- Joined
- Mar 27, 2012
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 2
Are you taking bets? I could use some extra cash this summer.
Well, if you're hurting for cash, then you're probably not someone I want to make a bet with.
Are you taking bets? I could use some extra cash this summer.
I'm not going to waste time and effort arguing with someone on an internet forum. I have a real life.
I've been to a community college and to 2 top 50 schools. The classes are the same difficulty. The only difference is either the curve (more generous at CC but that favors D/F students more into getting a passing C) or the speed (semester vs. quarter).I go to an unknown state school, would an A effort in Chem or Orgo at my school earn me a B at higher (mid to high-tier) schools?
What does that even mean?His view is worse than wrong. Even if it was correct, it wouldn't be interesting. Curved tests are more fair, and still assess "mastery of the material". Uncurved tests may not be fair to the top students, who still make mistakes, and worse, fail to challenge them to learn in depth.
This seems like it should be accompanied by a condescending meme of some sort.Yeah, so this conversation is boring me. I'm going to leave, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to any of y'all's "rebuttals" in this "debate".
I've been to a community college and to 2 top 50 schools. The classes are the same difficulty. The only difference is either the curve (more generous at CC but that favors D/F students more into getting a passing C) or the speed (semester vs. quarter).
How many times in this thread have you said you are done arguing/don't care/whatever other pansy ass attempt to end an argument by saying it is beneath you only to come back in and post again?
It is very amusing.
Yeah, so this conversation is boring me. I'm going to leave, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to any of y'all's "rebuttals" in this "debate".
Yeah, so this conversation is boring me. I'm going to leave, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to any of y'all's "rebuttals" in this "debate".
I've only taken classes at one school but I've seen some of the exams my friends at state schools have taken. The exams were very easy compared to what we've taken at my top LAC. Theirs was multiple choice... Our orgo exam class average was a 60, and the curve was applied so that only 20% of the class received an A- or higher. So, yes I believe there's a difference but I've also taken social science classes in which I've effortlessly gotten As.
When 20 chemistry majors at a top college average a 60 on an organometallic exam and only one person gets an A- without the curve, then you know that kid is brilliant (not me). Where you go to school absolutely affects your gpa..
I think it really depends more on the professor than the school.
It is not exactly a great equalizer if my very low GPA (will be around 3.3-3.4 when I apply) will most certainly keep me out of most schools despite my 35+ MCAT, is it?
Had I put in the same amount of effort in a "lesser" institution, I am confident from my own experience (and talking to others) that my GPA would be 3.5+, which would make put me in a comfortable position.
So it is true that I feel bit shafted -- but at the same time, I did not put nearly enough effort into my studies in my first years, so I am not blameless either.
Oh well...
It is not exactly a great equalizer if my very low GPA (will be around 3.3-3.4 when I apply) will most certainly keep me out of most schools despite my 35+ MCAT, is it?
Had I put in the same amount of effort in a "lesser" institution, I am confident from my own experience (and talking to others) that my GPA would be 3.5+, which would put me in a somewhat comfortable position.
So it is true that I feel bit shafted -- but at the same time, I admittedly did not put nearly enough effort into my studies in my first years, so I am not blameless either.
Oh well...
If this, if that....blah. Also, the bolded part is echoed from many people starting at the top-tier and all the way to the bottom-tier
Many top-tier universities (like MIT) publish some of their final exams for their upper-level physics classes on their web site. I study physics at a much lower ranked undergraduate school and comparing the final exams of the equivalent courses, I can tell you the answer is most definitely no.
It's the same material, the same textbooks, the same homework, and almost the same final exams.
Many top-tier universities (like MIT) publish some of their final exams for their upper-level physics classes on their web site. I study physics at a much lower ranked undergraduate school and comparing the final exams of the equivalent courses, I can tell you the answer is most definitely no.
It's the same material, the same textbooks, the same homework, and almost the same final exams.
There are just too many reasons why your 3.4 or 3.5 shouldn't be counted as anything more just because you scored well on the MCAT.
Example: smarter students will go to better, more competitive schools. Some of these students will slack off and get the 3.4 or 3.5 or whatever even though they have the ability to do better. These students might do well, or might not, on the mcat but either way they have the capacity to do well, and so some will. So your 3.5 and 36 will say "look, i'm smart, I just didn't try that hard". Or maybe your school really was more difficult, there's no way for adcoms to know, but with plenty of students getting the same mcat and a better gpa, it suggests that it wasn't the rigor of the courses that account for the discrepancy.
It's useful for a student at a "lesser" institution who gets a 3.8+. If they then go on to score well on the mcat, it validates their gpa. If they don't, then their mcat will keep them out and their 3.8 won't make up for it.
In the end, gpa and mcat measure different things. Gpa - ability to consistently work hard over time. Mcat - aptitude to do well (or something like that). Not having consistent results allow adcoms to draw one conclusion or another.
I'm going to try to re-frame this a bit. The question/topic of the thread seeks clarification over whether pre-med courses at top tier institutions are harder than those at no-name universities.
I submit that this is the wrong question. What everyone *really* wants to know is whether it's harder to get a good grade (ie, 'A') at one of the ivory towers. To that, I'd say that once professors are applying a curve (which is apparently done at top schools to ensure that no one is penalized due to the increased difficulty of the exams vis-a-vis other institutions), you effectively forfeit the ability to claim that you had to work harder for a good grade. Your professor applied a curve to even things out a bit. Otherwise, I'd readily concede the debate.
I do think there are certain groups of courses (perhaps majors, even) where it's very difficult for a school to "dumb down" courses. Any ACS certified chemistry program is going to have serious problems if none of its graduates are prepared to pass their exams. Likewise, any rigorous science program is expected to produce graduates that have the requisite knowledge to pursue advanced degrees.
Someone mentioned having a graduating class of ~1300 and only 12 grads with a flawless GPA. That doesn't mean much--I graduated in a class of ~550 and was the only grad with a perfect 4.0. Even that doesn't mean anything: who knows whether I was the only one because the classes were incredibly hard, or everyone else just isn't smart enough?
Ultimately, I think it's a losing proposition to try to compare GPAs across schools. Some schools inflate. Some schools deflate. No matter where you go, I can promise you there will be some classes that are unbelievably difficult (and it's a serious accomplishment to do well), and some that are a joke/waste of time. It's all in how the chips fall. This is true even for the illustrious MIT. Go checkout the Cell Biology exams in Open Courseware (where professors have posted materials from previous semesters). The exams were all open book/open notes, and even then the questions weren't particularly difficult.
I have no idea why people on here say the MCAT makes things even. The MCAT tests you on prereqs, that's it, 4 classes. It completely negates the rest of the undergrad GPA/classes. What about the rest of the biochemistry degree at MIT/UCB/Yale, etc. vs random college? I can assure you that it is much harder at higher tier colleges than at lower tier ones.
Going to an easier college = higher GPA, less studying (usually), and more time to study for the MCAT as you won't me working as hard in other classes.
People on here saying that everything is the same difficulty are out of their minds. Sure, maybe 1 or 2 of your classes may be "hard," but at high tier schools, almost all of them are hard. You're competing with the best students in the country/world and all of them are smart.
As the professor, you know what you want your students to learn and what's less important. The underlying flaw of exams written intentionally to be curved is that they're so insanely difficult that their purpose isn't to be a test of your knowledge any longer. It becomes a silly competition designed to parse students out with "high resolution" by testing stupidly unimportant details and/or testing at a level that is beyond what students of the course would be reasonably expected to learn for no other reason other than the professor's amusement. Surely you don't believe that if half of a class scores As in an art history class because they learned the material the professor wanted them to learn that the tests were too easy? Why is this no longer true for a "hard science class?"
It's possible to write an exam that tests your knowledge as a student. How someone else in the class did on an exam has absolutely no bearing on whether or not YOU have mastered the content of the course and, thus, how you perform on an exam. In ochem, if you understand a reaction mechanism, you understand a reaction mechanism. Why does it matter how well Johnny, who sits next to me, knows the mechanism with respect to my performance on an exam?
Curved and standardized exams are nice for comparing a group of individuals. Whether or not they effectively test your knowledge of the material isn't assured by virtue of the fact that it's "hard" and curved.
Ivies historically GRADE INFLATE, so if ANYTHING, that negates the effect of the kids being that much smarter.
Yes they grade inflate, but it still does not come even close to negating the level of students, in my and others' experience.
The worst students in my top 5 school honestly work harder (and are probably smarter) than the best students at the "top" CC where I took courses at. Despite this, these "worst" students will end up with a D or C while the best students at the CC will invariably end up with A or A+. Well, that kinda describes me actually. I was a below-average student at the top 5 school and ended up with Cs, Bs, and some As (although I am a much better student now), while at the CC, with considerably less studying, I received all A+ except for those courses that did not give A+.
Honestly, you should not make such misinformed statements unless you have direct experience to support them -- they are borderline offensive. As for me, the effects of more rigorous grading, combined with my unpreparedness (in many senses) in my first few years, have practically ruined my chances of ever making into medical school. It has very palpably affected my life and all I ask from other people is a little bit of sympathy for my plight.
Honestly, you should not make such misinformed statements unless you have direct experience to support them -- they are borderline offensive. As for me, the effects of more rigorous grading, combined with my unpreparedness (in many senses) in my first few years, have practically ruined my chances of ever making into medical school. It has very palpably affected my life and all I ask from other people is a little bit of sympathy for my plight.
It's only borderline offensive because you've a big chunk of your excuse for having a "practically ruined" chance at medical school in the idea that higher tier grade inflation is exaggerated. Take out the fact that you're using it as a justification for the fact that you didn't get A's and just leave "my unpreparedness".. and boom, it magically stops being offensive. Oh but those lucky SOB's are community college who're now in medical school had it SOOO EASSYYY it's not faiirrrr and it's offensive!!!! Personal responsibility is a powerful thing! As for your chance being practically ruined, clearly you haven't read many of the stories about people who recovered from ridiculously low GPA's from their undergrad. Sorry for the tough love, but you are a whiny bitch.
There are some schools that are harder to get good grades in. There are others that are not. You can't lump them all together. Stop trying. There's a few top 10 schools where almost half of the student body is "Dean's List". My state school with 15 thousand+ people had 30 last semester from the college of science. Could be that most of the people are dumb, but given the lack of people on the Dean's List, that's reflected by the lower grades.
Not every student at a top school is a top student and not every top student attends a top school. The correlation is strong though. The MCAT provides a way to measure students up in a consistent manner by testing their mastery of basic sciences. They test a student's knowledge and application of facts and concepts; it's not as if a biology class at Harvard will teach you a different kind of biology than a class at U Mass. There's no guarantee that a class at a top school is automatically better and more difficult than a class at school with a lesser reputation. The grading at an "easier school" is not necessarily easier either. Some schools participate in rampant grade inflation, some schools don't curve at all.
If you bothered to read, you would have noticed that I have not given up the fight, despite facing an uphill battle.If you're smart enough to get into a top 5 college, you're smart enough to get into medical school despite having poor undergraduate grades. There are programs that feed right into medical school that you could easily excel in. It just makes me sad to see you making excuses for yourself rather than taking the opportunity to learn and overcome new challenges.
Yes they grade inflate, but it still does not come even close to negating the level of students, in my and others' experience.
The worst students in my top 5 school honestly work harder (and are probably smarter) than the best students at the "top" CC where I took courses at. Despite this, these "worst" students will end up with a D or C while the best students at the CC will invariably end up with A or A+. Well, that kinda describes me actually. I was a below-average student at the top 5 school and ended up with Cs, Bs, and some As (although I am a much better student now), while at the CC, with considerably less studying, I received all A+ except for those courses that did not give A+.
I have also discussed at length the difficulty of obtaining the grade with my high school friends who have gone to different institutions with a slightly lower rank (ie. UCs incl. Berkeley). Having taken the same set of courses at high school, one could indirectly gauge the rigor of classes at a different institution by asking them about how the classes at their college compared to the hardest classes in HS. The conclusion was that it was more difficult to earn the grade at my school even compared to top 30 institutions.
Honestly, you should not make such misinformed statements unless you have direct experience to support them -- they are borderline offensive. As for me, the effects of more rigorous grading, combined with my unpreparedness (in many senses and much of it my own fault) in my first few years, have practically ruined my chances of ever making into medical school. It has very palpably affected my life and all I ask is a little bit of sympathy for my plight.
I have to respectfully disagree, biology is vast and an 'intro' bio class can easily focus on different aspects of the field, and go into varying depths. I have friends from state schools who weren't touching the level of molecular bio that my intro class expected us to master until their junior year, granted it's not Harvard but it's a top 10 school and I'd imagine that it carries over as well.
Just for people who say that the "MCAT is the equalizer", the average MCAT (not for people who got into med school, but just applied) for the 200 premeds at my ivy league school was above 34. So if you want to correlate MCAT to intelligence (which I think is not a good indicator) then you say premeds at my Ivy are smarter than those at 99% of the schools in the nation. And from that you can say that you are competing with many bright students in these premed classes.