Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Emory for Economics?

24

Replies to: Emory for Economics?

  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    bernie wrote:
    He probably thinks that many of them just do that if they don't get in the business school or that they pursue it because Emory is not known to have a particularly rigorous econ. program. In such a case, since it is a social science that may have better than normal post-grad prospects, many people that want a more or less "challenge-free" experience may pursue it (whereas other social sciences may be pursued out of pure interest or some association with professional school prospects. Such as history and political science with law school). Typically, the better (or more bright) economics majors are double majors (often something like math/econ. joint major and something else). It's often suspicious when you see students at Emory singly majoring in economics.

    Well I guess that makes more sense. No offense to him but the way he put it (and from reading his previous posts in other threads) made him sound like he is self centered, pompous, elitist, and arrogant whose first choice was not even Emory (correct me if I'm wrong but he's a math major when Emory is really only known for Goizueta, Law, and Medical School) and the only reason he "chose" Emory was because it's the only top 20 school that accepted him.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    Well among who is Emory ONLY known for those things? Perhaps, people purely interested in being at a top 20 would only have those three ring a bell (because they are looking at things from a very superficial point of view not doing their research. Fortunately, this is basically now required among applicants). However, Emory (for those who actually care) is actually known for a myriad of other things at the undergraduate level and unfortunately economics (nor math, physics, and CS) isn't one of them. English, history, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, religion, African American Studies, sociology, things of that nature. For example, I would have easily just enrolled at Georgia Tech if it weren't for the other strengths, regardless of it being 35 and Emory 20. I hate the way this sounds, but I would agree with him that most economics (when a singular major) majors are not the least "squeamish" or most fearless of majors. In fact, because of the softness of our department, I think the threshold to join their honors society is unusually high for a social science department with a heavy quantitative emphasis (I think political science, for example, may have a lower threshold because it's the opposite. It's surprisingly rigorous vs. what a student generally expects from a non-quantitative social science major. I've taken some of the courses myself, and am quite impressed. I think the psychology major at Emory is also much more intense than psychology majors at other, even, comparable peer institutions). However, again, for single econ. majors at Emory, I have to unfortunately agree.


    BTW, aluminum is certainly not that way in person ;) . Sometimes what appears harsh in words on this forum, is not as harsh when you can actually look at Emory and see what it's actual strengths and weaknesses are. As far as I'm concerned, I find the pre-prof. strength stereotype to be kind of untrue based upon my observations. I believe that pre-law is excellent (but not because we have a solid law school, but because the majors that most pre-laws pursue at Emory are really good), pre-med is not great (though, if you're not pre-med, the science instruction is great because you don't have to constantly take mickey mouse science courses and instructors), and BBA is primarily good for job placement (which is I guess what it's made for) and not really the stimulating academic environment that you can find elsewhere in the college. Again, this is based upon my experiences and observations. And Aluminum's experiences inform his opinions regardless of how crass they come off. I can be very harsh on Emory too, but it's because I know it can be better in areas that it only pretends to be good at, and can make the areas that actually are excellent shine a bit more than they are now. Based upon where I see the richest academic experiences coming from, Emory should not be overly known for the pre-professions, but more so for the liberal arts that could indeed assist in the pursuit of the pre-professions (it seems as if many who pursue less stereotypical majors than those associated with their professional school of interest are often very successful and develop skills that those who take the "prescribed" pathway don't get to as much. There is a reason an English major who was also successful in pre-med core science courses scores well on the MCAT. A person doing this path at Emory is asking for success and it has nothing to do with Emory having a good "pre-med program"). The strong liberal arts departments (of which there are many) are far under marketed.
  • dyrusdariusdyrusdarius Registered User Posts: 12 New Member
    bernie wrote:
    Well among who is Emory ONLY known for those things? Perhaps, people purely interested in being at a top 20 would only have those three ring a bell (because they are looking at things from a very superficial point of view not doing their research. Fortunately, this is basically now required among applicants). However, Emory (for those who actually care) is actually known for a myriad of other things at the undergraduate level and unfortunately economics (nor math, physics, and CS) isn't one of them. English, history, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, religion, African American Studies, sociology, things of that nature. For example, I would have easily just enrolled at Georgia Tech if it weren't for the other strengths, regardless of it being 35 and Emory 20. I hate the way this sounds, but I would agree with him that most economics (when a singular major) majors are not the least "squeamish" or most fearless of majors. In fact, because of the softness of our department, I think the threshold to join their honors society is unusually high for a social science department with a heavy quantitative emphasis (I think political science, for example, may have a lower threshold because it's the opposite. It's surprisingly rigorous vs. what a student generally expects from a non-quantitative social science major. I've taken some of the courses myself, and am quite impressed. I think the psychology major at Emory is also much more intense than psychology majors at other, even, comparable peer institutions). However, again, for single econ. majors at Emory, I have to unfortunately agree.


    BTW, aluminum is certainly not that way in person . Sometimes what appears harsh in words on this forum, is not as harsh when you can actually look at Emory and see what it's actual strengths and weaknesses are. As far as I'm concerned, I find the pre-prof. strength stereotype to be kind of untrue based upon my observations. I believe that pre-law is excellent (but not because we have a solid law school, but because the majors that most pre-laws pursue at Emory are really good), pre-med is not great (though, if you're not pre-med, the science instruction is great because you don't have to constantly take mickey mouse science courses and instructors), and BBA is primarily good for job placement (which is I guess what it's made for) and not really the stimulating academic environment that you can find elsewhere in the college. Again, this is based upon my experiences and observations. And Aluminum's experiences inform his opinions regardless of how crass they come off. I can be very harsh on Emory too, but it's because I know it can be better in areas that it only pretends to be good at, and can make the areas that actually are excellent shine a bit more than they are now. Based upon where I see the richest academic experiences coming from, Emory should not be overly known for the pre-professions, but more so for the liberal arts that could indeed assist in the pursuit of the pre-professions. The strong liberal arts departments (of which there are many) are far under marketed.

    Let's not kid ourselves now. Chances are, when you ask people what their majors are, they will answer either, they are pre Med, pre Law, or BBA.

    Also, that's what Emory is good at, according to the rankings.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    And many of those at other elite schools such as Harvard will say that they are pre-law, pre-med, or pre-Investment banking (despite the fact that Harvard has no BBA and nor do several other elite schools with a student body obsessed with that option). Welcome to small elite private schools who have tons of parents who are wealthy and/or are in these professions themselves.
    Also, people will say their major first and then express whether they are pre-professional or not lol. And I would actually posit that less students are entering Emory decidedly in favor of a pre-prof. track and even if they are, they don't necessarily know which it is. Now among the pre-profs, the pre-meds and pre-BBAs are most confident starting from freshman year (however, now-a-days a surprising amount of freshmen starting in the sciences will flat out not be interested in pre-med or the other tracks. They're just doing some stuff). Students seem to more or less find their ways toward pre-law and a significant portion of those in the humanities and social sciences will go to graduate school or work for various organizations afterwards (if not start their own organization).

    Also, the rankings say that our law school is good, the med. school is good, the business school is good. You know what's just as good, several of Laney's Graduate School programs (such as the departments I mentioned and several biological science fields), the nursing school, the public health school (this is the highest ranked professional school), and the Theology School. Oh, and you know what else, the Undergraduate entity is ranked in the top 20! The undergraduate entity only encompasses the nursing school, b-school, and ECAS. Pre-med and pre-law are not ranked by such agencies (however, some interesting rankings have ranked us high for a place to be for writers. Gee, that may explain why many people will come here and happily study English with no particular direction in mind at first). I believe you are conflating the rankings of prof. schools with undergrad. Their is no relationship (despite the folks who do apply to these private schools based upon the idea that there must be a relationship as many do to Emory. The fact that Emory's pre-med success rate trails Hopkins by 10+% despite having a similar quality student body and the same amount of pre-meds kind of tells you that many make this mistake. Pre-med at Emory and quality of health related prof. schools are not related. The quality of those schools vs. the relative quality of the UG experience of many of those pursuing them is night and day!) And again, all the other elite schools are good at those things too.

    By your logic, this is why many top students choose all top private schools, and not just Emory. And that logic with that claim is supported by data. There are, for example, some smaller or same sized peer institutions with more pre-professionals per those 3 categories than Emory has (for example, Harvard and Hopkins may have more pre-meds along some other schools. I think I saw some data some months ago that suggested so. Plenty of places have more pre-laws and I also believe that many BBA programs have a larger enrollment than ours) so this isn't unusual. It's relatively difficult to explain the large chunk of people who fall outside of those 3 spheres (especially at the beginning) if they didn't think these schools were good at anything else.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    Let's not kid ourselves now. Chances are, when you ask people what their majors are, they will answer either, they are pre Med, pre Law, or BBA

    This is the exact same as any non-tech oriented top school. Except they have better math and CS programs. It is always skewed like this.

    No offense to him but the way he put it (and from reading his previous posts in other threads) made him sound like he is self centered, pompous, elitist, and arrogant whose first choice was not even Emory (correct me if I'm wrong but he's a math major when Emory is really only known for Goizueta, Law, and Medical School) and the only reason he "chose" Emory was because it's the only top 20 school that accepted him.

    You can call me that. I'd only agree with elitist and maybe self centered, but at the end of the day, I wish I had an aluminum_boat telling me what to do four years ago.

    In every one of my posts, I've encouraged students to not settle for mediocrity - to pursue double majors, to take interesting classes and professors, and to get a quantitative background. I've always talked up Prelaw, classics, english and a couple other departments. I've always been honest about the math department (lower level classes suck, but upper level courses do not), premed (good if you challenge yourself. Horrible if you do not), and econ (just avoid this. or supplement with somethign else).

    I've called administration out on their ******** when it comes to the math and cs department. I want that to change.

    I've been on CC for four years. Still giving advice and helping out where I can when most people would say I don't owe this community anything. How many other emory students can say that? Often, I agree with Bernie. My delivery isn't as friendly as his though, which I admit.

    FWIW, I applied to three schools. State school, Emory, and Penn. Emory is the only top 20 that took me. Upenn did not.


    Also, at $250k, I think high school kids deserve an honest no-bullcrap opinion on what it's like here and what their career choice is like. If someone wants a "the world is great and everything is perfect" picture", then they need to go to their friends. Not an anonymous poster on CC.
    I'm not here to talk you up. I'm here to tell you my honest opinion on everything.

    Same goes for my chance threads... If you want a "yea, I'd say you're definitely in", then ask your friends... Not me. I'll give you want I honestly think. Because you deserve realistic, or even slightly pessimistic, opinions.


    Also, it's not like I take english majors and tell them to do CS (something they probably have little interest in). I usually tell math or BBA studetns to do that.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    What's wrong with you aluminum_boat? You should have just applied to Vandy instead of Penn or Emory :p lol (clever inside joke) because it's so much fun and "equal" academically!

    In all seriousness though, good to see you at least applied to two similar top 20s as opposed to nearly all of them (and then looking at the acceptances and narrowing it down to the "easiest", I mean..."most balanced" schools).
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    Joking aside, my point is that, although I'm more blunt than necessary, I want everyone here to end up successful and avoid the mistakes that I (and Bernie, and doryphorous) made.



    And, I've never dissed Oxford. Plenty of people on campus do. They're elitists (but unlike me, they're elitists in a bad way).
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    Gonna be blunt, the people on campus who diss Oxford are idiotically clueless (like those people on main who've lived in a bubble for so long that they believe that Georgia Tech can't be better or more difficult at anything than Emory because Tech is a public school. These are also the same people that think Berkeley is private. I've seriously met people like this) and are overly stereotypical for people who attend a top 20. I just want them to laugh at the more well-developed (which may be in much higher abundance than those at a research 1 private institution) Oxford students when they are destroying a course that many on main campus wouldn't dare even take. Gotta love the Oxford haters!
  • whenhenwhenhen Registered User Posts: 5,638 Senior Member
    Let's not save Oxford from the criticism. It likely deserves to be bashed more than any of the CAS intro math/ CS courses.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    No way in hell When When.... unless you are talking about those trig courses (which the intro. calc. courses on main might as well be) lol; Unless you're being facetious, which wouldn't surprise me. From my perspective, I know most general science courses are much better there. Social science intros, probably better, lots of stuff better on average for the average first and second year student. It's only comparable when you choose the best instructors for such classes on main, and most people won't because "they're too hard", you know the common refrain heard among students at research universities. It's the difference between being forced into an overall rigorous/more enriching environment vs. being given the choice to challenge oneself/enrich oneself (and we know that many at elite R-1 institutions choose otherwise. You know, "I need an A no matter what!"). I'm of course only discussing academic differences.

    I'll take a quick jab though. Many of our chemistry instructors kill y'alls (my southern drawl) though. I don't wanna talk about the ones that don't (some are almost akin to a less rigorous instructor at a community college. The weaker/more average pre-med students take such instructors. Again, it's all because of "choice". Night and day differences across sections of a single course)
  • whenhenwhenhen Registered User Posts: 5,638 Senior Member
    Oh I was being completely serious, but I should have clarified that Oxford deserves the internal critiques it gets from current and past students. What biology majors who started at CAS say about Oxford should be regarded in the exact same way that one might pronounce their eventual degree title - BS.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    Hahaha! Nice....you got me! You're right though, most of the courses are "medical school lite" type of courses (and the pre-meds know it. When they tell you their schedule, you can almost instantly predict a high GPA based upon the biology courses they include). I had to cherrypick the ones that require any level of analysis or problem solving (or just thinking in general. I don't equate thinking to having a flashback about something I read on a powerpoint slide and then recording that flashback on the test). Also, thank goodness for my chemistry training because it probably gave me an advantage in the more rigorous biology courses/instructors I chose.

    It is hilarious. I laughed when I noticed that human physiology now has TA sessions. Not only that, but some instructors upload worksheets that they go to the TA sessions to get answers for. I looked at the worksheets and the "problems" were equivalent to those worksheets you get in HS where you just open the book and copy the answers onto the sheet. Why they need a session to have someone explain to them how to copy and read information from a book, I don't know. If I was a standard/average pre-health, my training in biology would be extremely poor and I know it. But pre-healths don't need to actually become good at biology (they just need to make A's in some biology courses pretty much. No need to "think like a biologist/any sort of scientist), so there is no incentive to change it. Oxford on the otherhand has graduated some great biologists (and chemists for that matter). I won't mention names (one is at Stanford for grad and the other Caltech!). Again sometimes, I look at the science courses in some depts at top 20s (normally the top 5 or 10 aren't guilty) and say, "wow, and this place has a really high caliber student body huh?!". You wonder how some of us get away with it.
  • aluminum_boataluminum_boat Registered User Posts: 1,539 Senior Member
    Aigiqinf is an econ student. Nontraditional though. He's bright. But I'd question whether that comes from his econ background. I bet it comes from his oxford background. Even if it's from econ, he's still doing a unique path and that's what's helped him.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    He's pretty sick! Doesn't he also do history (I think he has a grad. history course or maybe it's econ)? Regardless, he is very similar to some of the more academically passionate main campus students we know who are very serious about their studies and pursuing it (again, not really equivalent to simply earning the highest grades) to the highest level possible without much complaints. He is a social science equivalent of these people, somewhat reminiscent of many of those who end up receiving the Britain (fail at spelling?) and McMillan (fail at spelling again?) award (they often are the most intense of the social science and humanities majors even though major doesn't matter for those awards).


    Another random biology anecdote that me and aluminum might get (he knows the guy in question): Me and another friend had to tell a friend in Eisen's cell biology who has similar training (extensive chemistry and biology training with some courses at the graduate level) to me before I took Eisen's class to dumb down his talk to exclude the chemistry references/explanations because most of the audience won't understand it or will have already forgotten it. Eisen himself may enjoy it, but we all know that most of the audience would be lost. I remember the class as having tons of students who had never had a non-powerpoint based/regurgitation oriented biology course. In addition, his class would start off full and then decline by 20+ people within the add/drop/swap period when they found out that it was a "research-intensive" course instead of pure lecture. Good times in the biology department....good times. While that was certainly a great class, I enjoyed the environment of my graduate classes (and physical biology. The math and physics students, both undergrad. and graduate, were damned good!) much better because the students were far more interested and prepared.
  • whenhenwhenhen Registered User Posts: 5,638 Senior Member
    I'm pretty sure aigiqnf has taken every course at Emory and completed every internship ever offered.
This discussion has been closed.