<p>Upon reading some forms regarding Vanderbilt University, I have noticed a common trend: people tend to say the academically simulating environment just isn't there. The rest of Vanderbilt sounds amazing: the housing, the food, the people, etc. Could anyone recommend colleges with this type of environment, only a little more academically motivated? Or maybe convince me otherwise that Vanderbilt would be a good choice? Thank you to any commenters in advance.</p>
<p>Note: I intend to major in biochemistry, chemistry, biophysics, or something close to one of those areas. That might impact college suggestions.</p>
<p>??? Who said that? I’m pretty sure most people there are academically motivated. It’s an elite school for goodness sake. Do you mean “intellectually” motivated? Regardless, with those fields of interest, you’ll likely find several such people. Those divisions at almost any school, especially the elites, tend to generate some of the more intellectually intense/curious students. Such departments will have a greater shares of students considering Ph.Ds for example. Vanderbilt will certainly be no exception. Why don’t you go visit first, particularly those departments. Maybe sit in a class or see if you can find assignments/exams in your fields of interest (often the rigor of the major correlates with how much students are engaged with it. Less academically intense or curious students aren’t going to choose majors that are generally considered even more difficult than say biology or neuroscience. Often courses in such majors require great problem solving ability and even creativity to be successful. No one that is sub-par in motivation/curiosity will waste time going with such majors that go so far beyond “applied memorization”). </p>
<p>You don’t get that or REU opps. at schools or depts. without “academically” motivated students. If they offer such programs in such environments, they’d just be wasting their time, </p>
<p>Looks like things involving chemistry there are of decent rigor (sometimes you can get a decent indicator by looking at entry and sophomore level courses): If you have AP/IB credit I suspect you’d be able to start here: [Chem</a> 220A: Section 2](<a href=“http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Chemistry/Rizzo/chem220a/chem220a.htm]Chem”>Chem 220A: Section 2)
or the freshman version (218?something like that). I suspect that whoever that instructor is, they are considered easier, but I would guess it’s an okay baseline level. </p>
<p>I’ve heard math courses can be quite challenging so I’m willing to bet anything involving physics will be as well (normally the 2 are similar in rigor).</p>
<p>Maybe try to find some course materials for other institutions you so much believe will be a better fit and compare. The point is, if the courses are challenging within your majors/field of interest, you’ll be surrounded by plenty of motivated people. Those aren’t science fields that people flock to just to “get by”. I really wouldn’t worry about it. Also, check into what events are held in each department (this is as simple as looking on each depts. website). Are there undergraduate clubs and events that engage the field outside of the classroom or not? Also, look at the offerings of such programs (study abroad, Beckman Scholars, 4 year masters programs, awards,etc).Look for things like that, not hearsay. Schools and depts wouldn’t offer certain opportunities if they feel students won’t take advantage of it or have a history of being disengaged. It’s a key way to get at least a slight idea of the robustness of a dept at the UG level.</p>
<p>Yes, I did mean intellectually motivated. Some other threads made statements about students saying that they were just concerned about grades for med programs and such and really didn’t care about actually learning. I want a college environment that is very intellectually challenging and where people actually WANT to learn, so a strong science-y feel on campus would be nice. The Beckman Scholars Program sounds interesting (I didn’t even know Vanderbilt offered it). I will definitely have to continue to look into Vanderbilt. Thanks for your comment!</p>
<p>Well, keep in mind that the southern elites (especially Emory, Vandy, and Duke) have lots of pre-meds (okay, even Ivies do). Usually, they are more intense about grades than learning, but that makes sense right? The process of med. school admission hardly promotes taking an academic risk or challenging yourself if you are just an average student at w/e institution (as in, not 75% or higher). However, as I was suggesting, many pre-healths go with stereotypical major, and to be honest, many aren’t doing it because they love it and would ever consider grad. school in those areas. They do it because they were likely decent at it in high school (as in, they expect the way of learning biology at the college level to be more familiar to them, they are basically playing it safe) and because it is somewhat convenient in that the major reqs. often encompass the pre-health requirements or because “it’s more relevant to medicine” (I.E., “I’m majoring in neuroscience because I want to be a neurosurgeon”. Little do they know, an undergrad. curriculum in these areas is hardly related to future training as a neurosurgeon. The curricula at most schools is probably better for a neurologist, clinical psychologist, or maybe an aspiring researcher in pharmacology, neurosci/behavioral bio, or physiology). I find that better environments are usually generated at schools w/lots of the pre-healths double-majoring in a non-science or a place where there are majors good for them that aren’t pure science (I found that many of my pre-health friends were more excited to randomly discuss what was happening in their other major’s/minor’s classes than the science courses). In addition, schools w/large chem, CS, physics, or math depts seem to generate a pleasant intellectual “nerd” culture among undergrads (for us, it’s chem). </p>
<p>Also, I think Vandy actually tries really hard in the intellectual arena from an administrative standpoint (I don’t know the results). Some of the stuff they seem to foster and promote via the freshman Commons residential experience displays great effort to promote a more living/learning type of environment (where it actually tries to get people to understand what it means to be part of a larger intellectual community). I don’t think they do the faculty-in-residence thing for nothing. For all we know, it may still have some ways to go, but I imagine trying to infuse it with residential life is a great start and has had a lot of success so far. Don’t write the place off so quickly, especially since you won’t even be in stereotypical pre-health fields.</p>
<p>My son tells me his Vanderbilt classmates are all pretty smart and the level of instruction is on par with that audience. But I don’t get the sense it’s a University of Chicago or MIT type of place, where PhD grad students equal or outnumber undergrads. I think it’s a more mainstream college experience on the social side, but since I don’t go there, who am I to say?</p>
<p>When you bring in some of the smartest kids from around the country, it’s naturally an intellectual environment. </p>
<p>The school is unusually social compared to a lot of other schools. The ratio of kids going out to kids staying in to study alone is probably higher here than at most top schools, but that doesn’t make the environment any less “intellectually motivated.” People often mistake all the social energy for some sort of lack of academic motivation but it’s totally not the case and one of the things that makes Vandy so unique.</p>
<p>go out on what days lol. I don’t know if that is too unique for the southern institutions. Though Rice is a tad different, if you talk about a lot of the southern well-off institutions, they have a pretty intense social culture. Also, you have to be fair and recognize (I know no one rooting for their own school likes to do it) that some schools have a lower ratio in that area, not because of the types of students they have and their desire to socialize, but because some of these schools flat out have a higher level of academic intensity (I don’t necessarily mean harder grading, the southern institutions are generally grading a tad harder than northern counterparts, except Duke. I mean more like the course content, workload, or exam levels) or demands on students. Sometimes the differences not only reflect the social culture, but the type of rigor at each elite school differs. Also, I don’t necessarily count staying in and studying as “intellectually” motivated, especially if you are alone. Sometimes this may reflect on how much students care about perfect grades. I imagine more “intellectual-oriented” students would more often, intentionally or unintentionally, at least slightly integrate their academic orientation into the social situations or seek more social situations and outlets where that sort of thing is accepted or welcomed.</p>
<p>Don’t go to Vandy. I am a student here now. The social life is good if you like a great party town, plenty of frat events, and things to do, but the administration is so unhelpful. I struggle to get registered each term because of errors in the system, and I can’t find anyone in the school who will help, so I get the worst schedule each term with the teacher’s no one wants. For a $64000 a year price tag, you should be able to find someone who can help right? Nope. There is no diversity, however, they mask as if they do by picking almost all African American RA’s who most don’t have a desire to be one, but need the free housing. I tried to email an instructor about a grade problem at the end of the term, and of course, I did not get a response. Go figure. I would have expected this from a state school, but I am just counting down my days to get out. I live in a dorm that should be condemned (which is getting renovated next year) with mostly transfer students because they messed up and forget to enter me into the housing system last year. Do you think they care or would try to fix this problem or even give you first choice of housing next year? Nah, they just don’t care. Save your money, save your time, and pick somewhere else.</p>
<p>I feel like most professors, regardless of the school will not want to reply to an e-mail concerning your coursegrade at the end of the semester. Have no idea if the black RA thing is true…(doubt it). Also, doesn’t Vandy use waitlists for courses, did you try that? Did you also try contacting the professor and expressing interest?</p>
<p>I feel people at many schools complain about the administration. I honestly think you’ll be better off next year (your schedule should improve right? because your class should promote earlier and better enrollment). Also, that post has less to do with academic environment moreso than administrative failures.</p>
<p>First of all it is not $64000 a year unless you add on stuff like Maymester, etc. I don’t know where you get that number. And honestly, mpalab, you exude a victim mentality/glass half full kind of attitude. It makes me wonder if you would be happy anywhere. My son is a sophomore and has not complained about not getting into classes, and he has gotten popular professors. I don’t know what he is doing differently from anyone else.</p>
<p>Mpalab has a pretty strange experience. I’ve never had an issue during registration. RA’s definitely don’t have some diversity quota… I’ve only known one African American RA in my 3 years here. It’s pretty disgusting that you’re characterizing AA’s as poor and needing free housing… </p>
<p>I don’t think there aren’t any dorms being renovated next year so not sure what you’re talking about there. Most dorms are now pretty up to date. Also you enter yourself in the housing system, they don’t do it for you. Also you can petition to get a room change before the year even begins-- several of my friends did it and managed to move from Alumni Lawn dorms to Branscomb.</p>
<p>Anyways. Sounds like a Duke student just shaming Vandy!</p>
<p>I really doubt the thing about the Duke student, because I feel like they’d have no room to talk, especially with the non-air-conditioned freshman dorms (I can’t imagine being in such a dorm in N. Carolina at the beginning of the school year, yuck!).</p>
<p>mpalab’s experience is nothing like the experience we’ve had with my D. The registration system has worked flawlessly, and she has always managed to get a schedule that she is very happy with. Regarding dorms, there are so many choices that there is no reason that anyone should be unhappy with their living situation. None of the dorms “should be condemned.” And, anyway, if a student finds himself in a really bad housing situation, the housing office is great about moving him somewhere else, even mid-semester. My D had a roommate problem and the housing office was wonderful about moving her to another dorm on campus where she was much happier. And I don’t know what he/she is talking about regarding AA RAs–my D hasn’t had any AA RAs. She has had people of many different ethnicities on her dorm floor though.</p>
<p>The academic environment is stimulating and also has alot to do with the major. Not to dismiss any major, but HOD is obviously less academically rigorous as biomedical engineering. The school is overall academically challenging, and if you’re looking for intellectualism, there are classes that cater to that as well.</p>
<p>Less rigorous majors can be much more academically stimulating than more rigorous ones . For example, humanities and social science courses that grade softly tend to be more “stimulating” than much of the science courses which give tons of work or write difficult exams (the “easier” courses substitute academic rigor for intellectual rigor. Although, I would have to say that if they were more academically rigorous, the level of intellectual vitality in such classrooms would be much greater because students would have to constantly engage the material). Often the intellectual rigor of the class depends on the format. For example, science courses that mainly have an instructor stand up there and lecture at you (maybe fill in some transparencies or use powerpoints) with no socratic method or discussion, this is simply a notetaker’s class (the more spoonfeeding there is, the less stimulating many courses become, because you hardly have to think on your own so much as successfully intake what you’re being given. The teacher wants you to know it in a certain way and that’s it…). Many of these classes just focus on content and then exams. Needless to say, students will hardly be stimulated and will mainly just prep. well enough to study for the exam. If a course was project based, problem-set heavy (I think many BME programs in the US migrate toward PBL model. I know Tech is known for this, wouldn’t be surprised if Vandy does it), or case based, then larger amounts of students in the sciences are more likely to be “stimulated” (many top privates have rigorous science programs, but do they often deliver and instruct in a particularly “stimulating” way? not necessarily. Though I would say that many teachers are good at “edutainment” to at least keep the attention of students). </p>
<p>The issue is, much of the humanities and social science offerings at smaller selective schools have always been a discussion format and have several writing assignments and lots of reading (when the course is moderately rigorous), and thus even if they take easier exams, or are graded leniently on papers, they had to likely engage (and often create their own interpretation or idea, something many science courses hardly go near) the material much more than science students in and out of the class just to do the papers. This is all coming from the perspective of a science major who took plenty of humanities and science courses. I’ve had quite a few unusual medium/large science courses that were very stimulating AND rigorous, but I don’t think it’s the norm. I can’t imagine the former (intellectual stimulation) being applicable for most until one starts taking smaller, advanced electives. Much of the courses are only “hard” (lots of content, and either difficult or detail oriented examinations that usually don’t get to the level of say, experimental design). Luckily for the OP, I think they are social science oriented, so they’d be okay.</p>
<p>It isn’t necessarily relevant, but the post above mine almost implies that certain majors will be less “rigorous” and thus less stimulating, which could also be seen as “do not come here and expect intellectual/academic stimulation if you major in X as it is not as rigorous as Y”. I’m just saying that isn’t necessarily true. Academic stimulation shouldn’t be judged that way. More important is how classes are taught and/or if the students are genuinely engaged. As long as the teaching in the OP’s dept. of interest is good and the students in those courses are actually engaged (and this varies from school to school, but selective schools will have more engagement than others), the OP should be fine. I like academic challenge, but it doesn’t always make content stimulating. Regardless, I think things like Political Science and History at Vandy are known to be good, so the OP is probably in good shape, and the overall environment (outside of that) won’t really be anything like the school they are transferring from (I know what that school is, and it can’t match selective schools. Even those that appear similar in social atmosphere on paper will be way more academically oriented).</p>
<p>actually, I mean what I said, but I screwed up in terms of who this is. I don’t know if/where they are transferring from (the last part, I had some other poster in mind). This is actually the person that is interested in chemistry or something like that, in which case what I said is actually relevant because science teaching/education could either be very stimulating or a difficult bore. Different depts. tend to have different academic environments (for example, I don’t expect biology majors as a whole to be as excited about biology as physics majors are about physics, and there are a few reasons for that. And engineering courses are not as likely to be taught like natural science courses and this will make a difference in terms of what students experience and how much engagement there is). It’s unusual that you can describe a whole school as one type of academic orientation (there are some that are more consistent across depts, but not many).</p>
<p>This person also asked for school suggestions, for which I didn’t weigh in on. For those depts, I think places like Stanford, Northwestern, Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago are amazing (if you can get into Vandy, you may have a chance at all 4 and 2 of them could be very doable). My alma mater is solid (getting even better, with a new building coming) but I would concede that it’s anywhere near the level of those 5 at the undergraduate level. However, there is plenty of good teaching and a powerhouse faculty in the chem. dept though. Has a great environment (nice community, has a very active undergrad. chem club) and more rigorous than lots of similar schools, but again, won’t lie about those 5 being a cut above most of the other elite chemistry programs. Georgia Tech is good for chemistry in general (but I don’t think it’s as great for undergrads as the others unless you are into material science and chem. engineering). Rice is great (but I think it’s material science and engineering biased as well)! UCLA and UT Austin are really strong too (probably OOS for you though, so may end up more expensive than the private options). It certainly won’t hurt to apply to Vandy alongside some of these.</p>
<p>I just ran the net price calculator, and the COA is 62706. Can’t remember what it included or didn’t include, but mpalab is fairly accurate with his $64K.</p>