<p>Look at it another way: Emory is good at producing future professional students. Would you rather have Emory be good at what it does or change it to a more education-oriented institution that may not be as good? It’s in the top 20 in the nation as it is, which is pretty damn good compared to most colleges…</p>
<p>^^ i dont mind or care that a lot of people are preprofessional. i dont think emory should emphasize things like any of the ethnic studies or gender studies at all. also, urban education and any education major should not be a focal point because people who are looking for that often local state U’s like UGA. i like the fact that emory is very health/science and business focused with few other “soft” majors. if emory didnt focus so much on science/business i dont think me or a lot of other would have applied to emory at all. not many people are willing to spend 50k+ for a major in african american studies or womans studies. there arent any jobs for those. emory should keep emphasizing health/science and business because thats where a lot of the higher achieving applicants are going for. if harvard was known as best at ethnic studies and not those pre-pro areas, no way it would be a top school. lets face it, rankings are very important especially for 50k+ price tag.</p>
<p>My point was, it isn’t particularly great at producing future professional students (at least not from undergrad), at least not when compared w/peers. In which case, there is room to re-orient toward education/more learning intensive environment, that way we can continue to produce a reasonable amount of professionals while also sending many more students to PhD programs. I’m basically going to use pre-meds as the ultimate case because their course content and rigor does actually matter in terms of ability to handle the entrance exam. For pre-law for example, the coursework is relatively irrelevant to the LSAT, unless you are English or philosophy. The coursework is only beneficial in that you learn how to write better. More liberal arts intensive places will of course be more effective at this and providing a more rigorous workload resembling a professional environment.</p>
<p>It’s very difficult to attract more interesting students w/different goals (perhaps ones that don’t have a specific career plan when they enter) when you only have a reputation for having a bunch of pre-prof. fervor (that supposedly fosters anti or non-intellectualism) and low “school spirit”. The campus is more intellectual than many, but is very lopsided and one dimensional in some senses. Emory used to cater less to pre-profs in the past and I’ve been told that it was much more interesting then. The only thing going for it now, “interesting” wise is that it is now more ethnically diverse. Also, considering the fact that we are a school w/a college of arts and science at its core and only 2 auxillary/professional divisions for UGs (w/B-school being most dominant), it’s awkward that most of the students are still pre-prof. You expect that from places w/several (more than 2) large and influential auxillary/professional divisions to have this pattern, but not ones structured like Emory. I’m betting that Emory would actually be more successful at producing pre-profs AND graduate school bound students if it did focus more on learning/education. It need not be one or the other. Effective, rigorous and holistic education benefits all. Plus I would hardly consider Emory courses pre-prof. “training”.
Now I present my pre-med study: Pre-meds here majoring in science, unless it’s chemistry, don’t even have to take labs beyond their pre-med required courses, and often such labs aren’t even offered (and only in the bio dept. are the few that are offered particularly encouraged or required. Classes like biochem and genetics don’t even have a lab. At every other peer they have a lab). NBB majors don’t even have to take (and most don’t) a lab for their major and as far as our know, only 1 such lab is offered/exists (it complements the NBB 301 course) and it is capped to 20 students for 1 semester, thus of the 100-150 or so students in the course, only 20 can take the lab. Emory hardly trains pre-professionals. Many pre-professionals just happen to apply to professional school and get in. All Emory could be credited for is providing rigorous course content in some cases and tailoring a couple of courses to the MCAT. I’m sure that if we did away w/such methods, at least add (and encourage or require) more lab courses, and made sure that the pre-health mentoring/advising office is successful, the pre-health applicant success rate would remain the same or increase. We could afford to retool the curriculum trust me (this would probably increase MCAT scores w/o directly having to emphasize it while also actually prepping them for med. school like rigor and courses). Emory could also afford to lower the frequency at which upperlevel science courses employ multiple choice and ONLY multiple choice as an assessment (This reflects profs. being low-effort for students who want to be low effort). That’s really embarrassing for an elite school. Most peers give problems, projects, papers and mostly written exams while we have many courses that still demand no real engagement w/material other than memorizing facts to be able to circle the letter or number on the exam (if you are going to be easy, at least make students write something on an exam and prove that they learned it w/o 3-4 crutches). Best believe pre-healths flock to these courses. Many other courses that don’t have MC exams require nothing more than reading to prep for the exams, no problem solving, article reading, writing, case study, nothing (and then, they ask questions that require memorization/recall, no app. or deeper understanding)! Thus often truancy is high and engagement low. Students can often cram for the exams and expect to do well. Thus it’s almost ensured they learn nothing or very little.</p>
<p>Anyway, you claim we’re great at doing that. I beg to differ, we could do much better in that area and mix it up some. Do you think having pre-profs not interested in or not forced to (as in not literally, but simply demanded more from) seriously learn material bodes well for true success in this arena (at least in cases where success on the entrance exam is actually related to the course content you were exposed to)? The med school admit rate isn’t even 60% yet, I don’t think. Not to mention, we have 300+ applying, why do we need that many applying. That’s like 1/4 of a main campus grad. class. We can inspire more to pursue different directions. </p>
<p>Admittedly, the people who are serious, get around these hurdles and go on to awesome prof. programs, but the reality is, a lot aren’t even gaining admission to any and that’s the problem. The depiction of Emory as being some great big, ultra successful pre-prof. factory is overblown.</p>
<p>ilikepizza: For one, Emory’s top 25 ranking is for undergrad. Our prof. schools have nothing to do w/it other than those attracted by our affiliation w/them. I Have no problem with having pre-profs, it just makes for a blander learning atmosphere and environment. If I knew more pre-profs interested in something more than their grade when taking a course and think creatively outside of class about various things, INCLUDING the stuff they learn in class, I wouldn’t mind. However, unfortunately many people aren’t interested in the aspect of learning and applying the learning in other ways. They simply take learning at exam by exam basis. That takes a lot of energy out of an otherwise and potentially very intellectually vibrant environment. And I strongly disagree w/your take on the purpose of coming here and the role of more liberal arts intensive major. One who merely wanted what you said, could have spent much less and gone to a school like Georgia Tech and made more money and had more industry connections (they have both engineering and a b-school, two very lucrative options). Ideally an education at a place like Emory is supposed to offer more than merely a good job prospect after graduation. If you look at it that way, we aren’t much better than other lower ranked schools that are much cheaper and offer the same opportunities. An Emory degree does not increase your chance at a top job. simply because it cost 50k and ranks number 20. Hopefully the experience would be something different from the norm and you should be able to and desire to learn here more than other places. This requires going beyond some track or specialization whose courses many taking them hardly like. Luckily I know a few of these special pre-profs. but not many. The less career oriented in majors that “won’t get them a job” or are “less lucrative” seem more interesting, innovative, and creative as a whole, and often beat the odds in terms of job and grad/prof prospects. Many such people that you undervalue go on to do very interesting things (start up organizations or perhaps become great researchers and sometimes professors). Consider this. Do you think it helps our reputation that we haven’t produced a Nobel Prize winner (many of which I bet make plenty of money). My hunch tells me that getting such a graduate requires less careerism and emphasis on it in the student body and much more inquiry. I’m down w/mixing the two, but that is something that has to be fostered by profs. and the administrative. “How to get pre-profs. to learn, inquire, and innovate?” should be the question. Because these are not key elements of our environment.</p>
<p>The problem is that for Emory to move up in the academic world and in rankings, it has to improve its non-professional programs and start sending more of its undergraduate students to top, non-professional PhD programs. It’s not so much that Emory has too many pre-professional students, it’s that it doesn’t have enough non-preprofessional students. Thus, it ultimately comes down to accepting and enrolling excellent preprofessionals and excellent non-preprofessionals. That might mean turning down a few more grade-grubbers for “life of the mind” types.</p>
<p>Even a successful program like Brown’s AM in Urban Education Policy would be a good step in improving Emory’s grad programs… Vanderbilt has Peabody, Columbia has its teacher’s college… and then there’s UPenn, Harvard, and Stanford with their education programs. Heck, even JHU has a well-respected graduate education school. Emory needs to help take the lead in top, southern schools. I mean, Brown doesn’t even offer a PhD in education or an EdD… they’d have little hope in competing with Emory over southern applicants or applicants interested in social inequality if we stepped our education program up–we don’t even have a “department” of education!</p>
<p>I think we do actually (view this unexciting, pathetic, low-key website: <a href=“Welcome to Emory College.”>Welcome to Emory College.) . My friend is an education major (notes that it’s fairly rigorous and very writing intensive) but it has hardly no visibility. Also, note that part of Vandy’s additional success since 08’ is its expanded fin. aid policy. Emory advantage is great (I have it), but it doesn’t compare, and when your endowment is larger than a competitor, and you have a similar sized student body to distribute fin. aid to, your aid policy should be similar to the competitor. Duke can afford not to pursue such a policy because they are on a high horse and can get most qualified students that can pay full freight. Emory, being at the bottom of its peers, can’t afford to ignore such options. It must find a way to really help those that fall in ambiguous categories (100-250k income). Even higher income students and families want to avoid loans. I also find that Emory’s budget is lower than Vandy’s, which is kind of weird. I hope that it is part of some strategy to save money for some moves/projects that will eventually pay off.</p>
<p>Anyway, I think the administration recognizes the problem at hand: <a href=“http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/stories/2011/05/soundbites_provost_earl_lewis_spring_address.html[/url]”>http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/stories/2011/05/soundbites_provost_earl_lewis_spring_address.html</a></p>
<p>It realizes it needs more academic/goal diversity. However, it’s tricky. You may be able to admit much more of these students at the expense of pre-profs., but can you yield them? Emory’s reputation will probably steer those types away w/o incentives for them to come or proof that they will be in a good environment for their non-preprof oriented strengths. These students need more convincing that they won’t be pushed to the wayside. They aren’t like pre-profs many who assume that any top 25 will meet their academic and EC (as in very easy volunteering, research, shadowing, etc) needs. Until Emory can prove that it encourages those pursuing a “life of the mind”, pre-prof. or not, yielding such students will be difficult.</p>
<p>No, we have a Division of Educational Studies, rather than a department, because it’s so small.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link–that’s the article I was thinking of earlier when I was talking about attracting art students.</p>
<p>The yield question is difficult too and I don’t think there’s any easy answers… however, if we improve our non-preprofessional grad programs, the “life of the mind” undergrads will come.</p>
<p>We have a few awesome ones in the social sciences and humanities (like English, Polisci, History, social psych, psyche itself. Okay well, psyche here is more like a science, etc.) but they tend to only draw pre-med/pre-law types and I’m sure most students here don’t enter knowing the actual strength of these programs at either the undergrad or grad. level. I know that our theology school, religion program. I love this one even more than I love the history and polisci dept. Some excellent teachers in this dept., who are also deeply involved in the Emory community and beyond. Despite being a chem/bio double major, I have nothing but the utmost respect for these depts. and the people involved in them. I find that even pre-laws in these depts. are by and large FAR more intellectual than pre-healths in any dept. For some reason, pre-laws have more scholarly, “life of the mind” attributes than either business or pre-med majors and definitely more than business. At least pre-med track has several profs. that try to jolt the pre-healths out of the habit of disinterest w/learning. People like, Eisen, Bing, Antia, Orloff, Edwards, Soria, Beck, Spell, Jaegar, and Weinschenk help a lot by simply teaching at least reasonably well and demanding more. It would be a start to get more of these types and make it the norm, not exception. B-school classes grade on a curve and are not demanding, the worst combo. for snapping students out of non-intellectualism and creativity. and the biological divisions of the grad. school are really solid as well. </p>
<p>If Emory wanted to attract more of those types in the first place w/o needing “wake-up call professors” to convert students (which I’m down for. I’m down for the, “you don’t wanna learn, you don’t survive or do well” idea), it should have made the “creativity conversations” that it was holding more visible to prospective students (emphasize it as 1/3 main events on the homepage of the website) and current students for that matter (for example, I never knew when and where they were taking place, and I attend lots of these type of events each year. I decided to do so after attending the religion and law forum/series hosted by the law school my frosh year) as these highlight scholars on campus, whether they be in science, literature, business, etc. In particular they discuss the process of being creative and coming up w/ideas in their field. They show that even those in business are very capable of being innovative and coming up w/new models for doing various facets of business. Highlighting things like this could really help show that Emory is more than just some giant hospital w/a college and business school inside of it. </p>
<p>It has creative and innovative scholars, profs, and researchers, who want to show others how to successfully pursue the life of the mind. And honestly, faculty members are more on such students side than on the pre-profs’ sides. Many professors in the sciences for example, really don’t like the attitude and approach of pre-health students (I swear, teachers talk about their antics all of the time in faculty meetings and to students who they see as different. A few teachers have actually told me their feelings about it themselves). They respect those that prove they are there to get more than a grade or career. Such students make dedicating their time and energy worthwhile. I mean most professors are not just overly thrilled at some mission to “train this generation’s upcoming doctors.” They see their job as to educate in the sciences.</p>
<p>BUMP (Would someone be kind enough to sticky this thread or creative an Oxford subthread?)</p>
<p>I’m so excited to see that this thread was finally added to the featured discussions. I can’t believe that it’s been over a year since I started it!</p>
<p>I’m currently on the interim, field-based social problems courses! It’s been a crazy week! As always, let me know if you have any questions about Oxford!</p>
<p>Hi
can you chance me? ( oxford college of emory)
stats
gpa 3.5
act 28
lab interships ,cultural youth board, and interact club prez</p>
<p>Hi, I recently got into the Oxford college and I’m thinking of going, and I guess I was just wondering if people ever feel bored on such a small campus and also what dorm building is better? Also this is first time using college confidential so Is this how to use it?</p>
<p>When do Oxford students get financial aid awards???</p>
<p>Same question with mattpat…any suggestion on housing???
Can we choose for our beds or different halls have different beds?
Personally I dont like bunk/loft bed…=v=
Alsoo, i cant find any detailed information about bathroms…anyone would like to share?</p>
<p>Do Oxford students have a lower chance of getting into Goizueta than Emory College students?</p>
<p>@ ac33527 I heard they have the same chance of getting into Goizueta statistically
@ serena1127 I’d assume u can do what you want with your bed within reason and all the bathrooms i saw were communal when i went
also did everyone get a physical letter? i got a letter in the opus portal but not through snail mail</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that Oxford students have a lower chance of getting into Goizueta. It’s easier to get leadership positions at Oxford (which the business school really values), but you still need something near the B-school’s average (GPA: 3.6), and Oxford is academically rigorous.</p>
<p>I think I’ve answered everyone’s questions. Please feel free to send me a private message if I’ve missed you or if you have a private concern.</p>
<p>If you’re visiting Oxford, please feel free to PM me–I’d be happy to meet with you in person while you’re here.</p>
<p>What are my chances at Oxford with 3.2 unweighted GPA and 28 ACT? Decent Ec’s and strong recommendations.</p>
<p>In my year, your chances would have been pretty decent. However, I don’t have the data for this year’s incoming Oxford class–that will be posted in August. Once that is out, you’ll have a lot better idea where you stand. I’d encourage you to apply anyway! If you do, send me a PM so I can share some tips with you.</p>
<p>@BSMD: the average entering GPA a year ago was 3.55 unweighted, and I expect it moved up for the current year.</p>