<p>From the moment I visited UChicago a few months ago, I absolutely fell in love with the campus and its atmosphere. This has been my first choice school ever since. </p>
<p>I plan on doing pre-med, with a major in Chemistry. I recently read something, however, about how the chemistry program emphasizes material outside of usual, mainstream undergrad chem courses so that students taking the MCATs are at a severe disadvantage. Can anyone comment on this? Thanks.</p>
<p>S1 has taken chem at an Ivy and more chem at Chicago. He said the base material is the same, only that Chicago encourages one to extend and explore the material a little more, while the focus is more a practical approach (whatever that is) at the other school. He prefers Chicago’s approach. He did get a lot of, “why are you asking that, it won’t be on the MCATs,” from many of his Ivy classmates. He said that would never happen at Chicago.</p>
<p>The AAMC lists the topics on the MCAT, if you want to look them over.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/preparing/pstopics.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/preparing/pstopics.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/preparing/bstopics.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/preparing/bstopics.pdf</a></p>
<p>Assuming you’ve had any chemistry in high school, you should already know most of the physical sciences section. The organic chemistry section in the biological sciences section is probably mostly new topics for you, but it is basic material covered in any organic chemistry class.</p>
<p>Actually, my cousin is high up in the Chicago ladder, and told me she was impressed with my chemistry grades (which I told her) because there were serious discussions going in the chem department about grading, because too few kids were doing well in chem, which was actually hurting kids getting into medical school. </p>
<p>I’m a premed, but, my attitude is that I should be able to rise to the challenge 
when you get here though, I’m sure the grading will be friendlier (as in, they are actively changing it)</p>
<p>It’s nice to hear that someone wants to rise to the challenge.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that too many people in general have the attitude “I can’t believe they’re grading so hard. It’s THEIR fault I’m not going to get into a top Med School/Law School/Grad School/or even Undergrad.”
instead of
“I can’t believe I didn’t put twice as much effort into this because its twice as difficult. It’s MY fault for not working hard enough at this.”</p>
<p>I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t really feel comfortable with letting people become doctors if they are only willing to do the bare minimum to get into so and so med school. They should actually care and be willing to rise to any challenege that is presented to them if they really want to become a doctor.</p>
<p>I personally like the harsh grading because it makes people like Smirkus who should stand out, actually stand out. If the grading isn’t all that difficult, then people like Smirkus who really do care and go the extra mile will blend in with those who just study for the sole sake of passing a test to look good in the eyes of others.</p>
<p>Sorry if that post came off as narrow-minded or overly critical.</p>
<p>I’m on the humanities end of the spectrum, where the grading is probably more generous, but I’m all the way with you, Gleas. Due to my non-standing-out at Chicago, graduating with honors or any kind of academic accolade is a pipe dream for me.</p>
<p>Perhaps I could do a “Waah waah waah, I won’t get into the dream grad school/law school with these grades,” but honestly, I’m not smart enough for that dream grad school or dream law school. There are tons of other people who deserve it more-- all I have to do is introduce you to my friends, housemates, and classmates. And if I’m not smart enough for dream grad school here, moving to another school with an “easier” curve won’t make me any smarter. And it’s not as though my GPA is downright awful-- it’s just fine-- and it’s good enough to make me a serious candidate for the grad programs I’m thinking about. That’s good enough for me.</p>
<p>I also am a little annoyed regarding the general trend towards academic complacency that exists at most institutions of higher ed and somewhat at Chicago. It seems like my friends at other schools need to actively pursue a challenge; challenge won’t just come and find them.</p>
<p>So yeah. There are people here who are really really really deliriously smart, and those kids get highlighted for their academic prowess and other institutions want to gobble them up. Then there are people like me, who are nowhere near as smart but are in it for the experience and for getting kicked around a bit. I did not want my college to be a four-year parade of people giving me A’s-- I wanted it to be a four-year parade of professors handing me detailed comments on my papers and showing me ways to improve.</p>
<p>I think the issue the department is likely trying to address is not the “waa waa” factor. In contrast, I would wager its likely has received feedback (from actual admissions committees, respected professors, employers) that their grades are not effective in evaluating students. </p>
<p>Really, it is unreasonable to expect even admissions committees (never mind human resource personnel) across the diversity of fields that chemistry leads into engineering, natural sciences, medicine to learn the course by course departmental idiosyncrasies even of a handful of top universities. So if Chicago wants to elect to have a relatively rigorous grading policy, it has to at least make sure there is some reasonable degree of homogeneity across classes and departments so that the external informational value of grades, i.e. ranking students between schools, is not lost. </p>
<p>Occasionally, I believe UChicago (and other schools) fail in doing this, since they make the mistake of letting professors impart an element of objective quality commentary into grades, which are really meant for measure relative performance.</p>