<p>No, I think you underestimate the benefit of GERs. Also, I think they are probably more flexible than you think. Often your GERs will be quite fun and perhaps encourage you to pursue another area of interest alongside your primary area. Emory has lots of GERs and I’ve enjoyed it so far. And honestly, I came with 7-8 APs and dropped half of them to retake those courses (like bio 1 and freshmen Writing Requirement. Should have skipped bio 1, it was hard for me, but English was awesome and very interesting. I also learned how to write in the less rigid style that Emory profs. prefer as opposed to the rather boring formulaic style encouraged in AP Eng/History Courses. Needless to say it wasn’t easy, but I did well) and simply because I didn’t need the other ones. AP credit or not, I still had to take Health, a frosh seminar, at least 1 sem. of bio and chem. I took freshmen orgo. instead of gen. chem 2 via my AP credit allowance. Best decision I ever made, That class was awesome and it really toughened me up. It makes the classes at even peers look simple like simple orgo b/c Soria showed no mercy and decided to teach us at a higher level than a normal orgo. class.<br>
GERs are nothing like HS, you get to take them in certain broad areas and they are normally taught in a more engaging way than HS courses. </p>
<p>I honestly think Emory’s academic environment was much tougher and scholarly before the new GERs which are almost too flexible. Before 2008 (when I came in), Emory was more like a liberal arts college with a really tough core where you had to take courses in very specific areas (say, “Politics” as opposed to “Humanities, Sciences, and Culture” which very vague). This was beneficial in the sense that it actually bought the students together more often. I imagine the science and social science/humanities students to be much more integrated back then. You didn’t have science majors activity avoiding (or perhaps even looking down upon) others in particular fields b/c they were made to at least take courses in those areas, thus building some appreciation and unity among the student body in the academic sense. Everyone must go outside of their comfort zone and perhaps collaborate with each other. It could have fostered much better legit “cross-disciplinary scholarship” instead of merely having so called “interdisciplinary depts” which still allows for self-segregation of students across disciplines so is only superficial. However, the whining caused that curriculum to be completely overhauled to a point where it reflects Emory’s liberal arts roots much less. I think they should have honestly settled for some middle ground. They should consider reinstating some of those requirements. It’ll restore a greater level of rigor and a common experience that makes the Emory experience/curriculum unique from similarly ranked research Us of our size (kind of like The science cores at MIT/Caltech that every student must go through, even non-engineering, and Columbia’s “core” and some Ivies’ Junior/Senior Projects. Unique unifying aspects that both induce and are indicative of rigor of an institution). </p>
<p>It really depends on the school. As a private school(especially as a supposedly top one, where you have to prove what makes the institution special compared to others, and often this is the curriculum or method of education) . Building a certain, unique academic experience is very important. And normally curricula such as those old GERs indicate at least an attempt to live up to the mission of the institution through methods of educating them. It may somewhat get in the way of “your good time”, but you’ll receive a broader and more rigorous education so that you can somewhat tackle or even be able to merely converse about topics outside of your specific area of interest/expertise. That’s always useful(or at least makes one more interesting). My experience tells me that it is not simply a method of control and actually serves a noble purpose. HS was a bunch of BS in the sense that a lot of stuff learned was often trivial and had little context. Really depends on how you look at it, and what aspects of higherEd you seek/value. As a future researcher, the actual academic experience matters a lot, the facilities/social atmosphere are just an added perk. I only need a “reasonable” social atmosphere, not a perfect one. As long as I have good teachers and friends, I can get over not being in “rah, rah” all the time. Speaking of this, you should know that even folks at very top schools known for rigor party on weekends(weekdays, w/e). Refer to the Yale controversies if you don’t believe. Anyone who manages time reasonably, can do solidly at a top school and have a vibrant social life. It may not be quite like a state schools’, but it is more than reasonable in most cases.</p>