Top 30 Undergrad vs. State School: My Firsthand Experience

[nOchemallday]

P.S.S. I recall comparing the tests for several of my classes with those on MIT open courseware, way back when taking those classes, and not noticing significant differences in rigor. I feel that this supposed difference in rigor is grossly exaggerated.

I got to a "not important" (i.e. who even knows what number it's ranked) private university and my thermodynamics professor was a PhD from MIT. We found out by the 3rd lecture that he was giving lectures IDENTICAL to the MIT videos. We're a quarter system school and finished all of the same content taught at MIT during their 36 lectures. I'll admit our class' distribution was probably far worse than MIT's, but the best of our class didn't need the inevitable curve. Obviously this isn't a systematic review of rigor, but I don't doubt for a second that the best students at many institutions would be able to succeed while not complaining about their GPA had they attended a top30.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

I'm in a Bio class with very easy tests. I was happy after I received a 90, wait no... The class curves to a B- and the average was in the high 80s. No, the rigor of tests makes little difference if the professor grades on a scale at a top university where competition is fierce, but it is nice to do well on a test even if it means a B-.

how does this even make sense? does your school not have some kind of predetermined scale for what each number grade converts to as a letter grade? I find it hard to believe that any course can give you a B- for a 90. that's just unbelievably unreasonable, curve or not.

 

[Kochanie]

how does this even make sense? does your school not have some kind of predetermined scale for what each number grade converts to as a letter grade? I find it hard to believe that any course can give you a B- for a 90. that's just unbelievably unreasonable, curve or not.

No predetermined scales... That is why it is difficult, you're competing against others for a grade. The average really doesn't matter in the end. If anything, I wish he made the exam harder so there would be a larger distribution. Instead, every couple of percent is a different grade. If professors had predetermined scales at my school, everyone would do extremely well or extremely bad.

 

[moop]

I hate it when people complain about this. If you knew you wanted to be a doctor, then why did you choose to go to a fancy school? Like many other things in life, good judgment and a good strategy are key to success. It doesn't take a genius to succeed in medical school, and adcoms are more concerned about keeping their stats high than feeling sorry for a bunch of applicants who made things more difficult for themselves than they had to be.

And also like many other things in life, there is no cut and dry answer. There is much more to college than gunning and jumping hoops to become a doctor. The resources and opportunities offered by a "fancy school" provide more positive social benefit than any old average state school ever can. Med schools care about well roundedness and life experiences just as much as grades; being smart and taking advantage of the available opportunities can also be key to success

 

[GaiusOctavius]

No predetermined scales... That is why it is difficult, you're competing against others for a grade. The average really doesn't matter in the end. If anything, I wish he made the exam harder so there would be a larger distribution. Instead, every couple of percent is a different grade. If professors had predetermined scales at my school, everyone would do extremely well or extremely bad.

What school do you attend and is every class honestly curved this way?

 

[Kochanie]

What school do you attend and is every class honestly curved this way?

Not every class, just pre-reqs and a few low levels. The 300 Bio class I'm taking is like a breath of fresh air. Still no predetermined scale because I have never seen one in my time at my university...
Doesn't matter, top 15.
But it does make me feel very bad for students at schools that have classes that grade exclusively on a curve.

 

[SympatricSpeciation]

The people who come out on top at the best schools gain a lot from having gone there. The other side of the bell curve get screwed. High schoolers don't know enough to predict which side they will be closer to - they just know they're smart and want to go to a famous fancy school with other smart kids. I don't think they're the ones to blame.

This. Also, I don't understand the hostility toward OP, who makes a valid point that everyone knows is true deep inside, but as someone else pointed out, many on here choose to be in denial about. I'm also sick of the "entitlement" riposte to OP's very legitimate argument.

 

[PantherPride]

I don't think that the question is which schools are harder. On average, its harder to get a high GPA at top 20 schools than at other schools (with exceptions). The questions is what role should this play in admissions. A 3.2 isn't a competitive GPA for med school, no matter where you went for school. Of course your MCAT will attest for whether or not your low GPA could be a result of the difficulty of your school. But I think the take home message here is that wherever you go for school, you should be able to at least do somewhat well academically there.

 

[Jumb0]

I, for one, refuse to believe that a GPA from this state school I am attending weighs the same as one from a school like Caltech...it's just preposterous to think that adcoms are that naive. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a 3.2 from some top schools is tantamount to a 3.6 from some state schools. It would be absurd if adcoms didn't do some sort of adjustment.

 

[PantherPride]

I, for one, refuse to believe that a GPA from this state school I am attending weighs the same as one from a school like Caltech...it's just preposterous to think that adcoms are that naive. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a 3.2 from some top schools is tantamount to a 3.6 from some state schools. It would be absurd if adcoms didn't do some sort of adjustment.

It is already known that grade deflation is taken into account when looking at GPA depending on where you went to school.

 

[Kochanie]

It is already known that grade deflation is taken into account when looking at GPA depending on where you went to school.

Like .1 of a point. Looking at my university's med school stats, it's about a .15 difference for sGPAs.

 

[PantherPride]

Let me take WashU for example. This data is little dated but I think it is still a good example

http://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/Handbook.pdf

Their handbook has the acceptance rate for applicants with 4-3.8 GPA, 3.79-3.6, 3.59-3.4, 3.39-3.2 at 95%, 89%, 82%, 66%, respectively, significantly higher than national averages. A 3.2-3.4 GPA/30-32 MCAT at washu gives you a ~70% chance of acceptance. The national average for the same stats gives you a ~37% chance of acceptance.

 

[efle]

At your top 15 program was EVERY class curved down? For example, if the average on a particular test was a 90%, does a 90% become a C+? This is the only way your contention would make sense to me. Do all of your classes utilize a bell curve or are any other methods used to curve classes (e.g. grade forgiveness)? Not all of the courses at my state school even had a curve. It makes your argument irrelevant for those courses. For the classes that did curve, the average was still a C, and only the top ~5% end up with an A. Those top ~5% tend to be pretty smart and diligent workers, and if they were at a top 15 program, I'd bet they would still be earning As... Food for thought, most of the students who consistently had those grades at my school had exceptional MCAT scores (33-39).

P.s. There are differences in rigor between majors and classes (with different professors) at my institution. Some professors are easier than others. Are all majors, classes, and professors created equally at your institution (i.e. unanimously more difficult than state school classes)?

P.S.S. I recall comparing the tests for several of my classes with those on MIT open courseware, way back when taking those classes, and not noticing significant differences in rigor. I feel that this supposed difference in rigor is grossly exaggerated.

All of the prereq courses (~40 credits, majority of bcpm for people who apply junior spring) were curved, yes, though never down because the exam averages never broke above low 70s. cGPA can be inflated by taking easy classes or an easy major though, since yes there is a wide range of difficulty outside the BCPM core. As I've said a million times before, yes there are MIT caliber people at state, but fewer of them to beat for a given grade. As I've also said before, its not the coursework which is difficult, its the brilliance of the people you're being curved against.

Edit: That's funny about the exceptional MCATs. The average students here who consistently make B-B+'s score around 34 on the MCAT (source: talking with one of the docs who runs our school's MCAT prep course, and who used to be on the adcom for a tippy-top tier med school; the average diagnostic scores before review are ~28 and the average improvement is 6 points; an even distribution of GPAs takes the prep course). So yeah, the people in the top 5% of your class are the average people you're vying against around here, if you want to use MCAT as a metric.

 

[efle]

The link you posted reiterates the point that almost all the adcoms on this site have stated: Numbers get you to the door, everything else gets you through it.

Did you not read the first sentence of the discussion???: "These acceptance data show that some applicants with strong academic qualifications are not accepted into medical school and many with lower academic qualifications are."

or read any of it at all?: "While UGPA and MCAT scores help admissions committees identify academically qualified applicants, committees also consider non-academic data to identify applicants who best fit their schools’ unique educational missions and goals."

Calm down buddy. I think you missed my point. I think the system is so F'd up , unequal, and game-able that they shouldn't even be used to get you to the door (which is exactly what my link shows, they're of primary importance for getting interviews and still important for acceptance).

 

[Rhino1000]

Calm down buddy. I think you missed my point. I think the system is so F'd up , unequal, and game-able that they shouldn't even be used to get you to the door (which is exactly what my link shows, they're of primary importance for getting interviews and still important for acceptance).

They should create standardized comprehensive exams taken the semester before graduation, one for each of the 100 most common majors, tests with a fairly high ceiling so that not too many people are acing them, and then compare the average SAT/intelligence of each group so we can know how a percentile of one corresponds to as far as the the percentile of the other, to create a standardized index score generalizable to every one of the tests, and then they should tattoo the score onto each person, and finally, they should obviously hire the ones that score best. After all, a high index score is likely to also translate to a high index score describing standardized work competence, if such an index existed. This way the benefits of standardization will not only help with medical school admissions, but also in the job market.

I'm being facetious. By the way, don't think that I disagree with you. Standardization has its merits, but I wonder what they are trying to get out of GPA? Are they (adcoms, etc.) under the impression GPA is a good indicator of intelligence or competence within the major? Or are they trying to measure work ethic or what? It seems like GPA could be standardized somehow, but idk exactly in what way. A centralized educational system could probably do it somehow, an organization large enough to create many standardized tests or to at least organize the creation of them in some way. I don't know whether knowledge would have to be tested as well, rather than only reasoning ability in order to avoid stratifying our society, but it seems like an interesting idea nonetheless. The generalized index idea obviously should not be incorporated, but more standardization I think could be reasonable.

It's possible more standardization would be more harmful than beneficial.

 

[el_duderino]

Calm down buddy. I think you missed my point. I think the system is so F'd up , unequal, and game-able that they shouldn't even be used to get you to the door (which is exactly what my link shows, they're of primary importance for getting interviews and still important for acceptance).

What are you even talking about ? I don't care what undergrad you're going to... if you can't manage an A GPA you probably (important word) don't belong at a US medical school. There are of course exceptions but adcoms know that.

 

[totu22]

Let me take WashU for example. This data is little dated but I think it is still a good example

http://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/Handbook.pdf

Their handbook has the acceptance rate for applicants with 4-3.8 GPA, 3.79-3.6, 3.59-3.4, 3.39-3.2 at 95%, 89%, 82%, 66%, respectively, significantly higher than national averages. A 3.2-3.4 GPA/30-32 MCAT at washu gives you a ~70% chance of acceptance. The national average for the same stats gives you a ~37% chance of acceptance.

WashU's MCAT scores are ridiculous.

 

[Kochanie]

What are you even talking about ? I don't care what undergrad you're going to... if you can't manage an A GPA you probably (important word) don't belong at a US medical school. There are of course exceptions but adcoms know that.

Isn't doing well in medical school linked more to MCAT than anything? In many European countries, medical school admissions are based solely on the admission exam.

 

[efle]

What are you even talking about ? I don't care what undergrad you're going to... if you can't manage an A GPA you probably (important word) don't belong at a US medical school. There are of course exceptions but adcoms know that.

I'm saying someone could easily get a 3.8 as a psych major here who would struggle for a 3.0 in the chemistry department, so the typical adcom attitude of "major doesn't matter, we just look at GPA" is a terrifically bad way to identify strong applicants. There are plenty of people making Bs in top university STEM majors that are more than intelligent enough for medical school.

 

[Kochanie]

WashU's MCAT scores are ridiculous.

Not really, common among top universities, ours is in the high 30's. Many of my classmates say the test material is a joke compared to the classes.

 

[toostressful]

Let me take WashU for example. This data is little dated but I think it is still a good example

http://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/Handbook.pdf

Their handbook has the acceptance rate for applicants with 4-3.8 GPA, 3.79-3.6, 3.59-3.4, 3.39-3.2 at 95%, 89%, 82%, 66%, respectively, significantly higher than national averages. A 3.2-3.4 GPA/30-32 MCAT at washu gives you a ~70% chance of acceptance. The national average for the same stats gives you a ~37% chance of acceptance.

So a 3.2-3.4 at WashU is seemingly judged as the equivalent to a 3.6-3.8 nationally. Interesting...

 

[el_duderino]

Isn't doing well in medical school linked more to MCAT than anything? In many European countries, medical school admissions are based solely on the admission exam.

Above a certain value, sure. But low GPA indicates a problem handling course load regardless of institution. That's the entire point.

Adcoms know this. They aren't stupid. They don't automatically think a 3.75 from one institution is better than a 3.65 at another. They realize that it's extremely variable but that a low GPA indicates a problem.

 

[moop]

WashU's MCAT scores are ridiculous.

From the similar internal statistics I've seen (i.e., charts that show what WashU shows, but are not available publicly), Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have essentially the same distribution of people scoring in that range on the MCAT. It's creepy

 

[efle]

From the similar internal statistics I've seen (i.e., charts that show what WashU shows, but are not available publicly), Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have essentially the same distribution of people scoring in that range on the MCAT. It's creepy

Probably because all these institutions have similar distributions of student standardized test scores like the SAT...except I bet you're trolling, you trolly troll you.

 

[Lamel]

Not really, common among top universities, ours is in the high 30's. Many of my classmates say the test material is a joke compared to the classes.

Your school's MCAT AVERAGE is in the high 30s (Meaning >35)? Even from a preliminary glance, WashU's average seems to be around 32-33 (which is pretty damn high).

 

[efle]

Above a certain value, sure. But low GPA indicates a problem handling course load regardless of institution. That's the entire point.

Adcoms know this. They aren't stupid. They don't automatically think a 3.75 from one institution is better than a 3.65 at another. They realize that it's extremely variable but that a low GPA indicates a problem.

And yet, average GPAs are higher at top schools just like MCATs, while your logic would predict that all schools have similar distributions of people over whatever the "problematic" cutoff is. If they really saw a 3.9 = 3.5 = capable, their stats would not be what they are.

 

[efle]

Your school's MCAT AVERAGE is in the high 30s (Meaning >35)? Even from a preliminary glance, WashU's average seems to be around 32-33 (which is pretty damn high).

Yeah wustl is supposedly around 34, so other top schools with even stronger STEM students (like maybe MIT) probably average a couple points even higher.

 

[Kochanie]

Your school's MCAT AVERAGE is in the high 30s (Meaning >35)? Even from a preliminary glance, WashU's average seems to be around 32-33 (which is pretty damn high).

35.5, GPA slightly lower than average.

Edit: Double checked, 35.37 lol....
Wait, I meant for accepted students, damn I goofed.

 

[el_duderino]

And yet, average GPAs are higher at top schools just like MCATs, while your logic would predict that all schools have similar distributions of people over whatever the "problematic" cutoff is. If they really saw a 3.9 = 3.5 = capable, their stats would not be what they are.

The best students have the highest GPAs in general. That's not a surprise. I never said 3.9=3.5.

 

[moop]

Probably because all these institutions have similar distributions of student standardized test scores like the SAT...except I bet you're trolling, you trolly troll you.

I'm not. Average MCAT at all these schools is 34. Yale's average GPA/MCAT data is publicly available on their HPAP website; I've posted about it elsewhere

 

[Lamel]

Yeah wustl is supposedly around 34, so other top schools with even stronger STEM students (like maybe MIT) probably average a couple points even higher.

I wanna see the receipts. I find it hard to believe that there is any school out there where the average applicant MCAT score is >35.


Edit: I see @Kochanie clarified he means accepted students. Well that's much more believable.

 

[Kochanie]

I wanna see the receipts. I find it hard to believe that there is any school out there where the average applicant MCAT score is >35.


Edit: I see @Kochanie clarified he means accepted students. Well that's much more believable.

My bad, I'm very curious to see the range though, I think I'm going to see a premed adviser to give me the info if they have it.

 

[Kochanie]

The range for sGPAs at my school is interesting though. ~75% get in and 25% of these people have an sGPA lower than 3.0? :O

 

[Lamel]

My bad, I'm very curious to see the range though, I think I'm going to see a premed adviser to give me the info if they have it.

Yeah, I suspected that much; does your school do any type of pre-med committee screening to weed out low stat applicants? A range of accepted and applicant MCATs would be interesting.

 

[moop]

Not going to say which school's this is, but here. Only the last row aggregate data matters; the other rows are school-specific data (e.g., the next to last row is accepted info for Yale med).

 

[Kochanie]

Yeah, I suspected that much; does your school do any type of pre-med committee screening to weed out low stat applicants? A range of accepted and applicant MCATs would be interesting.

I don't think so. Advisers here just answer basic questions and don't do much more than SDN does except for collecting LORs.

 

[totu22]

The range for sGPAs at my school is interesting though. ~75% get in and 25% of these people have an sGPA lower than 3.0? :O

What school do you go to? I go to a non HYP Ivy and pretty sure our average is more like 33.

Edit: also reread and you meant accepted. my apologies

 

[Lamel]

Not going to say which school's this is, but here. Only the last row aggregate data matters; the other rows are school-specific data (e.g., the next to last row is accepted info for Yale med).

So the bottom row is aggregate data for a single top undergrad?

I think accepted student averages is an interesting metric. What does it really say? Of course higher MCATs are more desirable; and of course there are more students capable of scoring higher at the top undergrads.

I think applicant MCAT averages are a better metric to discuss student body strength. I expect these to be high at top schools as well of course.

 

[totu22]

So the bottom row is aggregate data for a single top undergrad?

I think accepted student averages is an interesting metric. What does it really say? Of course higher MCATs are more desirable; and of course there are more students capable of scoring higher at the top undergrads.

I think applicant MCAT averages are a better metric to discuss student body strength. I expect these to be high at top schools as well of course.

Not going to say which school's this is, but here. Only the last row aggregate data matters; the other rows are school-specific data (e.g., the next to last row is accepted info for Yale med).

34 for accepted applicants out of a top school actually seems pretty expected.

 

[moop]

So the bottom row is aggregate data for a single top undergrad?

I think accepted student averages is an interesting metric. What does it really say? Of course higher MCATs are more desirable; and of course there are more students capable of scoring higher at the top undergrads.

I think applicant MCAT averages are a better metric to discuss student body strength. I expect these to be high at top schools as well of course.

For a single top Ivy from 2000-2010. I don't have access to the newer stuff so who knows. Maybe it's 35 now

Applicant data isn't this extensive, but it's almost the same numbers.

 

[SympatricSpeciation]

Lest we continue to , here's my final $0.02. OP makes a valid argument and it is generally known to be true that rigor varies substantially among undergrads. I don't think that a 3.2 from a top school necessarily makes an adcom judge you as incapable of handling med school, but when compared with a 3.7 from a state school (ceteris paribus, especially with respect to MCAT), the adcom faces the dilemma of giving the 3.2 applicant the benefit of the doubt based on considerably intangible and not readily quantifiable criteria (selection of classes, difficulty of certain professors, etc.). The sad truth for OP and for many in OP's predicament is that med school admissions is simply not about giving one a leg up; they'd rather you spend an extra year or two solidifying and showcasing your credentials in a PB program than offer you the seat of someone with substantially higher GPA, even though the latter may or may not be as capable as you. While OP is entitled (see what I did there?) to being frustrated at such unfairness, all is not lost since they will probably crush PB and go on to get an MD degree nevertheless. In the end, these extra 1.5 years won't be a huge setback. Best of luck, OP.

 

[Lamel]

For a single top Ivy from 2000-2010. I don't have access to the newer stuff so who knows. Maybe it's 35 now

Applicant data isn't this extensive, but it's almost the same numbers.

Okay, yeah it makes sense. Though I am sure there is some selection bias going on here in the sense that there are simply more high scorers to choose from. Either way the point remains, the academic strength of the student body is pretty varied throughout schools. Thanks for the data.

 

[Porkloins]

This. Also, I don't understand the hostility toward OP, who makes a valid point that everyone knows is true deep inside, but as someone else pointed out, many on here choose to be in denial about. I'm also sick of the "entitlement" riposte to OP's very legitimate argument.

The issue was the condescension and arrogance that colored OP's original post. Regardless of how true the point he is trying to make is, nobody likes a whiner or someone who will so readily put down other people. Hell, I go to a private, top 15 and I still got put off by the way he was bashing on state schools.

In general, state schools aren't going to have the same level of rigor as MIT, and thus, yes, a smart kid who gets a high GPA at a state school and does well on the MCAT will probably be at an advantage compared to a kid of similar intelligence who went to a private grade-deflator. But OP wasn't talking about these people. He went on a rant about how he resents people who supposedly 'struggle with basic concepts of science' at the state school yet somehow will still take the spot at med school he feels entitled to, even though in reality someone like that wouldn't break double digits on the MCAT.

 

[Rhino1000]

Not going to say which school's this is, but here. Only the last row aggregate data matters; the other rows are school-specific data (e.g., the next to last row is accepted info for Yale med).

These schools' average matriculant GPA/MCAT would probably be lower if they were just as likely to apply to low-tier medical schools as graduates from lower-ranked colleges, no? I'm guessing that they do tend to apply to more highly ranked schools than other applicants. And if this is true, then it's also likely true that a lower than average matriculant GPA will be similarly esteemed as another guy's normal GPA (~3.7) and compensation for rigor is already taken into account. I missed your other posts, sorry if this misses the point.

 

[SympatricSpeciation]

The issue was the condescension and arrogance that colored OP's original post. Regardless of how true the point he is trying to make is, nobody likes a whiner or someone who will so readily put down other people. Hell, I go to a private, top 15 and I still got put off by the way he was bashing on state schools.

In general, state schools aren't going to have the same level of rigor as MIT, and thus, yes, a smart kid who gets a high GPA at a state school and does well on the MCAT will probably be at an advantage compared to a kid of similar intelligence who went to a private grade-deflator. But OP wasn't talking about these people. He went on a rant about how he resents people who supposedly 'struggle with basic concepts of science' at the state school yet somehow will still take the spot at med school he feels entitled to, even though in reality someone like that wouldn't break double digits on the MCAT.

I agree that OP should have probably ackowledged those who do well at state schools and go on to attain a respectable MCAT score. But apart from that, the point remains valid in that, all else equal, a 3.7 at average state school as compared with a 3.2-3.3 at a top school confers an unjustified advantage to the former applicant. In OP's example, with minimal preparation and immediately after changing institutions, OP's GPA has been catapulted by a whopping 0.8 if my math is correct. If OP is literally shocked, and they are not without reason, I don't see why that qualifies as condescending or why it should generate animosity toward OP.

 

[SympatricSpeciation]

The issue was the condescension and arrogance that colored OP's original post. Regardless of how true the point he is trying to make is, nobody likes a whiner or someone who will so readily put down other people. Hell, I go to a private, top 15 and I still got put off by the way he was bashing on state schools.

In general, state schools aren't going to have the same level of rigor as MIT, and thus, yes, a smart kid who gets a high GPA at a state school and does well on the MCAT will probably be at an advantage compared to a kid of similar intelligence who went to a private grade-deflator. But OP wasn't talking about these people. He went on a rant about how he resents people who supposedly 'struggle with basic concepts of science' at the state school yet somehow will still take the spot at med school he feels entitled to, even though in reality someone like that wouldn't break double digits on the MCAT.

Also, I think you and others here are giving too much credit to the MCAT as "the great equalizer." Much like GPA, which seems to be a far more discussed and derided admissions criterion, the MCAT is imperfect. I won't insult your intelligence and go into how the MCAT scale works, but I'm sure you'd agree with me that a 28 MCAT is not terribly hard to achieve, and when paired with that 3.7 GPA, it can put you in a favorable position. Whereas, a 28 MCAT and 3.3 GPA will not get many second looks.

 

[PantherPride]

Also, I think you and others here are giving too much credit to the MCAT as "the great equalizer." Much like GPA, which seems to be a far more discussed and derided admissions criterion, the MCAT is imperfect. I won't insult your intelligence and go into how the MCAT scale works, but I'm sure you'd agree with me that a 28 MCAT is not terribly hard to achieve, and when paired with that 3.7 GPA, it can put you in a favorable position. Whereas, a 28 MCAT and 3.3 GPA will not get many second looks.

It's no secret that schools want high numbers, so that does play a role in selection of higher GPAs. But if you go to a top school, get a 3.3, and complain that it's because of your schools rigor, getting a 28 won't help your case. If you look at my post above for washu, if you get a good MCAT score, you still have a reasonable shot of getting into medical school

 

[aalamruad]

How do you explain this, though? Is it due to a large portion of this sample being lower ranked privates? (For the record, not agreeing with OP.. just curious.)
http://www.gradeinflation.com/ (~3.3 for privates, 3.01 for publics)

 

[efle]

How do you explain this, though? Is it due to a large portion of this sample being lower ranked privates? (For the record, not agreeing with OP.. just curious.)
http://www.gradeinflation.com/ (~3.3 for privates, 3.01 for publics)

Many public schools publish their grade distributions (see UCSD and UWisconsin) or at least have a policy of very clear-cut, non inflating curves (like the average in BCPM classes being held at 3.0) which keeps them relatively honest. Private schools, especially top ones, keep all of their grading totally secret, and will not even tell their own students what the average GPA of their class is (I tried once out of curiosity). As a result of this secrecy, they can inflate their grading a ton to give their students higher chances of going on to prestigious graduate school/jobs and improve or protect their name...unless this practice was to be leaked, as happened at Harvard with the scandalous A- averages.

This is just another reason GPA should be seen as a nearly useless metric - it is totally unstandardized across public/private, top/bottom of the ranks pile, difficulty of major, selected coursework, etc. At good med schools which get many applicants from top-tier undergrads year after year, this does get slightly counteracted, as your GPA can be compared to prior acceptees and their performance used to predict yours, so a 3.8 at a notorious non-inflater like Princeton will carry more meaning for them than the same at an inflater like Harvard.

 

[Kochanie]

How do you explain this, though? Is it due to a large portion of this sample being lower ranked privates? (For the record, not agreeing with OP.. just curious.)
http://www.gradeinflation.com/ (~3.3 for privates, 3.01 for publics)

Probably. From what I've seen, private schools are way easier when compared to similarly ranked state schools.