The Oxford Thread: Questions and Conversation

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
161

<p>I did some research into what matters (in terms of educational value, not prestige). It appears as if Rice students doing natural sciences, for about the first two years or so, do not benefit from what the supposedly smaller environment offers, at least not in the key weedout classes. A person on main campus would even be better off, so I can’t imagine the Oxford Advantage. </p>

<p>Here are fall 2010 (as they honestly are unlikely to change drastically, unless the depts completely redesigned themselves. Also, Fall 2011 at Emory nor Rice will fail to reflect meaningful info. as freshmen have yet to enroll) Rice enrollment figures for key pre-med weeders:</p>

<p>gen. bio
[BIOC</a> 201 001 - Fall 10](<a href=“http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=15151&p_term=201110]BIOC”>http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=15151&p_term=201110)</p>

<p>Note that in the case of gen. bio sections (far more than 1) at Emory main campus, they will never exceed 100 students. In fact, they hardly ever exceed 90 (there is a range from about 40-100. The person w/a 100 overloads lots of people and it leaves the other sections pretty darned small, normally between 40-85. But if all sections were enrolled equally, it would be about 65 per section on main campus. That’s much smaller than Rice’s single section.
gen. chem: They had 3 sections last year:
[CHEM</a> 121 001 - Fall 10](<a href=“http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=11777&p_term=201110]CHEM”>http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=11777&p_term=201110)
[CHEM</a> 121 002 - Fall 10](<a href=“http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=11778&p_term=201110]CHEM”>http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=11778&p_term=201110)
[CHEM</a> 121 003 - Fall 10](<a href=“http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=16198&p_term=201110]CHEM”>http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=16198&p_term=201110)
Rice loses to main campus again. Sections did not exceed 125 (highest was 123) on main campus and last year was considered over crowded. We also had a section of 45 students (however, it was capped at 45, not 250 like at Rice, so at least ours was a special experimental section which is also responsible for them being even as large as 120). If it weren’t for that it would drop off to 95-110 per section. The 45 person section is non-existent this fall and that will thus be the case this year.<br>
Organic chem:
Rice loses to main campus again.
[CHEM</a> 211 001 - Fall 10](<a href=“http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=14598&p_term=201110]CHEM”>http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=14598&p_term=201110)
[CHEM</a> 211 002 - Fall 10](<a href=“http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=11790&p_term=201110]CHEM”>http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=11790&p_term=201110)
Sections at Emory will not exceed 90 (unless Weinschenk overloads people, which he doesn’t for too many. Not enough to get to 100 at least). And this fall, there will be 2, 90 person sections, 3 72 person sections, 1 35 person section (actually taught by Liotta, dude who designed HIV drug Emtriva).
Physics (I will compare theirs to our watered down, non-calc version which is the one most pre-meds take. Also, Calc. based is often much smaller, so I wanna level the playing field to reflect the one that the majority here take):
[PHYS</a> 125 001 - Fall 10](<a href=“http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=10990&p_term=201110]PHYS”>http://courses.rice.edu/admweb/swkscat.main?p_action=COURSE&p_crn=10990&p_term=201110)
All Emory main campus physics courses had a max of 90. There were some overloads, so one popular lecturer (tough but really good) had 93. Calc. based had 80, not 188. </p>

<p>These numbers are the starting point to suggesting that the only thing at Rice you will miss is your friends and parents. If Emory has more personal sized weeder/gateway (or gatekeeper) courses, you know Oxford does. With this said, it seems that Emory has a completely different approach to introductory science teaching/course structure than many similar sized/caliber peers (most who do just like Rice and employ a 1-3 sections of fairly large sizes. Instead we offer more choice and smaller size w/like 3-6 profs and upwards to 7 sections). You will benefit from this. You are less likely to be weeded out, the prof. will generally be more accessible (many professors even have the ability to learn names at Emory, even w/the lectures being 70+. Certainly Oxford profs. will do this with even more success), and you don’t have to schedule in those recitation sections that your friends at schools w/very large lecture sizes must. This on top of the research ops. doesn’t hurt you at all. These are differences that most students looking at schools don’t notice (and just generally don’t even consider which is why it may be best for prospectives to visit a class or two. Perhaps one large and one small) and I can’t blame them when there is so much hype around rankings, prestige, and the hearsay that comes along with it, so being somewhat uninformed isn’t really your fault. Anyway, hopefully this info. reassures you that you haven’t made a particularly bad (or worse) decision. You’ll end up just fine as long as you work hard. Normally smaller classes justifies making them more intense, b/c tests are easier to grade in smaller classes. There uch less pressure for profs. to limit oneself to multiple choice tests. However, most gen. bio profs. on main campus obviously feel to busy to be bothered with doing otherwise despite the small size. I hear that biology at Oxford, however, is a different ballgame (I saw a syllabus, and the only thing at Emory that rivaled it was the case-based teachers)</p>

162

<p>Thanks Bernie. Do you attend Emory? I have a question. I want to double major in Chemistry and International Business. Is that a horrible move?</p>

163

<p>Yeah, I do. I don’t know. I’m a chem and bio double, and I find it challenging but not exhausting. However, the problem is that you’ll want to end up being in the b-school which may essentially block the chem. major because the B-School may make you take several courses (maybe like 5-6) at a time. Managing chem and b-school may be tough. It’ll be tough and will certainly take planning. If you could, I would get the gen. chem and perhaps the intro. econ. courses (and perhaps calc) out of the way freshmen year and perhaps convince the b-school to let you take at least a couple of courses in it sophomore year to get a jump start (thus lightening the load a little junior and senior year to complete chem requirements, which really aren’t that hard, except for the upcoming math requirements for pchem). Also, you should perhaps consider a chem. BA as it will be much easier w/the double major.</p>

<p>But yeah, point is doing the b-school plus a science major in the college will be hard. The b-school classes really aren’t that tough at all (thus the curve), but many of the chem classes are a drain and probably shouldn’t be taken w/4-6 b-school classes. You could perhaps take an opposite approach that I mention and do as many chem courses at Oxford as possible (though it would be awesome if you could take orgo. on main campus. Maybe take 260 at Oxford and orgo. here) while completing some b-school pre-reqs before getting to Emory/applying to b-school</p>

164

<p>Yeah. :confused: I really want a business degree. What about a degree in International Business and a minor in Chemistry? Would that look necessarily bad to a medical school admissions board? I really want a major in chemistry but Emory’s business school is so god**** good (plus I really love international business. If I couldn’t go into medicine, business would be my second option). That will also probably be a mega-GPA killer too, right?</p>

165

<p>Business a gpa killer? I just said it isn’t. Among most colleges, business majors have the lowest workloads or at least study the least. And despite any sorts of grade distributions that supposedly prevent inflation, they still end up w/ridiculously high GPAs. Also, I don’t know anything about a chem minor. I don’t think it exists. I really don’t think med. schools care what you major in as long as you complete their pre-reqs. If anything, doing their pre-reqs plus business will look good if you do well. It would be all the more impressive if you could fit in some additional chemistry courses.</p>

166

<p>I know business alone wouldn’t be a GPA killer. I meant business and chemistry together–as a double major? Also, could I take summer courses at a local university?</p>

167

<p>I suppose, but after a certain amount of credits at Emory (generally, after 64 or sophomore year), they will not transfer/count those credits so you will have to do it summer after freshman year. Also, you will have to get approval for transient study (so you have to plan in advance as your course has to be approved and et). Such a plan could make for a GPA killer or at least a lot of stress as many chem. classes may be very straight forward/cut-and-dry and are not but so tedious or tough content and workload wise. Many/most upperlevels only have exams and lecture which is actually somewhat shameful given that upperlevels in the physics dept. all give problem sets, but then many will have labs which kills more of your time. Also, you won’t know if those classes conflict w/B-school courses or not. That could get really annoying.</p>

168

<p>Unless Emory finds some way to neutralize Oxford J.C., Emory will NEVER be a top 15 school. In fact, Emory could even find itself out of the Top 20! Just imagine if after 2 years at, e.g., Western Maryland College, you could transfer to Johns Hopkins! Oh, as long as you have a “C” average. </p>

<p>It would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it? Yet for the relationship with Oxford Junior College, Oxford’s Alum won’t even permit an admission requirement (to be a Junior at Emory) of having a “B” average! </p>

<p>If Oxford was re-tooled towards [government recognized] minorities, and a 3.2 admission to Emory requirement implemented, Oxford could become a positive attribute of Emory University. Oxford, utilizing Emory’s substantial endowment resources, could be utilized to seek out promising minority students, particularly those with interests in professional schools (Medicine, Law, Business, Dental, Vets, etc.). Oxford could become a lot more than a pathetic, back-door to get into Emory.</p>

169

<p>I’m sorry, but as a person that started on main campus but has several friends that attend Oxford, and thus knows what the campus offers, your ■■■■■■■■ is misguided (and perhaps you should report your own post as rude and call it stupid in the comment box to the moderators). But I honestly think Oxford is pretty well off and that Emory will more than survive as a top 20 school whether it reaches 15 or not. Heck, even if it falls out of the top 20 into the top 25, we’ll be fine and it will certainly have nothing to do w/Oxford as incoming freshmen classes on MAIN CAMPUS are judged for the publication. Oxford, whether your elitist ass wants to call it a back door or not, is going to be better for a lot of people than main campus. In fact I know for a fact, that even as a science major, one will have access to less traditional classes and pedagogy. They share some of the same fundamental upperlevel classes as Emory while also having implemented things that took us forever such as a lab in quantitative analysis. All of their labs are also inquiry based. They also have a zoology course W/LAB (this is something main campus doesn’t get right, it doesn’t have less traditional science courses that don’t simply cater to pre-meds, and it doesn’t have labs for many courses that should). Also, imagine having your professor run the lab section for the course. As a person that took frosh orgo. at Emory main campys (not even offered at Oxford) and took the special lab section accompanying it that was taught by the prof. himself, I know that this makes a HUGE difference. The fact that they get it in all science courses offered is pretty significant and probably, again, means they get a better experience for their first two years at Oxford than most hear at Emory academic wise. They even know how to teach introductory math effectively, a sequence that Emory cares less about. They give us mostly grad. students and don’t even have supplementary instruction sections for it whereas Oxford has professors and they DO have SI. Again, they win. </p>

<p>You also seem to be assuming that it’s easier, and I have seen or heard no proof that it is easier, if anything, smaller classes and service and inquiry based components make it more intensive. So why the hell should main campus students, even in low demand classes, be required to keep a 1.7 GPA, while they a 2.0. If anything, this makes it harder on them. Oxford is not some random junior college, it is still a part of Emory. The students are not traditional transfer students, and I assure you that most of them upon transferring probably have over a 3.0. Of course, as a ■■■■■, you wouldn’t know or care about this.</p>

<p>Who the hell do you think goes to that school? I would say it’s the same type of student that wants to go to Emory, by and large pre-professionals (and they already have more minorities proportion wise than main campus, shows what you know). And why would Emory need more pre-professionals in training? This is many times the most annoying, least intellectual, whiny group on campus (actually, Oxford students seem less inclined to be this way). We need more people going on to PhD programs (we really lag here behind some peers) and Oxford students actually tend to be much more intellectual than main campus students and they actually comprise a significant amount of the PhD candidates coming from Emory. An amount far disproportionate to the size of w/e Oxford class. Oxford doesn’t need to be retooled toward anything. It’s curriculum design and model is already innovative enough, and it is effective at providing a really solid liberal arts based education for those who want it, one much more serious than the one main campus pays lip service to. If your opinion was RE-TOOLED toward one that actually showed that you valued legit education or did more research than little snippets about who is allowed to continue to main campus instead of simple Oxford bashing, then maybe I would take your stupid opinion seriously. </p>

<p>If you actually compare Oxford’s incoming frosh admission stats for example, I’ve found they are actually better than those in USC’s (yes as in Southern California, not South Carolina) incoming class when you look at USC’s common data set. Oxford and Emory will be just fine. Oxford is really another one of the unique things we have going for us. I don’t really care about the ranks which are merely about popularity, endowment, and selectivity once you get past the top 40 or so. They don’t measure how well people here are being educated. People at Oxford and Emory are being educated well, whether our rank is 15 or 24. Also, Vandy has never been 15 since I’ve known about it and it does not have an Oxford, at least Emory can say that by some stupid metrics of USNews, we were once a top 10, even when Oxford was much less selective and had a less innovative approach. At least Emory has some entity that is trying new things on a large scale (as opposed to the occasional 1 class). The job is to educate, not game the rankings. Our ranking will rise again, once more people recognize that we educate well (popularity, and thus will be a result of marketing, not the education itself).</p>

<p>[Oxford</a> College - News Detail Page](<a href=“News Archive | Emory University | Atlanta GA”>News Archive | Emory University | Atlanta GA)</p>

<p>[‪EmoryUniversity’s</a> Channel‬‏ - YouTube](<a href=“Emory University - YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/user/EmoryUniversity#p/search/3/R8ti_sVk0bI)</p>

<p>[‪Academic</a> Excellence at Oxford College‬‏ - YouTube](<a href=“Academic Excellence at Oxford College - YouTube”>Academic Excellence at Oxford College - YouTube)</p>

<p>[Oxford</a> College - Courses Offered](<a href=“http://oxford.emory.edu/audiences/current_students/Academic/academic-divisions/natural-sciences-and-mathematics/biology/courses-offered.dot]Oxford”>http://oxford.emory.edu/audiences/current_students/Academic/academic-divisions/natural-sciences-and-mathematics/biology/courses-offered.dot)</p>

<p>Realize that main campus doesn’t even have half of these courses (and we don’t split human anatomy and phys. up) and we only have a lab for 141/142. Again, Oxford is not doing something wrong here. </p>

<p>To say that we should get rid of or re-tool a place like this for pre-professional training is blatant idiocy. This is hardly a normal junior college. Compare it to Penn State campuses, where frosh must live. I promise you that they don’t care about education like this, period. Oxford is not just some inferior auxiliary. They offer an amazing education for those who otherwise would have qualified for a place like UGA, Mercer, or many other schools less selective than the elites (and also, note that about 40-50% at Oxford naturally fall into Emory’s mid-50% for their class). The education is more like an LAC (in fact, that’s what it is), and it should remain that way. It’s what Emory is supposedly about, being LAC-like in a large university. Emory could honestly take some lessons from Oxford (actually it already does. When professors want to try a new interdisciplinary course or teaching style, many take a semester off and teach it at Oxford. Many teachers have done it. They are essentially the test bed of new ideas in education here). </p>

<p>I’m sorry but you were misinformed and just full of crap. I’m pretty sure Oxford’s curriculum is more relevant to most pre-profs than most schools’ will ever be, especially at research Us. Thank you for your ill-fated contribution though. Next time, do your research and don’t be so negative.</p>

170

<p>Lordians, you have continually based your argument against Oxford on the basis that its existence somehow hurts Emory’s U.S. News ranking. It is well-established that the Oxford campus has no direct or indirect effect on the U.S. News rankings. This has been pointed out to you before in the past. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts–that’s where an honest discussion of ideas devolves into ■■■■■■■■. If you want to improve Emory University and its program rankings, you need to improve the non-professional graduate programs and the percentage of students attending reputable PhD programs in non-professional fields. This, incidentally, is one of Emory’s current priorities.</p>

<p>I’m an incoming freshman, so I don’t claim to have any hands-on experience with the realities of Oxford. However, at least on paper, Oxford is developing into a re-socialization/social-mobility center… and that’s a major reason I accepted a position in Institutional Research in the Dean’s Office for this coming year. This is the first year that Oxford has received enough quality applications to able to stop building a class and to start shaping one. Oxford is an attractive option for high-performing, underprivileged students–especially those from rural areas.</p>

<p>My high school’s graduating class had around 50 students and I’m the only from it who will attend an out-of-state college–with the great majority of students attending the local community college. Heck, I used to live in a town with a total population of 1,000–the nearest walmart was 45 minutes away. </p>

<p>With mediocre teachers and guidance, I certainly did not enjoy many of the support mechanisms that students in fancy private high schools and rich public school systems did. Practically no one here has ever heard of Emory, Vanderbilt, WashU, UPenn, UChicago, Northwestern, or any LAC. (Most people here continue to believe I’m attending Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) </p>

<p>Many upper-class and privileged students turn their noses up at Oxford. I could say that it’s not elitist enough for them, but that would be unfair. The truth is many of Oxford’s qualities–including it’s location–aren’t consistent with the metropolitan tastes of the upper class. However, many of us from middle-and lower-class families in rural towns would be no less comfortable with beginning directly at the Atlanta campus. For many us, Oxford represents a re-socialization process that will introduce us to the philosophies and attitudes of a social class well above the one we come from. It offers us upward social mobility.</p>

<p>This is another reason why Oxford’s alumni are as involved as they are. A wealthy family sees sending their child to Emory as akin to buying brand-name clothing. It’s a financial transaction–no more loyalty is owed. For many at Oxford, however, it’s the first time that anyone has shown any real interest in their unique stories and talents. Oxford offers these an exceptional opportunity–one they don’t forget. I haven’t even arrived at Oxford yet, and I’ve already been working closely with six unique, gifted students (e.g., SAT of 1880 in sophomore year despite being on free lunch/welfare)–they’d never heard of Emory before, but Oxford is now their first choice. They’re not dumber or less driven, they’re simply less privileged.</p>

171

<p>I have a friend hated Oxford and withdrew after the first year because of the constant gossiping going around campus. He never talked about anyone else behind their backs (not even an innocent “Jack is a nice person”).</p>

172

<p>FirstMove, no duh. It is small. Small schools will come w/such problems (or at least the issue is highly visible when the sample size is small). This is even common at LACs. At least that’s a reasonable, personal reason for not liking it though. That just means they should have chosen a larger institution.</p>

<p>Hit the nail on the head aig (and even though I was in a city, my HS was very similar. The magnet program saved my life and barely): And I still stand by what I said about the level of the education there. Despite its location and all, I bet if many people from larger schools experience the Oxford academic experience for a week or longer, they would be extremely pleasantly surprised especially those from my point of view, science majors. I realize that I’ve actually been dealt, or dealt myself a better hand on main campus, and that others’ experience pales in comparison to mines. However, if they went to a place like Oxford, the disparity would almost completely disappear. And you’re right about the privileged. It’s kind of what I (a much less privileged, in fact, I am low income) tried to say but I was kind of too weak to take the politically correct fluff out of it. </p>

<p>As a person that attends main campus, I cannot understand some of the dual superiority/inferiority complexes of the more privileged students, for whom, not even Emory main campus is good enough (seriously, before they even step on campus, the place has no chance at all to win them over. They are bitter and cynical from the start). The Oxford bashing seems almost like some form of compensation or simply looking for someone to pick on whom they can claim is inferior to them (and this couldn’t be farther from the truth). It’s just really strange and I can’t understand it to this day how students can delude themselves like that, and then I realize where many of them grew up (in some affluent Ivy or bust neighborhood). I also honestly question whether Emory “shapes” classes. It seems to just take in those who applied and show some slight interest (albeit it fake and merely interest associated w/going to a top 20 school, even if it is far different from its peers. Even if they WILL NOT like it) and hope the higher scoring students yield. And then, in a desperate attempt to retain some of the cynical/whiners, it tries to shape the school so that it wins them, even though it’s impossible. It fails to understand that we shouldn’t be continuing to attract a majority of the students that we do (seriously, why the hell are we competing w/Duke, ND, or Vandy? School is not structured anything like them. No engineering/architecture/education/communications, no specialized schools for UGs except business and nursing). They don’t fit or belong here. (again they want the college experience they see in movies or on TV, and you aren’t going to get every aspect of that here).</p>

<p>Basically, they do it ass backwards. We should be more like Chicago (as we are in terms of academic structure. We resemble them the most out of all of our peers) and attract a unique, qualified pool of applicants that FIT in the first place (which means, it should consider a) dropping common app. or b) having more specialized essays or c) interviews). It shouldn’t be attracting students that are vanilla pre-professionals that just want to be at any top 20 at all costs even if they much rather be somewhere like Vanderbilt, Duke, ND, etc Basically, schools w/D-1 sports and a “traditional atmosphere”. The reality is, any good number of schools, non-top 20 publics and privates would have satisfied them more (but no…it has to be in the top 20). The “gettem’ here and fittem’ later” admissions policy doesn’t work. We need to attract people interested in what we offer who are more inclined to like it here. At least Oxford gets people interested enough in what it offers to forgo other options. I mean, honestly, many of them could have easily headed on over to Mercer, UGA, or various other schools. People at Oxford understand what’s being offered and do think that it is more than enough. Lots of main campus students don’t get it. If you can’t give them football or “school pride”, then you have nothing to offer them. A chance at a great education is irrelevant to many as they feel they are already entitled to that and it is thus something to be taken for granted and merely compared to education of other schools as opposed to the benefits afforded to them for receiving this “entitlement”.</p>

173

<p>as a main campus student, i wish emory had done away with oxford a long time ago. no offense.</p>

174

<p>also im gonna just be blunt, but seriously, about 96% of main campus students bash oxford students. these 96% do see oxford as a back door to emory, whether anyone else likes it or not or will admit it or not, this is the cold hard truth.</p>

175

<p>What wonderful help you are. You fit in with those I describe (the annoying, elitist students). Also, have you done a survey that finds that 96% of students at Emory bash them (At most, about 90% of students could as Oxford students eventually comprise 10-12% of the student body. I’ve met and know many Oxford students, and none were bashing it)? I would certainly like to see it because that isn’t my experience (how about making it an honors thesis or something lol). Your peer group does not=Emory so do not try to represent all of us. I will not be banished to some unproven four percent that doesn’t bash them. I’m sure that most of the students (at least half) could care less. </p>

<p>By the way, your elitist comments/opinions are offensive, whether you want to own up to it being your intent or not. That’s what bashing is. You suck. If you bash Oxford students (and feel so bothered by its existence), you haven’t been doing enough on campus to occupy yourself. Yes, feel free to take offense because I don’t care. Also, using hyberbole in that manner and fabricating data shows how hard you tried to get something from your Emory education. One would think that a person at an awesome research institution would know how to use data better. Don’t present fictional truths via any forum or outlet (this makes you a liar). That is hardly the truth. That’s just making up your own truth and fabricating numbers, b***h please! Let it go. Enjoy your time at Emory and stop ignorantly bashing a school you don’t even attend. Next time, merely leave it at, “I know that some people bash Oxford” because saying that 96% of nearly 7200 undergraduates even give a damn is a HUGE stretch and makes us look really bad (almost as if Emory doesn’t give us enough work or opportunities so that we have time to collectively, as a community, bash Oxford). What an idiot. Spare us embarrassment please. Perhaps we shut down all schools, good or not, that admit students w/stats like Oxfords. Time for UGA, USC, Mercer, and many state universities in Ga. and the US to go! Let’s not forget about those HBCUs. We all know that people below 1200 SAT don’t deserve a great education. Let’s just not educate them at all, or limit their options to community college because that environment is suiting for everyone w/an SAT not high enough for an elite college.</p>

176

<p>wow… stop the hating. seriously… yea, oxford is kind of a back door but not everyone that goes there is dumb. some people choose to go there because its 10k cheaper. some people just like the environment. im going to main campus this year (yay). not everyone at main campus is smart. there are not so smart people like most other schools. people get into schools for different reasons and people make choices for whatever reason. think about it this way, if oxford students are dumber, wouldnt it be better for the main campus students because it would make the competition less tougher? so stop hating. at the end of the day we are all emory.</p>

177

<p>Actually it doesn’t, their education catches them up so that they perform the same as students on main campus (which indicates that our frosh and sophomore year hardly advanced us whereas theirs allowed most to jump by leaps and bounds). Again, so nothing is wrong w/them. When put in a great environment, like those w/higher stats., they learn extremely well. You’re right, any hating is both useless and completely irrelevant and it takes away from an already weaker environment of school pride and appreciation. You would think that such students WANT to hurt Emory. They sure don’t do much to help it. </p>

<p>ilikepizza: I’m sure you’ll find, when you arrive on main campus, that emoryhelp lies. Such people are really a small vocal minority prone to complaining about everything or simply need an ego boost for reasons described above. Ideally, not enough students even have nor make time for such hating (besides if you do, you lessen your pool of potential friends dramatically). Those who do need to pick up more rigorous courses, join more organizations, and participate in more events.</p>

178

<p>Also, at least Oxford has a mission that it sticks to. Consider Vanderbilt’s Peabody College and Northwestern’s School of Education and Social Policy; these schools are looking to accept those with the highest grades and test scores regardless of whether their career plans/goals line up with the degree in the slightest–just so the school can keep its rank a little higher. It’s not about impact; it’s about elitism. Northwestern has special SESP sessions all year to try to convert pre-med/pre-law students from the school’s other colleges under the promise of a higher GPA–same story with Vanderbilt and it’s new HOD major. I mean, the very idea that education schools ought to enroll the best students who will have an impact in education.</p>

<p>We all know that if Harvard formed a College of Thumb-Twiddling, they couldn’t beat the pre-professional students away with all the sticks in Massachusetts–full of invented “fit,” professing a love of Thumb-Twiddling… all an attempt to get a leg-up in the law/medical/business admissions process. I’m not suggesting that all pre-professionals are this way, but does anyone really want that kind of classmate? It seems that Emory has far more than its share.</p>

179

<p>The answer is no, we could use much less. It’s really annoying and sometimes anti-intellectual (excessive grade grubbing and whining at the expense of learning sours the environment a little). We need a class w/more diverse goals. I don’t see how it would hurt as, for example, 40-50% of pre-meds applying aren’t gaining admission to med. school anyway simply because there are too many. Solution: Retool some or a lot of the science curriculum to get people interested in science and not only healthcare (actually one can question whether they are interested in healthcare). This will inevitably make it even more rigorous, but at least it’ll eventually get the attention of those who are not pre-med/pre-health. Kind of like, how places like Caltech are known as not “pre-med friendly”, Emory isn’t pre-PhD friendly. I think the key is to strike a middle ground. Basically say: “pre-meds can take this, but you better actually like science, this course is not just catered to your needs and you will have to think like a scientist regardless of your post-grad interests” as we have courses like gen. bio that completely tailor to material on the MCAT. That shouldn’t happen. Also, students shouldn’t be complaining when a teacher “doesn’t stick to simply teaching what’s on the MCAT”. </p>

<p>That’s just so shallow and disgusting. It’s like they understand that they essentially own the professors/curriculum and Emory is simply supposed to mold itself to every ridiculous whim they have (and they have, and it has actually led to disaster for the pre-profs. in some instances lol. Some of the courses retooled toward pre-med desires, like biochem have actually become weedouts, where the material in uninteresting/not intellectually rigorous, class large, and profs. comparatively inaccessible. Oh the irony!). Make courses and course offerings relevant to all parties as opposed to catering to a crowd that, by and large, really isn’t that darned successful (nor truly interested in what the prof. is teaching) in the first place. A better curriculum would at least have the benefit of weeding a fair share out before they apply or it will deter those not interested in science in the first place. We’ll basically have less people merely “putting themselves through” courses only because it’s neccessary for a certain endpoint. I remember a guy in the library saying: “I hate my science classes, but I really want to be a pediatrician”. This shouldn’t happen, there are various other ways to help children.</p>

<p>I love watching the unmotivated, uninterested pre-profs. squirm and whine their way through some of these classes (It is easy to pick them out too). They act as though, sense they pay 50k+, they should get an automatic A for effort in traditional hard courses, that way they can just go on about their business in prof. school. All the work done in class is merely “irrelevant” or “impractical” to their medical career, a “distraction” from the true goal. You know, because it is all about their career interests and no one else can possibly benefit from the material if they can’t. It’s quite pitiful.</p>

180

<p>You made a good point early about Emory not actually “shaping” a class. The faculty are complaining louder and louder about this–if you’re trying to attract an exceptional artist to the school, what does it matter that they fall a little out of the top 10% of their high-school class? President Wagner said Emory needs to focus on those areas where it has the opportunity to excel–but with the current philosophy, we’re going to always be stuck as a second-rate Johns Hopkins. Of all the other incoming Oxford students I’ve met, only two others are not pre-professional (pre-law/med/nursing/business).</p>

<p>We have a real opportunity to excel in African-American Studies, Education (Particularly Urban Education), Social Work/Social Policy, and Sociology (the latter two with a emphasis in social inequality). As it is, I hear that practically no one majors in educational studies and our PhD program isn’t even ranked. There is no school of social work or social policy… and even the honors undergrad sociology majors seem to have all focused on the sociology of healthcare.</p>