<p>bernie12, I thought the “girls are ugly” complaint disappeared some time ago. It’s still around on campus?</p>
<p>< I find that those who “don’t like it”, often “don’t like it” for trivial reasons that reflect a misunderstanding of what going to an “elite” school is supposed to be like.> Will you explain to the community exactly what that means? I strongly believe you’re the only one on here that’s qualified to answer that.</p>
<p>That’s still around…not as bad now, but people still claim it.<br>
It’s kind of weird to explain. I guess some people just want the elite school name on their degree without doing “elite school work”. Though many such students are very intelligent, their social lives come way before academics and they are willing to make their academics as mundane and easy as possible to overextend themselves to the social/party, or EC scene. It kind of ties into that article which meant to ask “Do Emory students lack academic passion”. This is fine and dandy to me, but for some reason, many of such students find ways to complain about their academic lives and how they have a bad teacher, or the class is “too hard” (this is hardly ever the reality). If they cared more about their academics in the context of learning outcomes or establishing meaningful relationships w/professors (through their work and convs. about the material), they would like the school much more (they would choose better profs. even if they are harder and they would engage their coursework more). Some students, to their own detriment (and partially to the community as a whole), treat Emory as if it is supposed to be the same academic experience as a local U, except w/better facilities, famous faculty, and a better name. These students get to make claims about how great Emory is to their peers not attending elites, while not taking advantage of its greatness themselves.</p>
<p>I feel that, if this is the case, they should have saved money and have gone to said local university. Or if they wanted the prestige so bad and primarily wanted to engage in the social scene (and thus view the academics as an obstacle to their credential, the degree), they should have tried to go somewhere like UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, Vandy, etc. Places that have excellent “elite” academics, but an extremely intense stereotypical college social scene that, if one wanted, can essentially be substituted in for academic involvement (as in, because of the intensity, the student will be more happy). It’s as if Emory is designed to be a more intellectual type, liberal arts oriented research U, but many students won’t let it. It won’t happen as long as many students simply view academics as “work” or some obstacle to pass so that they can go party or do EC’s. I believe places like Duke have struggled w/this issue as well (as in general intellectual climate on campus, and how students approach academic life. It’s well documented). You would just think it would be easier for a place like Emory that does not have D-1 sports, but I’m sure a part of the problem is the recruitment.</p>
<p>With all of this said, I could possibly be very wrong. Some students may be simply unaware of the different sorts of academic opportunities here and how to take advantage of them. In addition, there is a large band wagon effect among pre-professionals (especially pre-medical students) where all students “follow the pack”; as in a pack that is so averse to risk or unconventional tracks (getting UG’s to take some risks is apparently difficult in general, but for an elite school, it seems surprisingly difficult at Emory. Playing it safe is almost too prevalent for a school of this caliber) and coursework (and sometimes EC opps), that great opportunities are missed too often. It’s kind of like, “unless my peers on this track are doing it, it’s not really worth it” or the perhaps worse, “if I don’t do what they are doing and do something else instead, I will be at a disadvantage or fall behind” (agencies such as the pre-health mentoring office do not help w/this. If anything, they intentionally foster it 
). This quest for conformity often leads to sketchy decision making and treating coursework as if it’s a series of checklists instead of a way to find out their interests (they convince themselves that their mind is made up or that they have the same interest as everyone else. And if the latter is the case, they must pursue the interest through the same path). Not to mention, it ultimately turns what could have been an exceptional student, with an exceptional experience, to a rather average student. It’s very interesting…</p>
<p>Bernie - could you elaborate on how you see the credit hour change altering things at Emory? I mean what will it mean for the average student there?</p>
<p>bernie12, I want to add something things for thought:</p>
<p>The American culture has a very large emphasis on socializing, people skills. It seems to be more important than academics. You can see this by how very many people will automatically look down on someone if he isn’t good at socializing, or doesn’t have many friends, without considering other factors. It’s shallow, but that’s how it is here I guess… Unlike in Japan, for instance. At Japan, most people don’t laugh at you or giggles when you, say, do a problem wrong on the board, answer a question ignorantly, etc. Instead, they are happy to help you. It’s Japan’s culture–we all work together, there’s no shame in screwing up, just keep trying. Here in the US, if you make any of those mistakes, you will get some people laughing and judging you faster than the speed of light. Having lived in three countries and speak English as my third language, I think I understand the wrestling of different belief systems and cultures that most people here seem to not understand or even care. I know how hard it is for internationals to go to Emory and speak a whole new language. Maybe I also know why they always stick to themselves. But that doesn’t mean I have to like them. ;)</p>
<p>You know, maybe there would be less shooting in universities and schools if people stopped judging, criticizing, or making fun of them for being “lonely” or “weird” or whatever, and instead offer some hands. &^$#ing him off and making fun of someone who already has more problems than he alone can deal with is counterproductive, and not only that, when he (understandably) flips out and kills people, we throw even more crap at him… which makes potential, future shooters even more *!($ed off at the world. This school-shooting perspective–I could be wrong, of course. And I hope I don’t get hanged for pointing this out, haha. No, I do not support them in anyway. I believe in addressing the problem with some compassion and understanding before it leads to a bunch of innocent people underground.</p>
<p>So, in short, I am arguing that it’s more of a cultural influence “problem” than anything else. Academics end up clashing with the “need” to socialize more, as both require a lot of time.</p>
<p>I agree that America is a very extrovert oriented society. But I also always heard that Japanese school children were really judge-mental of those that don’t fit in. I had a friend from high school who was from Japan (he only lived in the US for three years while his father was with the embassy). He told me that in Japan, there is a lot of bullying and also the phenomenon of hikimori (teenagers who disconnect from society and won’t leave their bedrooms). </p>
<p>As it relates to Emory, I think that the undergrad program is very extrovert friendly. Kids aren’t overly judgmental. They don’t really form cliques where they won’t associate with others outside their circle. There is a huge wealth divide, but that’s to be expected. But the experience does seem to be a lot more oriented towards extroverts than introverts. I don’t know anyone at Emory that I was worried would become a mass murderer, but I would say that a lot of very smart people with social anxiety disorder that I met as freshman, progressively became border-line alcoholics by graduation time.</p>
<p>Yes Expendableassets, I wanted to make the same argument (as in, it’s an American cultural thing that has impacted university life in general), but I thought it may offend some people and come off as “Americans are not serious enough”. However, when you think about it, some institutions (particularly elite ones) have done a good job of recruiting students or fostering an environment where academics also play a role in social life and the two are more or less “pleasantly” (as in, it does not necessarily turn into a stereotypical nerdy school like seen at many engineering schools. It’s like a pleasant nerdiness that results in a more interesting social and academic atmosphere than expected) integrated.</p>
<p>Seiclan: The requirement will likely make the institution at least a little more rigorous. Imagine it. Normally science oriented students may take two science courses and then choose maybe 1-2 (I added 1 because of the weird prevalence of taking 3 classes among science majors) “filler” courses or some GERs which they know will be easy (as in, they will not risk taking a good but challenging course to fullfill a GER). The new system will make this a bit harder for students planning to employ this strategy because, unless the science courses have lab (only intro and very few upperlevels outside of say chemistry and physics), they will sometimes or even often have to take 5 courses. So even if they use the same strategy, they will have to do work for the additional “filler” course they add. Even if the other courses are easy, it will indeed increase the general rigor of people’s schedules. So basically, what ends up happening is that, Emory will be a place w/classes similar in rigor to its closest peers (as in, even on this system where 3 and 4 courses are very common, the school likely feels as rigorous as some of the near peers where 4-5 is common) and some depts. will of course be a little harder, like political science, psychology, chemistry… but students will be also taking more classes. So this sounds grim for someone that wants a high GPA pretty easily, but there are some potentially good things about the new system that may actually help students be more successful (gradewise and engagement wise).</p>
<p>For example, some courses may want to keep their 4 credit hour status, so may implement new components to the course that allow them to do so. This opens the doors for many innovations. For example, introductory science courses could add discussion/recitation sessions (as seen at similar schools w/intensive science courses) or a more formal problem solving session than the SI sessions (as in, the courses can become more problem or case based, and such a session can facilitate this goal w/o taking up too much time during the lecture slot where the students need to be first exposed to the material before tackling tough problems or cases on it). In the humanities and social sciences, there is the possibility for the proliferation of components such as additional writing workshops in upperlevels (particularly those that are indeed writing requirements). I know, for example, that some political science intros (and maybe some histories), already have a discussion component, so it would not be unprecedented. The only difference is that it would not be incorporated into the scheduled days for lecture (so instead of a polisci class held MWF, deciding to do discussion on W instead of the lectures on MWF, they would schedule a discussion say, on Thursday evening, or some arbitrary days and times outside of the lecture period). </p>
<p>It’ll be interesting to see if new things evolve from this system.</p>
<p>Sounds like a good idea. I remember some pre-meds would take organic chemistry freshman year, biology and physics sophomore year and then basically be done with science. I was always amazed when people told me that med schools mainly care about your GPA, grades in the pre-med requirements and MCAT scores. There are also a lot of wealthy students who get rejected from medical school, enroll in a medically oriented science masters program and get accepted in a year or two to med school. It seems like they would want to admit someone who took as many science classes as possible. I had one friend at Emory who got into a pretty good medical school near my hometown. He said that if you find pre-med at Emory to be very difficult, med school will be miserable. Not because pre-med at Emory is easy, but because you can spread the hard courses out over a lot of time, whereas in med school it’s non-stop hard courses. I guess that med school has always involved a ton of work, but you would think that someone who took a bunch of extra-science classes at once their senior year, would prove to the med school admissions department that they are serious by doing so. I don’t believe that med schools can weed out the students who go into medicine without passion. Everyone at the top end of the IQ spectrum will find out that you’re not supposed to say in your med school interview that you want to be a doctor because of money or prestige. But they should be able to weed out the people who just do the bare minimum of what is needed to get accepted to med school (like take a bunch of easy non-science courses). I don’t know how it works. Bernie what do you think?</p>
<p>Emory’s lower than normal success rate w/the med. school admissions (even when adjusting for the extremely high number of applicants coming from Emory) indicates that your friends who think that only GPA and MCAT (weighs very heavily) and essentially being “obedient” (as in doing 1 million shadowing and volunteering hours, and joining millions of clubs like HS students. You know, doing whatever their peers and the phmo says) matters are misguided. Many people who do the bare minimum and end up looking good on paper are either not admitted at all or certainly do not get into their top choice (or anything close). Once you look at say, the top 30 or so schools, they are looking for a bit more than bare minimum, and I think this is one key problem. Students want to do the bare minimum and then apply mainly to these places w/their superficial excellence. They stack the deck against themselves by applying to more of these schools than they apply to just average w/o even knowing that they are looking for something a little different. I feel this can be solved by simply looking at the med. school admission criteria/recommendations from top tiers such as Stanford and Harvard, which are very clear that they like to see both balance and high rigor (they like students who engage in a liberal arts curriculum while also saying that they, for example, like students who took pchem, or advanced math courses). Many students with these places in mind simply do not fit this criteria (they do a mixture of dodging challenging science courses and also avoiding the humanities and social sciences as much as possible), and would not like the intensive environment at these sorts of med. schools where their peers are more intellectually driven and did way more than the minimum. Harvard seems to actually prefer students that are somewhat similar to Ph.D students in their approach to academics (so its admits probably look more like potential MD Ph.D candidates elsewhere). </p>
<p>As for med. school. It can weed students out by stressing them out, but it like undergrad, probably rarely gives low grades. In fact, grades in UG science courses may be lower. Med schools tend to just pass people (they cost even more than UG education. They can also get away w/it because they can claim a “selection effect”. However, if you knew some of these people during UG, you’d wonder how the heck they get through med. school regardless of their stats. upon graduation. I’ve known some who rigged themselves to a high GPA). I dare to speculate that many med. school courses are easier than courses taken by a student who decided to challenge themselves as an UG. A lot of med. schools are still extremely content heavy and rote learning oriented, which plays to the strengths of the incoming students who wished that some of the harder science courses they took (such as chem, physics, and some upperlevel bioscience courses) at elite schools were only memorization with no applied or analytical components. When med. school comes around, they can basically go back to learning the way they did in HS. I think a solid undergraduate coursepath in the sciences is more conducive to graduate school success (where, from my experience in doing grad. level coursework, is basically all about thinking on the spot and being able to anticipate difficult, curveball questions on an exam. You are more likely to have to come up with an idea about how something you have never seen works in G-school than in med. school where to a large degree, it’s advanced level fact recall and more breadth than depth) than med. school.</p>
<p>Hey, bernie12, do you know when Emory’s going to implement the credit-decrease? Which colleges will it affect?</p>
<p>This upcoming fall, it will take effect in ECAS, but it has been implemented in the B-school as of this semester.</p>
<p>Well my friend that told me about how incredibly difficult med school was went to USUHS, or the military medical school. You don’t pay tuition there, and they give you a stipend to live in a very expensive area of the country. So I guess that they don’t have the same incentives to make med school easy to pass. You may disagree with me, but I think that it is a problem that admissions offices are so vague in what criteria they use to admit students. While rote learning and memorization may not be helpful in developing the skills of the best students, it should separate those who are willing to work hard from those who are not. In that Wheel article that asked if Emory students lacked passion, I thought that the student made a good point about students who took AP classes and did not pass a single AP test. Unless you went to a high school with teachers that weren’t prepared to teach those classes, not passing any AP tests is a demonstration of a pathetic lack of effort. And even if your teachers weren’t prepared to teach the class, you could have gone and bought professionally written preparation books and studied on your own. I found this shocking to at Emory. I got 5s on all my AP tests and I would say that most students from my high school got all 4s and 5s. I’m sorry, but if you go a high school where other kids who took the same class as you, got significantly more questions correct on the standardized AP test, that should be a red flag. You don’t have much of a work ethic. One of the things I admire about asian cultures, is that if someone does well on a test, people will usually say they worked hard. While they could have just memorized facts, at least they worked hard and this encourages other people to work hard if they want to compete. At a top college, course should be about more than just working hard, but at least they should weed out students who are lazy.</p>
<p>My student lived in that tower last year. The elevator was a problem a lot. The door in their bathroom was a cheap closet door and the veneer was peeling off from the floor up. The blinds didn’t work in the living room when they moved in and it looked like it was in need of a good paint job. The upside was there no damage fee at the end of the year. I hope they replaced the door over the summer. She lived on an upper floor.</p>
<p>[Emory</a> U. Faculty Members Reportedly Vote to Censure Their President - The Ticker - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/emory-faculty-reportedly-vote-to-censure-their-president/56027]Emory”>The Ticker: Emory U. Faculty Members Reportedly Vote to Censure Their President)</p>
<p>I told you that there was a lot of racial tension at Emory. Now it makes the front page of the NY Times. </p>
<p><a href=“Emory University President Revives Racial Concerns - The New York Times”>Emory University President Revives Racial Concerns - The New York Times;
<p>[Civil</a> Rights Exhibit Opens Amid Protests : The Emory Wheel](<a href=“http://www.emorywheel.com/civil-rights-exhibit-opens-amid-protests/]Civil”>Civil Rights Exhibit Opens Amid Protests | The Emory Wheel)</p>
<p>“Racial tension at Emory”, Trex? The race problem you describe is not Emory-specific at all, but rather a national problem. Despite decades’ worth of efforts to eliminate racial prejudice, the Western world sits upon a long history of violent discrimination whose remnants cannot be done away with so quickly. Thus it is not unreasonable that people are sensitive about issues involving race and ethnicity, but I really think that the protests against Wagner’s statement are going too far. Is what he said stupid? Yes, it’s stupid, but I highly doubt that they are indicative of any sort of real prejudice. People make mistakes and say things that sound distasteful without actually meaning anything offensive. Don’t jump to conclusions.</p>
<p>^Finally, someone who speaks English with a balanced sense.</p>
<p>Haha, thank you.</p>
<p>Sorry that some of you did not have a pleasant experience at Emory. To keep things in perspective, every school will have its own share of problems with emphasis on rankings, budget cuts, administrative issues, etc. The larger the constituency, the greater the chance of someone finding fault with something.</p>
<p>Just to add my experience/perspective to the posts so far, I will reflect on my experience with Goizueta Business School at Emory. I can say first hand that I have had a really top notch academic experience at GBS. While not every professor has been amazing, all of them have been worthy of a T20 institution. However, it is worth noting that each semester atleast half of my professors are absolutely outstanding and for a variety of reasons - highly published experts in field who are also effective teachers, inspiring/charismatic, classes very applicable to careers within that industry, passionate+effective teachers, etc. So to sum it up there are at least 2 classes that I absolutely love each semester. </p>
<p>I have also enjoyed the structure of the BBA program & the core curriculum as well as the great deal of exposure to various business disciplines. I definitely would recommend this approach as opposed to just “majoring” in accounting or finance without having a broad exposure to business. Of course such an approach can only work at name brand institutions with pedigree or finding employment may prove difficult in this economy. The alumni network is very strong as alumni are always eager to help and recruiting is also very good. Goizueta does well with all industries except for top-tier ibanks as Goldman/MS/JPM do not actively recruit on campus for IBD. However, there are a number of middle market banks that do recruit as well as some large players as Wells Fargo. After my 2 years here I definitely feel that I have received a top notch business education and have landed a job that I am very happy with. </p>
<p>For students interested in a quality business education I would definitely recommend Goizueta. The only improvements that I would suggest is developing a unique flagship program such as NYU Sterns foreign experience module where undergrads serve as consultants for a foreign business and solve a real problem that the entity is faced with or UVAs multidisciplinary capstone classes where a single class is taught by 3 instructors from 3 different disciplines. Other than that having more analytical quantitative analysis assignments + working with outside data would be helpful in preparing students for business careers. For instance, my class work has not prepared me for the data analysis I had to conduct this summer but had I taken some electives it would have certainly helped (no room for those electives in my schedule). Thus, adding some more quantitative analysis in the core classes would definitely help as all students are required to take those. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, if I had to make the same choice again, I might have probably attended UMich Ross, UVA McIntre, Cornell BBA programs over Emory as they have a stronger brand and as someone coming into school without knowing exactly where in business you would like to be, the safe choice is picking the school with the best brand. In my case, going to any of these schools over Emory would not have made a difference as I have made the decision not to pursue IBD/consulting as the nature of the work did not appeal to me. For recruiting aside from high-finance (IBD, S&T, PE, HF) Emory students would land the same jobs as kids at other schools. I personally would have ended up getting a very similar job for the same salary had I chosen to attend another school, the only difference would have been my experience due the idiosyncrasies of each program. In terms of applying for graduate schools: top MBAs, law school, business phd, etc. going to a school like UMich, UVA, Cornell over Emory will not give you a leg up assuming you have the same grade. However, <em>specifically</em> Ibanking and MBB consulting recruiting, then the 3 previously mentioned school and NYU Stern will give you a leg up as “target schools” are not necessarily based on academic quality but brand/perception. I have no doubt that Goizueta is as good academically as any of the schools mentioned aside from Wharton.</p>
<p>In terms of administration: I think the BBA programs administration is top notch. Dean Hershatter has put together a great team! Career services were also helpful but at the end of the day you always have to do your own networking, etc. but there are plenty of opportunities to interact with companies and OCR is strong.</p>
<p>Wow. I haven’t been on CC in years, and honestly, the only reason I came back is because I wanted to see what prospectives were saying about President Wagner’s 3/5th compromise gaffe.</p>
<p>I’m a senior at Emory and though I am very ready get out of here, there are so many things I’ve loved about my Emory experience. Graduation will be a bittersweet day indeed. As many other posters here are quick to point out, Emory does have its flaws. Every school does. Choosing a college is about understanding the tradeoffs you are making. I could have gone to my state school, paid a lot less money, and I’m sure I would have had a wonderful college experience. But it would have been a totally different college experience. Here’s my honest perspective:</p>
<p>What I love about Emory:
<p>What I don’t like:
– Emory’s administration is bureaucracy at its worst. From housing to dining to campus life, the staff that work in Emory’s administrative departments are lacking in motivation, creativity, and flexibility. They may pretend to care about to students’ complaints, but little ever changes.
– You feel like you’re getting nickel and dimed. Emory is often wasteful and inefficient yet it nickel and dimes students for dining, housing, parking, etc. Although very expensive, the tuition is a great value because of the quality of the faculty and academics. Nothing else at Emory is a good value.</p>
<p>Tradeoffs of going to Emory:
– Emory’s individualistic culture values is great for personal and professional development vs. State-school culture is great for social life, entertainment, and sense of belonging.
– Emory’s Division III sports programs provide balance between student life, academics, and athletics vs. Division I sports unify a school and build a strong sense of school spirit and community.
– Emory is expensive (without financial aid) but has a proven record for placing students in great jobs and grad schools vs. State schools are cheaper but have worse records for post-graduation placements and earnings.</p>