Vandy vs. WashU Pre-Med

I am posting this on both the WashU forum and Vanderbilt forum to try and get unbias responses.

Anyways, I am applying early decision to either of these schools. WashU has always captivated me, but Vandy has come in recently and caught my attention.
I want to know these few topics: student satisfaction and enjoyment during undergrad, and pre-med difficulty and associated stress.

Those two things are very important to me. I like both locations and they are both very reputable. I know WashU is better for pre-med and will offer me more resources etc, but having a good experience is crucial for my success. Thanks.

You’re gonna get wrecked either way, so I would pick the school that you like more to live at, and maybe has a better backup plan in case premed doesn’t work out. I don’t think premed resources at either WashU or here differs in any sizable way though.

Both are excellent and very challenging for pre-meds. Both have more resources than any one student can take advantage of and are connected to world class medical schools. Both welcome UG students in research projects and physician shadowing. They both are among the highest ranked universities in the country for student quality of life and student happiness.

Please go visit both before you make your decision. Students usually know which school is the best fit after visiting.

There’s not going to be that large of a difference academically, maybe a slight difference socially. WashU might be a little bit more “intellectual” overall, with Vanderbilt’s D1 athletics and strong greek presence a pretty notable factor. Honestly you’ll just have to visit both and see which one you prefer.

@bernie12 is good at some of these school comparisons so he might have some insight.

@equinox Not gonna lie, you are more likely to get “wrecked” at WUSTL. Unfortunately admissions selectivity and score differences offers little insight into this type of prediction since you are already talking about elite schools. They just seem to have different educational philosophies in certain areas (WUSTL has a center for science education so no surprise) The two grade on similar curves, have similar level physics and math, but life sciences (so biology, neuroscience, and chemistry), especially within the pre-health requirements and recommended courses are much more challenging at WUSTL, at least in the way that “most” high achieving HS students would consider challenging (yes studies show that students even at elite schools struggle with or are resistant when many teachers require higher ordered thinking, especially on exams). VU in life sciences seems to have a super strong “content” orientation bias whereas WUSTL in the same courses is demanding a higher level of application and analysis. This could be a professor by professor thing, but it also appears that WUSTL is more likely to a) have the pre-med cores in life sciences run by a single professor or b) maybe 2. The battle in early VU life sciences courses appears to be to memorize a lot of details (way more than HS), regurgitate and kind of apply them. Fortunately, upper division genetics and biochemistry course are good.

But at the introductory level and intermediate levels, WUSTL seems to have more focus on analysis (which is higher than recall, understanding, and even application) either by chance or because they focus more on STEM education, especially in the pre-health heavy departments there). Chemistry courses are comparatively killer at WUSTL. There is no way around that. Don’t ask why certain schools outside of the top 10 (I would say that Dartmouth, WUSTL, Michigan, Emory, Northwestern, and Berkeley kill) tend to kill at chemistry, I haven’t quite figured out a like. I would suspect that minus Dartmouth, they all have higher than normal undergraduate enrollment in chemistry and a heavier focus on UG education in those departments (I know that at D-3 schools like WUSTL, the attitude of many instructors may also be that: “You should be less distracted and have more time on your hands for academics than comparably calibrated schools with D-1 sports, so we’ll set the bar higher in surprising places”), so you are going to find some unusually difficult instructors in the pre-med heavy courses like “general” chemistry (It is questionable if you can call it that at WUSTL).

The additional analysis skills from the life sciences I think is worthwhile (as a person who is considering being an educator in higher ed) and definitely benefits students on the MCAT (yes, both WUSTL and VU have ultra high scoring students to begin with but WUSTL students had much higher than normal MCAT performance returns before their SAT/ACT range shot up in like 2008 and later and still do today which means that it is not perfectly coupled with their SAT/ACT. The curriculum has helped or used to compensate. Also, they maintain that with very high numbers of applicants), but this is not necessarily the rosiest situation for a pre-health. Many pre-healths will have a love hate relationship with that type of teaching and testing. You learn at a higher level, but your grade is more likely to be at risk (you may be mostly rely on being favored by a curve in cases you have a teacher requiring higher than normal analytical skills, but from a lecture formatted course as averages tend to be below “normal” on such exams, often well below the 75 that designates a fairly rigorous science exam). In addition to this, seems places that are more pre-professional factories like WUSTL have lots of “I was pre-med or pre-science since I came out of the womb” types.

You’ll get these pre-gunner types simply because these schools are the go tos for life sciences and “pre-med” outside of the top 10. They are instantly associated with such programs as opposed to “oh, this is just an awesome school so I am sure it has a strong pre-med or life sciences program”.

So the student bodies at such schools may still be collaborative overall outside of the classroom, the competition for the A grades in the curved courses will be tough. If you take general chemistry for example at these schools, you will find many more people who are retaking it with 5s on AP or equivalent IB scores (this happens at VU too from my understanding, but many instructors at the “killer” places seem to adjust more for that by simply making the course harder to actually challenge a decent chunk of such students). A surprising amount of bio students will have had special topics courses via an IB curriculum or even be Intel Participants or finalists.

So think academic differences (only within life sciences) as: WUSTL, harder content, with deeper levels of understanding demanded earlier on plus curved grading vs. VU: Lots of content, must get and understand content so that you can actually hit the standard grade cutoffs (VU courses seem to often be in this grey area of where the courses have low enough averages for grades to not be particularly pretty on a normal scale, however, high enough so that there is really no need for a curve, so you better get as close to the traditional cut-offs as possible). Seems math and physics will be a pain at either (maybe more so math).

“Student Experience”- This is so vague and depends on what you want. I would add to the above…“strongly consider WUSTL if you are a more academic leaning student” I believe most applicants (in the general sense) prefer the remaining (or remnants of it-some say that Greeklife is still quite important and that there is a notable sports fervor) “SEC vibe” at VU, but one cannot argue that this is solidly the case among students applying to selective privates. There are indeed lots and lots of students that prefer more intellectuality (okay, I will call it cerebral"ness". Places like Emory, JHU, and WUSTL are known for this weird sort of intellectuality because they are dominated by those pursuing the Big 3 professions) or academic orientation, which is what you will get at WUSTL. However, if you want strong enough, but maybe not overbearing academics within the pre-health core courses or a STEM major as well as the more traditional college experience you may see in the media (like lots of campus unity, sports fervor, more vibrant party scene) then maybe Vanderbilt is the place. Both have great quality of life and nice amenities. I can understand why VU students are perhaps more happy (nice amenities and scaled back but more traditional social outlets seen at less competitive universities and far less pre-professionals which tend to give a place a sometime stuffy or even nervous vibe beyond explanation), but be careful or else it may translate into the Stanford Duck syndrome where everyone likes to put on a facade of happiness and perfection because it is the reputation of the school or because “it makes me look less smart when people see you work hard for grades” but behind the scenes they are working really hard or struggling. This idea runs rampant among high achieving students; that things should appear “natural” all the time if they are truly smart. To me it appears to be an extension of the somewhat dangerous “fixed mindset”.

Parent of a WashU freshman who was considering Vandy as well and @bernie12 is absolutely on point about the science and math classes at WashU.

General Chemistry is notorious for having low average grades. This year the first midterm had a 60% average and anything 70% and above was in the A range. Calculus 2 was another class that wreaked havoc with grades this year. The average was 45% for the first midterm.

From what my son has heard from others, Calculus 2 at WashU focuses more on proofs and using concepts and most college freshmen aren’t used to that style yet. Oddly enough, Calculus 3 (son is in the class) is more straightforward. Organic Chemistry at WashU is another class that has a reputation for being tough and a lot of kids will take the class during the summer at another school.

@equinox19 where did you end up doing ED?

@Hamurtle : Careful with summer. I think some students over interpret that. The reality is that most schools with very rigorous semester ochem courses that offer a summer ochem, usually pitch the summer version a little or substantially lower, especially in cases where both semesters are offered. This means that many could probably take the course at WUSTL. However, that is probably really expensive (summer aid is usually harsh compared to semester aid at most places). Also, your son need not be as worried about gen. chem 2 there. It seems rigorous, but a bit more standard. Gen. chem 1 there works in some quantum concepts (like particle in a box model) that are much more common to intermediate physical chemistry courses. Seems the goal is to see who has the resilience to tackle such material, maybe not make an A, and then still stay on a pre-health track (again, formally “perfect” HS students are often a bit fragile. Even a B in a freshman STEM course may be enough to send them off the track. Many others will be sent off the track because of the ego. Basically they cannot stand taking exams that are not designed for folks to score 100. The sight of a low numerical score, even in context of a class average, is enough to hurt their feelings). Then, those who make it to the second semester are tried and tested. Math is hard to judge anywhere because at many places, calculus 1 and 2 are run by a mixture, of actual faculty, post-docs, and graduate students. Unless it is large lecture style (like at many elite publics or top engineering schools) it is hard to find a pattern. Usually there are so many small sections that vary from jokes to “what in the world?”

Either way, these two have very different methods of weeding in the key intro and intermediate courses. Seems the D-3 schools follow a similar pattern. Have certain courses that possess a highly enrolled instructor(s) that gives far harder than average problems (not just “tricky” or time constraint) or content, and curves grades. The types that basically say: “So you think you’re really smart with the high scores and stuff, but can you think like this?” and then in tons of cases, it is a no, at least the first 2 or 3 tests. At many other schools, it is just dealing with moderately enhanced difficulty of exams and time constraints more so than “I am asking you to think in a much different way than learned in an AP/IB or previous course”

@bernie12 good to know. My son got above the average and was happy to have survived the General Chemistry midterm. He did describe the test as sort of baby quantum mechanics, which was how his professor refers to General Chemistry 1.

He isn’t the type to overly stress over things-he graduated from a Top-25 high school in California where grade deflation was pretty common. A lot of his classmates were pretty shocked after midterms though.

The WashU freshman parents group on Facebook was all up in arms after the midterms. Too many helicopter parents wanted to contact the administration. I must admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude when reading some of the posts.

@Hamurtle : Why are students already talking to their parents about grades after the first midterm? Shouldn’t they just try again? I just don’t get all the complaining. At Emory, it is like most people just “got over it”. It pretty much would take a surprising class like psychology for a student to want to contact a parent (these are usually the freshmen who sign up for Edward’s psychology 110 course thinking it is related to AP), and even then, I cannot imagine a parent contacting the instructor or even threatening to. I have heard stories at WUSTL like this. I have had a theory about this and it partly has to do with the scores of the students. Given that they attend a school that is not HYP (and their super elite “friends”), people with HYP level scores act surprised or shocked when challenged to that level perhaps because they didn’t expect it. When you go to the former schools, you just suck it up even if you have those ridiculously high scores (I mean, I stole from an H website some ochem materials and inside of the lecture it mentioned that the first exam had an average of 40% and it was indeed very brutal, substantially harder than most schools’ I had seen in and certainly out of its tier). You just sort of say “oh okay, HS does not necessarily train this sort of thinking, so I’ll have to ride the curve for now and figure it out”. At Emory, I think the scores are a bit lower (they are still great, but they aren’t like pushing 1500/1600).

Places like Penn, Stanford, and Duke are kind of this way as well (they have a peer group, very strong scores, but not necessarily the same scores as some other peers) and they have all have very tough courses yet students do not complain in the same way. They are perhaps just likely to sit in study groups anxious and maybe complaining a little to their friends, but they usually know who is difficult (and often it is the best teachers) and that the instructor will used curve grading. I think they a) recruit students maybe more inclined to have real talent (not just collegeboard standardized exam scores that suggest aptitude) in the specific subject areas (even if a substantially lower than perfect regular SAT/ACT) and b) just recruit in a score range where students have some humility and perhaps realize that they can screw up an exam or at least some of the items.

No one should assume that because they scored perfect on an SAT or SAT 2 subject tests (mostly multiple choice) that they should score high on STEM exams that professors are intentionally designing to not be for high school students (even those from good high schools). They should just try it out and see what happens. I think many HS curricula have bred complacency, over-confidence, and lacking resiliency among more gifted and high achieving students, and has strange results when in college for those where such training is coupled with the student getting a very high SAT. I just don’t understand why students and parents don’t use common sense to realize: “The instructor writes a high level non-multiple choice chemistry exam, so it will not correlate with the types of midterms and standardized tests they’ve taken before. It is supposedly an elite school after all”. Before, a large pool of HS students was being compared, now a select pool of supposedly strong college students are being trained and compared. The only time the averages should be high is if the instructor is giving assessments with items that the students are super familiar or comfortable with. When this happens too much in STEM courses, then it just isn’t problem solving, science or even college (at least not an elite) for that matter. It gives the false impression that science is about memorization and then being able to always immediately solve problems or get an answer, that things in lab will always work 90-100% of the time, that failure or imperfection is just not a part of science. It just isn’t realistic to convey such falsehoods via undergraduate curricula. Teach people early (yes students get uncomfortable because it is tied to their grade, but guess what? Post-docs and grad. students get uncomfortable because it is tied to their abilities to get data, contribute to a grant, or complete a thesis).

I think the students and parents thankfully (and I do mean thankfully. They can thank those faculty later if they don’t like it know) will get over it. The above is actually why am more for the WUSTL type of paradigm in certain STEM courses. Not because I’m crazy, but because it just puts forth a more realistic idea of what practicing science feels like. It is not perfectly controlled and perfectly performed/yields perfect results that you want simply because you put in lots of effort. My graduate school experience(s) have gotten me to appreciate the tough professors I have taken (many who I intentionally selected). I had to be resilient, capable of adaptation, and know when to ask for help to move forward and do well or at least decently in their courses. I wasn’t going to be perfect and some things were not going to work right away.

Your schadenfreude is kind of justified btw, because their own responses to a student getting their academic feet wet in college and struggling a little is laughable (a general chemistry midterm becoming a topic in a parents forum. That is crazy!). If it weren’t for that aspect, it wouldn’t be as funny or worth such feelings. Also, interesting that WUSTL shows the stereotype in physics and chemistry education very well (it is not the only school). The more you deviate from standard topics and plug and chug type of exams, the more students (even great ones) struggle. If you throw in some baby quantum or demand a very strong understanding of structural aspects (not just drawing lewis basic structures, basic resonance structures, and labelling a compound polar or non-polar, but actually analyzing structures to predict how they may behave, or going beyond writing out an MO diagram and instead overlaying what the MOs look like on a molecule) of chemistry in the first year courses, students struggle immensely. They basically have to be reoriented to learn chemistry in what I consider the “proper” way. There is no better place to do this reorientation than at schools with strong students. Many more elites should get in line even if it pains the students initially.

@equinox19
Vandy has ED2. You really don’t have to choose

@VANDEMORY1342 : It does? I actually didn’t know that. But what if it works more like RD but with a smaller app. pool? That’s a tricky one. VU ED1 and then maybe a denial, and then having to try WUSTL RD (I checked, I think they only have ED1)…oh boy. Guess games will always have to be played, especially when applying to schools with different admission plan offerings.

I’ve not seen Vandy publish stats with ED2 broken out from ED1. You’d think/assume the competition is stiffer and with less boost than ED1. But who knows.

ED2 seems tailor-made for kids who reached very high in ED1/SCEA and missed. So it could be a very competitive pool to swim in.

Pre med at any top U is very challenging. You have 4-5 week out classes you need to survive. Chem I, Orgo X2, Calc, physics. The idea that the worlds best and brightest students can’t average above 70 on “Intro level” classes is just silly. It is set up to weed out pre meds in their first semester so they can change majors and still graduate in 4 years. These students didn’t go from the top 1% (on every type of test know to mankind) to average when they entered college. They didn’t stop studying and a monkey should be able to teach these brainiacs an into level class. The tests aren’t valid for the information covered. They are designed to separate students and thin the herd. There is no other logical explanation.

Now, non pre med STEM students say it is no big deal, or it’s great to push students because their life career and dreams aren’t ended with a C or a 3.0 GPA. Pre meds don’t have the luxury of time to get their feet wet or to learn from their mistakes. Pre meds must come in ready fall semester freshman year. They should limit their class load until they adjust to college rigor. Most pre meds are crushed by Thanksgiving freshman year and become business majors. Don’t let that happen to you. They need to start off with a good GPA their first semester and use summer school wisely to spread out the workload. They can worry about being pushed and challenged after they have a solid GPA, 4th year after they have been accepted to med school, and in med school.

For vandy at least, general chemistry is pretty standard. Calculus depends on your teacher but for the most part it’s not bad either. Biology is a bit more challenging depending on the teacher due to just the sheer amount of memorization that is required, but with some work a decent grade wont be too hard to get. For organic chem, the difficulty depends on the teacher, but if you study and just get faster at pushing thru with problems its not bad and has a good curve. Honestly, premed here is not too bad, and I would assume Wash U to be more difficult. In terms of resources, I would say, for the most, part it would be equivalent unless you an exact resource that you know you would want. Get a research position somewhere perhaps where u can get a coauthor at either school, try to get like a 3.7 or higher gpa, decent mcat percentile, become a leader in a club or two, ur golden at either place.

@xatlas at Vandy I hear that the general chem is VERY hard - a definite weed out and I have a current freshman there. Also, Calculus is the same thing. VERY HARD. I think both of these classes weed out kids whether that is good or bad, I don’t know. I have a child in one of those classes, that luckily is doing great…but they are hard!

@LvMyKids2 I heard gen chem changed to mastering physics from sapling, but I don’t think its “very hard.” General Chemistry gives plenty of other free grades like (points from discussion, which is just attendance and simple quizzes, and mastering chemistry hw which you can easily find online if you are stuck). Compared to other premed track courses, general chemistry is by far the most lenient and simple. The tests are all standardized unlike the other classes and all the tests quite frankly require low problem solving ability. All the actual free response questions are simple; rather, students seem to get points taken off here and there from some specific true-or-false and multiple choice questions. After the first test, most students should be able to discern what to study and not to study in the textbook. I took the class last year.

@LvMyKids2 : My sleep schedule is screwed up, so I will send you some chemistry material via PM to compare between the two (If you don’t know how to compare, should to your student. Keep in mind that the chemistry exams at VU are standardized and that WUSTL basically only has a single section) and some other schools in its tier (or slightly above). VU is not one of the places where the chemistry courses are true weeders. I feel like biology and physics are more likely to do the job there, but the physics is on par with most elites in its tier (a good level to be sure- there is an oddball among, perhaps because it does not have engineering, but I would consider that place easiest in lower division physics and on par or rougher than some others elsewhere) and their biology is different (much more memorization oriented than similar schools who have veered away from that towards problem solving and experimentally relevant learning) but still tough enough to challenge a decent amount of students.

@bud123’s point is well taken: pre-med is a process designed to both thin the herd and lay the ground work for the volume and rigor of work once in med school. For people interested in grad school in the actual individual subjects (ie, physics, chem, bio, math) the more rigorous, thoughtful base described at WUSTL is particularly useful, but for pre-med it is the ability to keep a high GPA that is essential. The first cuts for med schools are done based on GPA and MCAT, and they won’t pay attention to whether the GPA is from WUSTL or Vandy or your state flagship.