Is Emory Really That Bad?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
21

<p>Most of my pre-med friends got in as well, but they were admittedly stellar students that stood out above most of the others. What’s weird about Emory, and I don’t know if it’s the case at many elite schools, is that it seems that non-premed STEM majors often seem more qualified for med. school and more passionate about science than the pre-medical students. I believe that many of these folks, out of spite, could find out where a lot of the pre-meds here are applying, and send an application for the sake of potentially blocking their spot, and be successful at doing so. The discrepancy in attitudes is scary (and administrative apparatuses promote both directly and indirectly). It seems somewhat different than what you see at Johns Hopkins and some other pre-med heavy schools where you do indeed have an abundance of “passionate premeds.” </p>

<p>I know an example of a fearless, exemplary pre-medical student that is so into learning that they dare to take tough profs. (together. For example, they took one of the toughest orgo. profs. and the toughest cell bio prof. this semester for fun. Next semester, they’ll take this orgo. prof. again, and also be enrolled in biochemistry within the chemistry dept. even though they are a biology major) with high level coursework together while doing research and other things that show commitment and dedication. There are a handful (actually a crew of students) that are in her year that are very high caliber as well, but overall such students are too few, far, and in between. All the others freak out when they get a B+ in a profs. class and make claims like “I don’t like working hard for mediocre grades so I should find a new prof.”, irregardless of how much they learned and will learn. This is the gaming the system that you speak of, and what these people who do it don’t know is; While they may feel entitled to a grade for simply “working hard”, the better of their competition will work hard for the knowledge and are more likely to work on their shortcomings than simply mask them by taking the easy way out simply because they are more fearless and responsible individuals (this latter group is less likely to constantly say things like: “that class screwed me” so much as “I could have done better”). In my opinion, true high achievers don’t constantly act like victims and give up so easily. This is the problem I have with the premed program. It is kind of softcore and allows many to play victims instead of toughening up and working on weaknesses (and subsequently, most of the STEM education kind of suffers in general because they are most of the students, in the science classes, the courses are adjusted to fit their ill-fated attitudes). There are too many loopholes that ultimately allow people to either mask or run away from it and still end up looking good on paper (unfortunately many med. schools see through this now-a-days, especially when they see the MCAT score). I was very glad when I got into more hardcore upperdivision courses simply because there were less of them willing to risk taking those classes (all but 2 pre-meds dropped physical biology for example), and thus the integrity of the atmosphere and course rigor was maintained in those courses. These science courses are the ultimate escape if you want a truly stimulating environment without whining. They inculcate strict “don’t whine, just learn” values.</p>

<p>As for pre-law, while I cannot comment on their success, I can say that throughout the several humanities and social sciences courses I took, I didn’t see this culture as much (even though many/most were pre-law). Most of the students were engaged in the coursework, and even when they found out that a prof. was tougher than expected (say after 1st paper or exam), most would simply adjust the level of their work accordingly and in general responded to negative feedback and criticism better than STEM students (you should see how many react when they receive feedback more substantive than a grade. When it is negative, instead of figuring out how to do better, they have greater inclination to make excuses, cry, or whine to others of how “mean” the person is). It was much less common to hear them discussing grades moreso than the topic of each others papers or how they were to address a prompt. The environment in the humanities and social sciences, I think, reflects more so what the academic environment and culture at Emory should be.</p>

22

<p>“Is Emory Really That Bad?”</p>

<p>Emory is a lot better than you may think, but also much worse than you might imagine.</p>

23

<p>ExpendableAssets: So dissappointing that the latter statement is true of most elite institutions (public and private). Most are simply not the magical places portrayed by brochures, ranking magazines, nor hardly any media sources and admissions counseling firms (or this website) that hype them up so much. However, even with all of their flaws, they are far better than most American universities (despite not being impervious to some of the same problems that all of American higher education has) that provide traditional forms of highered.</p>

24

<p>I remember when I went to Emory, some of my friends at WashU said that it was easier to get good grades in Emory pre-med classes than the same classes at WashU. At the time, I wasn’t sure if there was any truth to that, but now I think it may be true. I don’t understand why at some schools half of the freshman class wants to go to medical school. A lot of kids who I met that said they were pre-med freshman year really didn’t seem intelligent or serious enough to become doctors. They just wanted to be doctors because they thought that they could make a lot of money that way. It’s a lot harder to become a surgeon than people realize and even once you get there, being a doctor is not an easy or relaxing job. I don’t understand why so many people at Emory seem to think that applying to dental school is beneath them. Most of the dentists that I know are happier and probably better off financially than the doctors I know. This may just be specific to big cities, but I think everywhere they work very short hours compared to doctors.</p>

25

<p>Trex, that phenomenon isn’t unique to Emory or Wash U. Most juniors/seniors don’t realize just how hard it is to even get into med school, let alone what it takes to become a physician. Few are aware of how expensive med school is, or how terrible the hours can be. What high schoolers see is a prestigious career that pays great money and can justify the cost/time commitment of higher education. Additionally, few high schoolers know about other jobs beyond doctor, lawyer, or engineers that can pay in the six figures. That ignorance drives them to pursue those fields. Look at the extremely high admit rate of Cal Maritime, whose graduates easily bring in six figures. But logistics isn’t sexy nor high profile, so only a few students “in the know” apply there.</p>

<p>I suspect the reason that many students refuse to apply to dental school or consider other health related careers has something to do with the perceived prestige of a job. Teeth are icky, and most believe dentists just fill cavities, do routine cleaning, etc. But a surgeon, who does IMO more disgusting work saves lives while making great money, which is extremely respectable in the US.</p>

26

<p>The only class I can think of that your friends’ assertion is wrong on is organic. There is no doubt that Emory has one of the most rigorous organic chemistry sequences amongst its peers. It’s mainly because of the professors teaching it though. Many of them teach and test content at a level more reminiscent of what you would see in many graduate level or advanced courses in the field. To chemistry majors and very motivated students, this is awesome and stimulating, but to most pre-meds, it knocks wind out of them simply because intro. bio and chem got them used to expecting only an average level of intensity. </p>

<p>This, IMO, makes orgo. a bigger weedout at Emory than at most peers where the pre-med courses all have a fairly high amount of intensity. Pre-meds at other schools take calc. based physics for example, the math courses are tougher, and usually the biology sequence is tougher as well. By time these students get to a class like orgo, they are toughened up. At Emory, it may as well be going from being a burned out, uninterested high school student to instantly becoming a senior level chemistry student. These gaps need to be fixed. The other courses should be tougher to soften the transition and allow more students to successfully meet the demands of it ; Not to mention that, the way most sections of those intro. courses are taught, there is almost no intellectual intensity, only cookbook problem solving and memorization. Given this, one can remain relatively uninterested in the material itself and still pull an A grade. Orgo. w/half of the profs. requires more than just hard work and desire for a high grade. Courses w/that level of intellectual intensity also require some level of interest, which many pre-meds simply don’t have (don’t blame them, but they should realize that intrinsic interest and engagement is the thing that will differentiate the A-/A from say a B/B+. They should not “expect” an A, especially if it did not happen in gen. chem, or even if it did). The caliber of at least 3 professors are at the same calibre and perhaps higher than some of the most serious schools for science (HPStM). </p>

<p>Also, to be honest, I’m not so worried about the grades as I suggested earlier. Many successful schools have very high grade inflation. However, the difference is that the coursework at such places is rigorous within itself so that even those w/inflated grades will likely get the advantage they need for standardized entrance exams. Emory has inflation AND lacks rigor in some critical courses (or has the “wrong” type of rigor. As in, “we will mainly make you memorize an unreasonable amount of stuff and never teach you to apply, therefore you will retain nothing after this particular exam or class in general”. You know, high school rigor, which is often ineffective if you want to create critical thinkers).</p>

<p>At least it seems that some of the upperdivision courses in biology are going in the right direction. Unfortunately most of the ones that are, are not the ones taken by premedical students take or are not the ones that directly help w/MCAT material. They can only indirectly help by exposing students to relevant ways of thinking about science. Evolutionary, Ecology, and organismal form and function have a professor that uses a pbl and data analysis model for the exams and course assignments. This is critical on the MCAT that stresses the same sort of approach. If only Human phys., biochem. and developmental would get on board. </p>

<p>whenwhen: Yes, unrealistic expectations about some health professions and ultimate disregard for some of the other health professions is indeed a result of some sort of underlying elitism (perhaps promoted media and parental figures, The latter is what makes this phenomenon even worse at elite schools like Emory. Many of the parents are doctors themselves…). You know one way you can figure out if a student is truly interested in being a doctor for perhaps the prestige? Listen to the way they talk down about the prospect of, say, going to a Caribbean medical school. Many often talk as if they would refuse to do so or give up on going to med. school if it came to that. This somewhat suggests that they were only willing to become a doctor under “certain conditions”. A truly interested person would do whatever it takes within ethical and decent means.</p>

27

<p>These alumni are harsh. I just finished my first semester at Emory College, so shoot me with questions about specific concerns…these alumni are discussing overarching qualities that really can only be realized after graduation.</p>

28

<p>@maani9422</p>

<p>If you say these alumni are
harsh, then how do you feel about going to Emory?</p>

29

<p>I love it here…it’s as simple as that.</p>

30

<p>The depth at which bernie12 evaluates Emory is admirable but also far beyond what any graduating senior would be considering when deciding upon schools. And the criticisms mentioned (huge rigor jump from general chemistry to organic) aren’t so disastrous as to make Emory lose any of the merits it holds. </p>

<p>I don’t mean to say that what these alumni are saying isn’t valuable because it is. It’s just that most of it flies over your head unless you’re a current student…and even the average current student wouldn’t be sensitive to these evaluations.</p>

31

<p><a href=“From%20another%20thread”>quote</a> At the very least, I can still say that these so-called “controversies” aren’t preventing me from getting an amazing education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Emory protests have gotten quite a bit of attention in the news and there’s a nontrivial chance that the AAUP will censure Emory. The data misreporting is certainly known by most professionals in the field of institutional research. And Emory is looking to eliminate need-blind admissions. They aren’t “so-called ‘controversies’” just because you happen not to be paying attention to them. You’ve also only been here for one semester–I certain wasn’t aware of much in the way of institutional management in my first semester.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m an alumnus insomuch as I hold an Emory degree, but I’m also a current student. In fact, I think there’s only one alumnus on this thread. Your point that these concerns may not affect to experience of individual students, or their ability to get a high-quality education, is certainly an important point for prospective students to understand. As I have pointed out, there’s current controversy at Harvard, NYU, Duke, Yale, UVA, UNC, and many other great schools. Just because you don’t see them on CC as much doesn’t mean Emory is this comparatively bad place you should avoid.</p>

32

<p>I apologize in advance if I sound angry. </p>

<p>You guys are in an elite college now: classes are harder, people are smarter than you, and sometimes trying your best is not enough for an A.
You can complain about not being able to coast through Emory with a 4.0, or you can work your asses off and learn stuff to become better.
College isn’t a guaranteed place of happiness and success.<br>
Too many people expect it to be perfect and easy.
If you want to be happy and successful at a school, then it’s up to you to put in the effort to do it. </p>

<p>It’s a shame so many people feel so negatively about this school on CC. I assure you it’s not representative of the sentiment on campus.</p>

33

<p>Maani: Issues like that that I bring up were not things that really effect the institutional reputation as a whole. They are simply things that, too often, have some unfortunate effects on the student experience. As a person Taing orgo. for, say, 3 years, it was always disappointing to see people have to retake that class after getting an A in gen. chem. I don’t want to see them in my mentoring sessions twice (as in two years in a row), and feel bad for them (because they have to waste their time taking it again during the semester or summer when they could be taking classes they enjoy and giving themselves the best education Emory offers). Citing issues like is just me merely suggesting things that could improve the student experience, especially in the STEM world. Not fixing them merely threatens the success of those pursuing that route (and perhaps the reputation of the pre-med program…but w/all the resources and hospitals on campus for them, the motivated students will ultimately do the right thing and do well in med. school admissions and rep. Emory well). There is no true threat from issues like that. The only thing bad about it is supporting a status quo that could be removed to make the internal experience better (I mean, it’s not like outsiders are literally watching the progress of our undergrad. STEM programs). When it comes to academics, it is overall quite amazing, but one just has to be careful not to screw themselves out of that experience. I just argue that there are too many things built into some of the curricula that allow students to do so and then too many of them blame Emory as a whole for that bad experience (if you remove as much impediments as possible and promote a culture of true scholarship and high caliber excellence and not “rat race” academics and superficial excellence, it gets better. Again, it seems those in the humanities and social sciences have figured this out. Look at the Mcmullen award winners and those sorts of students. They very often come from that realm.). </p>

<p>The threats come from things like dept. cuts and stuff. Now lots of outsiders ARE watching stuff like that and so are many insiders. When something your are passionate about is being cast aside, that does threaten many who do pursue an excellent education in those areas. In addition, it calls the attention of outsiders who have high expectations for places like Emory in terms of supporting the liberal arts and things of that nature…</p>

34

<p>So how “bad” is Emory really going to get, huh? Snipers on rooftops? Secret student gang organizations? Armed professors? …</p>

<p>On CC, there are too much emphasis on the small minority of negatives and not enough apprecation for the large volumes of positives at Emory. The picture(s) presented on here are not balanced.</p>

35

<p>One of those actually happened lol. When the Dalai Lama visited, there were indeed snipers on the rooftop (Cox), but that was fun (as in the whole “Dalai Lama” is here imparting knowledge). Of course this thread is unbalanced. It’s essentially asking what’s wrong w/Emory. It’s still pretty awesome, but needs to work on some issues before moving forward or reaching the level that it aspires to (as the strategic plan suggests). If one wanted to know the strengths and weaknesses (and what oppurtunities they present and how Emory is moving to take advantage of these) of Emory from an administrative point, one should simply take a look at many of the things on the strategic planning website ( [Emory</a> | Strategic Plan](<a href=“http://www.emory.edu/strategicplan/]Emory”>http://www.emory.edu/strategicplan/)). I think this tells more than what many of us can, because, again, it provides insight on how they will address the good and the bad. In addition, if you look carefully and deep enough, one may actually find out about some awesome initiatives and programs that they did not know of before. I would pay attention to the progress section…</p>

<p>Though our opinions are juicy, this provides more “professional insight” provided that one can read in between the lines.</p>

36

<p>@maani9422
@ExpendableAsset</p>

<p>Great; if there are plenty of people at Emory who love the school, then I no longer have any doubts about applying EDII to Emory instead of Tufts.</p>

37

<p>Another article that I found lately. What has the administration been doing these past few years?</p>

<p>[Emory</a> Law Student Lament: ‘We don?t need donuts, we need jobs.’ Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts](<a href=“http://abovethelaw.com/2010/07/emory-law-student-lament-we-don’t-need-donuts-we-need-jobs/]Emory”>Emory Law Student Lament: 'We don’t need donuts, we need jobs.' - Above the Law)</p>

38

<p>The law school is a separate entity from Emory undergrad, and has different administrators/ institutional needs. The cold hard reality is that it’s tough to find ANY job as an associate, and prospective students should know that. Law is extremely prestige dominated, and increasingly attorneys and partners demand work experience before hiring. In this context, work experience doesn’t mean simply interning for a few months, it involves actually having been hired for YEARS by a law firm that just happened to go belly up during the recession. Law students could demand Emory implement a program like that of SMU/Duke, but again, what the law school does, and what CAS, Goizuetta, Woodruff, and Candler do are entirely separate matters, and a prospective student should not concern themselves with law school employment rates.</p>

39

<p>Excuses, excuses. The law school dropped 10 places in the rankings in 2011. The bad economy should affect all law schools, shouldn’t it? Atlanta is a relatively big city. Emory law has a relatively small student body. What other top law school’s are in Atlanta? Law may be extremely prestige dominated but law schools know that and they have to respond. Emory Law regained some ground back after it fell in the rankings. How do you think they did that? Did they get a lot more applicants who wanted to go to a law school that just fell 10 places in the rankings for having a bad career track record. They probably had to give a bunch of scholarships, and I pretty much know that they admitted a bunch of Emory undergrads and begged them to come. Most universities make money with their law schools and MBA programs. Other graduate programs often lose money. Having a crappy career services office at a top law is a really stupid mistake. And this goes back to the culture of the Emory administration. They have been really slacking these past few years. And I believe that the high level administrators are some of the best paid people in all of academia. They’re especially well paid when you consider how small Emory is. The only time Emory contacts me is to ask for money. Why would I ever donate to a school that has taken the advantage of having a huge endowment and wasting it? It’s not like it’s just the law school that hasn’t improved with this spending binge to buy prestige. The undergrad program hasn’t improved either. And the University is now involved a ton of scandals. So instead of getting national attention for being a school on the rise, it has gotten attention for being an unethical institution. The only thing Emory has going for it now, is that it can still claim to be a top 20 University in the US News and World Report rankings. Those rankings basically put the school on the map. How much longer do you honestly think this can last?</p>

40

<p>That didn’t seem like excuse making, that sounded as if they were saying that it simply is not relevant to those seeking an undergrad. education here, which it isn’t. In addition, the rank went back up to like 25 the next cycle, showing how seemingly arbitrary and volatile those rankings are. Really? Move down 10-11 one year, increase by 5-6 the next? Kind of sketchy (they should reorient the weighting of certain factors so as to prevent the volatility. My guess is that the ranking is extremely sensitive to key factors that vary a lot from year to year at many schools. I mean, UGA, for example, remained at about the same rank after the drop, but Emory suddenly went back up. Do you really think Emory suddenly “fixed itself” after that?). And this is indeed a tough economy for law school (at least if you are shooting for big firms like many of those at decent private law schools like Emory are) unless you are at like a top 15. It is very prestige driven and many firms will not recruit outside of 15 or so schools during this economy. Clearly the law school has problems, but I would not bring it into a conversation primarily serving prospective and current undergraduates (who if pre-law may shoot for a Top 15 anyway, which never has, and does not include Emory. Emory UG, on the other hand actually does quite well at placing students into such law schools).</p>