4/5 is sufficient to exempt 1/2 of whatever science sequence (and as you know with math, B/C credit lets you exempt and receive transfer credit for calc. 1 and 2). I am not sure how the new system will work. The current one works such that if you have 4/5, you may sit out gen. chem 1 and just take gen. chem 2, or you may opt to take ochem which is a good option if you are majoring but is less good if you say, a pre-med trying to major in something else. IF the new system allows credit to go towards the new intro. course they design (I think it should or else the class’s enrollment will balloon and the new roundtable classroom they are going to use may not be able to accommodate this increase), you will be able to engage whatever the other 4 foundation courses are without taking pchem. Since they can be take in any order, my guess is that some will be offered both semesters. Based on the choices cited in that article, you may choose pchem (it won’t be the difficult pchem you heard of but more like a thermodynamics and kinetics course, IE general chemistry with the calculus behind the concepts being discussed. I think those teaching it are hoping students like you with AP credit in math will take it), biochemistry, a semester level organic (I imagine it will be ochem-lite…depending on who is teaching it, avoid it if you actually value learning things at a decent level, I trust more that the others will be taught at sufficient levels as this one has always had problems when certain instructors taught it), and inorganic (this can be cool if applications are stressed-but topic wise, I consider it boring when the concepts are taught in a vacuum). Either way, what is happening is that courses traditionally at the advanced level are now going to be taught such that they are accessible to those who are just starting chemistry and have some college level foundation (either the intro course or AP/IB). Then I think they are redesigning the upperlevels so that they go in more depth or emphasize a different set of skills that you should be able to apply because you’ve already had heavy exposure to the material in all of them in the 1st 2 years at Emory.
As far as I’m concerned, you should look out for the following teachers (I don’t know what they’ll be doing in the curriculum but they will continue to be excellent and unique in what and how they teach in a good way-though some are more rigorous than what you would get elsewhere) if you came to Emory for chemistry: Weinert (biochemistry), Lutz (biochemistry), Mulford (general/inorganic), McGill (general), Salaita (a range of things including analytical and biochemistry because he’s a biophysical chemist), Soria (organic related topics), Weinschenk (organic-maybe biochem), Weaver (general, analytical), Snyder (I hope his molecular modelling class survives), McDonald (but only for upper levels or better yet special topics. He doesn’t really teach large sections well). If any of these folks teach the foundation courses, take them because they’ll prep you well for advanced courses better other teachers (or if they teach at several levels, you can take them again and establish a mentoring relationship or whatever).