Are classes at higher-tier UG schools more difficult than lower-tier UGs?

[Narmerguy]

Better question is, who cares. You made your choice, they made their choice. Everyone does what it takes to get the grades that they want. Maybe that varies from class to class, professor to professor, university to university. We all adjust to the competition around us.

To imply that if someone was at a "harder" school they would suddenly be incapable of working harder to make up for the extra competition is kind of dumb. Why bother comparing what the exact same effort would get you at another school when it's pretty unlikely you'd give the exact same effort in the first place?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

I'm taking an undergrad class right now at a university that is notoriously difficult (U. Chicago) with a professor that had lackluster reviews and, frankly, I'm thinking people are just a bunch of whiners. The difficulty is roughly comparable to my not-so-prestigious undergrad. Very small sample size, but that's my limited experience.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

I don't think you can judge that off of one class.

I have taken over 70 credits at a "prestigious" university and over 70 credits at a public state school. The difficulty and my resulting GPAs were incomparable. I have taken prerequisite pre-med courses and gotten easy A's at the easier university, and then taken them at the more difficult one and gotten B-'s, even after having taken the class before! This is anecdotal evidence, but between these two specific schools, there is a CLEAR difficulty difference. It makes complete sense too. At more "prestigious" universities, you have more competitive students, which means it is more difficult to do better than average, which means it is harder to get good grades. Of course there are outlier courses and outlier students, but the general trend exists.

How are "meaningful grades" produced by saying only 10% of a class can earn an A, REGARDLESS of your mastery of the material? That makes absolutely no sense. All that says is "you were one of the top 10% of people in your class - congratulations."

It baffles me that you fail to see that your vision of college grades is set up as a combative, competitive system that focuses more on getting a gold star than actually learning what the professor wants you to learn. With a strict curve, you're implicitly saying that only x% of people can demonstrate maximum mastery of this course's material. That's clearly not true. Content mastery isn't a limited good. If EVERYONE performs well on an exam - i.e., demonstrates that they learned the material by taking an exam - EVERYONE should earn the best mark possible. Not doing so simply means you're using a competitive system rather than one based solely on learning and academic performance.



You seem pretty butthurt. But I'm sure you aren't because of your super sweet "real life" that you have at Yale.

The problem with having no curve is that you are assuming that all professors have exactly the same idea of what students should know to receive a certain grade. Let's say that every student in a class has exactly X amount of knowledge but the teacher gives out A's to people with X+1 amount of knowledge. Then no one in that class would receive an A. Then let's say every student in a different class also has X amount of knowledge bu tthe teacher gives out A's to people with X-1 amount of knowledge. Then everyone in that class would receive an A. So one class has worse grades than the other class, despite having the same amount of knowledge. If the classes were graded on a curve, the two classes would receive identical grades, regardless of the expectations of the teacher.

While it's true that curves result in competition between students and it forces some students to end up doing poorly, I would still much rather be graded based on my rank in the class rather than on whatever your teacher arbitrarily decides is adequate. It just completely screws over the entire class if you have a professor with higher expectations than a different professor. The chances of having a class full of hard-working and intelligent students who are worthy of A grades is much more slim than the chances of having an ******* professor.

 

[shoenberg3]

But.. you said your chances of EVER making into medical school have practically been ruined! YET YOU CONTINUE THE FIGHT???!!!

And all you ask for in exchange is our sympathy.

I'm just in awe of the perspective you have on your own life.

Don't be so nit-picky and hung-up on a phrase, especially in situations like this. I have unequivocally explained my situation and stance more than once.

If it makes you smug, I will retract that phrase and state instead that my chances for gaining medical admission currently is practically ruined and my chances of ever making into med school is seriously jeopardized -- but you see, that was much longer and clumsier for me to say, wasn't it?

I am glad I'd probably never have to interact with you in person.

 

[ranson]

yes because everyone who called themselves premed at your school decided to take the mcat and apply to medical school. a 34 is only around the top 7% or so, not the top 1%

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the first part of the your post; my school puts out information and over 200 students applied and the average MCAT score was over 34. Also, an over 34 average will be better than the average at 99% of undergrad institutions in the nation. If you take some random state school the average will be well below 30 because most of their students wont even get accepted into med school.

On a side note: If you do poorly at a top school, you will not get much sympathy from adcoms. Going to a top undergrad is kinda like a double edged sword: if you do well, adcoms will be impressed, but if you do poorly, don't expect much compensation.

 

[shouldvestudied]

My personal n=1 experience:

I graduated from Princeton with a 2.6 in Molecular Biology a few years back. I came down with an autoimmune disease during school that wrecked me for two years before it was diagnosed, but it isn't the sole reason for my academic misfortune. I didn't excel there even before I got sick (GPA around 3.0) because I had a lackadaisical attitude toward school and didn't put in the time to learn the material. Bottom line: I wasn't a very good student while I was there.

Fast-forward to now; I just finished a post-bacc year at my state school taking classes like Physical Chemistry, Physical Biochem, Virology, Thermodynamics, etc (i.e. not easy stuff) and received a 4.0 with ease.

I realize that this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since one can argue that my present-day success is due to being healthier and having a more mature attitude towards school than during my time at Princeton. But I also took two summer classes at the same State School when I was in the middle of dealing with my illness and still got A's in both of them (A&P and Genetics) while feeling that they were walks in the park.

So just from my own personal experience I would say that, in this one instance, one of the top Ivy League Universities was tougher than my State School.

But I don't think that is enough evidence to generalize across all UGs.

 

[DrMario13]

you're trying to extrapolate from one anecdote that relies on a tiny sample size and is based on hearsay.

Haha, hearsay, well now aren't we getting a bit riled up. Besides, if you're going to pull that argument I could say the exact same thing back to you, besides with friends at college of all calibers across the nation it is not a single anecdote, but I won't bother going into detail as you've made up your mind already and don't seem open to any other opinions.

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

I'm sorry, but the only people here who seem to purport that there is no difference either have not spent significant time at the other "type" of university or have only taken a very small amount of classes.

The largest difference is in the pre-reqs (though I personally noticed a general tendency to expect more out of students in any class). This is most unfortunate as these are the most rigorously scrutinized courses by admissions committees, and even good grades in these like B/B+ drag down a GPA. Some of you need to stop being foolish. There is a sizable difference between top universities and >95% of other schools. There are schools here and there such as BU or LACs (and others) that have harsh deflation, but otherwise you simply cannot compare with the competition at top schools. This isn't a slight against people that don't attend such schools, and those that think it is need thicker skin. There are many students at "everyday" universities that are very capable, but at top schools those students are a dime a dozen (just as in medical school). That's just how it is. If you have a class of 120 at a top undergrad you probably have at least 100 very good students. Have fun trying to break into the top 20 out of those 100 in order to get the A/A-. Again, this is not making any normative statement about individual talent at other universities. I know absolutely brilliant people that went to average schools. In the end, if you do well, it's irrelevant. People choose schools based off of other factors such as cost/proximity to home just as often as prestige.

 

[kpcrew]

Haha, hearsay, well now aren't we getting a bit riled up. Besides, if you're going to pull that argument I could say the exact same thing back to you, besides with friends at college of all calibers across the nation it is not a single anecdote, but I won't bother going into detail as you've made up your mind already and don't seem open to any other opinions.

yea no
it's as if you're replying to your own post.

 

[DrMario13]

Simple error, new here please forgive that, but point is still the same

 

[fudGez14]

Put me in any pre-med core course in a top tier school. Give me lecture access, a textbook, and I'll guarantee you I'll come out of there with the same 4.0gpa that I just graduated with from my unranked state school without cheating, and without a curve.

adding onto dbate's post, i can guarantee that this won't be the case at princeton either. there have been years (including my class of 2014) where nobody in the entire class has a 4.0. and these include all majors, not just the hard sciences/engineering. and even with a curve, it would be extremely difficult/near impossible. out of all the science classes i have taken, never have i had an exam where the average was above 80%, with most of them hovering around mid 60's. and these are students who were at the top 1% of their high schools with 2300+ SAT's all working their asses off to do well.

 

[elbowss]

Don't be so nit-picky and hung-up on a phrase, especially in situations like this. I have unequivocally explained my situation and stance more than once.

If it makes you smug, I will retract that phrase and state instead that my chances for gaining medical admission currently is practically ruined and my chances of ever making into med school is seriously jeopardized -- but you see, that was much longer and clumsier for me to say, wasn't it?

I am glad I'd probably never have to interact with you in person.

The fact that you think my point has something to do with semantics tells me that you're deeply in denial. What I find gross about you has nothing to do with your choice of words. It's that you've been afforded amazing opportunities, have a strong mind, made poor choices, and STILL manage to be the victim. To the point that you openly ask for sympathy.

The idea of interacting with me in person doesn't appeal to you? Well then don't give the excuses you give here to your interviewer. If you do, you'll meet me right there, in them. I really wonder what they'd say if you tried to explain away your grades by saying that your classes were way harder than the universities of the other kids waiting on an interview. You tried explaining your situation in your application? Maybe if you talk about your 'hardships' in your personal statement, you can make them understand the special circumstances which you had to overcome. I heard they eat that **** up.

 

[shouldvestudied]

adding onto dbate's post, i can guarantee that this won't be the case at princeton either. there have been years (including my class of 2014) where nobody in the entire class has a 4.0. and these include all majors, not just the hard sciences/engineering. and even with a curve, it would be extremely difficult/near impossible. out of all the science classes i have taken, never have i had an exam where the average was above 80%, with most of them hovering around mid 60's. and these are students who were at the top 1% of their high schools with 2300+ SAT's all working their asses off to do well.

Is Princeton still sticking with its Grade Deflation Policy?

It was a stupid policy when I was there and Princeton was trying to get the other Ivies to implement similar programs. It would be immensely stupid for the policy to still be around given that practically none of the other Ivies ever followed suit.

I got a B+ in PHI 202 with a raw grade of 95.5%.

 

[fudGez14]

yes because everyone who called themselves premed at your school decided to take the mcat and apply to medical school. a 34 is only around the top 7% or so, not the top 1%

i don't really get what you're trying to say. what this means is that the average applicant (not average acceptee) out of this school had a 34 on their MCATs. he was trying to say that as a whole, the school's average MCAT of 34 would be higher than 99% of all the other schools. i am sure that not many other schools have a higher average MCAT score of APPLICANTS, not matriculants.

at princeton, they had posted that the average matriculant was accepted with a 3.5 and a 34, while everybody with at least a 3.3GPA was accepted into a medical school. this shows that medical schools do take into account the undergraduate rigor. our higher MCAT scores also demonstrate to adcoms that we do know our material, which slightly offsets our hard-earned yet lower GPA's.

 

[fudGez14]

Is Princeton still sticking with its Grade Deflation Policy?

It was a stupid policy when I was there and Princeton was trying to get the other Ivies to implement similar programs. It would be immensely stupid for the policy to still be around given that practically none of the other Ivies ever followed suit.

I got a B+ in PHI 202 with a raw grade of 95.5%.

yup unfortunately, and it's not getting any better. many of my classes, especially those in the humanities and languages, have been reverse-curved just like in your phi202 class. but to be fair, we do curve normally as well in the sciences/engineering, and thank god that we do. or else in some of the classes, such as multivariable or orgo, half of the class would barely be scraping a 50% aka a fail.

 

[Lexicon0]

I'm sorry, but the only people here who seem to purport that there is no difference either have not spent significant time at the other "type" of university or have only taken a very small amount of classes.

The largest difference is in the pre-reqs (though I personally noticed a general tendency to expect more out of students in any class). This is most unfortunate as these are the most rigorously scrutinized courses by admissions committees, and even good grades in these like B/B+ drag down a GPA. Some of you need to stop being foolish. There is a sizable difference between top universities and >95% of other schools. There are schools here and there such as BU or LACs (and others) that have harsh deflation, but otherwise you simply cannot compare with the competition at top schools. This isn't a slight against people that don't attend such schools, and those that think it is need thicker skin. There are many students at "everyday" universities that are very capable, but at top schools those students are a dime a dozen (just as in medical school). That's just how it is. If you have a class of 120 at a top undergrad you probably have at least 100 very good students. Have fun trying to break into the top 20 out of those 100 in order to get the A/A-. Again, this is not making any normative statement about individual talent at other universities. I know absolutely brilliant people that went to average schools. In the end, if you do well, it's irrelevant. People choose schools based off of other factors such as cost/proximity to home just as often as prestige.

Look, I understand where you're coming from, but isn't it a little hypocritical to say others need to grow a thicker skin when you yourself are up in arms at the slightest hint that some state schools might be up to par with 'top' schools? Besides, you are still generalizing the difficulty of classes at ALL state schools from your experience at ONE state school...

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.

Your situation is an unfortunate one and I can sympathize. However, making sweeping generalizations about lower-ranked "4-year institutions" based on your experience at a CC and your friends' experience taking a few classes at lower ranked institutions is just plain foolish. I don't think anyone here would argue that classes at a CC are equivalent to classes at your 'top' undergrad institution. Nevertheless, I do wish you the best of luck...

Better question is, who cares. You made your choice, they made their choice. Everyone does what it takes to get the grades that they want. Maybe that varies from class to class, professor to professor, university to university. We all adjust to the competition around us.

To imply that if someone was at a "harder" school they would suddenly be incapable of working harder to make up for the extra competition is kind of dumb. Why bother comparing what the exact same effort would get you at another school when it's pretty unlikely you'd give the exact same effort in the first place?

Agreed.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

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?

Just do well in class, and ace the MCAT, then no one can pull the pretentious crap about upper tier schools.

 

[bigDee]

http://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Finalexamsolutions.pdf

Good luck.

(First semester exam, so not many reactions)

Also, I don't think Dbate goes to Yale, our biochem classes don't have four exams.

That looks ridiculous.

Edit: Although the exam looks ridiculously hard, for all we know, your professor pointed out in the lectures how to answer those questions without overwhelming you with a bunch of other material that might be on the exam. What I'm saying is, if a tests asks for specific details its hard to say that the test is hard just by looking at the test because the professor could have told the students to only focus on those details, rather than telling the students to study half the textbook and then asking about tiny little details. So it depends on how much other stuff you were expected to know.

Either way, that test looks ridiculous lol

 

[kpcrew]

http://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Finalexamsolutions.pdf

Good luck.

(First semester exam, so not many reactions)

Also, I don't think Dbate goes to Yale, our biochem classes don't have four exams.

that looks pretty tough, especially for a freshman class. i think i could have done okay but we didn't learn much about the history of chemistry.

 

[pasiley]

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.

That is the average MCAT for my major at my state school (ranked 50 - 75) where to be in the college of sciences, the average person was in the top 5% of their high school class and in 95% of the SAT. Similar level of competition in science classes as Ivies but with a somewhat no name school. Every person on MDapps from our school has a lower sGPAs than cGPA because of the large difference in acceptance criteria between majors.

That's the thing, there are so many variables when it comes to grades. The MCAT should be weighed more heavily because everyone is graded by the same professor (AAMC).

 

[Midifelder10]

In my state school (a better one) I don't know of any student in my major with a GPA of 3.7 or better has less than 34 MCAT. I see several kids from other state schools with 4.0 GPA not cracking 30.
Short answer - yes classes are way tougher.

 

[KnuxNole]

Don't forget a lot of kids at top schools might end up partying a lot, slack off immensly, got in due to piss easy high school, or just slut it up/hit the bong due to new independence.

That sounds horrible though if mere college classes are seen as intense competition. If everyone does well, GOOD.

And also, forgot to mention, some kids at top school don't care about grades. There are still a lot of people at all school who have the C's gets degrees thinking and doesn't care about the curve one bit as long as they skate by.

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

In my state school (a better one) I don't know of any student in my major with a GPA of 3.7 or better has less than 34 MCAT. I see several kids from other state schools with 4.0 GPA not cracking 30.
Short answer - yes classes are way tougher.

I went to a top 20 undergrad, and if you could crack 3.2/3.3 with a legitimate schedule-not an artificially padded one-you are almost guaranteed to break 30. You simply do not see 3.8+ students not breaking 30. Most of the time those students break 35. This is a reflection, in general, of the difference in difficulty. You cannot apply it to all schools outside of the top 25, but it carries for many. I was a transfer and noticed quite a difference.

 

[candav]

It probably varies more by course than by school. But in my city there is one relatively "prestigious" university and many others that are less so, and it's a common phenomenon that students who do poorly after freshman year at the prestigious one will transfer to the others and do well.

That said, the top is the top and the best students at even the worst school will likely do well anywhere.

 

[KnuxNole]

As far as the history is concerned, for every experiment we were tested on, there were many that we weren't. Sometimes you could tell if the professor liked one of them in particular, but otherwise it was rather hard to predict what would be on the exams. The questions on the other concepts were even harder to predict. I still remember the day of the exam where my professor randomly brought out some ancient chemistry Ph.D thesis and based half of the exam on it. When we saw him holding it, our hearts sank

Anyway, my purpose in posting the exam was to demonstrate that different material can be taught in organic chemistry (and has been by my professor for almost 50 years), not necessarily that it was harder. Also, the same material can be taught and tested in many different ways.



Some? Sure. A lot? No way.

You never know. Remember, college kids are STILL college kids. Lots of new independence, and also remember that a decent amount of these kids were people who worked insanely hard during HS, and realized they wanted to have some more fun once they hit college.

So it's probably not "a lot", but a good chunk I imagine. Just go to any freshmen dorm and you'll see a good amount who are partying quite a bit.

 

[Parklife]

Generally, yeah

 

[DrMario13]

generally, yeah

+1

 

[fudGez14]

That is the average MCAT for my major at my state school (ranked 50 - 75) where to be in the college of sciences, the average person was in the top 5% of their high school class and in 95% of the SAT. Similar level of competition in science classes as Ivies but with a somewhat no name school. Every person on MDapps from our school has a lower sGPAs than cGPA because of the large difference in acceptance criteria between majors.

That's the thing, there are so many variables when it comes to grades. The MCAT should be weighed more heavily because everyone is graded by the same professor (AAMC).

thats still for people with your particular major. this is the entire school, including all majors (english, music, history and the like). those who might not be as science-included, and the average is still 34.

In my state school (a better one) I don't know of any student in my major with a GPA of 3.7 or better has less than 34 MCAT. I see several kids from other state schools with 4.0 GPA not cracking 30.
Short answer - yes classes are way tougher.

and adding onto that, this includes EVERY applicant regardless of their GPA that applies to medical school. and that does include the students who apply with the minimum 3.0GPA. even though it is possible that they are just lazy geniuses, it is likely that these students with 3.0-3.3 GPA's will have "lower" MCATs to bring down the average MCAT to a 34. if you were to cutoff the average MCAT with students above 3.7, first of all, there probably would be like barely 30 students out of 200 applying each year that would have anywhere near a 3.7. But I am sure that if they are smart enough to maintain a 3.7 at princeton, they would also have stellar MCATs and the sort.

 

[starsworld]

To answer the Original Question:
From my (very, very limited) understanding: the difficulty of the classes and is it harder to get an A are two different questions.

Are classes more difficult? The material is the same--F=ma in physics no matter what school you go to.

Is it harder to get an A? If you are graded on curve, then it will probably be harder to get an A, since your classmates at an upper-tier are good at test-taking and doing amazingly in school, whereas lower-tiers tend to have a wider variety of people from those who did amazingly in high school to those who barely graduated.

Of course, this is all just speculation and your professor will play a very large role in the difficulty of the class as well the difficulty of getting an A in the class.

 

[munchymanRX]

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 sets the difficulty generally isn't the material, it's the caliber of the students you're competing against and the curve. This is why higher tier schools are "harder".

 

[KnuxNole]

It seems like going to a higher tier school has more cons than pros. If it's indeed harder with the same level of performance, and the environment is "less fun" and people are cutthroat competitive....

 

[jesse120]

http://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/Finalexamsolutions.pdf

Soooo glad I went to a State school.

 

[KnuxNole]

Soooo glad I went to a State school.

Haha, agreed. That's FIRST SEMESTER Orgo? seems like it goes into weird crap that I can imagine classmates rolling their eyes about(scientific discoveries and experiments). I would have doodled pictures if I was given that test for Orgo 1 =O

Intense though

 

[pasiley]

It seems like going to a higher tier school has more cons than pros. If it's indeed harder with the same level of performance, and the environment is "less fun" and people are cutthroat competitive....

That is the general consensus. If you are smart, you should still have a great MCAT score if you go to school ranked 200 but you'll have a shiny GPA as well. That high GPA might be more elusive in a highly ranked school.


As for my own school. It is proof that who your competition is matters a lot in determining your GPA. Non-science majors had much lower standards to gain entrance into the school. So us science majors did extremely well in non-science classes and when it was just us science students in a class, our As suddenly turned to Bs. Most schools don't have such a large difference in student body between science majors and non science majors, just us weird few state schools and that is why our sGPAs and cGPAs are so different on MDApps. So for you students from higher ranked schools, feel better knowing that our sGPAs are still on the same unfair playing field as you. We may have a higher non-science GPA but you have the name recognition of your institution working for you.

If you wanted to game the system and ensure yourself a high GPA, you could just go to low ranked school. Just be careful, a lot of state schools have really high standards of admission for science majors and you may screw up your sGPA. A school that has the same standards of admission for science majors as non-science is probably your best bet so you know who your competition in pre-reqs is going to be. Then all you have to conquer is the MCAT but probably don't need as high of a score as you would have needed if you went to a harder school (to compensate for the GPA).

Again, this sounds depressing. I probably would not have been happy at a school ranked very low. My liberal arts classes which were mostly full of people that were not over-achievers did not challenge me. They were so easy. My science classes which were full of other overachievers did push me to become a better student. If grades did not matter, I probably would have gone to an even harder school because I would have learned more. But that would not be the smart thing to do.

 

[KnuxNole]

Were all your classes determined by how others performed?

In my state school, it was based on how YOU performed. So if everyone got an A, everyone gets an A. If everyone fails, they curve...but to a decent degree. Some classes might have cutthroat grading schemes, but I'm thankful I was never put into that environment. Since, the goal is to learn and do well. Adding unnecessary competition and being worried about other's relative performance probably adds stress to a YOUNG college kid. So, I saw more people work together so everyone does equally well as opposed to smelly people trying to one-up everyone to be the best there is. I'm sure at my undergrad there were uggo gunners too, but that was minimal compared to the amount of super smart people that wanted to do well, and see everyone else do well too.

 

[whimsy]

having done both, yes i definitely noticed a difference in the difficulty of classes.

top 5 school - harder (more conceptual and with applications), but grading is less cutthroat overall
state school - material way easier, but more competitive to get a good grade because of the way they curve the class to separate the top students from the rest

 

[pasiley]

Were all your classes determined by how others performed?

In my state school, it was based on how YOU performed. So if everyone got an A, everyone gets an A. If everyone fails, they curve...but to a decent degree. Some classes might have cutthroat grading schemes, but I'm thankful I was never put into that environment. Since, the goal is to learn and do well. Adding unnecessary competition and being worried about other's relative performance probably adds stress to a YOUNG college kid. So, I saw more people work together so everyone does equally well as opposed to smelly people trying to one-up everyone to be the best there is. I'm sure at my undergrad there were uggo gunners too, but that was minimal compared to the amount of super smart people that wanted to do well, and see everyone else do well too.

Yup, school had a guideline for professors on how to curve the class so each class only had a very small number of As given out so you had to not just learn but beat everyone else. It was actually kind of sad because it also made it so a certain number failed each class.

I can see why the school encourages competition, they might see it is a motivational tool. A lot of companies use competition to encourage their employees as well. It worked, we all were very good students that learned that you were never done studying. There was always more you could do. It's an accepted fact in business that the most successful people tend be very competitive in nature and my school was run with a similar mindset. I'm sure in other fields it produced great engineers, writers, etc but in medicine it just hurt our chances of getting into medical school. I don't know of a science major (even ones with terrible GPAs) that couldn't crack 30 on the MCAT and people when they do get in, do extremely well in medical school so maybe that is why the school justifies this cutthroat way of grading even in pre med classes.

 

[ikillmcatz]

I'm taking an undergrad class right now at a university that is notoriously difficult (U. Chicago) with a professor that had lackluster reviews and, frankly, I'm thinking people are just a bunch of whiners. The difficulty is roughly comparable to my not-so-prestigious undergrad. Very small sample size, but that's my limited experience.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

Just curious, which class did you take? I'm looking into taking some UG classes at top schools and don't want to get burnt.

 

[La Presse]

Do not be daft. I took an English Composition course at a community college. The instructor was an attourney and grilled us on our writing. It was the summer out of high school and the course is still my hardest course to date.

 

[Neuronette]

I am at a moderately reputable public school (for tuition reasons) and as a student who graduated from a very competitive high school, the BIGGEST difference is the non-competitive unmotivated atmosphere among students Aside from that, the academics are somewhat comparable to top private schools (minus engineering schools) and it really depends on the professor.

 

[Neuronette]

It depends on the professor too.

Also keep in mind that Ivy Leagues are notorious for grade inflation.

YES. AGREED!
I am at a public school and the professors dont give a crap about grades.
Tenure can be a dangerous thing
The premed courses are notoriously difficult and are purposely made so to "weed" out the below avg students. My bio professor literally told students that "most of you will not make it to med school but that's just how life works." No curves in classes either, whereas private schools WANT you to pass and get good grades so it reflects well upon the school and you can continue to get your A grades and PAY $50K a year.

 

[TotalDomination]

For those of you who think pre-med classes at state schools are harder than those at upper tier schools, I would love to take orgo at your school and you can come take orgo at Hopkins.

I heard hopkins has amazing grade inflation lol.

cornell, princeton, uchicago are the only schools (in the "top" schools) I've heard have killer classes/terrible curves. friend at uchicago took a class where half the class got F's. Students whined to the department head and basically got told to deal with it.


edit: sorry for resurrecting this thread. my kind of lame excuse is that it was late and i was tired. I feel like this kind of thing comes up literally every two days.

 

[Cartoons]

It's more up to each professor, most of the time. I'm not at a super spiffy university or anything, but for the longest time General Biology was the designated weeder class; low averages all around, no curve, freshmen funneled premeds funneled there, etc. This past year another professor stepped in and essentially started the class with "Okay so making a 1000 level class a weeder is stupid, so we're doing it differently."

So! That's our story, but it may be different at places that have a reputation to maintain. I kinda think university "rankings" and the name prestige stuff is a whole bunch of crap that makes a whole bunch of money off a whole bunch of people. Why would I throw a bunch of money at some professors' tenure salaries to work harder for Ls of R, get a lower GPA, and have less time for ECs when it isn't going to matter after four years? I'm already going to be nosediving into debt in med school, what's the rush?

Then again, I'm not competitive by personality, and I'm no superstar, so the point is kinda moot for me.

 

[Person0715]

I think the material covered is roughly similar, but the competition between students is probably stiffer at the top schools.

 

[yehhhboiii]

ive seen some tests from top tier schools and they were harder than my own and my school is no slouch. you can say what you want about grading but when you have top students, professors are going to push them harder and faster because they can handle it

 

[TotalDomination]

ive seen some tests from top tier schools and they were harder than my own and my school is no slouch. you can say what you want about grading but when you have top students, professors are going to push them harder and faster because they can handle it

When everyone in the class was valedictorian of HS or in the top 5% and they all expect to do extremely well, classes get extremely competitive and tests inevitably get harder. Professors do push these kids extremely hard because they want to break whatever mental boundaries students feel like they have. High stress environments produce beautiful work, in my opinion. Also I think professors love to humble students, something a lot of these top students need.

My point of view: kids who got into top tier institutions have been putting in an enormous amount of effort or have demonstrated high performance for a longer period of time (excelling in high school). It's a display of endurance. I think while gpa tends to sink at a few of these top tier institutions and it may not be ideal, there is zero point to getting higher education if it's not challenging. Obviously challenging the top 5% of high school students will require more difficult material. That's not to say people at state schools or wherever can't also grasp this material...they definitely might ( I don't know I only took 1 class at a state school back in soph. year of high school so I don't have too much experience), which is why top medical schools don't just recruit students from top universities. It's also something of a comeback chance in my view. So you didn't kill high school for whatever reason? Well try hard in college and you still have a strong chance at getting into a decent medical school. (there is also the possibility of top students attending state schools for family or financial reasons to consider...)

My problem with places like Harvard: with so much grade inflation and systemic cheating, it's definitely a shame that such great minds are put to waste. It's important to humble students and push them extremely hard. I don't like the idea of "just try very hard in high school, get into harvard, and life will be a breeze." I know this isn't the same for all Harvard classes, but all my crimson peers have told me the lowest grade in the class has been a B and prof's would never jeopardize their gpa's and futures.

So my argument doesn't necessarily clearly pick one side of the central question, but I would lean towards saying that some top institutions grade much harder and adhere more closely to the philosophy that getting top students is an opportunity to see what the mind can do when challenged and put in high stress situations. I think it's a beautiful (but sometimes slightly unhealthy) phenomenon. And hey, that's kind of medical school, right? Get knocked down a few pegs every day?

I know I make it sound like top students are lab mice but I don't intend to imply that.

At the end of the day, this type of discussion can't really find a definitive answer to the question because there is no way to compare classes. There is so much variation from school to school and within institutions themselves. This is perhaps why adcoms consider the reputed rigor of the school and the classes at the school while making decisions (if they don't this is my not so subtle suggestion that they do so).

I told myself I wouldn't get further into this discussion but I did because the water for my tea is taking forever to boil. I need caffeine now!!

 

[osprey099]

It's been about a year since my latest post in this thread and my perspectives have changed a bit..

It's not that top schools have more difficult classes. We have the same orgo and same biochem as state schools. It's not that top schools make it hard for their students to get A's. As people have mentioned before, this is extremely professor dependent and at least at my school, all the upper level biology professors give their students no less than a B.

However, it's the premedical committee that makes the difference, at least at my school. When I first came to my school, it claimed a historically 90% accept rate into an US allopathic for those with committee letters. I didn't believe this at first but now I do. It's up to the committee to hype up the rigor of the school and weed out weak applicants so that each year, our students are the best applicants in our school and can enjoy the benefits of having the committee write stuff like "we send 200/230" of our applicants to med school each year so you (the med school) should not miss out on the opportunity to take our applicants because we (the committee) have already done the hard part and screened/evaluated for you.

This is only personal experience though. I have a 3.6/34; my stats are no means stellar by SDN standards. However, I've had 13 II already and I definitely think my committee letter helped me attain a lot of those IIs.

 

[as1212559]

For those of you who think pre-med classes at state schools are harder than those at upper tier schools, I would love to take orgo at your school and you can come take orgo at Hopkins.

Yes! Meet him on the croquet lawn! Tut tut tut tut!

 

[Narmerguy]

FWIW, two of my college best friends are in grad school and cross-taking classes in UG classes at some top 10 undergraduate schools. They seem to think there's no difference in the challenge of the work. I think students spend too much time thinking about this stuff and should just focus on doing well. There are few schoolswhere you can't get a good GPA with hard work.

 

[yehhhboiii]

It's been about a year since my latest post in this thread and my perspectives have changed a bit..

It's not that top schools have more difficult classes. We have the same orgo and same biochem as state schools. It's not that top schools make it hard for their students to get A's. As people have mentioned before, this is extremely professor dependent and at least at my school, all the upper level biology professors give their students no less than a B.

However, it's the premedical committee that makes the difference, at least at my school. When I first came to my school, it claimed a historically 90% accept rate into an US allopathic for those with committee letters. I didn't believe this at first but now I do. It's up to the committee to hype up the rigor of the school and weed out weak applicants so that each year, our students are the best applicants in our school and can enjoy the benefits of having the committee write stuff like "we send 200/230" of our applicants to med school each year so you (the med school) should not miss out on the opportunity to take our applicants because we (the committee) have already done the hard part and screened/evaluated for you.

This is only personal experience though. I have a 3.6/34; my stats are no means stellar by SDN standards. However, I've had 13 II already and I definitely think my committee letter helped me attain a lot of those IIs.

lol 90% of those with committee letters get in? that's nice but anyone can do that if you set the bar high enough. it also depends on how you count. are those applicants getting in with one application season? how many people have to do post-bacc programs or take gap years? it makes it seem as though anyone with an interest in premed can be accepted to med school by attending your school when that's not the case

 

[TotalDomination]

There are few schoolswhere you can't get a good GPA with hard work.

Some (few) schools are harder than others (I mentioned which ones I think are harder above..there might be more but idk too much about other schools). But it's well known which ones grade hard and which ones grade easier. It's a personal decision people make before entering that university.