages on tests quite high (up until the final at least, where they apparently did badly).</p>

<p>There was also one teacher who was easy first semester, but quite difficult second semester for seemingly no rhyme or reason. He went from having about B-/B averages on all tests first semester to primarily (with exception of one test where they did well and got a B-) D-C (the first was a D, 3rd was a C-, and the final barely pushed C). He would refer to anything above a 70 as a good class effort. Students got really upset after the first test so he introduced the concept of extra credit problems, which really helped them.</p>

54

<p>I am an alum of both Emory & Vanderbilt, and having gone to Emory as an undergrad, I always have a great interest in what is “going on” at Emory. Months ago I put up a posting on Oxford J.C. and was accused of everything from “■■■■■■■■” (which I admit I had to look up regarding its current on-line definition), to truly speaking truth to power. It was the latter, and now I am back with more.</p>

<p>I freely admit the US News rankings are taken too seriously, but one has to deal with reality. Those ranking have become tremendously influential. Thus, while I am thrilled Vandy is now #17, I am very, very disappointed that Emory is stalled at #20. If you think the issue is stupid, consider that Notre Dame, always considered a good but never great academic institution, is now ranked ahead of Emory! </p>

<p>It is the job of the administration at Emory to see to it that Emory becomes a well-known, national university. It is very hard to compete with schools like Vandy, that have Division I sports teams getting their name on TV, in the papers, online, etc., even if the schools lose. Vandy & Northwestern may lose a lot in football, but when you lose to UF or Michigan you still get lots of “free” publicity. People know your name. But Emory can directly compete with a university like Washington University, so why is Wash U (a great school) ranked in the top 15 while Emory is not? And why is it I have a feeling that Emory falling out of the top 20 is not beyond the realm of possibility? </p>

<p>There is no excuse for Emory not moving towards the top 15. Emory is in Atlanta, the most important, vibrant city in the Southeast, while Wash U is in St. Louis. The latter is a dying, crime-ridden city, its best days pre-1945, known for (1) its Arch; (2) the Cardinals. More can be said, but you get the point. </p>

<p>Duke is the best university in the South. If Emory wants to be second best one of the things it must do is change the rules regarding the “Oxford anchor”. As long as someone can get in Oxford with qualifications that don’t come close to Emory Freshman, and then can get entree into Emory as a “full-fledged” Junior with a 2.0 GPA at Oxford in Art History, Sociology, whatever, Emory will NEVER be a top 15 university. </p>

<p>Emory’s law school is not the equal of U. Va., but it is quite good. Emory’s medical school may not quite have the prestige of Vandy’s, but it is very, very good. Emory’s graduate programs, generally, do not gain one the respect of those at Wash. Univ. Emory’s college may not be the equal of Duke’s, BUT I believe that for the last 20-25 years the college has been superior to that ANY other university (or college- e.g., Davidson) in the South (note- for historical reasons I am putting Missouri/Kentucky in the South, but there is no way Maryland, and thus John Hopkins Univ., is any longer even remotely in the South). This overall combination, plus striving for constant improvement (and lots of money!), should be a recipe for moving towards a top 15 ranking. So ask yourself, what’s wrong? Let’s go in the direction of Washington University (and higher), not that of Tulane.</p>

55

<p>Lordians - Tulane fell because of Katrina. The 6 year graduation rate stats are killing Tulane, they won’t even be able to report one next year (6th anniversary of Katrina). Tulane has actually had the 3 best classes in its history the last 3 years, academically, and it is thriving.</p>

<p>That would seem to be off point, but it isn’t. The point is not to be a ratings “whore”. I think Emory is doing the right thing to stay true to its roots and its mission. Who really cares if it is #15 or 20 or even 25? Who really cares if it is above or below Wash U or Notre Dame? Yes, I understand the reality of the ratings being overvalued, but that is changing as well. People are catching on to the absurdity of the rankings, the gmae they are playing. Most students I talk to don’t care about the rankings in choosing a school. They look at selectivity and location along with personal factors like sports and/or Greek life, while parents look at finances. Parents worry about prestige more than the students do, usually. Sometimes the parents win, but usually the students choose what they think is best. Anyway, when UC Davis, which has about 20% of its students below the national average in CR SAT score is ranked 39th, you know it is absurd.</p>

<p>Relax, support your school and its mission, and be proud to have graduated from such a fine institution.</p>

56

<p>Permit me to address Loridans post contrasting Atlanta to St Louis. There is no comparison between the cities.I have lived in both and have revisited them frequently. St Louis is one of the cultural capitals of the country with museums and other attractions that put Atlanta to shame. Clearly Loridans must never have been to the city if he/she says it’s know for the Cardinals and the Arch only. Atlanta is certainly growing, growing, growing and that obsession with growth has created severe urban/suburban sprawl that can paralyze the city. In Atlanta it takes twice as long to get to attractions that are half as appealing…</p>

57

<p>Part of me thinks, well, St Louis has Budweiser, but it’s really owned by InBev now, and while it is tasty on a hot day, there’s nothing that special about it, except for a rich history and a few great commercials over the years. On the other hand, Atlanta has the locally-owned, privately-held Sweetwater, which is, I’d think, a superior beer in any case, even if it is a microbrew only limitedly available in the southeast. I guess what I’m trying to say is that, while most people have heard of Budweiser and respect it for what it is, those that know Sweetwater understand how vastly superior it is in many respects. Now the average person, having to choose between the two, would likely choose the Budweiser, because it’s familiar, but once you have someone walk by and say “hey! try the Sweetwater, it’s amazing,” and once you first taste that hoppy sweet nectar, you realize that, while Sweetwater isn’t as familiar to you, it is actually much better.</p>

<p>Sadly, you now must sit in an hour’s worth of traffic in order to get home.</p>