<p>I think it’s possible to have both qualities. A lot of the very top schools have students who want the good job, but are indeed very intellectually driven (and perhaps more flexible with how they want to achieve the good job or what a good job is). Emory, unfortunately seems to have too many students that are almost all of the former and none of the latter. This could explain why there isn’t as large of an entrepreneurial spirit on campuses like ours and nearby peers, and why the science majors (minus physics and chemistry, those are very interesting for a large part) here aren’t that interesting (you don’t see them inventing things or necessarily taking more interesting, but tough coursework when they have a chance). It’s okay to be pre-professional, just not intellectually boring. You can be professionally and intellectually driven if you have a passion and mission extending beyond financial security. Luckily, many students in humanities and social sciences here have some sparks of this passion, but its a shame I don’t see as many of the pre-meds as we should, for example, genuinely excited about science (moreso than they happened to be good at it in HS and know its a profitable skill). Again, I think many of our peers have a more balanced mixture. I mean, being realistic, the school can design coursework challenging and rewarding enough to generate genuine interest and dedication to the subject matter and weed those out who don’t have it, instead of a “we just wanna send everyone to med. school” type coursework so that will reward every student who merely wants an A and allow them to find some formula to get an A (this is pre-prof. heaven, and subject matter interested hell. Even the latter makes an A, they are not inspired and are quite frankly, bored as hell). Coursework at a top 20 should not be that predictable (especially in the sciences), and should be stimulating students enough to the point where a reasonable amount want to pursue Ph.Ds. Again, many of our peers have a long-standing reputation of graduating alumni who are well represented in academia and the professions. Emory needs something to get the former going or else our reputation will not improve.</p>
<p>Most people here will admit that. It’s one thing to not care about learning for knowledge’s sake and another to completely forsake it for a grade. For example, pre-meds who would rather have a 4.0 and take the easy route, and thus skip building the necessary problem-solving skills to handle the MCAT make no sense. A 3.8-4.0 and a 26 looks bad if you go to a top 20 (and thus supposedly test well. But then again, the MCAT isn’t any old standardized exam). This could be averted if students didn’t think on a short-term basis (kind of like an “exam by exam” basis) and took a class that would force them to engage and really learn the content they need for success in the future. Not many will even do that. It’s 4.0 first and cram for MCAT later. The fact that advising (their advice on course selection is kind of a “one track fits all” policy that doesn’t work considering the varying talent levels and aspirations of students here. For example, it may not be best to encourage a student who may want to or has the potential to go to a top medical school, to take an easy track when they have the talent to do well in more advanced coursework that may actually help them stand out, not to mention, a higher MCAT score resulting from a broader exposure to science. Pre-health advising current assumes everyone is merely average and wants to attend an average medical school and discourages people from deviating from this assumption) encourages this and that the biol. dept. facilitates this (most biol. profs. will bend to every whim of the students. You can be in a 300-level still taking purely multiple choice, rote memorization exams). This place has a bad habit of giving students what they think they want instead of what may indeed be most beneficial. For example, pre-health advising and the biol classes have hardly done much good in getting med. school acceptance rates over 50% (I think we should aim for about 60% considering Hopkins has the same amount of applicants, even after screening, and 65% are admitted).</p>
<p>I love you, Bernie. But you’re going to make it so that less people come here. I think it’s time to stop voicing our frustration.</p>
<p>lol. I guess that’s true, in theory. I imagine less would apply. Enrollment seems to have been increasing every year though (my entering class was less than 1300, now they are all like 1350+). No matter what one says, Emory will probably get the same type of students (unless we bring more of the Tibetan monks. Those students are cool! Seriously, they really are). While I may not like these aspects of Emory, the majority of those who attend or consider might actually like them. Guess the bright side of it is, if you actually are among those who care to get an amazing education and recognize what one is, Emory is a great place for it. One can avoid courses where you’re surrounded by those who don’t care quite easily, especially after freshman year (even then, having a lot of AP credit can get you on a more interesting track earlier on). And thank goodness this place adequately recognizes and rewards those who truly care about teaching and pedagogy. It has worked wonders in keeping the teaching and mentoring quality here relatively high.</p>
<p>Any advice for an incoming freshman on how to avoid the courses with apathetic people? I’d rather not spend my tuition money and the next four years of my life surrounded by people who are apparently allergic to intellectual curiosity (and disturbingly enough, proud of it?). Not that every other university doesn’t suffer the same issue, but high school was enough for me, thanks. :/</p>
<p>If you send me a PM with some anticipated AP credits, I can maybe give you some more ideas than what I am about to provide. My first idea deals with humanities and social sciences (so it doesn’t involve AP credit). Unless you are a major, avoid the introductory courses if you can. Most of such (humanities and social sciences) classes do not have pre-requisites so you can skip to upper-level and special topics without having ever touched an intro. My last semester at Emory, I really wanted to take a junior or senior colloquium in political science or history (but I also wanted organometallic lab so did not. Instead I enrolled in an American Intellectual History course which turned out to be quite good. To my surprise, a grad. student was teaching it. It was his first time, and he was really good and really cared. He’ll be doing research abroad for 2 years, but I would say take him when he gets back). This was allowed simply because they had no pre-reqs (I was a biology major and was not blocked from enrolling). The only pre-reqs a lot of these depts have is interest and courage. Take these courses and you’ll likely end up with students who perhaps major in the area or similar subject areas. These students tend to be more engaged (as in engaged beyond the spectrum of only talking in class to sound smart or get participation points). With sciences, you’ll want classes and a professor known for rigor or a problem or case-based approach. These courses still get apathetic students but do get a greater share of more interested, risk taking students who do just want to learn. These professors include Eisen, Beck (and Gerardo who uses Beck’s approach to teaching evolutionary biology. Apparrently Jaap de Roode uses it as well), Yokoyama, Antia, Taylor, Nemenman, Soria, Weinschenk, Bing (though I honestly recommend physics 151 if they ever get a reasonable teacher) and I guess NBB 301 professors (they use lecture in class, but hold you accountable for being able to solve problems), and a solid amount of psychology professors (many of these are easy, but many are challenging. The thing I like about the psyche dept is that you can get something out of the easiest classes because many of them at least require you to be prepared enough to discuss material in class. And normally its taught well too). As far as I know, some of the anthropology classes are really good (beyond 100 level). </p>
<p>Despite all of this, I can give you some idea of how you can maybe set up a first year schedule according to AP credits. For example, I saw many freshmen use theirs to jump right into serious coursework (even science majors). I can tell what some of them did because I know a lot of people think they should just limit themselves to introductory courses because they are transitioning to college and were advised by some upperclassmen or phmo to do so. In reality, often the intros. are harder, grade tougher, and are less insightful (for example, those who think going into an intro. political science course to knock out a GER and make an easy A may be mistaken. These classes have a decent writing and reading load and sometimes projects. Not only this, but TAs grade the papers. Often, TAs grade kind of hard. And a person just expecting an A gets a B or C). If one has the ability, it may be better for them to just move on and use that ability (this is more common at other schools who offer a variety of options for first years who want something more than the catch-all intros). It’ll make the first year here less boring and you’ll be acquainted with some heavy-hitting faculty earlier on in your career (you may get a well-known faculty member in an intro, but that does not mean they are accessible).</p>
<p>I’m sure everyone here has heard that the new U.S. Poet Laureate is on the Emory English faculty and teaches creative writing</p>
<p>Yeah, I actually see her at Starbucks sometimes chatting with other faculty members (sometimes it’s rare to see such distinguished faculty in informal settings like that). My friend, an English major, has been wanting to take a class with her, but apparently it is quite tough to get in (you need faculty recommendations and a permission number I believe). Hopefully, no other school comes and poaches her off anytime soon.</p>
<p>@ bernie 12 could you please post your stats?</p>
<p>Sent via PM. Don’t expect it to help much. I got in for the 2008 academic year. Emory was probably slightly more stats. driven back then.</p>
<p>Wow. I dont even remember my stats. I wonder if I could find them on CC somewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Comment is almost two months old, but it is glaringly ignorant and as snobbish as you are making out the hypothetical “Top 20. . .” nose thumber to be.</p>
<p>I will happily rephrase, looking for “what they think” is a “stereotypical” state school education. Places like Berkeley and Tech, for example are definitely a more rigorous educational experience. My statement is far from ignorant. It comes from the experience of people at Emory constantly saying stuff like: “At a state school…blah, blah, blah”. The “blah” normally contains some reference to how hard their classes are versus “x” (insert whatever state school they mentioned) or how “x” has “parties that are so much better”. Sorry, my opinion on this is grounded in 4 years of observations, conversations, etc., so you can call it snobbish if you want. And you know what top 20s I’m talking about, the ones that USNWR ranks in the top 20. Do I believe their rankings are great, no, but do the schools doing well in these rankings make some common claims, yes. One of the most important claims they make is that they provide a rigorous education ( we all know that such a statement is implying that believes it is more rigorous than a less prestigious school) led by leaders in their respective fields. I’m just claiming that many students go to such schools wanting everything that goes along w/the top 20 “name” and “experience” (because, supposedly it’s special. I’m not too sure about this. My experience was pretty solid, but I would say it’s above average. Many others who went here may have had an average or below average experience that may not differ from their expectations of a “non-top 20” school) except the rigor part. I think Emory gets too many of these people, which sets up a lot of barriers in creating a really innovative and unique educational and intellectual environment that could otherwise be forstered. Sorry if you took what I said way too seriously.</p>
@ebro35 this is really old…but interesting to reflect upon.
- Emory’s apps have rebounded solidly for a school that doesn’t spam students as much as some peers and had bad press in 2012-2013. This is perhaps largely due to ebola in the media and the growing economy.
- Emory is starting to move into the direction that I thought it should (more intellectual engagement on a larger scale…admittedly we were doing well in comparison to some peers even before the school in recent years has begun to make more deliberate efforts from top down)
3)Admissions scheme appears more compatible w/ 2) . Though stats haven’t gone up (as in unlike one of the schools you mentioned, it isn’t stats whoring-admissions is based on something more effective as indicated by the fact that we still compete with and often even beat the school that is currently stats whoring in things like Fulbright production and Goldwater production. The other school you mention, is also not a stats whore in admissions and has been surpassed by the stats whore score wise and is yet still cleaning comparable stats whoring school’s clock achievement wise. Ironically, Emory often is in the middle of the two if this was used as a measurement stick. We creamed one of them in the 2014 Fulbright cycle despite the stats of the undergrads in that cohort being way lower…Emory is clearly doing something right once the students actually get there…as is the comparable non-stats whoring school that shall not be named…figure out the riddle lol), I would say the students’ academic areas (and their achievements) have become more interesting and diverse (maybe because of things such as our English Dept getting lots of attention) - While I still disagree with the dept. cuts, I think Emory is going in the right direction. Hopefully it can make it work long turn.
- I strongly disagree with your exaggerations on school selection and preference (as the numbers don’t bare it out. Vandy gets tons of apps for a reason aside from just the marketing…the students who apply their like the message and when they visit, they clearly prefer that sort of vibe over what a place like Emory has to offer. Or, at the very least, it is a very nice school and is easier to apply to due to less stringent supplement requirements). As I suggested in this old thread, students are not really selecting between seemingly comparable schools based on actual differences in academics (Many don’t actually know how to gauge these-though admittedly, Emory not having engineering in this economic climate has clearly hurt it as even schools with not so great programs in it can beat us because it is such a “hot” major…)
6)Those considering the natural sciences or pre-med should look more closely at the curriculum (first-look at course offerings on dept. website, then go sit in some of the “top instructor’s” classes and compare if you visit- you will no doubt find a difference as the culture of teaching and learning in particular departments varies within and between schools. A top instructor at one school may be considered so for completely different methods than one at another school of similar caliber overall) when considering between these 3 because I found that Vandy does things a bit “differently” (seems Emory and Duke have more teachers in science that have moved toward more active learning, which is impressive for Duke considering the size of their intro. sections. If they can do it, so can Vandy because the size of their sections are roughly the same). It seems that chemistry, biology, and neuroscience at Emory and Duke are stronger (more varied teaching methods, more of the right kind of rigor, more special opps for undergrads offered directly through those depts). Makes sense because Emory and Duke have a tradition of improving their science (especially natural) curricula via HHMI project. HHMI science ed. grants are usually between 1 and 2million dollars and are on 4 year cycles. Emory and Duke have been getting these grants since 2002 and Vanderbilt was not in any of these cycles (2002, 2006, 2010, nor the recent 2014 one). It seems that most elite privates seriously attempting to change aspects of their STEM curriculum (including Yale, Princeton, and Stanford which are so rich they could fund their own efforts) employ HHMI grants as a principle venue. Either they do it another way, or it is not a big priority for them (as in they feel comfortable with the way things are…I think this is it and I think they should reconsider).
7)Again, cross-applicants to these three are oblivious to such things (I am willing to bet many don’t even attempt to ask about the academics or attend a class. I’m willing to bet that a person applying to Emory, some LAC’s and maybe a place like JHU, Chicago or even Rice are more likely to have tried harder to feel out the academic/intellectual environment. The first group no doubt is probably not as concerned about what the latter is. Emory gets a really interesting mix of those considering each type of school which is why it is much more cerebral than expected for a pre-prof. factory I guess. You have the “I am gungho pre-X that wants great grades and a good time” balanced by “I was convinced to come here when I found out a class on this topic is being offered” or “This person teaches in the English Dept and the school is known to be great for undergrad writers like me” and then those that a rare mixture of both sides which give Emory a 1/2 Pre-prof, 1/2 LAC feel.
8)5)I’m willing to bet that undergraduate academic intensity at a school is governed by the institutional context and culture of the undergraduate body. For example, when I made my comparisons between key Emory courses and Vanderbilt science courses, I wondered if they found it easy because I expected them to as they have very high scores. I checked out their ochem instructors’ materials: What I found was these instructors would compare more favorably to those considered of slightly easier or maybe moderate difficulty level at Emory. I then checked RMP (crude, but I also had a friend taking one instructor so they had averages for the exams) and found that the students considered such instructors challenging for the most part which was weird because the exams of the Emory instructors with similar difficulty ratings were much more difficult and yielded similar averages. Vanderbilt students clearly are not dumber than Emory students however I suspect that they could be more distracted and that the instructors are aware of it and what students are willing and able to handle within that context. Whereas, a top instructor at Emory is asking for a lot more because they assume that most people either have or are willing to put in the time simply because the social scene is less engulfing and students are in general less distracted. What they defined as “most rigorous” just seemed to be a different ballpark of what is defined as “most rigorous” at Emory. Worst case scenario is a difference in teaching quality or effectiveness. The same pattern could be observed for general biology or general chemistry. It just seems to take a lot more to get a majority of raters and students at Emory to say a science class is very difficult (or even difficult). Exams have to be pretty tricky or onerous to get that sort of consensus.
- Either way, it is not too hard to at least take a crack at comparing academics at these schools if one actually cares enough and doesn’t take quality for granted. I’ve talked ad nauseam about such things on CC alone and am willing to provide actual course materials to back up what I say or explain to people how they can go about exploring differences on their own (from looking up course websites, syllabi, and reading between the lines of departmental websites describing opps. and courses for undergrads).
BTW, you may wonder why I accuse that school of stats whoring admissions. It is because it seems its stats for admits in the RD pool increase or stay flat even when its applications decline (like it did in 2014) and then it increased even more this past cycle despite it being off of its 2013 high…Those scores are very impressive but the people making them are not always the same chosen by or matriculating to the Ivies or even other peers like Stanford (which have lower stats). I don’t know why their emphasis has shifted to the scores in that way. It doesn’t seem to be helping (their rank has not gone up much at all and the academic and social climate has not changed whatsoever. A person into a richer intellectual climate is still better off elsewhere for the most part, whether or not the incoming stats are similar or lower). This tells me that its peer schools choose not to use the same tactics for a reason…
Counterpoint:
- The greatest stat whoring universities are the one that lie about their stats then call it an oversight…cough cough…Pleeease.
- The increasing stats at a university do not reflect a change in who they admit. They have been admitting top students forever. It reflects where the top students (who have many options) want to go.
- The stat whoring school you speak of has 100% of accepted students having held major leadership positions and/or received major awards in high school. They field SEC sports teams, top muscians, NCAA womens tennis champs, NCAA baseball champs and still have stats higher than 5/8 ivies.
- The academic climate has changed and is changing every year. They have a very rich academic climate with well rounded students.
- They don’t have to look overseas to find high stat students and to boost application numbers.
- Cut pre-prof students a break. They are valuable members of any campus, good students but are put in a position of having to play the “GPA game”. They don’t have the freedom other students enjoy to explore different academic options.
@bud123 I’m a trip ain’t I bud…for what its worth, I give you guys props in econ, CS, math, and physics where we flop pretty horribly. Unless one is planning to double major in those with something that is at least half-way decent (or better yet, fairly strong), I would recommend somewhere else if they got into those…namely a place like Vandy or Duke (though definitely Duke for economics). I suppose Rice is strong in that area two, but weirdly, I never see threads with all 4 of us there (I don’t actually know about how it works in real life). It is more like Vandy or Duke, or sometimes Emory versus one or both of those places or just Emory versus Rice and some other non-Vandy/Duke schools. As in, the person is not really applying to the other two and may choose other elite schools. I think that this is because Rice certainly sells itself better and tries to give off the vibe that “we are not these schools” whereas stupid Emory tried to lie and play up a “work hard play hard” environment as if students on a tour can’t see through BS when they’ve been to other schools saying the same thing. I think it has tried to stop, I don’t pay it much attention as lately this forum is just downtime (I have to be in my lab most days, so I can’t be at Emory and have the pleasure or displeasure of passing a tour group and overhearing the pitches given by the guide),
As for the increase in stats. It does reflect a change in who they admit, I said that (you can choose to admit only an extremely high range of scores). However, the other schools who could do the same thing to that extent CHOOSE not to and they are doing extremely well output wise and their undergraduate academics are ULTRA strong (as in if you compared the disciplines known to attract the high scorers, it appears that are pushing their students much harder than say, Emory, in most departments-I won’t be able to find too many depts where I say “damn- wish we did that”). You think Stanford (or Duke or Penn) can’t have the same stats as Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, Vandy, WashU, Chicago, and Yale with all 42-43k of its applications? Also, as I always claim. Students with certain scores are not created equally. Like if Harvard, Chicago, Princeton, and Chicago (and honestly to a solid extent, WashU) have the academic intensity they are known for, then the scheme makes more sense (and of course they attract those who like or don’t mind the intensity). It also make sense for places like Caltech or MIT (but even then one’s other accolades will count more because you have to be stronger in science than indicated by examinations if you are considering STEM at those schools. I am just pleased that Vandy is trying to now do more with the “talent” with some of the new programs it plans (like the immersion thing). Those are the types of things I appreciate schools doing more so than increasing prestige (artificially or not) because if you have good students at any level, I believe a large part of their efforts and talent should be pushed as much as possible in this current highered environment where it just isn’t as common as it used to be. If a place like Emory is somewhat successful at dealing with the supposedly lower talent levels it attracts, other schools could and should damn sure take advantage of theirs (and most are). Most students who claim to be “challenged” at Emory are taking courses and getting instruction at very comparable levels to places known for their intensity. It isn’t a generic “I think this class and school is hard”. If you actually compared their work to a place like Harvard or some significantly higher ranked institution, it would be comparable if not more challenging. They aren’t just making up that their work is harder or as hard as elsewhere because they don’t know any better.
Also, I don’t get the international students allusion and I think it would be incorrect for Emory. The reason Emory has so many international students is because it wants their money, not their stats. In fact, often their stats are lower in things such as the verbal and writing (and they’ll admit it). Places like Harvard (which have tons of lay prestige world wide) and those that offer scholarships to international students (rare) would be the ones attracting the ones you mention. I suspect I am correct because Emory recently started an international scholarship campaign. I feel they wouldn’t do this if they were already getting the international students they wanted. To get the best, the method that your school and WashU uses makes the most sense. To attract the best (though I don’t think they need to have the SAT’s I see at Vandy and WashU, they simply need to be better than they are now and they should have as strong of EC’s as many strong domestic applicants), you should make it affordable. You won’t get great results and will lower standards if you are recruiting a group for its money.
Academic climate: Vandy is known for well-roundedness. That is not a change. A change would be the number of HOD majors declining over time or if science teaching or the curriculum changed there. Often what contributes to the academic climate is the actual academic offerings and the excitement of the classroom spilling outside of it. If faculty don’t change their teaching methods/try new things, then academic climate does not change that much. It also helps to have special curricula (not necessarily honors) and undergraduate research fellowships (especially in non-science disciplines. Often these are connected to specific departments/several depts if academically really and could be pure research or theory practice learning) or capstone requirements for students who are more academically inclined or interested in a field. I think Emory has been much more effective at this (curricular innovation both inside and even outside of the sciences…but definitely in the sciences), especially lately. And we’ve always had things like the IDS major which is specifically geared toward UG’s that want more of an intellectual community attached to their academics. Having HUGE chemistry and biology departments helps as well because they end up having separate research symposia from that of school wide research programs; Often departmental events can help facilitate better intellectual climate as well. We’re also a step ahead in trying to implement things like the cross-unit teaching (no surprise, many interdisciplinary undergraduate programs, especially in health in science that may call people from public health or medicine to teach) as we’ve always had things such as the University Courses and things like that (also, a group specifically focused on the liberal arts have already created similar cross-unit courses rolling out in the fall that have a different credit structure and offer experiential opps). Emory is home to Global Health Case Competition which involves students across units…you don’t get this unless the environment was ripe for it. Historically, we were just more aggressive when it came to these things. I cannot make claims like the “academic climate changes for every 10 points we add to our SAT range” but I can actually show the development of certain programs and majors that are supposed to foster a stronger climate or cater to the many students that want it. Intellectual and academic climate is a 2-way streak. You have to have students that want improvements, and the faculty and administration must deliver. Again, Vandy is getting there, but we’ve just traditionally been much more aggressive.
A great academic environment and well rounded students are not mutually exclusive terms. It is a mistake to think you can’t have both and today millenials want everything. They want great academics, research, school spirit, parties, SEC sports entertainment, a great base city, and a date on Friday night. Universities that understand this are having success in attracting students now.
Too often the term “academic environment” means all work and no fun, where fun goes to die, or we have nothing else to offer our students. Outside the top ranked U’s these schools are having trouble attracting millenials. These schools tend to look down on universites that offer the entire package and believe these U’s are somehow not equal to them academically. Silly. At the UG level there is little difference between any U’s ranked within 20-30 places of each other. Todays students want it all and can have it all.
Outside the classroom there are significant differences between peer U’s and students need to visit to find their best match.