<p>In the seemingly never-ending college search, I have the constant fear of being unable to attend my dream grad program. To keep it simple, I need at least a 3.3 undergrad GPA. Is that even remotely attainable at Emory for a biology major and either ethics, sociology or psychology minor? Thanks (BTW, I'm a motivated 98 high school student and top 5% in my class if that makes a difference)</p>
<p>we have grade inflation. our average gpa is about a 3.4.</p>
<p>It is completely doable. One thing I have learned over the years is that it is almost impossible to predict which students will flourish in college and which will flounder. Sure, there is a rough correlation between those that did well in high school and those that do well in college, but there are tons of exceptions. Similarly, many that just did well enough to get into a good school like Emory end up graduating summa cum laude.</p>
<p>There are numerous complex factors involved in this, including a student’s reaction to the new-found freedom, their reaction to the competition from their fellow students (some have never been around so many other smart people), and some people just happening to mature at the right time and getting more disciplined about academics.</p>
<p>So just balance your time, go to all your classes, do the work, and there is a 95% chance you will be just fine. It is important to socialize and have fun, just keep it at a reasonable level.</p>
<p>I really agree with fallenchemist. I will give you some advice about getting good grades. </p>
<p>Always focus on what the professor wants, especially in a humanities class. Figure out what s/he is looking for and produce it in an honest, and if possible, original way. For example, if he says you should write your essay clearly–as if you’re explaining to your mother–and you should “write such and such in the intro and such and such in the conclusion,” or if your history professor really emphasizes having a chronological structure in your paper, you should be very, very deliberate about adhering to these things. Be flexible about your work. It’s not so much about your ideas; it’s about learning from the professor, and when you humble yourself, you will learn a lot (if the professor is good).</p>
<p>Also, if you’re not happy with your schedule, keep trying to Add/Drop/Swap until the very end. Keep an open mind, and for GERs, choose based on the professor, not the subject. I’ve gotten into some of the best and most important classes at the last minute. Never think “oh, it’s just one semester”; make every class every semester count. You’ll be much more likely to get a high GPA if you pick good, important classes.</p>
<p>Other than that, as long as you take your work pretty seriously, I can’t imagine you not getting A’s at Emory. I saw a book called Professor’s Guide to Getting Good Grades in College that I found alarmingly true to my experience, so you might want to read it.</p>
<p>I find some it to be related to legit hard work (and sometimes luck in curved classes), but a lot of it being related to pure obedience to the point where original thought or ideas are nearly stifled. I’m biased because I was a science major, however. A lot of classes were not very friendly to people that didn’t want to simply memorize. Needless to say, I had to really cherry pick profs. that had a course structure that appreciated or even demanded a deeper, student-derived interpretation of material. I tended to do well in humanities and social sciences courses because I actually did have my own ideas about material. I tended to choose profs. that were more into how well and clearly you present those ideas and also care about how well you back them up, than merely writing about a concept in a class in a particular way. Needless to say, I needed minimal obedience in these profs. courses, and these were actually good professors. You can learn from these people without finding an amazing way to merely rehash their ideas. Many good profs. in those areas don’t neccessarily care to have discussions where no students challenge the prof. or another students interpretation of a phenomenon. They feel as if they accomplished a lot when a student is able to challenge an idea using viable evidence. This is a liberal arts institution, a good prof. will teach you “how” to think and not what to think. If the best way to get an A or to prove you “learned” is to rehash their interpretations elegantly, then they are not that great in my opinion. It should mainly be about how well whatever ideas you choose to present (whether you are rehashing or deriving your own idea), are expressed. Having ones own ideas isn’t an issue of humility if it is backed by a reasonable body of evidence. However, I admittedly do find that many students overestimate their writing skills. This is an area where students can indeed use humility, regardless of if they want a better grade or simply want to actually achieve excellent writing (as opposed to what all their HS profs. called “excellent writing”).</p>
<p>I didn’t mean rehashing so much. Though there are some professors who like rehashing (I’ve heard Judovitz in French gives really good interpretations in lecture, and if you just lay them out on paper, you’ll get an A), but the professors I’ve had asked for our own interpretations. It’s just that every professor has a kind of style that he likes, and he will love it if you can produce the kind of things he likes in your own way.</p>
<p>I guess… I never figured it out. I just did well. In the end, maybe because my CWRs were not English (they were religion, polisci, and history), the standards (as in ideal quality) pretty much seemed the same and the writing style seemed very flexible (almost as if they didn’t care as long as it was appropriate for the assignment type. For example, an expository writing essay and a research paper or critical precis will not have the same style or framework). The main difference is that some cared more or less for maintaining the traditional standards of “quality”. I tended to assume they were the highest possible until at least one assignment was graded. A lot of people assume that the course is easy so put in low effort on first assignment and are shocked if they don’t get an A grade or at least a B+ simply because of the assumption that humanities and social sciences are supposedly free A’s.</p>
<p>Sadie,</p>
<p>I think you’ll find a 3.3 very doable. I’m not sure the average is really 3.4, but it is somewhere in the 3s.</p>
<p>It’s a 3.4 (or 3.39) for graduating seniors. Really high.</p>
<p>bernie,</p>
<p>Does the college publish senior GPAs?</p>
<p>Normally they are published in the Wheel after commencement. They tend to site some stats about the graduating class, and usually average GPA is one of them. I don’t know why they would publish such a thing especially give how high it is. They probably think it reads: “Our students are really awesome, they made high GPAs”, but it also reads “they probably were not as challenged as they should be”. Also, I think normally median GPAs are like a tenth higher than the reported mean GPAs, so Emory grades are high (like most other elite private schools. The only issue is whether or not it’s a result of Emory coursework simply being easier than it should be or if it is difficult, but we have massive grade inflation. I say both with more of the former than a lot of our peers).</p>
<p>[Profile</a> of Emory University 2012 graduates | Emory University | Atlanta, GA](<a href=“http://news.emory.edu/stories/2012/05/upress_class_of_2012_profile/index.html]Profile”>Profile of Emory University 2012 graduates)</p>
<p>“In Emory College of Arts and Sciences (the main undergraduate college), 46.8 percent of the graduates have earned a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or higher. The average GPA of Emory College graduates is 3.38.”</p>
<p>How attainable is a 3.7+ GPA for Biology majors who have good study habits. But good study habits I refer to doing all homework, paying attention in class, reading the textbook assignments thoroughly, and studying notes and information daily? I’m also fairly good at memorizing details by making connections to link fact together which I assume is an invaluable skill in biology as it is crucial to know how each part relates to each other.</p>
<p>I plan on going to medical school.</p>
<p>It’s doable, especially if you choose the easier bio electives like most biology majors (at least the pre-meds which is most of the bio majors). The only issue with pre-meds are the chemistry classes for most of them. Chemistry courses normally require different skills than those emphasized in most of the biology classes taken by pre-meds (which are mostly catered to people with your skills, kind of “applied memorization” and be obedient type thing. Arguably, classes that require more than this are usually better and teach more skills relevant for the MCAT, which is why chem classes are useful). I would worry about developing legit problem solving skills, which can be done by your pre-med chem. requires where often a little creativity may be involved in understanding or approaching some problems. Critical thinking is key for many chem. professors ,especially organic. Unlike most schools, Organic with most profs. here are not “memorize the rules and slightly apply them” oriented. To get A’s (or A-'s) you have to get the difficult applied problems (often problems only seen in grad. classes or advanced undergrad. courses at other elite peer institutions) and “good study habits” are usually not sufficient for this. An imagination and some curiousity in addition to daily studying can go a long way in these courses. Same for non-“cookie-cutter” (follow the rules and make at least a B+) biology classes, and you’ll want at least a few of these “non-cookie cutters” to develop your problem skills in biology and to expose yourself to more actual (as in primary literature) science (which MCAT passages will have lots of) as opposed to text book science with no experimental or mechanistic emphasis. </p>
<p>Worry about your GPA and classes that allow you to simply follow the rules and score well, but also keep the MCAT in mind. Often less “rule” based classes help more for this. Learning tons of content only goes but so far (may help you on stand-alone questions). Too many pre-meds are tricked into thinking that taking a class with content supposedly on the MCAT is enough. In reality, whether or not the class actually helps depends on how it is taught and how examinations are conducted. If it is nearly pure memorization and simple multiple choice, the course is not very useful. Also, biology courses with only exams and quizzes also tend to be less useful as there is no more engagement with the material than prepping or cramming for each individual test. You should sometimes take a bio class with a project or problem sets (optional or graded). Don’t let a workload scare you away (if anything it helps because the exams are not the only thing weighted in the grade).</p>
<p>Hmm… How hard would it be to keep a 3.7 if one were to double major in Political Science and English? I know both programs are fairly highly ranked (28, for both), but I hear Emory has some pretty substantial grade inflation. I’m guessing English would be more difficult? All of my friends in college gripe about how hard their English classes are, ahah. I think I would do okay, though… I’m good at Englishy things (5 on AP Lang, 750 CR score). I don’t mind working hard if it gets me where I want to be (which is a top law school).</p>
<p>Also, how easy would it be to do this at Emory vs. at UGA or GA State (honors college)? Emory (well, Emory@Oxford, but yeah) is my first choice by far (applying ED), but I’m just wondering – UGA has a 3.2 average graduating GPA, while Emory has a 3.4, but UGA is ranked lowly in Political Science, and unranked in English, so I’m not sure what that says about how difficult it would be at one vs. at the other. And I think technically you can get a 4.3 GPA at GA State…?</p>
<p>If anyone has any input on this, thanks!</p>
<p>Can’t compare to UGA/GA State. But I’m a math major here, and I thought a 3.7 is fairly easy.
I don’t imagine PolySci/English are tougher.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oxford College’s average GPA at the two-year mark is around a 2.7. The average GPA at graduation for those at the college of arts and sciences is a 3.4, which includes the Oxford cohort. The difference in academic qualifications (SAT, GPA) is not sufficient to explain this different, suggesting that grading is more difficult at Oxford, even adjusting for the preparation of the two cohorts.</p>
<p>Could this difference be that Oxford College students just have less motivation than Emory College students? Their stats indicate that the same was true in high school, and seeing as only a 2.0 GPA is required to move on to the main campus, it doesn’t seem like there’s any pressure to be more motivated… Not downing on Oxford students, just asking if most of the students there seem motivated, because you DO raise a good point. </p>
<p>It worries me, slightly, but as I said, I’m willing to work for what I want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see lack of motivation as a sufficient explanation. I don’t have any quantitative data, but the qualitative data I have (reports from Oxford continuees) are that it is far easier to get high grades at the College of Arts and Sciences than it is at Oxford. As much as I love Oxford, the most honest report I can get is that grades result from artificial deflation rather than from rigor. That is, student aren’t given clear, almost-unrealistic standards, but rather many assessments (in and out of class) that are exceptionally vague. This invites significant bias from professors (who teach small classes and who have little or no research duties) and rewards students who have already completed the course content at high-quality high schools.</p>