<p>Hi guys,</p>
<p>I've seen that stats and from what I see, Emory is a very solid and promising school. In fact, I know someone who went to Emory and after getting his bachelors, started working for $80000 a year.</p>
<p>But from an Emory student/alumnus point of view, how good is it really? compared to NYU Stern, Wharton, etc?</p>
<p>Include things about course difficulty, competition, campus life, etc please.</p>
<p>Do the other two grade on distributions (however, even considering this, over 30% can receive A grades, and an overwhelming majority will have B- or higher)? If so, I’m sure they are similar. The other two probably just had the prestige factor, something that Emory struggles with in comparison to peers (it’s too young if you don’t count Oxford). I’d imagine most B-schools, including undergrad assign lots of group projects (I know Emory’s has lots of courses where the workload is heavy and a huge bulk of it involves group work). Also, despite the grade distributions for individual classes, most b-school students seem to have high grades (because they may do very well in some courses, but mediocre in others, and when I say mediocre I mean B/B+, thus 3.4-3.6 may not be that tough to maintain). I believe it is at least somewhat rigorous from what I am told, but I really don’t really know how to judge/compare because I’m a STEM major which of course is normally quite difficult even in terms of grading (despite there being no set distribution, grades will be lower than the B-school core courses for the most part). Most of my friends really like it though. The Thursday “keggers”(socials that indeed include alcohol; I don’t know how to spell it) are fun. I can’t wait until the weather is better so that those can start. </p>
<p>I’ll let someone in the b-school provide you with more intimate details. I can only give you what I hear from those in it. My general observation is that they get a good education and get to have more of a social life without having to cherry-pick easy courses in the major like many STEM and pre-meds do. Many of the people I met that are in the b-school are also extremely outgoing and surprisingly innovative, and I usually don’t associate such terms with most Emory students. I normally wouldn’t put a pre-professional student at Emory and anything that is an indicator of intellectualism in the same sentence, but I see something different about many of the B-school students and B-school aspirees. Many of these folks do some amazing things starting as a freshmen. Sure it may be b/c many already have a solid source of money (parents for example) to start-up, but it still takes lots of effort to even come up with many of the ideas and successfully implement them.</p>
<p>You’re full of crap. Many/Most people have been enjoying their experience just fine. You probably came here intending to transfer in the first place, so you never attempted to find good in it. I’ve had my ups and downs with this school, but my experience says that the good far outways the bad. After comparing it with schools with similar academic reputations, it isn’t bad at all, even when compared to higher ranking peers.<br>
Most of the people I know in the B-school do pretty well. As for alumni salaries. Emory doesn’t fare that badly. And aside from that, it has one of the higher alumni giving rates. So obviously many people like it. As for rank, as far as those are concerned, most top 20s, including WashU are way over-rated. US has so many measurements that don’t indicate actual academic rigor or quality. Many of them indicate popularity. For example, Emory’s apps. dropping has nothing to do with quality (academic and campus quality has been going up here), but much more to do with its ability to brand itself (it’s newer, and hasn’t really started true marketing until like 5 years ago). WashU on the other hand will use very sketch tactics to get its name out and trick people to apply. Also, Emory dropped an application processing company that would forward upwards to 1900 incomplete apps. every year. Needless to say, these would count in the app. numbers in previous years. Most other top schools use this company, go figure. </p>
<p>My former roommmate transferred from Northwestern and says it’s about the same. He considered WashU when selecting, and said that he just found it unimpressive. So everyone has a different opinion. Your opinion of WashU could be merely skewed by the fact that you transferred there. After transferring there, you better at least pretend to love it and act as if it is perfect. Also, despite the percentage that transfer out, you folks are normally replaced in the exact same numbers (transfer in=transfer out) by those who transfer in and actually end up liking the school. So we simply just lost all of those who didn’t want to be here anyway. As for the career center, I think it’s getting better. It moving into B-Jones has been a help and I think they’ve been adequately responding to some of the greivances.</p>
<p>If reverse discrimination was so heavy here, how come there are not a disproportionate amount of blacks or latino/hispanics here (total is like 15% in last years class if you combine both groups). Like many other schools, we have over 25% Asian students (includes Indians I believe), in fact close to 35-40%. It is supposedly harder for such students to get in. We also had a class w/over 15% international students. Way to go for reverse discrimination. Point is, Emory doesn’t have enough URMs to claim that Emory practices it like crazy. There are other schools with similar demographic breakdowns that rank higher, yet you single Emory out. Also, Emory’s admissions policies standards are no less questionable than WashU’s. If anything, it is more ethical (but I rather not get into it). However, when judging the actual intrinsic quality of the school, this is irrelevant.</p>
<p>As for salary, that’s up to those pursuing the career and job oppurtunities. For example, if a social science/humanities major decides to do stuff like Teach for America or go into academia, or enter the job market right after graduation. I know for a fact that Emory has a lot of people doing this. Emory does not control people’s salary.</p>
<p>I like how you say, “X is awful from what I heard”, because you weren’t even here long enough to make a judgment on the issue for yourself. You also never attended the business school, which is what this person is inquiring about. Your opinion was based on nothing, but your bad experience or bitterness for not being able to go to or choosing to attend WashU the first time around. Most freshmen have bad experiences in there first year, but they don’t use it as a judgment of the school as a whole. I’d recommend that you not do so. The school is imperfect like every other, but only those with experience should get to point those out. Your one year doesn’t cut it. Sorry if you chose a few sucky profs. or weren’t able to make any friends. Enjoy WashU.</p>
<p>OP: If you want to follow the ■■■■■’s advice on doing engineering: Apply to Tech. They have great engineering (as in way better than most predominantly non-engineering top 20s) and a decent management school. This was perhaps the only useful info. they provided.</p>
<p>lolololol everyone needs to chill out.</p>
<p>He transferred from Northwestern. I think that’s what I said. If I didn’t, it’s what I meant. He transferred from NU. And yes, I did mean their. I slipped. I don’t claim to be a perfect writer. And I really shouldn’t care. This isn’t an essay. I just need to write well enough to get the point across. If I should watch my sentence construction, you need to read more thoroughly. I have reviewed it and I did say “from”.
There are lots who did the reverse. There are families that have siblings between top schools. You can’t prove that one is better. I would never claim that since that roommate transferred from NU to here, that Emory is better. Again, he said it’s about the same and that we actually do history and political science a little better (he’s a political science major and is pre-law. Emory does very well with pre-law students) That’s a very faulty premises. Based upon your logic, I should be able to say that Northwestern is better because he chose it over WashU (which he was unimpressed with). The two are very similar in academics, I’d imagine, but he didn’t care for WashU. Again, normally students choosing between top schools choose because of prestige (yes, many idiots simply look at the rank and say…“this one must be better”, and some end up disappointed because of it) or fit moreso than academics. WashU and Emory are very similar, though the environments are very different in terms of demographics/culture. Each one has things where they perform better than the other. Also, I was informed (will have to find source though) that Emory is better at placement in some key areas. I will ask about the source, and post it. Your one year is not enough to determine how bad or good Emory can be. You’d have to do more coursework/interact with more faculty to really get a feel. Perhaps it wasn’t good for your intended career, and you took courses in a weaker dept. here. That’s too bad, but many others took courses in stronger depts and w/stronger profs, so have many good things to say even after freshmen year which is normally really dull b/c intro. courses are well…dull (and profs. are normally least enthusiastic about teaching such general/basic material, and you notice an increase in quality as you progress through the major).</p>
<p>Again, just because you didn’t like it personally does not mean it was bad. I’m willing to bet that my experience freshmen year was probably infinitely better than yours and is a reason I like the school and decided to continue despite any flaws I observed. I really doubt many schools could have provided me with such an experience (at least not w/o extreme fortune), so I can’t really complain, but so much about my own experience. And again, for all intended purposes, most of my friends in the B-School seem to like it (except the grade distribution). I’ve observed great qualities in these students. The person wanted to know about the B-school. Give your opinion on that…wait you can’t. Thus your opinion is useless in this context.</p>
<p>It’s best to talk in terms of specifics like grading, teaching quality/innovation, and campus culture, personal experience, instead of merely “good” or “bad”. Also, when a school is completely judged by rankings (especially things like salary), you automatically say that you will not be an exception to the rule. You admit that the school itself completely determines you and everyone’s future. It’s really unfair to be so cynical. When I am taking/enjoying/hating a class here, I don’t say…“being here means I will only make X amount of dollars in the future”. I just get the most out of my experience. Most people try to get the most out of now, enjoy it, and do the best they can to gain excellent prospects for future success.</p>
<p>You have to admit that Emory has a way of “buying professors.” It was really disturbing when I found out my French professor was actually bought from Yale. If Emory were such a good school, they wouldn’t have to “buy” the professors.</p>
<p>I went to the business school and here is my opinion. Goizueta has a lot of good professors many of whom got their PhDs at Wharton. There are some foreigners that teach introductory classes who are not great but the school usually doesn’t give them tenure. The school has a good accounting program but is weaker in finance. I assume that you want to go into banking since you were talking about the kid who made $80,000 annually. Most banks that pay top dollar are in New York City and recruit heavily from the Ivy league. Bulge bracket investment banks have lists of target schools where they hire a certain number of students from and then for the rest of the openings they take resumes from throughout the country. Wharton is a target school for almost every bank and I think Stern is as well. Penn State is a target school for Goldman. A lot of banks recruit at UVA and I’ve heard good things about Notre Dame. Many kids from Emory do get banking jobs in New York but a lot of this is from networking and diversity outreach programs like SEO. There are also smaller financial hubs in Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte and San Francisco. Emory historically had a good relationship with Wachovia, which had their investment banking operations in Charlotte, NC. Wachovia was taken over by Wells Fargo and I think Emory is still a target school. SunTrust bank is also located in Atlanta. There are also other bulge bracket banks that take fewer students. I don’t think Goldman recruits much at Emory but there are a handful of students who have gotten jobs there over the years. The career center at Goizueta is not great. The guy who runs it had no experience in finance before he came to Emory. He was working for a career center at an engineering school before he came. I would not rate the academics very highly. I was very interested in finance since high school and I found the level of material in most of my classes disappointing. I didn’t find the curve to be bad (also there is no class on Friday so you have plenty of time to study). I got A’s in all my finance courses. Most of the professors are really knowledgeable, they just don’t give that much work and the finance courses don’t involve much math. Some of this might be because Goizueta is a two year program so people take fewer classes in their concentration and many students weren’t interested in finance before they came to college. I think most undergraduate business programs are similar. I’ve heard Wharton is actually difficult and they make you take 5 or 6 classes at a time. I don’t know that much about Stern but I think it’s a 4 year program. I kind of agree with the previous comment about engineering being better than business. Most engineering programs are challenging and their graduates are paid more than most liberal arts and business majors. Lots of banks and hedge funds are looking for people with quantitative backgrounds. Also, you can go into another field if you don’t like engineering. Lots of engineers go to medical and dental school or get an MBA. Most finance professors were actually engineering majors as undergrads because getting a finance PhD involves a lot of math. Go to Goizueta if you like Emory and Atlanta. If you’re just looking the highest paying job, I would say that Emory doesn’t put you at any particular advantage. If you get in make sure you speak with the director of the career center, Andy Rabitory, before you decide on coming.</p>
<p>Almost all top schools moved up in prestige by “buying” professors. It’s how Duke did it. Teachers tend to follow pay moreso than prestige eventually so it makes sense. Conversely, many other top schools have come to Emory to buy/poach our professors and sometimes successfully. This is nothing to be disturbed about. Many non-Ivies will do it. Also, I actually appreciate them doing it. While the French program seems harder than normal, the profs. sure are excellent and the method is certainly effective. Also Emory came up with the o la la thing. Way over priced, but still… This tactic is nothing new. You’ll have to get over it. </p>
<p>Again, my roommate was a political science major and says that Emory is better/takes it more serious compared to what he had (I guess the profs. are better because he says the rigor is equal. However, keep in mind that he took easier polisci courses here on purpose. This year is way harder for him b/c he’s run out of easy options). I can’t compare directly, but I can certainly say that the program here is solid because I took several classes in it. Just because is known to be better overall does not mean it is better in every single department. He also said that the food and dorms are significantly better here (though with college food quality,the bar is set very low. NU must have been very bad. From what I understand, the DUC is supposedly mediocre or even slightly above average compared to most schools surprisingly)</p>
<p>I actually didn’t expect Emory to be that great in finance as it’s econ. program lacks rigor. Then again, I imagine the two are disconnected. How are other depts w/in the B-School (Of course as a science major, I’ll never view them as that hard)? Also, yeah I think engineering schools tend to run differently, including there own B-schools (like management at Tech is a different style compared to our B-school).</p>
<p>As for Emory and math based courses…that’s a whole different story. Emory could really benefit from an engineering school as it may boost the quality and rigor of most math and math based courses. This is primarily because Emory would have stronger math profs that teach at a higher level.<br>
Point is, Emory has weakness, but it isn’t weak as a whole. As a science major (Chem and NBB, though chem. needs work after organic), I think it’s solid. If I was a history, anthro., psyche, polisci, NBB, English, or religion major, I wouldn’t be complaining either. Most top schools are not extremely strong in everything. I think Emory’s problem is the huge discrepancies in strength. Seems to be hardly a middleground. Some depts are very weak, while some are extremely strong. However, Emory is a lot better than many schools (except close ranking ones like in the 20s) below us. I, for example, think the academics at Tech are great, but the environment/teaching is nowhere near as good. Many teachers here put so much more effort into the course, that they can make a course far more difficult or on par with those at higher rank peers and the students still do decently compared to say Tech counterparts (like Orgo. here w/Weinschenk or Soria vs. Orgo. there where it’s standardized. W and S are way harder, but the exam averages are higher b/c they work w/students so much).
I don’t know much about the “administration” and could care less. I really don’t see the things they are doing or these things are relatively unimportant to me. They haven’t truly disrupted my experience. I’ve paved my own path here. It has worked extremely well. I only choose the best and most challenging profs. and only take the more interesting classes (I’m in a grad. level chem class now). I am able to do whatever I want to quench my intellectual curiosity, the “administration” has never gotten in my way. It was so easy getting a hang of this place even starting as a freshmen that it’s ridiculous. Also, seems as if the campus life/activities have improved since I’ve been here. For a D-3 school w/no pride, it’s becoming not bad at all. </p>
<p>Now, some of these pre-professional zealots, Emory should do away with. </p>
<p>WashU and there “pre-apps” and stuff. Excessive waitlists for yield protection, etc. They also had a history of trying to get just anyone to apply to screw with there app. numbers. Can’t say for sure that it’s true, but I think many believe that it is. Even some “higher-ups” that understand the college admissions process. I think admins. at Emory thought about doing this, but decided not to. Emory admins. realize that the place is imperfect despite what you think. They rather us see improvement in applicant pool b/c of the actually quality of the school increasing instead of simply trying to get everyone apply for no apparent reason. I can say for a fact that Emory is improving in many areas. Some courses have even begun to transform to the point that I wish I could take them now as opposed to then. Lots of Emory seem to be undergoing a rocky transformation. And unfortunately some will have to deal with it at its worse. This is the disadvantage of being the young one on the list. Again, overall Emory is pretty solid, and has come a long way, and has a long way to go. I didn’t come here expecting perfection. To do so is complete idiocy. To worry about petty things like “my earning potential” when I am a freshmen and “the administration” is really dumb when I should just be attempting to carve the best experience possible. Making a good experience here is far easier than it is at a lot of places. However, unlike many other top schools, Emory doesn’t spoon-feed you the perfect experience, and I think this is why many people don’t like it. I notice that many people in the sciences here for example complain, that “oh Emory isn’t challenging and the professors aren’t good” when in reality, they do things like go on class comments, get opinions, and intentionally choose the easiest,and often regarded as the worst profs. for a course. What the heck were they expecting when they make that “choice”. Again, a choice. They knew that there were great profs. that would challenge them and chose against. At least some profs. have so little faith in the students (this is normally why they are easier, b/c they are too busy/fainthearted to deal with complaints of whiny pre-meds who believe they avoided the hardest prof. by taking them) so that they will indeed water down the course and provide a choice. Many top schools don’t. Yet many run around here and tell what are essentially lies about the course quality/rigor here. They should remember that they knowingly took that route. People like this would have been unhappy rather in a tough and good profs. class or a bad profs. class. They are just here to get by and want to take swipes at Emory while at it. May they screw up on the MCAT lol. Hopefully, the discrepancies in rigor and quality within and throughout departs will eventually diminish.<br>
However, many profs. I talk to say that they will not improve unless the students display a desire for it. Unfortunately, for many students, this is undesirable. Emory would indeed need a change in academic culture for it to catch up with some peers. But right now, I’ve seen the level of course work at surrounding peers, and it’s actually very similar and some courses are of course tougher for various reasons. So no reason to believe that Emory is significantly different from say Notre Dame, Vandy, or Rice (though Rice’s intellectual is great). And I really don’t care if Emory drops out of the top 20. I didn’t come b/c of the rank. Besides, dropping again could be a wake-up call, and they may perhaps respond by working on many key weaknesses. Could be good for us and many other top institutions. Also, again watch the shallow statements like academic superiority. As far as I’m concerned, that is hard to gauge unless you can prove a significant difference in rigor and quality teaching in every dept. And unfortunately a ranking list won’t do it. That’s something you have to experience or research and compare side by side. A year here is not enough experience. Unless you were in a terrible major at Emory, you would have run into many very well-taught courses. Same goes for other top schools. Other top schools also have notoriously bad profs. Good outweighs bad though. Learning is my priority, so teaching quality is huge in my book. Go sit at my local HBCU (Savannah State) and tell me that Emory is a scam. Until you’ve done such a thing, you don’t understand how bad it can get. After seeing that, I will never truly complain about Emory like a spoiled brat again (besides, I’m too low income for elitism anyway). I’m way better off than many at such schools and even many/most state schools. I need not compare Emory to other top 20-30 schools. It’s useless, they are all well-off. Besides if I were actually paying tuition (Yah for Emory Advantage!!) I would probably claim that all top 20s are scams. The tuition is way too high.</p>
<p>^wow, this is a freakin’ long post</p>
<p>Does the “Emory is bad” or even the “Emory is OK” by the people who actually like it (which is kinda disturbing) extend to the sciences? Specifically biology? And does the awful but improving career advising also include the pre-med advising? If so, I think there’s one school off my list.</p>
<p>Bernie, what does this mean?
“While the French program seems harder than normal, the profs. sure are excellent and the method is certainly effective. Also Emory came up with the o la la thing. Way over priced, but still…”
?? What’s the o la la thing? I’m really curious.</p>
<p>No, I actually love it. And no, I just said that biology, NBB, psyche, etc. are quite strong here. I actually have some friends who actually transferred from Tech and actually said that biology here is better mainly b/c of the teaching and class sizes. Also for pre-meds, there are many more relevant courses than there were at Tech. For example, one of my apartmentmates is currently in biology of the eye and says the content and prof. is really good. I have heard the same for epigenetics, neuroscience 301 (very rigorous), Cell Bio (very rigorous), Developmental bio, primate social psyche (Dr. Frans de waal is teaching this. The man is supposedly amazing as a lecturer, even though he is a leading researcher), and cancer bio. Also, I’m in Organismal form and function (quite rigorous), and Dr. Chris Beck is amazing. Also, the course that most med. schools hate to see on a pre-med’s transcript, Human Physiology, has been revamped by a prof. this year. He has made it case and research based, whereas it was very stereotypical lecture style before. He does one day of lecture, invites a researcher the next day to talk about a current issue in science, and the third the class works on the case study that was prepared for outside of class. Essentially, some of the best and most challenging faculty members are in this dept. And many of them really care about teaching/learning, so you’ll notice that while many of them may indeed do research in a certain field of science they also do research on beneficial teaching methods. Seems like Emory biology has picked up a large amount of profs. willing to incorporate large amounts of Problem Based learning into their courses. I think that, while it increases the rigor of an already strong dept., it still does both pre-meds and a future scientists a huge favor. We get to learn how to think like scientists instead of being lectured on how to do so and then only having to circle an answer on an exam. I’m both chem. and bio and can certainly say biology is strong. Most of the organic chem. based chem courses/profs are great, but I think it’s opposite for inorganic. However, apparently this trend reverses in the graduate school. I have no idea about pre-health advising. Maybe an experienced pre-med could tell you. I just know that Emory pre-meds did well last year. Several got into Ivies, Duke, and many other top schools. Of my friends that co-lead orgo. mentoring with me got into Stanford, Harvard, and Yale. Harvard gave him a full ride so he went there. So I guess either he or pre-health must be doing something right. Many others that I know from last year were extremely successful. I can’t tell you about med school applicants from my freshmen year b/c I didn’t really know any. Either way, this is just anecdotal argument that many are quite successful in the process provided that they do what they were supposed to. Lately, the pre-health office has gotten a lot more “hand-holdy”. Emory has gotten more serious about composite letters, info. meetings, and holistic reviews. I suppose the pre-health mentoring was not aggressive enough before. I’m guessing these changes are for the better (even if they are only meant to discourage/prevent many people from applying). Given that, feel free to cross Emory off of your list since you wanted “perfection” (I really don’t know what’s the true purpose of pre-health advising b/c I’m not pre-med. For example, as adults, we should know how to research and choose the appropriate courses/courseload. I’ve heard of some people literally ask advisors, “what’s the easiest class or prof?” That shouldn’t be an academic or pre-health’s advisor’s job)from the beginning
doryphorus: O la la is a program that helps aid in learning basic french grammar and writing skills. <a href=“http://www.learnfrenchwithjt.com/[/url]”>http://www.learnfrenchwithjt.com/</a></p>
<p>It was made at Emory, but unfortunately we still must pay 65 dollars (french is an expensive and somewhat rigorous sequence here, Emory takes most languages really serious) for it. However, it often has a glitch that allows access. It is full of these crappy animations of “jt” and his friends that help us learn basic/important sentence construction. However, it works. As for the method used, we primarily employ the one developed at Yale called the Capretz (or s) method. Also, from day one the prof. and we students speak french and carry on conversations in French to the best of our ability (this is 100 level). I think it has been far more effective than my HS’s and MS’s approach. Then again, compared to many of my Emory peers, my HS was a mess. Either way, even though I’m working a lot harder and struggling a little, I’m learning a lot more. </p>
<p>Also, last semester, my teacher was actually French (as in hardly speaks English lol). This semester, my teacher is French (has slight trouble with English). These are actually “post-docs”, but for some reason (oh, I wonder why lol) are excellent teachers. Emory has a hell of a French dept.</p>
<p>Finance is the hardest major in the B-school. Many kids can’t do understand basic financial concepts that involve math and find corporate finance unbearable. Accounting is probably the highest ranked by US News and World Report(and is harder than finance in terms of it requires a lot of memorization). Marketing and management have good professors but you really don’t learn much in them that is applicable to jobs in those fields. They make you do a lot of group projects. Business majors are definitely easier than science majors. This is probably the case at every school. In my honors finance seminar we were discussing our time in the business school on the last day of class. Most people that went to good high schools said that they thought that high school was harder than Goizueta in terms of work load. I’ve heard that the Economics department is easier than Goizueta. The professors are good for the most part. MBAs at Emory told me that it was better than their undergrad B-school experience at UCONN , GW and other schools.<br>
Also, if you think that investment banking is an intellectually rigorous field, you are mistaken. Lots of high school kids want to go into banking because they think it the perfect profession for the best and brightest. It just requires you to put in an insane amount of hours. The actual work is just using Excel and editing documents. You don’t have work all day but you need to be in the office because you get slammed with work at late hours of the night. You honestly don’t need much business background to go into the field. In interviews they mostly want to see how much they like you. To be a successful banker it is more important that you are a good salesmen than a smart person. I guess they look for kids with high SATs and GPAs because they assume that they’ll work hard.</p>
<p>I think only some schools (even top) are known for extremely tough workloads that rival high schools, so Emory is no different there. That’s just the state of higher education. However, I think the exams in many of my courses are certainly more complex. And if I had to do all of the unnecessary busy work that is not actually helping me to understand/grasp the material (like in high school), there is no way I would do as well. Also, the time is not as structured, so it’s easier to deal with.<br>
My friend at Tech (3/2, now doing the “2” in ChemE) claims that the workload is higher there, but the exam material more or less asks for what was done in the P-Sets/Work, whereas many harder profs. here ask you to go far beyond that, and actually require a large degree of creativity and intuition as opposed to regurgitation to some degree or another. He has adjusted to the workload and is beasting (as in completely ruining the curve on exams with like 50-60 averages) the exams, which he hardly ever did here. He said he had anticipated that difference. This is not a surprise, because liberal arts schools, even in the sciences, are supposed to “teach on how to think critically.” He’s basically saying that once you can do that, those tough, but formulaic engineering exams are a piece of cake (He actually got a 4.0 his first semester. I didn’t expect it b/c he mentioned how he struggled here. But he isn’t the only one with a story like that).<br>
The best science profs. here have mastered the curve-ball questions that that hardly no one, but the extremely bright and aloof can get. If only all of them thought it was worth fighting the desires of the students and teaching at that level.<br>
Anyway, keep in mind, we’re science majors. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t imagine business classes at a non-math intensive school like Emory having exams that require creativity out of this world. Now places like MIT and UChicago, that’s a different story.</p>
<p>“Emory has a hell of a French dept.”
Oh I agree. I really admired the professor I got for 314.</p>
<p>UChicago doesn’t have an undergrad business program but their economics major is supposed to be very difficult. A common complaint about the business school is that it does not involve critical thinking. From what I’ve heard MBA programs are just as easy or easier than undergrad programs. At Emory when professors gave the same tests to undergrads and MBAs the undergrads usually score higher. That is also because they don’t really have grades at the MBA level. You just get honors if you are in the top 20% of the class.</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s what I hear about econ. at UChicago, my bad. Are there any models(at other schools) that do employ critical thinking that perhaps Emory could look into? I mean, is it possible to implement problem or case-based learning into business/econ. courses as well as sciences? Or is there just a natural difference in pedagogy due to the nature of each field? Perhaps the only way would be to increase the level of math involved to the point where students can do more relevant/complex problems. Or the projects could be more research oriented or something. I don’t know how it works. But it seems a lot could be done, since lots of business folks have to be able to think on their feet and make cautious decisions.<br>
However, I have heard rumors that some would like to look into more technical oriented training/learning in the B-School. I believe this was once upon a time addressed at one of the admin. meetings and the response was that there was concern about how the students would respond to the increase in rigor. Kind of sad that that is an issue with Emory students. It’s bad when you have to worry about the consequences of making courses more “useful”.</p>
<p>doryphorus: Funny that you mention that course. That was one of the few classes my friend currently beasting Tech struggled in lol. He always mentioned how Emory would make some of the depts./classes most expect to be really simple upon first inspection, far more difficult than expected. And this was one example. I think the difference between the two schools isn’t the course content (except for math and physics, they clearly are harder here), it’s the grading. Emory grades a lot easier, so it’s hard to believe that we’re being taught on the level of some of those folks over there. However, if they had to take their history/humanities over here, they would realize it’s a completely different world. To even think about benefiting from the inflation, they’ll have to write/perform at least as well as students who are really serious about these studies (whereas engineers aren’t and I hear that Tech profs. in the humanities generally design there courses and grade with this in mind).</p>