URochester vs Emory Pre-Med

College Search & Selection
21

@Creekland : I just don’t know how the hell we are to compare the rigor of two schools. I actually look at the course materials and still don’t think I can get a truly representative depiction of how academics would “feel” at two schools. Take for example the comparisons I did back in the day with chemistry and biology courses. I have found that even in cases where professors at X school for X course where generally different/more challenging in terms of content and testing style than professors at Y school for X course, that often the students at Y claim that their course is still very challenging even in cases where the student body qualities were similar or Y was higher AND both schools had similar grading practices in STEM, which means that even my approach using raw course materials has limitations. I for example cannot account for whether or not student/intellectual (I do not conflate this with incoming stats. Institutions with similar or different stats can have vastly different intellectual vibes and tendencies with respect to how students pursue academics and even what majors they tend to pursue) culture is different at each and maybe one school receives a certain type of course differently than those at another or if the instructor teaching the “harder” course used more effective methods to encourage student success at one school, so thus students at the school with the “harder” course complain less about it.

To ask us to compare two schools of high caliber based upon “personal opinion” and hearsay has even more limitations. I need people to stop asking about this. It is too messy. It would honestly just be better if they researched to perhaps stumble upon some course materials at whatever schools so that they can at least gauge where they stand versus the level of cognitive demands by professors in whatever department at each. And then after that, you just cross your fingers for effective teaching if the material is found to be more difficult than expected. Either way, I think so many ask the wrong questions and go about finding answers in a misguided way. The best I could do for these folks is give them links to course materials and maybe commenting on them or describing the courses I know about from my school if material from the other is unavailable. But anyone saying: “Oh this school definitely is harder and has more weedouts” is usually making a baseless assumption not even supported by grade data or any course materials. I see so many myths spread based upon “gut feeling” and hearsay such as X, Y, and Z have worse grade deflation versus A, B, and C, and then data tells a completely different story or exposes the first group as hyperbolic or unaware.

@mom2collegekids : I was being sarcastic. That is basically what I was saying. This poster has asked this question in every single thread they posted on comparison of schools and otherwise. So I was getting annoyed.

@Jugulator20 : It is tough, but usually only intro. classes have grade distributions like that. As courses become less exam based, the distribution usually shifts to a more rightward skew. I don’t like looking at grading distributions of only the As anyway, because to be honest, most successful pre-meds can afford a couple of B grades here and there, and there are usually plenty of opportunities to boost the STEM GPA while also learning at a high level to balance out those “potential B courses”. The fact is, privates and elite publics are often very generous with the B range grades. Admittedly courses like gen. physics and chemistry may give out a decent chunk of Cs which could be dangerous, but there is some room for error in these challenging environments, especially in courses with low test averages where the grades get re-centered using a curve.

22

@bernie12 Perception seems to mean a whole lot to students. It can really affect how well they do even at the high school level. I combat that all the time with students who were slower to develop math skills thinking they must be “dumb” and not even trying. I see it as an end result with adults who go back for a degree later in life terrified of math, take Alg, and wonder “why couldn’t I get that in high school?”

For med school only GPA matters (not rigor) for academics, so if a student thinks they can do well, they usually do.

There is a difference that my lad has seen once in med school. His undergrad classes (U Roc) seem to have prepared him very well for the coursework. He tells us many of his peers in med school are envious asking him how he already knows X. “I learned it in undergrad.” Whether that came from his college, major, or specific classes/profs that differed is impossible to tell, esp with anecdotal data. In any case, in med school they teach you everything you need to know, so if one doesn’t have a head start, they just have to put a little more time into learning it then. That’s similar to some folks getting material in undergrad in a 201 or 301 course instead of 101. (I’ve seen this happen via tests - what’s covered in a higher level research school’s 101 course for “everyone” can be in a later course for majors at a different school.)

When kids from my school are hoping to go to med school and ask for my advice it’s simple. Look for an affordable school you like where you’re in the Top 25% of entering stats, read U Roc’s School of Medicine Class Profile for a few years (changing the URL to get more years), then work to become a student they like on your application. This makes the assumption that U Roc’s SOM is similar to others in what they look for in applicants, but I highly suspect they are.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/education/md/documents/2022-profile.pdf

23

@Creekland : That is pretty much what I try to convey, that it is up to what the student does and how they perform. All this worrying about what GPA/environment a school will GIVE some one as they try to pursue medical school always concerns me because it basically says: “Oh my success is mainly based upon others, and not what I do to study, learn, and develop myself professionally”. It is a red flag for me to see these posts with “I have high stats from achieving well in high school, but I just want ease and am concerned about rigor” because what you said is right, confidence is important, and I have seen it plus great work ethic and willingness to really think take many students a long way at even these very selective schools like Emory and Rochester. Weirdly enough, it often didn’t even matter what their stats were relative to their “competition” unless they were extremely low versus it. if they were remotely in ballpark and had developed good study habits, confidence, and a great attitude towards learning, many of these students (that I mentored) would perform well in what are considered hard renditions of courses. And interestingly, there is a hierarchy (I explained this in another thread at Emory) where you have some key STEM professors that are known to be more intellectually challenging than average for both Emory or elite schools in general, yet they have garnered popular support (there are still students who avoid them, but usually they teach a slight majority of students when other sections are offered) among students because not only do they demand development very high analytical skills (assuming most students, especially younger ones don’t have it), but because they teach the material in a very effective and engaging way, and are also very effective mentors of students no matter how large their section size is.

Getting at least a B range grade in many of these professors’ courses really means you learned at a high level and usually these instructors will write really strong recommendation letters for students who scored in that range that showed themselves developing well during the course (and even better ones for students they managed to keep up with after the class). In same cases, that range of students may even be selected as TAs (A students are not always the only ones who are enthusiastic, and we all know some don’t know how to teach or collaborate with students effectively). As you said for your son at Rochester who went to med. Students who at least engaged some of these courses and professors, would likely be a step ahead in some or many places in the pre-clinical sciences curriculum at medical schools. In addition, Emory from what my friends and mentees who did it right told me from their experience, were very well prepped for those more research focused medical schools and MDPhD programs because so much of the life sciences curriculum (including biology which is notorious at most schools for being mostly about memorization throughout the whole thing) has migrated to a focus on research techniques, experimental design, data analysis, and just thinking like a scientist (so many of the most standard biology classes may require students to discuss and present primary literature in whatever field. It is the best idea ever IMHO. Even many sophomore level courses have it. It sends the message that the field nor course are just about “the facts” and also holds students accountable for the foundation they supposedly gained in intro. biology courses, because chances are if you forgot most things or got poor training, reading the literature is all the more challenging because it assumes readers know about a threshold of ideas and techniques already), things that help folks do well on the MCAT and ease transition into research labs. In addition, students are much more likely to retain the material if it is put in context of real research and real life scenarios as opposed to it being a bunch of facts and details thrown at students for them to remember and regurgitate back.

We all know medical schools want a strong GPA, but I think it is important for incoming prospies to think about how they can achieve it (and no it need not be a 3.8 in most cases, as nice as that would be) without having to actively lower their exposure to the right type of rigor. There is no point in completely compromising your learning outcomes and skill development for looking good on paper for medical schools. There are ways to be strategic and studious (as most students going to selective schools are obviously smart, high achieving cookies) to ensure that you can perform well in most cases, while optimizing learning outcomes. And as I said, even those shooting for at least a 3.7 or 3.8 have room for error. I mentored students with over a 3.85 that have gotten several B/B+ grades. One guy was so bold he chose an uncomfortable non-STEM course where he knew a B was possible each semester just because he wanted to take the best professors or work on his writing. These students were very talented and toughened themselves up though. They developed great study skills by taking early courses that laid a foundation for them to do well in other challenging coursework in the future. That way, they weren’t totally screwed or shocked if they later hit professors asking them to think outside the box or do even more (or different type) work than normal.

Their approach made me wonder about the motto of "just build confidence as a freshmen by taking it easy: I personally think this depends on the person, and for many who are confident and have a background/preparation to do otherwise, they may do themselves a service by really challenging themselves in a course or two as a freshmen. Making that decision requires confidence, work ethic, a good attitude towards learning and feeling challenged (likely a growth mindset with respect to learning- What you described with the algebra thing is a fixed mindset and unfortunately I think grade school teachers often play a role in conveying to students that “only those with seemingly natural aptitude in an area can be truly successful” which is likely why you have high achievers fearing for their life being amidst a bunch of people that make them look average or normal versus their achievements and test-taking ability) maturity, and something more than short-sighted goals of course.

24

It definitely depends upon the person and is another area where one needs to fit the school and course selection to the student.

Among a group of puppies, some are naturally outgoing and adventurous and some are more wary. Most of the wary ones can do just fine, but they need more exposure. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s still a “Train up a ‘puppy’ in the way they should go” deal (vs the way one feels “everyone” should be trained up). It’s the end success that matters, not the means to get there. (Success being defined the same for both, of course.)

Students who love learning and challenge often love the big research schools (or any challenging class in any school) - challenge accepted. Others, not so much. It’s all ok. One just can’t put a square peg into a round hole because they think that’s the only way one can succeed. That’s when failure tends to happen.

FWIW, this is not at all about lowering the bar with final knowledge - wanting pure memorization instead of true learning. That’s its own issue and definitely grates on my nerves as an educator when it’s an end goal for any level of learning. It’s been around forever. I recall not really understanding Calc until I got to actually use it in Physics. My students do well in high school because I emphasize teaching them how to reason and think, not because I teach them “Step 1 is to do this.” Granted, vocab has to be mostly memorized, but once that language is learned, most of the rest can be reasoned out. Some vocab can be reasoned out as well if one knows root meanings. The teachers considered the best by students at our school are those who teach (in an understandable way) using concepts for real life applications. But that’s totally different than whether a student will do better with challenge or confidence building.

25

I also think that completely focusing on the GPA/rigor of the school, is missing some of those other things that may not be seen as “making a difference” in med-school applications in the same way, but that, based on both observation and a bit of research, are part of most successful candidates’ profiles

For example, I was surprised to hear how difficult it is to get clinical and research experience starting early in the college process at some schools. Based on my daughter’s experience, I had assumed that finding a lab assistant position within a week of freshman orientation was the rule rather than the exception, but apparently, that’s not true everywhere. Even things like having those opportunities on campus may be a factor to consider. Access to key ECs and the opportunities they offer may also vary from school-to-school.

Finding a mentor and developing relationships with faculty is another relevant factor that may be easier at a smaller school or at a school where a student is at the top of the academic heap as well.

And, honestly, finding a school that “fits” and where the student feels they can “stretch comfortably” seems to encourage appropriate course selection and enables the student to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.

Med schools are looking for students with high GPAs and MCATs, but my guess is that students who are “on the bubble” in terms of academic preparation are better served by looking for a school where they can maximize their potential rather than one where they think they might be able to get an extra .05 out of the grading system.

26

IMHO, finding a premed school is slightly different from just finding a good-fit school without considering premed factors.

All the advices above are really good. With the med school admissions move to competency based admissions, more weight are going to be put on activities outside classroom. If the student is “on the bubble” academically, less time for that student can be put on activities outside classroom. Not to mention the possible anxiety which might come with that uncertainty.

Personally I think “just build confidence as a freshman by taking it easy” is a huge mistake. Students should take a mix of difficult and not-so-difficult courses to test the water. Sooner or later those “difficult” courses are going to come. It is better to know if it is feasible to achieve the above-the-threshold GPA as soon as possible. “On the bubble” is the worst scenario. Adding a more difficult major like computer science/etc.as a backup probably makes things worse. If the student can’t even handle the premed courses without other hard/time-consuming courses, what are the chances that the students would be able to handle both? Plus different majors have totally different internships.

There is no one-size-fit-all answer to OP’s question. OP is smart enough to think about this. I agree with @Creekland 's statement 100% “When kids from my school are hoping to go to med school and ask for my advice it’s simple. Look for an affordable school you like where you’re in the Top 25% of entering stats”. It is not good to play tennis in a league full of people like Novak Djokovic if one can’t play tennis at that level.

OP should view the course material as its competitor, not its classmates. Yes, at this level, the material is much more advanced. We have reviewed and written some solutions for Orgo exams recently. It is definitely not easy. A high level of understanding of the material is required to answer the questions correctly. (We actually get 2.5 points since we found out TA graded one question wrong — this is the joke … we gained 2.5 points but we weren’t even there. :smiley: ) OP should strive to learn the material at a high level in a school at this level. Otherwise, OP should look for other schools with lower standards.

27

@Creekland : I think what I am sort of implying is that most courses that students at elite schools or elsewhere find easy are typically memorization focused because that is something most of us were overly exposed to, especially in life sciences (and even other sciences) curriculum in grade school. Usually courses that lean more on reasoning and analytical problem solving cause even the highest SAT/ACT scorers trouble because it isn’t enough to simply know the content or knowing every problem type you’ve been exposed to while studying. Usually such instructors get the “tests us on stuff we didn’t learn” reputation. To me this is code for: “This instructor surprises students and makes them think about what they learned in a seemingly unfamiliar context or maybe even requires some creativity”. Most students, including high achievers seem really comfy with neat and predictable and as an educator, you probably know what that may entail in a college classroom or any classroom.

I’ve met many students (I am among them) who are comfortable with courses that involve more conceptual logic and reasoning, but it seems like the vast majority prefer what I described earlier and that makes sense because it is how many of us were trained prior to college (heavily coached and spoonfed material and told exactly what was on a test and how it would be tested). There is a reason so many students find organic chemistry, for example, an oddball. Forget it if you integrate lots of reasoning into biology courses. Unless they are a majority of the bio curric.,at a school, said courses will be avoided like the plague because that isn’t how most people’s biology courses went in high school (they were often just content overload). I guess I just paint “challenging” as whatever forces most students out of their comfort zone or upsets previous ways of obtaining knowledge/studying. For most it would be STEM courses with less memorization or with instructors who throw critical thinking oriented “curveballs” as many call it. It’s why I always relate the two (difficulty and style of assessment and course delivery). My opinion is that every STEM major should graduate knowing how to use the knowledge or at least understand reasoning in the field, and yes most will enter college with different readiness levels to make that adjustment. You’ll notice that at selective schools, the courses that mostly assess basic understanding and remembering/identifying have 85+ course averages. One has to go to higher levels of Bloom to get 70 and 60 averages.

28

Did a little investigation: I think Rochester and Emory are decently similar (I think Emory is most similar to WUSTL out of the selective schools. They just have similar curricula design and ideas clearly) in life sciences and I would expect that math and physics courses that pre-healths/STEM majors have to take would at least be on the same level (I didn’t look: I usually assume that on average the level of intro. courses in those areas is higher at other schools of similar and higher selectivity because Emory’s depts do not serve an engineering school and nor are they anchored to elite physics and math graduate program/research apparatuses like Chicago for example which is an exception to the engineering rule).

Some differences to consider:

Chemistry; Emory just changed its chemistry curriculum to bring in a decent amount of organic chemistry into the first year courses (including organic chemistry concepts most often covered in 2nd semester of organic chemistry). It isn’t a super hardcore introduction, but it is basically blended with traditional gen. chem concepts which you can learn about in these places:
http://chemistry.emory.edu/articulate/chemistry_unbound/story_html5.html
http://news.emory.edu/stories/2017/09/er_chemistry_curriculum/campus.html

These changes may not be well received by some (it is unclear if it is “pre-med friendly” as it kind of bucks traditional two year pre-med engagement with chemistry which is either 2 gen. chems and 2 ochems or 1 gen. chem, 2 ochems, and then biochem. Emory’s is close to a weird rendition of this latter version) but Emory’s undergraduate chemistry program is known for unusual rigor regardless (even prior to the change). I saw some of UR’s stuff, and it seems like it would be at the level of a more “standard” level classical general or organic chemistry course at Emory which is/was challenging for many but doable for most. Admittedly the majority of students take less “classical” instructors once the 3rd (a modern version of organic chemistry) and 4th (supposedly some mixture of material science and biochemical concepts…I am not quite sure and nor does the publication or information above make it clear) pre-health courses are hit

Biosciences: They look similar, but Rochester is more classical (as in most schools selective or not do it like this) in arrangement. It has molecular and cell first semester and more organismal biology/ecology second semester. Emory’s first semester is identical (actually they recently added in ecology/evolution concepts into the first semester and used it to re-frame the molecular cell stuff), and the second semester is basically a genetics course with a primary focus on molecular genetics and modern biotechnology/experimental biology concepts. I don’t think this difference changes difficulty because OP has AP credit in bio(? Actually I don’t know) and the AP bio curriculum has apparently changed to integrate more of the stuff Emory covers in its second semester, when it used to be more ecology/evolution heavy back in the dinosaur ages of 2008 when I took it. I still remember being pleasantly surprised that Emory didn’t just rehash all of that in the second semester and instead hit me with new content. However, current students/prospies will have been exposed to both styles. What that does mean is that the actual genetics courses look a little different with UR covering the stuff Emory covered in gen. bio and Emory doing something a little different, veering towards human genetics (which means more coverage of epigenetics which we now know relevant to human diseases now-a-days) and keeping the emphasis more on the experimental aspect as opposed to more math/classical genetics concepts.

Appears Rochester has “recitations” for many intermediate biology classes. I am unsure how they are used and how the associated lectures are run. Usually when I think “recitation” I think review and maybe some out of lecture review (which at some schools apparently entails extra lecturing), problem solving, and quizzes, things that maybe the lecture component doesn’t have time for. Emory doesn’t have these and instead has a big undergraduate TA mentoring and tutoring system which is associated with additional problem sets that are technically optional. But this mainly applies to lower division courses/pre-med classes. At the intermediate and advanced level, many biology courses do have “discussion” which is usually for reading and presenting primary literature, but is every so often used for other activities (for example evolutionary biology and math-based upper division courses may integrate a simulation/modelling exercise or something)

As much as it interests me, It shouldn’t really matter to a prospie(I usually think pedagogy and assessment style usually matter more than arrangement of content for most life sciences courses. Admittedly chemistry is tricky, but I don’t wanna go there right now). Students should just get somewhere, learn the material to the highest level possible, and do the best they can. One can get the right type of challenge from Emory, Rochester, and many other places…and even at gasp! Much less “prestigious” undergraduate programs that have put lots of money into their STEM curricula and pedagogy. UMD is an example:https://nexus.umbc.edu/ Several of its campus have implemented the NEXUS revamp of life sciences curricula. I saw some materials resulting from it and they are damned good and are at just as high a level or higher than many “elite” schools, especially those I saw from College Park. So there are so many schools that one can find that are great for pre-healths because of the resources/opportunities AND because they pay exceptional levels of attention to how they deliver their STEM/pre-health courses. It is very possible to be in a place that still challenges students in a useful way that isn’t ultra competitive/super duper selective. You just need to do the research. One can have several pieces of cake and eat all of them.

29

True. It’s kind of sad when high school students looking at premed will post things like, “I want the most rigorous curriculum”. There are no brownie points for that…and probably they’ll set themselves up for a troubled GPA.

I’m currently helping some premeds who are on gap year…they have troubled or borderline GPAs. Two both went to tippy top schools (with tippy top high school stats), and both ended up with GPA issues. Ugh!

Another student also went to a top school, applied with a 3.5 gpa (borderline for unhooked trad) and she thankfully has nabbed an instate acceptance to an unranked SOM…which is totally fine, but certainly wasn’t in her original plan when she chose elite undergrad over midtier where she could have gone for nearly free. Being from a lucky state helped her, I think.

This can be true. I don’t think my son encountered much of this but maybe because he was a STEM major? I could see how a humanities major who only did the prereqs at a school where more difficult concepts are found in a 300 level course would be less-prepared. But med schools seem to be fine with that as their goal is to teach everything in med school.

One newish trend that may end up backfiring is that more schools are moving to a 2 or 3 diadatic semesters, rather than the standard 4, I wonder how that’s going to affect some students.

30

Yeah the two schools are very similar in many ways. Both are rigorous. Acceptance rate differences are meaningless since two schools may draw different applicants-so a higher rejection rate does not necessarily mean a better school or better students or really very much at all.

31

Incidentally, one reason why Rochester has a higher admission rate than its peers is that many applicants to Cornell use it as their “safe” school. It’s all in the company you keep.

Also, some years ago, Rochester established a forward-looking policy where they offer a fifth year tuition-free if a student has earned a degree in a focused major (such as engineering) in four years, and wants a chance to broaden his or her education with the electives that couldn’t fit into the schedule. However, their school ranking took a hit by organizations that look at the percentage of students who graduate in four years. I don’t know if that’s still the case.

Upshot: numbers aren’t everything.

32

In any case, by yield figures (Emory: 27%, UR: 24%), these schools fall pretty closely together.

33

I think it’s safe to say that all strong schools, URoch, Emory, Tulane, USC, Tufts, etc, are the “safe” schools for Ivy Hopefuls. (To be clear, none of those schools are actually safeties). That’s why they’re all loaded with top students as well.

Reported admission rates to med school are NOT comparable . Not everyone is using the same measures. Some are only reporting their MD admissions. Some are including MD and DO admissions. Some are also including admissions to foreign med schools.

Virtually all good schools report high acceptance rates for their applicants who have a 3.5+ GPA and a 510+ MCAT.

34

Ah the peer argument… If you look at The Chronicle of Higher Education, they have a graphic that shows who colleges/universities in America labeled as peer institutions. Emory labeled 13 schools as peers (Brown, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Princeton, Stanford, U of Chicago, U of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt, Washington U, and Yale). Only 3 of those schools also listed Emory as a peer institution (Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and Washington U). All 3 of those schools also list Rochester U as a peer institution (along with all having a higher ranking than Emory by US News and World Report ratings) so Rochester is held in very high esteem (even with a ranking of 33 in the same US News and World Report rankings). I only know of one student who chose between Emory and Rochester and they chose Rochester, graduated and is currently a 2nd year in Dental School. I love Emory (I used to live less than 2 miles from the campus for many years and my wife worked at the VA Hospital in the area under an Emory researcher) and it is a great school, but there is no need to knock another great school with great outcomes. It is really just a matter of preference.

35

This is probably the silliest arguemet I’ve seen on here. Both are great schools and OP needs to stop going on every college thread to ask where he’s going to get a better GPA.

36

@Creekland : I agree. I usually think to get students to successfully do higher levels of thinking (or to expect it to be demanded), you have to make that expectation clear and model the type of thinking and problem solving you want them to do. It isn’t easy at all (for students, and nor for many instructors), but it definitely isn’t easy if you go through grade school virtually unexposed to other ways of thinking in learning (except maybe in the social sciences. When I was in HS, the curriculum and exams in social sciences APs had started to evolve, especially in history where the DBQ was becoming common).

Future medical students need both in my opinion depending on the specialty. Many med. schools veer from pure memorization and I would argue that STEP 1 is somewhat similar to the MCAT with the items it has which are mostly at level 3 (MCAT probably has more “analysis” level 4 items):
https://www.usmle.org/pdfs/step-1/samples_step1.pdf

I would argue that the usmle would be considered almost a “good” multiple choice test. You need to memorize the content so that you can pull from that, but then you need to be able to really apply it in these contexts.

Being able to read decent sized passages, analyze data/figures, and apply/reason at times may be easier than literally memorizing every case and every stat. The weirdness of medical school is that the pre-clinical sciences curriculum at many may be very memorization pitched (many of the research universities have medical schools that have somewhat veered from that), but yet the MCAT was required for them to get in and STEP 1 is a huge component of which residency opps they will have access to. This is why I think it is indeed critical for future medical students to get to the next level as much as possible, especially high achievers who in grade school already became decent at algorithmic logic and amazing at regurgitation. I also imagine that there are certain specialties where understaning and reasoning is a pretty critical component. Whether or not the medical school pedagogy and assessment strategies require it may be different from what some practices require it. You need lots of knowledge (which most med. school students can handle) plus more in many cases.

37

@bernie12 I’m a big proponent of encouraging higher level thinking from toddlerhood on - or at least pre-school. There’s no reason we really need to dumb things down as much as we do for kids - esp since most youngsters naturally think outside the box. Keep encouraging that. We should almost never be teaching step by step pure imitation and only use memorization for basic language skills (including mathese and sciencese languages).

But that’s a whole different thread and teachers everywhere have to work with what they have coming in. Unfortunately, too many teachers never really have learned thinking outside the box themselves, so… Still part of a different thread.

38

@emorynavy : Why are you saying all this stuff? Both can be great for a pre-health. Who cares which one gets a somewhat different level of students as based upon whatever? Okay, Vanderbilt has really high scoring and great students, maybe better than Emory, but I would send my child to UMD Emory, Tulane, Rochester, Berkeley. Duke, UCLA, Tufts, or WUSTL for pre-med if they wanted to major in a life science area before I would send them to Vanderbilt knowing what I know. This argument over prestige, rank, and which one has the “better” students is irrelevant if similar(or more than enough) resources are available at both, the academics, are good, and both would still have very competitive students. This is the case. And I know Emory doesn’t list UR as a peer mainly because there probably isn’t much overlap in applications, and because it is straight up more similar to the places it lists as peers in terms of how it functions/what research areas it is good in, etc. But we are talking pre-med undergrad. here. If schools have remotely similar competitiveness, then they have a shot at being comparable for pre-health. After that point, I go past “Do they consider each other peers?” and "what can a pre-med do at each and how is the coursework/'. Sometimes peer listings do not even account for relative caliber accurately as schools will list aspirational peer schools that they, other than undergraduate admissions share little similarities with in terms of overall caliber and impact.

I mean, UR is very similar to Emory in some ways (I don’t think it is as similar as WUSTL for something like pre-med, but that is mostly based on how the academics are designed and not on prestige). You basically are doing the same thing that folks like to do to Emory. The schools perform similarly to near and higher ranked schools, and then the near and higher ranked schools pretend they are so much better and take jabs at it even though the data and performance suggests that they are nearly identical caliber regardless of differences in incoming stats and things manufactured by their marketing and admissions departments. I wouldn’t do this to any school unless I thought it was dramatically different or doing something wrong. I know for a fact that UR has a very good track record with producing “prized” students and those who go on to enter their desired profession and whatnot.

Overlapping students consider these similar: https://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php?compare=Emory+University&with=University+of+Rochester

I don’t know what the sample size is (I suspect it isn’t as large as what Emory lists as its peers), but they are considered both worth going to by people who are cross-admitted. What you are doing to it is what others have unfairly done to Emory and it has worked, where Emory can’t really compete that well against those it lists as peers except maybe Dartmouth (which I do not think is listed as a peer tbh) because idiots act like you and jump to emotional and shallow conclusions about prestige, subtle differences in rank and student body quality versus actual quality and performance, etc. What goes around comes around. I personally recommend humility on this issue.

39

@ChangeTheGame
There’s probably bias and politics involved in that. Honestly, I already said U Roch is a good school, in fact, will be one of the schools I apply to for grad school. However, My point still stands. I looked up U Roch’s peer reputation score on US news and it’s lower than I thought it would be to be square with you. Over 0.5 points lower than Emory’s… that’s quite a difference. Like even lower than TULANE,( I really don’t like that school if yall haven’t noticed from previous posts lol).

40

Geographic location has a lot to do with the differences between the school’s admission stats and rankings. Weather is a large part of it. But I think it’s also due to the strength of other schools in its area. Emory is a top-five school in the southeast. Families in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, maybe even Mississippi, looking for a good private school within driving distance have limited choices. There’s Duke, Vandy, Wake, Davidson, then maybe Elon. Public, there’s of course UNC, UF, Clemson, Auburn, GTech, maybe UGa, but those are all huge schools that will be a completely different experience. That’s about it, until you start heading north to Virginia. There just aren’t an abundance of great schools in the south, especially when you get away from the ones with 30,000 students.

Rochester is in a very, very different environment. It competes with way more schools in states with higher population densities where more kids go to college and whose families have money to go to private school. Compare it, for example, to Brandeis, another terrific school which suffers the same way.

You will get comparable educations at both. The quality of the student body will be similar. Both are D-III schools, and in fact are in the same league with other similarly-sized private research schools. Both, too, are highly respected by grad schools and employers.

Chose the one where you’ll be happiest–there’s a high correlation between happiness and performance, although I guess you can debate which causes the other.