Hello! What makes Oxford/Emory stand out as a school for pre-med undergraduates? Statistics, opportunities, benefits, campus life, and more are all welcome! Please let me know, thanks!! 
A common trope of college is that classes are so big that the professor doesn’t know who you are. But at Oxford? The classes are so small that it’s impossible for teachers to not know you. As a result, you get chances to know your professors personally for research. Since the classes are smaller, the science ones tend to be more rigorous and prepare students well for the MCAT.
Highly doubtful that Oxford students are any better prepared for the MCAT than Emory students.
@bernie12 any thoughts?
@ljberkow and @TheTennisNinja : Eh, could be similar. I don’t know. I would argue that introductory biology courses at Oxford are more useful for MCAT preparation and as a better foundation for the lit./research focused intermediate and upper-divisions at ECAS. However, I think chemistry is much better on main (except the labs, but the labs are usually not as relevant for MCAT prep). Physics is better at Oxford. Students at ECAS get to jump into NBB earlier, and I’d argue that the NBB electives offered on main are more plentiful (and are thus there are options to jump into more research based psyche, NBB, etc electives earlier on whereas I think Oxford sticks to sort of classical psyche offerings and core NBB courses).
I think it is probably a wash. There was one point where I may have narrowly given it to main because the introductory biology sequence was stronger on main than today, but it has deteriorated (probably because of who they have teaching. If you have 2 or 3 instructors run 4-5 sections between them, it has sort of a chilling effect on historically rigorous and well-revered instructors. For them to keep their enrollments to an acceptable level, they then have to “play the game”. I’ve seen these phases occur in bio at Emory so much and the rigorous instructors would even admit to it) in most sections to the point where most ECAS students will have to wait till intermediate research oriented courses to get an experience even close to what Oxford students get. There is no doubt that Oxford exploits its size advantage well in biology. At ECAS, NBB and chemistry have just classically had a strong focus on teaching such that they try to their best to make the experience mimic what one could get in a smaller section size and then they can take advantage of the more robust research infrastructure if they want to.
One thing I will say about smaller institutions is that there is likely more quality control. ECAS STEM, like I hinted has more of it in some departments (with chemistry, they’ve gotten really serious because they have to validate the new curriculum) than others and this really matters. My problem is that ECAS provides the double-edged sword of too much choice in instructor and course selection, so students who start on main, transfer in, or continue from Oxford can more easily select trash instructors on main, celebrate how “easy”(or easier) things are and then do poorly or mediocre on the MCAT. ECAS has a way of making these paths look too appetizing and it tricks a lot of pre-meds into believing that they are merely being pragmatic and protecting their GPAs. Oxford on the other hand tends to have more standardization it looks like (Some of the bio and NBB courses on ECAS can be run completely differently depending on who is teaching it. There is no consensus on how to deliver a course or what skills to emphasize. Usually there is just some minimum threshold of content that all instructors agree to cover).
*Note I kept mentioning research oriented courses, because that is the nature of most MCAT sections. They are passages based upon primary literature and research phenomenon and data. Brute-force memorization will get students but so far, so they should take classes/instructors that make students memorize some foundation material and then demands them to then do a lot more with it than achieve a basic understanding.
To your point Tennis: I would generally argue that smaller, selective institutions are indeed more likely to have a good type of rigor in their STEM courses. But fortunately, among private schools (because publics that have competitive or elite admissions always have been solid here) some medium-sized schools like Emory, Rice, WUSTL, and several super elites like Harvard, Duke, Stanford, etc have actually spent a lot of money “keeping things fresh” ensuring that size doesn’t necessarily dilute the type of rigor that should given to students, but if you look at some of Emory’s (or these schools’) other peers and their STEM courses, you will literally ask: “What the hell is this? Are we in the dark ages of teaching? This is a scam”, and that is especially the case for the 1st and 2nd year pre-health courses at said places. Yet students at said schools will tell others that “things are so rigorous here”. They’re really being exposed to a less useful sort of rigor but don’t know any better. Kind of sad.
@bernie12
Is neuroscience a good major for premed
Who I ask is this
- Does this major align well with premed courses
- With hard work can one maintain a high gpa in neuro major or biochem is better as i like both equally
- How do you enroll first set of classes in freshman year before joining
( hoping to get good instructors )
Once you join you can get feedback
- The answer is yes, but I must add that no one should ever think about a major in that context. Med. schools require like 8 STEM classes and they are mostly intro. sequences. You should never feel pressured to major in STEM (or choose between majors in STEM) simply because its requirements align well. Most non-Bachelors of Science majors are less crowded credit hour wise so easily accommodate those 8 pre-health courses. Do note that there is no need to major in both simply because you like both topics. It is very easy to get a lot out of both without majoring. Pre-health requires you to take up to chem 204 anyway. Chem 204 is usually the pre-req. course required for most of the biochemistry oriented upper divisions courses in chemistry (systems/biochem. 1 and chemical biology, are the two current courses they've rolled out for the new curric). If you complete the first 4 chem. requirements, you get access to lots of chem. upper division courses. It is kind of like how completion of NBB 301 gets you access to most NBB housed NBB electives.
- Uhmmm...I don't see why not. That goes for any major you pursue. Emory is challenging, but fair grading. Some of the best classes will likely require different thinking and learning than in HS, but if you adapt to these differences (and there will be resources including the professor to help you) and put your best effort forward, then you'll get out whatever that best effort is.When one of these teachers challenges to "think out the box" or "think on your feet" a little on assignments or exams, don't feel defeated if you are caught by surprise on your first go around with that format and just decide "it is impossible for me to score well on those level problems". Simply find someone, who is the instructor or TA/mentor (former student who did well in that section) to help you get to that level, so it's also about resilience and willingness to get help in order to get that extra edge. When I TAed and tutored these style courses at Emory, the disproportionate amount of students that were most engaged and sought additional private tutoring were those with the higher GPAs. On average Emory students are very high achieving and more likely to have had serious exposures to life sciences in HS that make them more competitive in "non-standard" STEM courses. However, despite this, the well-prepared students seek lots of help.
. - ??? I mean, you'll have to compete with everyone else. through OPUS I have written on here who are the best life sciences instructors so I can go look at who is teaching them and quickly list who you should shoot for in those freshman classes (I assume you are starting fresh and will use no AP credits for STEM): I assume that if you are doing NBB you will probably double up in chem/biol first year. The way, I qualify teachers is based on how well they explain content, or facilitate a class section. In addition, I take into account mentoring and whether or not their assignments, exams, activities stress a decent level of problem solving and applications (versus memorization). I usually do not rate highly professors who give only multiple choice tests (especially if they are in a reasonably sized section) or those who stick to pure lecture format in class sections (lecture is okay, if you engage students and maybe use Socratic method or frequently ask questions or stop to do real activities. But if you just get up there and talk at students for most of 50 or 75 minutes from power points...not good)
Bio 141 which needs explanation (partly because professors who teach 141 are not guaranteed to return for 1420 :De Rhoode (competitive though) was not teaching this when I was at Emory (he taught evol which he was EXCELLENT for), but appears to have the best reputation among 141 instructors now and was key to redesigning the curriculum some (slightly described on his website:http://deroodelab.org/teaching/). Always great to take someone who heads curriculum redesign for the redesigned course lol (like McGill for 150/202) and plus he clearly runs his course with more active learning as all of the lecture track professors teaching past renditions of 141/142 have despite being a top tier research faculty ; 2nd choice, Abreu (who has two sections): Is alright, incorporates active learning, mentoring potential.
If Spell comes around for 142, definitely consider her. Has rigorous, but good standards that inspire hard working students (she, through a take-home quiz in bio 141 3 years ago, led to 2 students in her section working towards an E.bola kit during that semester. I think one of the co-participants in the project ended up winning some money for pitching the idea/presenting the product).
She gets great and lasting learning outcomes, but students expecting intro biology to work a certain way may not be appreciative until taking upper division or intermediate research/experimental biology focus courses. It’s a very “you’ll thank me later” sort of situation with her (her RMP rating, for example is way lower than what it should be based upon quality of her teaching. Most of the reviews reveal that the students were upset because she challenged them to seriously apply the content on exams. Among negative reviewers, the “doesn’t test exactly what she teaches” trope was there quite a bit. And some basically just said: “I had a 4/5 AP and expected to breeze through this, but even I had to work and think hard”…well duh, you’re at an elite university very serious about teaching life sciences that understands that a good chunk of students in the course have AP/IB credit). I actually remember one year (maybe my junior year), she gave a case study packet (I was a tutor) which contained the original letters and memos between doctors who were in the midst of discovering sickle cell anemia and its molecular basis and students had to derive a model for it and answer questions based upon those letters. I doubt she goes that far anymore, but she knows how to get serious students engaged/interested (the E. bola kit thing came about because she structured her 141 and 142 class, its activities, quizzes, and tests around the “disease of the year”. That year was E.bola and the next was Zika). Definitely among Emory’s great instructors.
chem 150:McGill (and she has two sections, so your chances are increased), 2nd choice: Jeremy Weaver. These are too strong lecture track faculty that really care about teaching undergraduates. Most sections are standardized in terms of the exams to my knowledge, and these are the best/most enthusiastic teachers, so just pick them
@bernie12
Thank you so much
I will keep all this in mind
Its v helpful
For premed students,
I read somewhere the admit rate to med school is 56 percent or something like this ?
Plus would you know what med schools the premed student get into ( just need basic idea)
Thanks again !
@Simpson2019 : The overall rates don’t matter. If you can get a 3.5 and 30 equivalent (I don’t know how the new scale works), 80%+ gain admission. To me, there is evidence that many apply below this threshold AND are not consulting the PHA for a composite letter. The overall number is actually 51%, but 58% of PHA consultants gain admissions: https://apply.emory.edu/academics/advising/career.html
A 7% differences and the overall rates implies that a significant amount of students are applying on a whim knowing they aren’t particularly competitive (Emory sometimes has 400 applicants a year! Way too many) AND a lot are not seeking a composite letter (the PHA requires a series of events to be able to go through composite letter process). Get a 3.5/30 equivalent, do what PHA says, get the composite letter, apply broadly and you’re golden.
There is no need for me to speculate about where most people gain admissions (some qualified people won’t even apply to elite schools because it is cheaper to go to their state schools for example. Plus medical school curricula have lots of standardization as they prep for the licensing exams. Going to top schools is kind of for research opportunities if you want that. A great testing and high performing student will likely get good residency placement from any U.S. medical school). We can’t know and it strongly depends on a students ECs, GPA/MCAT, and other things. The applicants well over 30 equivalent (say 34+ equivalent or 33+) and 3.77-3.8+ do get really good access to some elite and highly ranked medical schools. People in that range with a good profile (solid ECs and the recommended volunteer and shadowing hours and research for many of those), from what I observed (have many friends and former mentees who did VERY well with admissions who were in these ranges and sometimes a little lower on the GPA side depending on how rigorous their courses were and how good their research or ECs were).
If you fall below these, but above the “magical threshold”, apply broadly for sure, and you’ll still have a really good shot. I would say only apply when you think your application is most competitive though. If you completely screw up in a pre-health or related STEM course (as in below C+) or more and it puts your GPA at a borderline area or below that, consider retaking at Emory or elsewhere even if you need to wait another year, especially if your MCAT is not in that 33+ range. If you end up with a solid GPA (let us say 3.65+), but the MCAT is mismatched (below 31 equiv. or so), then retake the MCAT before applying (if your GPA is 3.8+ and your MCAT is middling, that will for sure look weird, and you won’t want to apply with just that MCAT score).
You can actually screw up a course or two within reason and still place well. One of my favorite mentees got a B in one class each semester and even got one C+ in an intermediate (non-prehealth requirement) chem course and still got into Pittsburgh and several other elite MDPhD programs because he still maintained over a 3.8 (he usually took intensive courseloads mixing STEM and non-STEM courses. Usually taking 5 courses a semester. He would get an A in most and then maybe have a serious humanities course with a top instructor in which he would allow himself to get some B grade), had ultra strong research, civic, and EC records, really challenged himselve academically, and scored very well on the MCAT (his training via his coursework was so solid and fresh at the time, that he didnt have to study as long as others to prep for the MCAT. Most of his courses emphasize the same or higher level analytical thinking and problem solving than the MCAT including that Achem course he screwed up in which was a non-traditional rendition of analytical where the teacher integrated his biomolecular/biophysical chemistry focused research into lectures, p-sets, and exams. Obviously that made it rough, but my friend still learned).
This guy was quite special, but I have seen it or close before and candidates like him are often very successful despite their more adventurous and risky academic approach (he also started with freshman organic under Soria for example. He wasn’t at Emory to skate through pre-health requirements and his STEM majors. He was very motivated and driven by intellectual curiosity even if it meant imperfect grades from time to time). The formula is to make no lower than B+, and try to get mostly A/A- in med. school specific requirements and then just do your best in other STEM and non-STEM courses. Ideally, you should have schedules or solid performance that allow for some B/B+ grades (the “risk” courses) without completely damaging your GPA over time. It would be most strategic to take a “risk” course small or intimate enough such that the professor mentors, and knows that they have higher than average difficulty for their department (or course if multi-section). This way, it is even possible that they would enthusiastically write rec. letters for a strong B/B+ student (and they will of course explain that their course is different/standards are high and allude to your character and intellectual development throughout the course and other positive attributes). More difficult instructors usually understand that great or even excellent work must be done to get B/B+ in their courses so accommodate and mentor as needed.
This does give me encouragement
I do not mind hard work at all but good direction along the way helps.
During my holidays this year I want to prep organic chemistry related to undergrad and my creative reading portion of mcat
Any suggestions of how to go about this
Want to use my summer productively
Mix some study time in the holidays
@Simpson2019 : It is a good gesture but I recommend chilling. However, I am a little confused about your situation. Are you a transfer student who was completed gchem 1? Are you an incoming freshman planning to take ochem? What is going on here? I’d need to know. Emory’s “organic” sequence is hard to prep for alone as it isn’t geared towards basics. Furthermore, if you enter the 3rd course (and not the 2nd), you’ll probably need to teach yourself some content that will only briefly be reviewed in the third because the 2nd course had a decent amount. I am mainly trying to figure out which book to send you. The book for the 3rd course is quite advanced but is free on the web.
It just isn’t a traditional arrangement of topics and conceptual emphasis, so it may be hard if you are mainly seeking to “catch up” or gain an advantage. If you are just interested in learning some stuff, then it doesn’t matter as much.
@bernie12
Chem is my favorite subject and passion so it is out of interest that I want to expand on my organic chem knowledge
I have taken IB chemistry and already done organic chem to some extent in high school
I want to expand on my organic chem knowledge but thought why not study something that will be useful during my undergrad as well
Please send me first couple course details in orgo during undergrad
@bernie12
Hi, above in this thread you had mentioned about composite letter
What’s a composite letter and do premeds with high gpa or top of the class request those ?
I also read to go school for premed where you can maintain gpa and have time to prep for mcat and do your ECs, volunteer work.
If you have an option to go to state school vs Emory Vs say Vanderbilt and Washington University
What should one pick or think about
Does a school matter?
How would you compare these schools in terms of maintaining a good GPA for med school. Given that one works hard and is focused. I like smaller schools.
Hoping to get your thoughts on this.
I’m just gonna send you to the PHA website, but EVERYONE applying should do the PHA events and get a composite letter done. Emory does not restrict access to the process based on performance:
http://prehealth.emory.edu/apply/composite-letter.html
I’m not going to advise on specific schools extensively. I would just say that Vanderbilt is a very different social and STEM academic environment from Emory/WUSTL or really any Division 3 selective school (they all tend to emphasize academics a bit more in social life and seem to invest more heavily in STEM curricula), but will train you well enough for a pre-health path. Whether you choose a “state school” depends on your values.
Note that selective and elite schools with SAT means above 1300 for matriculates can be as challenging as or more than elite privates in STEM. When people refer to “state schools” being easier, it is the much less selective state schools where students aren’t on average “high achieving” according to incoming stats. I have come to believe that barring pre-dominantly STEM institutes,that beyond 1300-1350 medians, you really can’t predict the style and level of rigor of life sciences/pre-med curricula. It is largely dependent upon what schools did in the past before they became as selective as they are today. Generally schools aren’t endorsing a greater abundance or different style of rigor as they become more selective. Schools that change their curricula or add analytical rigor to STEM do so because they have historically kept up with trends of their peers and/or literature in STEM education, and NOT because they felt that “we need to challenge our students more as they get better”, which means that most selective schools student bodies are changing far faster than the style of academics and usually the latter does not keep up.
Either way, if you just want to risk being pre-med and not entertain anything else/value just getting a high GPA, then a much less selective state school may be the place because your competition will be less capable. However, even then, you’ll want to go somewhere that puts some effort into its life sciences curriculum (many less selective schools do so, perhaps more than very selective privates and publics), so that you don’t have an GPA/MCAT mismatch. You go to certain privates if you think you’ll benefit from networking or learning with stronger peers or straight, are open to other pathways, want additional resources more plentiful at wealthy school, want a greater chance of feeling academically challenged, want smaller classes, etc. If your goal is to simply be fast-tracked to medical school and you have very little values beyond that or are not concerned about the “journey”, then I don’t see why go to an elite/selective private or public. It cost a lot of money that isn’t worth spending if you don’t want to fully engage what it has to offer. In such a case, it won’t hurt to take a scholarship from a much less selective state school or maybe do honors at your state’s flagship if you can. There isn’t much of a premium on attending an elite university for med. school admissions unless you want to feed into its medical school (Some elite med. schools self-feed. As in, you are much more likely to get into its med. school than a top ranked med. school outside. It’s a win-win. If they struggle to place at some other places and their med. school is ranked well, they still get to market: "We place lots of our high performers into highly ranked medical schools). The med. schools just want the stats, ECs, and personal development.
You need to figure out your own values and go visit places to determine what environments you think you’d like.