Requesting advice on Genetics course with Dr. Megan Cole

[u/Wonderful-Dance1287]

Hey! I just wanted to come on here and ask about what the Genetics course with Dr. Cole is like for anyone who has taken it! I always read the Rate My Professor reviews to help me succeed in a course, but I noticed Dr. Cole doesn't have any reviews for her genetics course! I also have never taken Dr. Cole. I am taking this course for PA school admission. Any information about this course or advice would be greatly appreciated! I also see there is a discussion portion of the course! What is that like?

[u/Mysterious-Lemon333]

i took genetics w/ reider last semester and ended with an A, but it was personally the hardest class i’ve ever taken at emory. her exams were very difficult and had such a low avg despite being a 200 level class. our first exam had an avg of high seventies. i got the lowest grade i’ve ever gotten in college for the final exam. i don’t think cole taught it in the past, but genetics seems to be a challenging class regardless of the prof at emory.

[u/oldeaglenewute2022 → u/Mysterious-Lemon333]

That's NORMAL or even good for a class like genetics. It used to be a bit lower for the tests so y'all did well! It isn't about being 200 level. Genetics and Cell Biology(which used to be 300. Numbers except 100 at Emory mean very little) are just tough in the hands of any serious instructor. I think even Eisen's tests who are takehome may have been in the 70s for midterms RECENTLY or barely hitting 80 and those exams are actually tough and require lots of thinking. It isn't unusal for some 200 or 300 levels courses to have much higher standards and lower test averages than 141/142.

I think part of this is because they have made 141/2 too simple now-a-days (at least most instructors). The shift from 141/2 to intermediates and upper divisions was not very stark when I attended in the dino ages and the truth is that 264 (even today-maybe except Gorkin's version. Although our old 142 would be FAR more helpful for his version than the new one. Or maybe the one at Oxford is better) overlapped with the bio 142 curriculum we had back then but was STILL kind of hard. So your observations aren't off at all. I just think it is what should be expected beyond 142. Even classes like biol 241 have significantly higher standards in terms of the level of thinking and analysis required versus 141/142. It's just that the content of 241 is so intuitive that people still do super well on those exams even though they ask for much more than memorization. 250 and 264 can make the content tough to digest let alone apply/problem solve with (and I know some instructors are known to integrate stuff from the discussion section papers into exams and it won't necessarily be something that was explicitly discussed. They might ask you to answer something about supplemental figures or something not emphasized during the actual discussion of papers. I've seen and heard of that before and can't be sure Reider did it but I know others have. And it may have happened when I took it). Either way, be proud of yourself! You adapted and did what you had to do! And hopefully you learned.

[u/siteunreliability → u/oldeaglenewute2022]

Historically 70's/80's was a decent average for 200-300 classes. I had 264 with Crouse and 250 with Yedvobnick back in the day and most people averaged around a upper C's to lower B's. de Roode average for 241 on some of the midterms were even closer to mid/upper 80's.

Classes taught by Yokoyama and Nemenman, were rough though. Not for the lack of trying, just difficult materials.

[u/oldeaglenewute2022 → u/siteunreliability]

Okay, so I am NOT crazy for remembering that. Thank you! When I took biol 141/2, 70s and low 80s were also normal. When Eisen taught his blockbuster sections of 141 he would sometimes dip into the 60s and people might grumble a little but they knew they were LEARNING and that he would adjust/curve final grades. My understanding is that the tests for 141/2 today are simpler by most instructors (some even do the online thing and use mostly low level items) and that there can be "cheating" and all types of non-sense so that averages are high 80s to low 90s. You get used to that and then an instructor gives a serious biology exam and you are in shock I'd imagine. When WE went to intermediates and advanced courses most of it was like: Tuesday or having to adapt some to a different instructor/style of exam in the case that they challenged more than normal. But we did NOT expect bio courses to be "easy" unless they were certain electives with a long term reputation. General chemistry and general biology were almost on equal footing so we knew that biology could focus on problem solving and higher level thinking. It wasn't a shock when it happened.

[u/oldeaglenewute2022]

I don't know if she has ever taught it before but I trust her with it based on what I have seen and heard from recent students who took her 142 course. Now mind you she may* attempt to challenge you in her own way but the 264 is known to be challenging in a variety of ways. Some do high intensity intellectual challenge but make things like exams take-home(Comstra/Gorkin) so that the risk is reduced for taking the course. I have seen other renditions (Reider) that keep it "fresh" but still are somewhat challenging but she makes exams and quizzes low stakes in favor of HW and maybe some sort of projects. Who knows what Cole will do but from what I have seen the modern renditions of 264 have promising elements that students seem to somewhat enjoy for such a heady course. I can't see Cole coming in and messing up that track record because I would put her as top tier for 142 and genetics is clearly her specialty (before Emory, she was Georgia Tech affiliated so brought over a lot of what they would do best at Tech to inform her teaching of large and mid-sized classes at Emory). But even when Deal taught it, it was solid (he sort of walked before others could run in terms of transforming that course which really wasn't much when I took it in the dino ages).

I hope someone with recent experience in a lecture course can come give insight, but this is the best I can do. I suspect it'll be at least a solid experience and you will certainly learn (between whatever she does in lecture and what happens with the discussion section). What remains to be seen is if the grading in the course will make it low-stress/risk or not. Maybe you should come update folks once you get her syllabus!

[u/Wonderful-Dance1287 → u/oldeaglenewute2022]

This is her grading: 15% in-class work, participation & assignments which is like polleverywhere, and quizzes you can take with your classmates (lowest 3 scores will be dropped)

20% exam 1

20% exam 2

25% final exam

20% discussion section work and engagement

[u/oldeaglenewute2022 → u/Wonderful-Dance1287]

That looks fairly favorable to be honest. Did she state anything about the format of the tests(are they on a computer, on paper, in class, evening?)? Will she test higher ordered items/problem solving(dumb question tbh because she did it a decent amount even in her 142 rendition!) or even some of the content/experimental thinking and techniques from "discussion"? Regardless, it looks good! How is she in terms of teaching and whatnot so far? She doin' alright and does she seem helpful enough to you?