<p>If you were a NC resident considering the pre-med track, would you go for in-state tuition and Chapel, or Emory?</p>
<p>Chapel Hill. It’s excellent and it’s cheap. Unless you can get Emory scholars or a hefty financial aid package, I don’t think you should pay for Emory because it isn’t necessarily going to be that different and it certainly won’t serve to give you any advantage in the pre-health game. Unless you value small size a lot (over-rated, many top public schools have very large science classes but they are sometimes more rigorous and of higher quality than private counterparts), don’t worry about it. However, what I’ll try to do is dig up some things about how Chapel Hill and do an honest comparison of the two if I can(very possible that Chapel Hill may be more innovative and better for learning purposes which could mean >>>MCAT for you, or at least easier studying), and let you use that.</p>
<p>Apply to both. Depending on your financial situation, your net cost could be the same at both places.</p>
<p>I’m just worried they are considering Emory because it is known for “pre-med” and thus looks attractive. The OP needs to see if it offers anything else that may indeed be better for them here than if they went to Chapel Hill instead of saying “I just to want to go to school that’s good for pre-med” (any school w/ok grading practices, that is associated with a healthcare system, has a committee letter system, and has coursework demanding enough such that a student “can” be easily prepped for the MCAT if they want that. Tons of elite and lesser known schools will meet these criteria). If that is literally the primary thing that made them consider Emory, then I would place Chapel Hill higher because potentially spending more money on a pre-med curriculum unless it’s say Harvard (which has made it’s intro. sequences integrated and and geared toward interests of life science oriented students), is not really worth it in my opinion. There should be something else that they want from a place like Emory. “Pre-med” is nearly the same everywhere, but with differing degrees of challenge (something tells me that N. Carolina is tough, but many of the Emory analogs with high quality instructors will be a bit tougher. The only difference is that Chapel Hill is bigger so being in a remotely tough course can feel more stressful than it does in a cozier setting where the professor is more accessible. In addition, the competition may be slightly higher at Emory. As in, people will collaborate, but are way more grade conscious, so sometimes exam averages on what would normally be considered difficult test may catch a mediocre performer by surprise and have a higher than expected average. An example for this is how many biology teachers here give harder exams than Georgia Tech counterparts and yet the exam average will hardly ever dip below 80).</p>
<p>Science curricula and pedagogy differ along with general academic offerings and environment. Aside from having lots of pre-meds, these two schools are completely different.</p>
<p>Extremely long post…</p>
<p>Okay, I’ve kind of looked into it. I wish I was able to find specific course materials (like exams or something), but I’ll post syllabi from Chapel Hill to do the comparison. My ultimate conclusion is that the style isn’t much different within the pre-med core (I won’t compare advanced courses in science because I don’t know if you plan on majoring in a science). </p>
<p>For biology: [Biology</a> 101 Course Website](<a href=“http://courses.bio.unc.edu/Biol101/]Biology”>Biology 101 Course Website)</p>
<p>Appears that they have a more traditional intro. biology sequence (same curriculum as most state flagships as it includes ecology, physiology and the like). Emory is more biased toward what they believe is covered on the MCAT (as Emory, unlike Chapel Hill cannot claim to have biology majors with very diverse interests) and is thus extremely genetics and cell biology heavy just as it is at most top privates and Ivies. In fact, Emory’s is heavy enough to the point that two books are bundled together, one is a more general biology book and one is a flat out genetics book (the 1st semester focuses on issues of double/single-cross over, interference and non-mendelian inheritance patterns toward the end. The second semester places heavy emphasis on things like specifics of bacterial, developmental, and cancer genetics along with some signaling stuff). </p>
<p>The pedagogical differences (based upon what I read in those syllabi) are going in Emory’s favor. Seems Chapel Hill still has the standard lecture and give multiple choice exam format, whereas Emory has most of its general biology professors moving away from this. Several have embraced multiple delivery techniques such as case studies that encourage more active learning (and thus allows for success on more rigorous examinations, which is what you’ll ultimately face on the MCAT anyway. I mean a case is essentially like the passages). Better biology professors (I would say, there are consistently 2-4 such sections each semester) at Emory are likely to have a significant problem solving component on the exam (both multiple choice and short answer). Normally they’ll involve experimental analysis or task oriented problems that may relate to some clinical situation or case. Chapel Hill’s biology course profs. apparently report a C average, but I don’t know how it’s run and I can’t imagine them to be more challenging than these instructors. I also don’t know if they integrate their lab. At Emory, the exam, quiz, and case averages could be a C/C+/B- and most students will still do well because the lab (which is rough and tedious) will often bring students’ grades up (okay 142 L often can bring a good grade down, won’t lie). Maybe Chapel Hill separates them. But if you choose wisely, you will get unusually good general biology instruction at Emory that you won’t get at most pre-med heavy schools that keep it in the standard lecture format and focus mostly on “applied memorization”.</p>
<p>Physics: <a href=“http://physics.unc.edu/undergraduate-program/labs/physics-104/[/url]”>http://physics.unc.edu/undergraduate-program/labs/physics-104/</a></p>
<p>“Luckily” for pre-meds coming to Emory, we are soft here and are one of the only top private schools to allow science majors and pre-meds to take algebra/trig based physics. You may do the same at Chapel Hill. I’m going to argue that Chapel Hill is more intense here if only because of the lab component being tougher. Physics 141 at Emory is so soft that you do not have to write lab reports as part of the lab component. However, there is apparently a practical final at the end that is known to lower the physics grades (I honestly rather just take C-based physics and do the lab reports).</p>
<p>Chemistry (organic and general): [UNC</a> Chemistry Sample Syllabi](<a href=“http://www.chem.unc.edu/courses/index.html?display=sample_syllabi&content=sample_syllabi]UNC”>http://www.chem.unc.edu/courses/index.html?display=sample_syllabi&content=sample_syllabi)</p>
<p>Appears Chapel Hill, like many public schools is ahead of us in gen. chem in that many teachers their are employing the “flipped” classroom technique which relegates the basic material to students to do before coming and then allows students to work on problems in class (which is much more effective than pure lecture in a problem-solving oriented subject such as chemistry). Emory wants to move to this model as the new chemistry addition opens, but I’m not sure how it will work as, right now, only one of the gen. chem faculty is comfortable with the technique (so I’m suspicious of this push, and am wondering why the auditorium is being replaced with a “collaborative/roundtable” that no chemistry faculty member may use for undergraduate instruction anyway. If anything, some of the biology instructors may want to use it). With that said, Emory’s top gen. chem instructors are still excellent. They are just very challenging (I’m willing to bet they are as or more challenging than Chapel Hill counterparts, and students their claim it’s pretty intense. One class is apparently getting a break right now because the instructor is on a temporary medical leave, so they got the exam of a medium rigor instructor for the last exam they took). </p>
<p>Organic at Chapel Hill seems stereotypical, according to syllabi, but so is Emory to some extent. However, the top instructors here are “really” good. Both make the experience more interactive than the typical lecture, but the 2 best instructors are extremely challenging (one gives bonus points to directly inflate exam scores, but you must earn them, and one curves). I’ve searched, and these 2 are more rigorous than most of the organic instructors at top private schools (including most Ivy Leagues. They are honestly more comparable to Harvard, MIT, or Caltech in caliber). The two are not all about memorization. They want students to be able to apply their knowledge in the most complex of situations. You may hear of other students at top schools complaining about how the teacher will make them solve a single problem that they haven’t ever really seen before, but for these two (and another less apt professor), this is the norm (huge sections of the exams will be dedicated to this. These will get you in shape for the MCAT type of passages, but the level of application and synthesis is far higher than needed for the MCAT. But it’s better to overtrain than undertrain) and they are so good that students just accept that it’s worth it (this is the most Ivy like experience in the pre-med core. I suppose gen. chem is fairly similar to some of the so called “lower-Ivies”).</p>
<p>You can tell the rigor of the pre-med chemistry courses just by the fact that a significant amount of general and organic chemistry instructors opt. to give exams during the evening (lasting 2-3 hours) which is consistent with those at schools with more rigorous sequences in this area whereas it appears Chapel Hill and most top schools have much shorter, less intensive, in class exams (the one rigorous instructor who does not give evening exams usually yields significantly lower averages. The year I Taed, it was between low 50s and high 60s for this guy). You can go to Emory and take the easier instructors for this, but it’s not recommended as they are considerably worse (evaluations indicate that they suck and assessments prove it as well. Let’s not mention that they are relatively inaccessible researchers and will not write the greatest rec. letter even if you get an A simply because they don’t actually know you. The top 2 instructors are lecturers. The distant 2nd place teacher is a cooler, less old, research faculty member. The same hierarchy exists for gen. chem. The 3 lecturers are clearly superior, but typically more rigorous). </p>
<p>Math: Math (at the level most pre-meds will get to) at Emory is really simple (can be slightly challenging if you choose a good instructor) and pre-healths get to take the life sciences calc. sequence. I’m going to just assume Chapel Hill is stronger in math, because Emory’s math dept. is pretty weak in general (the regular calc. series is, for example, loaded w/graduate students who teach. To get a professor you need to do lifesci, start with math 112-Z, or start somewhere beyond calc. 2).</p>
<p>@bernie12,
I appreciate the time you’ve devoted to helping me reason through this decision. I can’t thank you enough for the extremely thorough advice, and will bear it in mind through the months to come.</p>
<p>You’re welcome. I just think that it’s best to look at schools using this method if you are concerned about academic differences instead of using hearsay. For example, many institutions that students claim to be difficult or “challenging” are lesser so than the student body there would make out to believe, but unless you have a syllabus or some course materials, one’s instinct would be to just take it face value. For example, Berkeley and Georgia Tech students complain a lot about how insane science is, and how it’s harder than insert “highly ranked, private grade inflated university” and when you look, you realize that it maybe only is true for say, engineering associated fields (engineering, physics, CS, math), and even then, many places are still more difficult (regardless of differences in grading practices. For example, often Berkeley students like to claim that it’s harder than Harvard…I respect the school pride, but it isn’t). Seriously, sometimes you look and you go “what are you folks complaining about?” I guess one correlate to how much students complain is the size of the class and another, the teaching quality (as in, it may not be as difficult conceptually as other places, but the instructor quality is low in comparison to the expectations). One way you can feel out a schools attitude toward academic rigor is perhaps looking at prof. ratings (rate myprofessor which is very crude, but is one of the only public venues with some ratings) vs. difficult. For example, it appears Emory students have a high tolerance for high difficulty as long as the instructor is good. I think I view high tolerance as, difficulty ratings of 2.5 and lower (we have several science teachers below 2.3 that have 4.0+ which is impressive given the general stereotype of pre-meds), but quality rating of around or higher than 4.0. Seems schools with students that complain more have some soft correlation between the two (on top of that, you’ll see more of the weird comments like, “this class is hard, I actually had to study very frequently and work problems”. You know, as if it isn’t expected); As in higher difficulty often results in lower ratings. And then, if you are still skeptical, you can find syllabi/course materials.</p>
<p>I think Bernie could write a book. I mean this as a compliment.</p>
<p>Honestly, if price is a factor Chapel Hill all the way. Emorys “prestige” is not worth the price tag if you are price sensitive. Save it for a Great Grad School!</p>