- The answer is yes, but I must add that no one should ever think about a major in that context. Med. schools require like 8 STEM classes and they are mostly intro. sequences. You should never feel pressured to major in STEM (or choose between majors in STEM) simply because its requirements align well. Most non-Bachelors of Science majors are less crowded credit hour wise so easily accommodate those 8 pre-health courses. Do note that there is no need to major in both simply because you like both topics. It is very easy to get a lot out of both without majoring. Pre-health requires you to take up to chem 204 anyway. Chem 204 is usually the pre-req. course required for most of the biochemistry oriented upper divisions courses in chemistry (systems/biochem. 1 and chemical biology, are the two current courses they've rolled out for the new curric). If you complete the first 4 chem. requirements, you get access to lots of chem. upper division courses. It is kind of like how completion of NBB 301 gets you access to most NBB housed NBB electives.
- Uhmmm...I don't see why not. That goes for any major you pursue. Emory is challenging, but fair grading. Some of the best classes will likely require different thinking and learning than in HS, but if you adapt to these differences (and there will be resources including the professor to help you) and put your best effort forward, then you'll get out whatever that best effort is.When one of these teachers challenges to "think out the box" or "think on your feet" a little on assignments or exams, don't feel defeated if you are caught by surprise on your first go around with that format and just decide "it is impossible for me to score well on those level problems". Simply find someone, who is the instructor or TA/mentor (former student who did well in that section) to help you get to that level, so it's also about resilience and willingness to get help in order to get that extra edge. When I TAed and tutored these style courses at Emory, the disproportionate amount of students that were most engaged and sought additional private tutoring were those with the higher GPAs. On average Emory students are very high achieving and more likely to have had serious exposures to life sciences in HS that make them more competitive in "non-standard" STEM courses. However, despite this, the well-prepared students seek lots of help.
. - ??? I mean, you'll have to compete with everyone else. through OPUS I have written on here who are the best life sciences instructors so I can go look at who is teaching them and quickly list who you should shoot for in those freshman classes (I assume you are starting fresh and will use no AP credits for STEM): I assume that if you are doing NBB you will probably double up in chem/biol first year. The way, I qualify teachers is based on how well they explain content, or facilitate a class section. In addition, I take into account mentoring and whether or not their assignments, exams, activities stress a decent level of problem solving and applications (versus memorization). I usually do not rate highly professors who give only multiple choice tests (especially if they are in a reasonably sized section) or those who stick to pure lecture format in class sections (lecture is okay, if you engage students and maybe use Socratic method or frequently ask questions or stop to do real activities. But if you just get up there and talk at students for most of 50 or 75 minutes from power points...not good)
Bio 141 which needs explanation (partly because professors who teach 141 are not guaranteed to return for 1420 :De Rhoode (competitive though) was not teaching this when I was at Emory (he taught evol which he was EXCELLENT for), but appears to have the best reputation among 141 instructors now and was key to redesigning the curriculum some (slightly described on his website:http://deroodelab.org/teaching/). Always great to take someone who heads curriculum redesign for the redesigned course lol (like McGill for 150/202) and plus he clearly runs his course with more active learning as all of the lecture track professors teaching past renditions of 141/142 have despite being a top tier research faculty ; 2nd choice, Abreu (who has two sections): Is alright, incorporates active learning, mentoring potential.
If Spell comes around for 142, definitely consider her. Has rigorous, but good standards that inspire hard working students (she, through a take-home quiz in bio 141 3 years ago, led to 2 students in her section working towards an E.bola kit during that semester. I think one of the co-participants in the project ended up winning some money for pitching the idea/presenting the product).
She gets great and lasting learning outcomes, but students expecting intro biology to work a certain way may not be appreciative until taking upper division or intermediate research/experimental biology focus courses. It’s a very “you’ll thank me later” sort of situation with her (her RMP rating, for example is way lower than what it should be based upon quality of her teaching. Most of the reviews reveal that the students were upset because she challenged them to seriously apply the content on exams. Among negative reviewers, the “doesn’t test exactly what she teaches” trope was there quite a bit. And some basically just said: “I had a 4/5 AP and expected to breeze through this, but even I had to work and think hard”…well duh, you’re at an elite university very serious about teaching life sciences that understands that a good chunk of students in the course have AP/IB credit). I actually remember one year (maybe my junior year), she gave a case study packet (I was a tutor) which contained the original letters and memos between doctors who were in the midst of discovering sickle cell anemia and its molecular basis and students had to derive a model for it and answer questions based upon those letters. I doubt she goes that far anymore, but she knows how to get serious students engaged/interested (the E. bola kit thing came about because she structured her 141 and 142 class, its activities, quizzes, and tests around the “disease of the year”. That year was E.bola and the next was Zika). Definitely among Emory’s great instructors.
chem 150:McGill (and she has two sections, so your chances are increased), 2nd choice: Jeremy Weaver. These are too strong lecture track faculty that really care about teaching undergraduates. Most sections are standardized in terms of the exams to my knowledge, and these are the best/most enthusiastic teachers, so just pick them