Did a little investigation: I think Rochester and Emory are decently similar (I think Emory is most similar to WUSTL out of the selective schools. They just have similar curricula design and ideas clearly) in life sciences and I would expect that math and physics courses that pre-healths/STEM majors have to take would at least be on the same level (I didn’t look: I usually assume that on average the level of intro. courses in those areas is higher at other schools of similar and higher selectivity because Emory’s depts do not serve an engineering school and nor are they anchored to elite physics and math graduate program/research apparatuses like Chicago for example which is an exception to the engineering rule).
Some differences to consider:
Chemistry; Emory just changed its chemistry curriculum to bring in a decent amount of organic chemistry into the first year courses (including organic chemistry concepts most often covered in 2nd semester of organic chemistry). It isn’t a super hardcore introduction, but it is basically blended with traditional gen. chem concepts which you can learn about in these places:
http://chemistry.emory.edu/articulate/chemistry_unbound/story_html5.html
http://news.emory.edu/stories/2017/09/er_chemistry_curriculum/campus.html
These changes may not be well received by some (it is unclear if it is “pre-med friendly” as it kind of bucks traditional two year pre-med engagement with chemistry which is either 2 gen. chems and 2 ochems or 1 gen. chem, 2 ochems, and then biochem. Emory’s is close to a weird rendition of this latter version) but Emory’s undergraduate chemistry program is known for unusual rigor regardless (even prior to the change). I saw some of UR’s stuff, and it seems like it would be at the level of a more “standard” level classical general or organic chemistry course at Emory which is/was challenging for many but doable for most. Admittedly the majority of students take less “classical” instructors once the 3rd (a modern version of organic chemistry) and 4th (supposedly some mixture of material science and biochemical concepts…I am not quite sure and nor does the publication or information above make it clear) pre-health courses are hit
Biosciences: They look similar, but Rochester is more classical (as in most schools selective or not do it like this) in arrangement. It has molecular and cell first semester and more organismal biology/ecology second semester. Emory’s first semester is identical (actually they recently added in ecology/evolution concepts into the first semester and used it to re-frame the molecular cell stuff), and the second semester is basically a genetics course with a primary focus on molecular genetics and modern biotechnology/experimental biology concepts. I don’t think this difference changes difficulty because OP has AP credit in bio(? Actually I don’t know) and the AP bio curriculum has apparently changed to integrate more of the stuff Emory covers in its second semester, when it used to be more ecology/evolution heavy back in the dinosaur ages of 2008 when I took it. I still remember being pleasantly surprised that Emory didn’t just rehash all of that in the second semester and instead hit me with new content. However, current students/prospies will have been exposed to both styles. What that does mean is that the actual genetics courses look a little different with UR covering the stuff Emory covered in gen. bio and Emory doing something a little different, veering towards human genetics (which means more coverage of epigenetics which we now know relevant to human diseases now-a-days) and keeping the emphasis more on the experimental aspect as opposed to more math/classical genetics concepts.
Appears Rochester has “recitations” for many intermediate biology classes. I am unsure how they are used and how the associated lectures are run. Usually when I think “recitation” I think review and maybe some out of lecture review (which at some schools apparently entails extra lecturing), problem solving, and quizzes, things that maybe the lecture component doesn’t have time for. Emory doesn’t have these and instead has a big undergraduate TA mentoring and tutoring system which is associated with additional problem sets that are technically optional. But this mainly applies to lower division courses/pre-med classes. At the intermediate and advanced level, many biology courses do have “discussion” which is usually for reading and presenting primary literature, but is every so often used for other activities (for example evolutionary biology and math-based upper division courses may integrate a simulation/modelling exercise or something)
As much as it interests me, It shouldn’t really matter to a prospie(I usually think pedagogy and assessment style usually matter more than arrangement of content for most life sciences courses. Admittedly chemistry is tricky, but I don’t wanna go there right now). Students should just get somewhere, learn the material to the highest level possible, and do the best they can. One can get the right type of challenge from Emory, Rochester, and many other places…and even at gasp! Much less “prestigious” undergraduate programs that have put lots of money into their STEM curricula and pedagogy. UMD is an example:https://nexus.umbc.edu/ Several of its campus have implemented the NEXUS revamp of life sciences curricula. I saw some materials resulting from it and they are damned good and are at just as high a level or higher than many “elite” schools, especially those I saw from College Park. So there are so many schools that one can find that are great for pre-healths because of the resources/opportunities AND because they pay exceptional levels of attention to how they deliver their STEM/pre-health courses. It is very possible to be in a place that still challenges students in a useful way that isn’t ultra competitive/super duper selective. You just need to do the research. One can have several pieces of cake and eat all of them.