Non-Engineering at GT

Colleges and Universities A-Z Georgia Institute of Technology
1

<p>Hi, I heard that ~90% of GT students are engineering majors..</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, are non-engineering majors seen as weird for going to GaTech? Are they..stigmatized in a way?
I got accepted into the College of Sciences for Chemistry and I was just wondering, since GaTech is famous for Engineering, does that mean that the school focuses less on, for example, chemistry facilities and teaching quality?
In other words, would it be a good idea to choose GaTech for a chemistry major over, for example, Emory?</p>

2

<p>

</p>

<p>55% of students at Georgia Tech are engineering majors. 45% are non-engineering majors, so no, it’s not weird. </p>

<p>The facilities and professors in the chemistry department at Tech are world-class and I would recommend GT over Emory for science.</p>

3

<p>@banjo, really?? that’s what my tour guide told me when I visited last summer.</p>

<p>But oh, okay, great. Thanks!</p>

4

<p>The tour guides shouldn’t be saying that. </p>

<p>[Welcome</a> | Institutional Research and Planning](<a href=“http://www.irp.gatech.edu%5DWelcome”>http://www.irp.gatech.edu) for enrollment statistics.</p>

5

<p>No he’s saying that the tour guides told him the facilities and professors in the chem department at Tech are world-class – they didn’t say they’d recommend Tech over Emory.</p>

6

<p>Again Banjo: You rush to judgement and I’m going to make this extremely long post to put in context why many would consider us over y’all (I mean come on, you know we’re really good in the sciences, especially natural and biological). The teaching quality here is awesome and the environment and teachers are more supportive in terms of making you successful. I know Tech is good, but Emory is awesome in the sciences that are offered here too, and it’s more rigorous than you’d imagine. I should send you an orgo. test of Weinshenck or Soria and let you compare that to your most challenging prof. at Tech. Please, not even a match (and y’alls orgo. sections are somewhat standardized. My friends have shown me both gen. chem and orgo. tests, and they don’t stack up. Perhaps the classes are too large to teach as high a level in y’alls “weedout” courses). Plus, they’re constantly renovating (and soon to be adding on to Atwood) to make for some more teaching and research space (as if Atwood and Emerson combined isn’t big enough). You know darn well that the facilities here are also excellent/world class and are pretty much kept in top shape (Surely you’ve been here). Emory does not play in this area and you know this Tech has some really nice facilities, but many are really… Emory is pretty solid across the board. Many of our low points in this area would maybe considered mediocre compared to y’alls. Not only this, but most of the really nice buildings also serve as places for UG teaching, from intro. to upperlevel courses (for example, you don’t see separate buildings for freshmen and upperclassmen labs at Emory. Although, I’ll admit that y’alls freshmen labs will be really nice once moved to new learning center. But again, Atwood is undergoing more renovations).<br>
And then the research ops are epic (at both). This is not as cut and dry as you always say. I go here so I know better, and I’ve sat in equivalent classes to the ones I’ve taken here, and it’s not the same teaching style/quality at all. It was good, but many Emory profs. are extremely talented and dedicated to teaching undergrads. and far beyond what is necessary. </p>

<p>I mean come on, you have people like Dennis Liotta (Isolated Emtriva, highest selling AIDS at one point) teaching organic chem. Weinschenck is amazing for orgo. They’re bringing in Huy Davies and some Nobel Prize nominee to teach orgo. next semester. And Soria will be teaching the freshmen (he was on Liotta’s team and also co-instructs w/Liotta) orgo. as always. This is an all-star line-up in which most are known to be excellent lecturers and researchers. </p>

<p>Let’s say it like this about people like Soria and Weinschenck. Weinschenck posts lecture readings (contains summary of lecture passed and exposes them to a problem type that they should be able to do after that day’s lecture) and supplementary handouts on learnlink that clarifies and demonstrates a difficult topic in context of relevant problems in real life (research/medical related), while also posting his lectures, and sometimes complementary video lectures to work certain problems from OYO P-sets. That’s true dedication. Soria (and many other profs. here including Hill who I took for inorganic) will sometimes come in on Sundays and Saturdays to facilitate his own Problem Solving session. He also runs his own special organic chem. lab (as in the one associated with the lecture courses), where he himself supervises the Undergraduates in a research type environment (no cookbook chem. The results aren’t canned. Students don’t know outcomes of projects, they have to do the research and work to progress. Weinschenck and Dr. Norton are starting up a similar lab in association w/the Carlos Museum.). He also facilitates lots of group exercises in and out of class. Generally he puts them into groups of up to 4 for P-solving sessions to be facilitated by 2 UGs that were successful in the course. He also assigns tough synthesis p-sets to groups of 4 people (so that they get used to complex targets on an exam. And they are very hard!). And sometimes he’ll assign P-sets w/the intent of fostering scholarly competition. Whoever comes up w/best solutions is taken out to lunch with him. I seriously doubt you’ll get this type of support and dedication from Tech profs. especially in what are considered “weedout” courses. These classes are awesome while being awesomely hard b/c of this. </p>

<p>Also, all of the gen. chem teachers (generally w/one exception per semester) are lecture track and they are some of the best lecturers you’ll get, especially for an intro. course. They all give pretty tough exams, but their teaching quality allows most people to do extremely well and they are extremely accessible.
At Emory, it’s the teaching that makes the difference. You can’t just assume that since Tech is great in all things engineering, it is the right place for someone to go who is not majoring in an engineering science. The schools seem to have two different approaches to education. And Emory profs. are doing some interesting in terms of teaching/pedagogy and normally the results are pleasing on both ends (students and teachers). It would make sense for some to prefer us over Tech if given a choice, even if it is in science. Science education here is much different from the stereotypical experience for a variety of reasons, with the ones I’ve mentioned so far perhaps being the most important. The school has been putting so much emphasis on maintaining teaching quality in a researchU, and it has certainly paid off.</p>

<p>1081736:Even with all the above said, both would be good for chem, but Tech does indeed have advantages, even if not in teaching. Again here, the foundation courses are certainly taught at a really high level and you get great teachers. My only problem was some of the upperlevels. However, that seems to be a result of the economy (I could tell the difference before and after changes in the economy). Now the chem. dept is revamping courses (swapping back in the more talented teachers for key courses and changing the curriculum for some as well) and lab to reflect the quality that they were at before the economy went to hell. So if you choose Emory or Tech, your coming in at the right time. Also, expect both to be difficult. Math intensive courses (except gen. chem) will be more difficult at Tech and Emory will be tougher in things like organic/biologically related courses. However, Tech’s chem. dept will offer more courses as they’ll have many geared toward chemE, so you’ll get to dabble in materials and polymer chem. and stuff. Don’t let Banjo lead you to believe that Tech is automatically better b/c it is top engineering school. You need to assess the actual differences in teaching, course variety, curriculum, research, etc for yourself. Hopefully I’ve given you something to think about.</p>

7

<p>I kept my post short and sweet because I did not want to get into a lengthy debate.</p>

<p>I have taken Chem classes at Emory and GT, and find no difference in the level of difficulty - in fact I find Tech a little more difficult. Emory does have an advantage in that there are smaller class sizes, however that is only for the first few levels of Chem (Inorganic and Organic) and Tech has recently started chemistry major-specific General and Inorganic sections, so Chem majors at Tech will have smaller classes. </p>

<p>All-in-all, I don’t believe that the differences warrant the increased cost. This is especially true when you consider that GT is more heavily recruited by industry for Chem and has more internship opportunities. Emory is almost exclusively research -> grad school oriented while Tech emphasizes both.</p>

8

<p>Which classes have you taken and with who? We know classes like Instrumental Analysis, Quantitative analysis (well actually they’re fixing that) and PChem will be harder at Tech, however, I’ve seen the work in biochem (admittedly this is too large at 120, but I think they’re changing it), orgo., and gen. chem. (and inorganic), and their spin off classes, and Emory is certainly tougher in those areas. Also, you folks have more chem. classes, which means you’re more likely to run into a harder class. We have to speak in terms of courses offered at both. Even easier teachers for these are at least on par. It also depends on when you took them here. Also, if you took summer classes, that certainly doesn’t count. Summer chem. at both are easy. Regardless of major specificity classes, your gen. chem will never range from 45-100 (the 45 results from teacher experimentation), and orgo. will never range from 35-85 (35 is possible in Liotta or Soria). Also, there is no intermediate inorganic here. We axed that and inorganic here has spots for 50 people. You go straight to advanced. There is no survey or orgo./bio chem that students majoring in other things are allowed. to take. Also, I notice that the workload is higher, but here the exams for comparable classes are way harder in many cases, so that’s simply a tradeoff/preferential thing. Y’all seem to emphasize math while we do not as much. Classes here often put more emphasis on application/theory. Again two different approaches to teaching. The person needs to decide what they want.<br>
And you’d expect Emory to at least feel easier because, again, the teachers put far more time and effort into it (even in larger classes). That doesn’t mean your exams will/workload is easier, but it does mean that you will not see a whole class fail someone like Weinschenk or Soria’s exams after working hard. I’m betting the average over there for y’alls orgo. sections are lower than these two’s. And I know your gen. chem averages are lower b/c the tests are only multiple choice, not b/c the questions are particularly hard. Profs. here ask some legit challenging questions that require more than simple memorization/calculations. </p>

<p>As for recruitment, that doesn’t matter as much. Emory students are go-getters, and rather some company comes here to specifically recruit or not, they are getting an internship or some special oppurtunity if they want it. This is not difficult to find at either one of us, come on. And then the faculty looks out for you here(especially for non-premeds.), they will essentially hook you up with opps, without actually needing the recruiters. Not to mention, goals are different. Also, any Emory chem. majors are pre-med. They’ll easily find internship oppurtunities having to do with that. Given this, Emory students have no particular advantage or disadvantage here. </p>

<p>Also, once wealth or Emory advantage comes into play, the differences in teaching quality may be worth it if the person is really serious about that.</p>

9

<p>So basically, with regards to workload and difficulty of getting good grades, both are the same. With regards to students, Emory chem stdents are mostly premed and Tech students mostly aim to work in industry? (what percentage of chem stdents from both schools end up going to grad school?) With regards to teaching, Emory professors are more interesting and class sizes are smaller, but Tech professors aren’t’ bad either but bigger class sizes at first (smaller size as you become upperclassmen). Tech focuses more on the maths side of chemistry while Emory focuses more on creative thinking side. Am I on the right track so far?</p>

<p>If I’m not into pre-med, would Georgia Tech be a better choice for me? Would it be easier for me to get employment in industry since Tech seems to be good in employment from their co-op and internship programs…?? Or should I not worry about that yet since I plan to go to grad school?</p>

10

<p>Again, go Tech if you want the more engineering important chemistry. If you want to be a researcher, I recommend coming here as it is a component heavily integrated into very important courses. Basically if you get in a lab for say organic chem., after taking Soria (Soria covers both biological, engineering/and even more organometallic. Weinschenk seems slightly skewed toward biological and also puts a heavy emphasis on the molecular orbital theory), Weinschenk, and perhaps a few others that I can name, you won’t be clueless. Your background will be extremely strong as both have tried extremely hard to force students to understand real world apps.in something supposedly as basic as undergrad. orgo. This then can be reinforced w/a background in at least intro. bio. We have some really good, but tough profs. teaching that, and the lab gets you used to real experimentation. It’s much less cookbook than say gen. chem. and is mostly cased based learning/experiments. The coolest thing is 2nd semester where you add a particular mutagen to zebra fish or frog embryos, and then track its altered development through particular procedures (you have to figure out which developmental system/chemical pathway went array) which is pretty interesting for an intro. course lab. Emory is putting a lot of effort into reforming/improving teaching/learning outcome in those too, starting at intro. level.
If you want I could somehow send you an orgo. exam (this is the critical course that will swing a potential chemist to or from orgo. research. And if toward, it’ll perhaps give an idea of what niche, if any you want). to put in context the type of stuff you’ll learn in some classes. Often, you’ll find that you are learning while you take the exam despite being well prepared. Point is, it’s quite an experience and you generally come out impressed and surprised by what you’ve learned.<br>
It would be best if you also get an example of Tech’s work too ,to see what they emphasize and how it could be different and choose based upon what you see because if you don’t like the work you’re doing or the classes you’re in b/c you find the material or approach boring/uninteresting, you won’t like your experience even if you foresee a great job offer at the end. Figure out what emphasis you like. All I can do is show you an example of what we can offer b/c I have files on hand. Either scavenge around on Tech’s website or ask a friend if you want to check theirs out. Best not to go in w/assumptions about either. The difference I see may be less profound or important to you.</p>