Do Ad-Coms adjust for the varying rigor at different undergrad schools?

[volcomx]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Take the bottom 10% of SAT scorers and put them into a college. Curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Then, take the top 10% of SAT scorers, put them into a college, and curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Are the two groups of students who scored As equal?

 

[Plue00]

Take the bottom 10% of SAT scorers and put them into a college. Curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Then, take the top 10% of SAT scorers, put them into a college, and curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Are the two groups of students who scored As equal?

Nope!

But this is SDN, so obviously they are 🙄

 

[Captain Sisko]

Also, the "MCAT standardization" crap is getting really old. The MCAT tests you on bio, chem, orgo and physics. That's 4 classes in your undergrad. It doesn't take any other class into account such as upper level math or bio classes...

disagree with your point. there are so many majors that people pursue that it makes any reckoning between applicants akin to apples and oranges. There is simply no good, even way to compare applicants because of the variability in the upper levels that you point out. I would posit that the mcat is the single most effective, direct, objective way to compare applicants because it is so standard.

it's not perfect but I'd say it standardizes the pool about as effectively as you can, given the metrics available.

 

[darkjedi]

My school was also somewhat notorious for grade deflation as well, or at least it was commonplace knowledge amongst the students and alumni. During my year, 95% of my class graduated with a 3.60 or below. Even though I graduated in the top 10% of my class, my GPA was only ~3.5.

The only reason I think my application was cut some slack was due to my MCAT as I think my GPA significantly hurt my application in the early months of the season. I had tried to include my class rank in my application, but I am not sure how much it helped.

Don't expect the fact that your school is known for grade deflation to win you much sympathy. It can potentially alleviate some doubts about your application, but you need to get past the screens first.

 

[lilwayne]

I wouldn't worry too much about people saying Yale = no name school in terms of rigor.

At the end of the day, adcoms know that top schools generally have better students and harder classes. You'll never get through to SDN about how it's harder at a top school compared to an average school, as most people here don't really go to a top school.

I go to a top 25 school and thought our tests were hard. Then I saw tests from top 10 schools and it made my school's tests look relatively easy.

There's a reason that the all the state med schools in my state are filled about 75% top schools and 25% average schools. Adcoms that came to visit my school said they understand the rigor of most top schools due to grade deflation. People argue that top schools have grade inflation, but they don't take into account that you're competing with some of the smartest people in the world to get into the top 15-20% of the class.

A B- average at a Yale class =/= a B- average at an average school.

Also, the "MCAT standardization" crap is getting really old. The MCAT tests you on bio, chem, orgo and physics. That's 4 classes in your undergrad. It doesn't take any other class into account such as upper level math or bio classes...

Take the bottom 10% of SAT scorers and put them into a college. Curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Then, take the top 10% of SAT scorers, put them into a college, and curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Are the two groups of students who scored As equal?

Nope!

But this is SDN, so obviously they are 🙄

Dude...you nailed it. Completely right.

 

[mcloaf]

You haven't offered a shred of reasoning to believe that SAT/ACT and gpa aren't good metrics of caliber. Nor intelligently refuted anything I said.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from a state school kid.


P.S. Yeah, I am that big of a dick.

Your posts make me feel really bad for my friend who went to Yale. I truly hope he didn't have to deal with people like you on a daily basis.

 

[Dbate]

Your posts make me feel really bad for my friend who went to Yale. I truly hope he didn't have to deal with people like you on a daily basis.

Some people in the world are just as*holes. I happen to be one of them.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loqxsj6NfA1qms0szo1_500.gif


Edit: Most people on campus talk down on Cornell as a bad school, so I doubt I'm the only a-hole he has to deal with.

 

[mcloaf]

Some people in the world are just as*holes. I happen to be one of them.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loqxsj6NfA1qms0szo1_500.gif

I can only hope you're honest at your medical school interviews.

 

[Dbate]

I can only hope you're honest at your medical school interviews.

I said I'm an a-hole, not stupid.

 

[mcloaf]

I said I'm an a-hole, not stupid.

Well naturally, you're at HYPSM.

😛

 

[amygdala2]

I don't understand why Swarthmore is considered a grade deflated school. Their average GPA is a 3.58*, which is the exact same as my school. But my school is considered to have grade inflation.

*Source: http://www.swarthmore.edu/student-life/health-sciences-office/applying-to-med-school-guide.xml

that is surprising! I've heard that Swarthmore practices grade deflation, but how can that be possible with such a high average GPA? At my undergrad the average GPA is around 3.1-3.2

Also found this interesting, as it's similar to the GPA my undergrad pre-med advisor told me is average for matriculating MD students from my school. This makes me think that the undergrad institution attended does give one some leeway.

"What grade point average is necessary to become a serious contender for admission to medical school? Nationally, the average AMCAS GPA in 2011 for matriculating students was 3.67. The average AMCAS GPA for accepted Swarthmore applicants was 3.47."

 

[sinombre]

You haven't offered a shred of reasoning to believe that SAT/ACT and gpa aren't good metrics of caliber. Nor intelligently refuted anything I said.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from a state school kid.


P.S. Yeah, I am that big of a dick.

Wow. You weren't kidding.

At least these posts are entertaining.

 

[Dbate]

Wow. You weren't kidding.

At least these posts are entertaining.

My philosophy is always: If you're gonna troll, at least be entertaining! 😀

 

[osprey099]

My philosophy is always: If you're gonna troll, at least be entertaining! 😀

Yale is not even close to what you will see at places like Cornell, JHU, Duke, and WashU (the 4 traditional pre-med powerhouses).

 

[mcloaf]

Yale is not even close to what you will see at places like Cornell, JHU, Duke, and WashU (the 4 traditional pre-med powerhouses).

It makes me sad that that's a thing.

 

[Dbate]

Yale is not even close to what you will see at places like Cornell, JHU, Duke, and WashU (the 4 traditional pre-med powerhouses).

What do you mean? Is the grading there ridiculously difficult?


I know Princeton is actually really rough. A 3.5 qualifies as cum laude at that school, whereas you need at least a 3.8 here. Glad Princeton rejected me.

Another really difficult school is MIT. I tried doing one of their orgo exams for practice and it was IMPOSSIBLE. All I can say is that I am glad I don't go to that school. Competing against a bunch of geniuses would be awful 😛

 

[nabilesmail]

I would consider UCLA a pre-med powerhouse, even though its a bit less competitive than those schools (though still a great and competitive school) it has the most amount of premeds applying, than any other univ.

 

[sinombre]

I would consider UCLA a pre-med powerhouse, even though its a bit less competitive than those schools (though still a great and competitive school) it has the most amount of premeds applying, than any other univ.

Yep, with Berkeley not far behind.

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/86042/table2.html

 

[osprey099]

I would consider UCLA a pre-med powerhouse, even though its a bit less competitive than those schools (though still a great and competitive school) it has the most amount of premeds applying, than any other univ.

UCLA and Berkely have the most applicants because they are large schools. The reason those 4 I mentioned are pre-med powerhouses is because they are places where you have probably heard rumors about cutthroat competition, intense committee screening, and the like.

 

[A7X]

Yale is not even close to what you will see at places like Cornell, JHU, Duke, and WashU (the 4 traditional pre-med powerhouses).

I've heard JHU is extremely tough for Pre-med, especially since so many of their entering class start off as Pre-med. pretty much every science class could be considered a weed out class at a another school.

 

[nabilesmail]

UCLA and Berkely have the most applicants because they are large schools. The reason those 4 I mentioned are pre-med powerhouses is because they are places where you have probably heard rumors about cutthroat competition, intense committee screening, and the like.

Ahh, When reading the word pre-med powerhouse I thought you meant big premed schools, but you meant rigorous premed schools :]

 

[mcloaf]

UCLA and Berkely have the most applicants because they are large schools. The reason those 4 I mentioned are pre-med powerhouses is because they are places where you have probably heard rumors about cutthroat competition, intense committee screening, and the like.

I'd probably use the word powerhouse for places that put a lot of people in med school. Sounds like you're looking for the phrase pressure cooker.

 

[nabilesmail]

I'd probably use the word powerhouse for places that put a lot of people in med school. Sounds like you're looking for the phrase pressure cooker.

Yeah I thought the same

 

[Aerus]

Take the bottom 10% of SAT scorers and put them into a college. Curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Then, take the top 10% of SAT scorers, put them into a college, and curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Are the two groups of students who scored As equal?

Let me alter your post a bit for my argument:

Take a random group of people, with decent, but varying SAT scores (1700-2400), and put them into a college. Curve their grades so that 15% of them get an A or an A-.

Take the top 3% of SAT scorers (2100+), put them into a college, and curve their grades so that 40% of them get an A or an A-.

In my opinion, both look equally difficult. What I just compared was a typical UC school to an Ivy League. SAT also does not indicate if one is truly remarkable in the classroom environment. It just means you were either grew up privileged or can take a single test and do well. I know plenty of people with 2300+ SAT scores at my school who are doing poorly (many of them who also got into places like Yale but chose not to go).

When you compare top grade inflated institutions like Yale or Brown and grade deflated schools like many of the UC schools, there really isn't a big difference in difficulty.

NOW, if you have a top institution that's grade DEFLATED, like Princeton, THEN you know that school is extremely rigorous above the rest, in terms of getting a good grade.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

At some schools, all the professor knows about the student is what is in the grade book and the letter is indicative of that. Some will at least put the grade book in context.

Very few students demonstrate their character (at least not in a positive way) and their outside of the classroom activities to their professors, particularly at large schools. Professors should write what they know which is quite limited in many cases to the student's quizzes and exams, lab reports, papers, class discussion and questions posed during office hours. At some liberal arts colleges, faculty and students have more opportunities for collegiality outside of the classroom and once in awhile I'll see someone mentioning casual conversations enjoyed with a student at a cultural event on campus, etc. but that is rare.

You're an adcom member at a top 10 and you say it's rare to see a letter to see anything more than a generic letter? I thought generic letters where all professor mentions is the grade a student earned in class and them coming to class followed by "I'm sure they'll be a good addition to medical school" were considered poor LORs. Is that a myth, or is it just the case that it's only the very few people with good LORs get interviews/acceptances? Or am I totally misunderstanding what you wrote?

 

[PreMedRookie]

According to this website http://www.gradeinflation.com/sweet162010.html

"1. Purdue University. Getting an A is hard for the Boilermakers with an average GPA that has hovered around 2.8 for over 30 years. Purdue doesn't even seem to know that grade inflation exists in America."

This website has an interesting graph..http://www.gradeinflation.com/

 

[dmf2682]

I wish it was more well know that Purdue has 0 grade inflation.

According to this website http://www.gradeinflation.com/sweet162010.html

"1. Purdue University. Getting an A is hard for the Boilermakers with an average GPA that has hovered around 2.8 for over 30 years. Purdue doesn't even seem to know that grade inflation exists in America."

This website has an interesting graph..http://www.gradeinflation.com/

Best in the East!!

 

[LizzyM]

You're an adcom member at a top 10 and you say it's rare to see a letter to see anything more than a generic letter? I thought generic letters where all professor mentions is the grade a student earned in class and them coming to class followed by "I'm sure they'll be a good addition to medical school" were considered poor LORs. Is that a myth, or is it just the case that it's only the very few people with good LORs get interviews/acceptances? Or am I totally misunderstanding what you wrote?

We don't penalize students who attend schools where they aren't able to interact with the faculty one-on-one and therefore end up with a letter that is little more than a regurgitation of the grade book. We see this from some of the flagship state schools where there are hundreds of students in the pre-med pre-req lectures halls. In that regard, we don't consider these letters to be "poor" or "weak" just because it is that style. The content of the letter can kill you ("He had a 99.9 going into the final and seems to have directed his efforts elsewhere during the finals period. Although he ended the term with an A, his final exam performance was far below his work up to that point.") but the letter style itself won't be held against you.

On the other hand, I recall a letter from a varsity coach who wrote a very eloquent letter about the applicant's leadership, respectful behavior on road trips, work ethic, etc because he had had the opportunity to personally observe the applicant in a number of circumstances. That is a rare situation but it is good when it happens. A faculty leader of an extra-curricular activity is often in a good position to write a letter of this type for someone who is an on-campus leader (band, orchestra, newspaper, campus service organization, campus faith community).

 

[487806]

Yale is not even close to what you will see at places like Cornell, JHU, Duke, and WashU (the 4 traditional pre-med powerhouses).

You're joking right?

I said I'm an a-hole, not stupid.

At least that's confirmed.

Take the bottom 10% of SAT scorers and put them into a college. Curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Then, take the top 10% of SAT scorers, put them into a college, and curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Are the two groups of students who scored As equal?

Nope!

But this is SDN, so obviously they are 🙄

Thanks for emphasizing the fact. This here is a crucial point that most SDN premeds miss (not surprising).

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

We don't penalize students who attend schools where they aren't able to interact with the faculty one-on-one and therefore end up with a letter that is little more than a regurgitation of the grade book. We see this from some of the flagship state schools where there are hundreds of students in the pre-med pre-req lectures halls. In that regard, we don't consider these letters to be "poor" or "weak" just because it is that style. The content of the letter can kill you ("He had a 99.9 going into the final and seems to have directed his efforts elsewhere during the finals period. Although he ended the term with an A, his final exam performance was far below his work up to that point.") but the letter style itself won't be held against you.

On the other hand, I recall a letter from a varsity coach who wrote a very eloquent letter about the applicant's leadership, respectful behavior on road trips, work ethic, etc because he had had the opportunity to personally observe the applicant in a number of circumstances. That is a rare situation but it is good when it happens. A faculty leader of an extra-curricular activity is often in a good position to write a letter of this type for someone who is an on-campus leader (band, orchestra, newspaper, campus service organization, campus faith community).

Very interesting. I figured EC LORs were usually more substantive than academic LORs, but I always wondered how applicants were getting so buddy-buddy with their professors in big classes such that it seemed like everyone and their dog gets long, glowing letters from professors. I guess the answer is they're not.

Out of curiosity, why do most schools demand academic LORs if they know that they're not going to get anything very helpful? Instead of 2 science/1 non-science, why not ask for 2 EC/1 academic?

I wish it was more well know that Purdue has 0 grade inflation.

According to this website http://www.gradeinflation.com/sweet162010.html

"1. Purdue University. Getting an A is hard for the Boilermakers with an average GPA that has hovered around 2.8 for over 30 years. Purdue doesn't even seem to know that grade inflation exists in America."

This website has an interesting graph..http://www.gradeinflation.com/

I'm curious how much of that is schools/professors handing out better grades more often in an attempt to give their students an edge, and how much of that is due to a rising quality in students. The GPA inflation matches up well with GPA increases in med school admissions, for example. However, MCAT scores have been creeping upward during that time as well, and we all know the MCAT hasn't gotten any easier (to the contrary). The same holds true for other standardized graduate admissions tests I believe. On top of that, the CVs of fresh college graduates have been getting more and more impressive. For example, it used to be rare for undergrads to do research, even pre-grad students. Nowadays even most pre-meds are doing research for at least a year. Same with physician shadowing; apparently it used to be rare, now it's virtually an unspoken requirement.

None of this lines up with the idea that grade inflation is just an active attempt by schools to increase average GPAs to attract more students and make their graduates more competitive. It seems like grade inflation may actually represent a genuine increase in the average GPA of college students as a result of an economy that grows ever more competitive every year. It used to be a BA/BS was enough to get you a good job, and no one cared about your GPA. These days a BA/BS is the new high school diploma, and graduate degrees are becoming common. No longer can you treat college as a four year vacation and expect to have anything to show for it at the end.

 

[Plue00]

I wish it was more well know that Purdue has 0 grade inflation.

According to this website http://www.gradeinflation.com/sweet162010.html

"1. Purdue University. Getting an A is hard for the Boilermakers with an average GPA that has hovered around 2.8 for over 30 years. Purdue doesn't even seem to know that grade inflation exists in America."

This website has an interesting graph..http://www.gradeinflation.com/

"The South

1. Virginia Commonwealth University. Public schools in urban settings can be very tough places to earn an A. At VCU, even getting a B can be an achievement. Its average GPA is 2.6, far below national averages.

2. Hampden-Sydney College. H-SC is a very small school tucked away in the South. It's had modest problems with grade inflation over the last decade, but H-SC's grades are still so low relative to other liberal arts colleges that it fully merits a number 2 seed in the very tough Southern region.

3. Roanoke College. Liberal arts colleges tend to be easy A heaven. That's not so at Roanoke where B is still the most common grade and A's are earned less than 30 percent of the time.

4. Auburn University. Another Tiger in this year's Sweet Sixteen. Eat your hearts out 'Bama; Auburn is just a tougher place to earn an A."

The first 3 colleges are in my state and they have the crappiest students going there. Literally, EVERYONE gets into those schools. If you couldn't get into a good college or even an above average college out of high school, you went to one of these dipolima mills (unless you get a scholarship, which is rare). Gradeinflation.com is probably the worst cite to go to to study grade inflation/deflation.

 

[metview]

lol @ people in this thread trying to make their non-rigorous university look rigorous by stating the average undergrad GPA when their university is filled with 90% of *****s. I also agree with the poster above me; everyone and anyone gets in VCU and getting a a 3.8+ there would mean spending more time goofing off than actual studying.

 

[SOMBound13]

Originally Posted by volcomx
Take the bottom 10% of SAT scorers and put them into a college. Curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Then, take the top 10% of SAT scorers, put them into a college, and curve their grades so that 10% of them get an A.

Are the two groups of students who scored As equal?

I don't think this example "works" because the MCAT scores are going to speak loudly as to the strength of the various students' education.

if a few of those "bottom SAT" students end up with 35 MCATs, then fine, believe their grades are meaningful and accept them. If they end up with 25 MCATs, then the adcoms should be able to figure out that their grades are likely fluff.

That said, I can't imagine any school filled with "bottom 10%" SAT scorers having many/any students make it thru the premed prereqs unless the curriculum is so dumbed down that it's a total joke or the grades are curved that everyone who scores a 20% or more gets an A.

 

[xffan624]

"The South

1. Virginia Commonwealth University. Public schools in urban settings can be very tough places to earn an A. At VCU, even getting a B can be an achievement. Its average GPA is 2.6, far below national averages.

2. Hampden-Sydney College. H-SC is a very small school tucked away in the South. It's had modest problems with grade inflation over the last decade, but H-SC's grades are still so low relative to other liberal arts colleges that it fully merits a number 2 seed in the very tough Southern region.

3. Roanoke College. Liberal arts colleges tend to be easy A heaven. That's not so at Roanoke where B is still the most common grade and A's are earned less than 30 percent of the time.

4. Auburn University. Another Tiger in this year's Sweet Sixteen. Eat your hearts out 'Bama; Auburn is just a tougher place to earn an A."

The first 3 colleges are in my state and they have the crappiest students going there. Literally, EVERYONE gets into those schools. If you couldn't get into a good college or even an above average college out of high school, you went to one of these dipolima mills (unless you get a scholarship, which is rare). Gradeinflation.com is probably the worst cite to go to to study grade inflation/deflation.

+1, The top three are crap colleges. I went to a private high school in VA and the low-mid tier students were the ones who applied and went to VCU. The bottom of the barrel went to Hampton-Sydney and I've never even heard of Roanoke College.

 

[LizzyM]

Very interesting. I figured EC LORs were usually more substantive than academic LORs, but I always wondered how applicants were getting so buddy-buddy with their professors in big classes such that it seemed like everyone and their dog gets long, glowing letters from professors. I guess the answer is they're not.

Out of curiosity, why do most schools demand academic LORs if they know that they're not going to get anything very helpful? Instead of 2 science/1 non-science, why not ask for 2 EC/1 academic?

Some schools take these 2 science/1 non-science and append them to a very personalized committee (or advisor) letter that is very formulaic (which I love because I know for a given school exactly what I'll find , topic-wise,and where I'll find it within the text) but very informative as it synthesizes the student's academic record, service, research, and clinical experiences, and sometimes some personal things about family, the transition from HS to college, etc.

Some schools are small enough that students never have huge lecture hall courses, even in pre-reqs, and they are able to garner letters from faculty in small seminar classes in advanced level material.

So, the medical schools are tilting the playing field toward the pre-med powerhouses (the Ivies, Hopkins, UVA, UNC-CH, Duke, Emory, ND, UChicago, WashU come to my mind) and some of the liberal arts colleges, at the expense of some of the big schools that don't have committee letters and where students rarely see a classroom of < 100.

 

[SmallBlock]

What do you mean? Is the grading there ridiculously difficult?


I know Princeton is actually really rough. A 3.5 qualifies as cum laude at that school, whereas you need at least a 3.8 here. Glad Princeton rejected me.

Princeton doesn't give out latin honors. Just departmental honors, and gpa requirements vary wildly between departments. Part of the reason why deflation was enacted, I think. Grading policies were really inconsistent between humanities and sciences.

 

[LizzyM]

Princeton doesn't give out latin honors. Just departmental honors, and gpa requirements vary wildly between departments. Part of the reason why deflation was enacted, I think. Grading policies were really inconsistent between humanities and sciences.

Really? Friend's Princeton diploma from 25 years ago says cum laude in small print on the bottom. Have things changed from a generation ago?

 

[SmallBlock]

Really? Friend's Princeton diploma from 25 years ago says cum laude in small print on the bottom. Have things changed from a generation ago?

Could be. My department didn't even grant any honors, just "book prizes." Departmental honors are similar, obviously, since there are grade requirements, and the pre-med advisers suggest just listing them as latin honors on the AMCAS app since that's how most people will interpret them anyway. But in truth they still aren't quite the same, again because of discrepancies in award policies across departments.

 

[Derv]

Back to the original question - I know of some state schools in the South which will give students who come from more competitive programs a "GPA boost" when looking at the files. For example, for 'highly competitive,' they may add 0.3 to the student's GPA, or for 'competitive' they may add 0.2. I'm sure this practice is not found all over the country, but it does exist.

 

[SilverCat]

Yale is not even close to what you will see at places like Cornell, JHU, Duke, and WashU (the 4 traditional pre-med powerhouses).

If you mean rigor, I would definitely consider them powerhouses, having attended one of them myself. However, the UCs produce the most premeds--about half the people I met on the interview trails came from one of the UCs. I never met anyone from Cornell, Duke, or WashU at interviews, and only a couple Hopkins students. However, I interviewed at low tier schools, and it could just be that they were only going to top tier schools.

 

[boomerang33]

What do you mean? Is the grading there ridiculously difficult?


I know Princeton is actually really rough. A 3.5 qualifies as cum laude at that school, whereas you need at least a 3.8 here. Glad Princeton rejected me.

Another really difficult school is MIT. I tried doing one of their orgo exams for practice and it was IMPOSSIBLE. All I can say is that I am glad I don't go to that school. Competing against a bunch of geniuses would be awful 😛

"
"powerhouse" grad here 🙂
I'm sure we're pretty much the same ash any other top 20 in terms of rigor of the pre-med coursework and grading policies. I think our rep comes from the tendency of our program to weed people out (in a class of 1500, about 600 began in General Chemistry- 200 finished Organic). Most of my science courses were curved to a B/ the rare B+, but the curves themselves were crazy (for example, the average on the first GenChem exam I ever took was a 31%)

But yeah, in terms of the original point of the thread, I've always been told by adcom related folks that some schools numerically standardize GPA based on your school's rank or pre-med rep. I tend to look at it this way: as long as you've challenged yourself in the academic environment you're in and made the most of the opportunities you were given, this isn't worth losing sleep over 🙂

 

[Dbate]

Princeton doesn't give out latin honors. Just departmental honors, and gpa requirements vary wildly between departments. Part of the reason why deflation was enacted, I think. Grading policies were really inconsistent between humanities and sciences.

I don't think this is correct. My friend's sister graduated from Princeton about 2 (or 3) years ago and she was awarded cum laude.

Maybe they changed it, but they certainly used to give out latin honors.

 

[SmallBlock]

I don't think this is correct. My friend's sister graduated from Princeton about 2 (or 3) years ago and she was awarded cum laude.

Maybe they changed it, but they certainly used to give out latin honors.

They used to, that certainly seems true. If you look up any well-known Princeton grad like Jeff Bezos, you're likely to see some form of cum laude after their name, as well as Phi Beta Kappa, etc. My guess is this is a fairly recent change that probably coincided with the implementation of deflation policies, which were within the last decade, I believe.

Your friend's sister may have been awarded departmental honors and either a) calls it cum laude for the sake of interpretation or b) her department really calls it "cum laude." But Princeton as an institution does not award honors equivalent to what you're thinking.

 

[metview]

I am surprised that pre-req classes at top schools are curved to a B+. I attend a top 10 ivy league school, not HYP, and ALL pre-req classes are curved to a B-/C+ with roughly 20% of the class receiving A grades (A+/A/A-).

 

[487806]

"The South

1. Virginia Commonwealth University. Public schools in urban settings can be very tough places to earn an A. At VCU, even getting a B can be an achievement. Its average GPA is 2.6, far below national averages.

2. Hampden-Sydney College. H-SC is a very small school tucked away in the South. It's had modest problems with grade inflation over the last decade, but H-SC's grades are still so low relative to other liberal arts colleges that it fully merits a number 2 seed in the very tough Southern region.

3. Roanoke College. Liberal arts colleges tend to be easy A heaven. That's not so at Roanoke where B is still the most common grade and A's are earned less than 30 percent of the time.

4. Auburn University. Another Tiger in this year's Sweet Sixteen. Eat your hearts out 'Bama; Auburn is just a tougher place to earn an A."

The first 3 colleges are in my state and they have the crappiest students going there. Literally, EVERYONE gets into those schools. If you couldn't get into a good college or even an above average college out of high school, you went to one of these dipolima mills (unless you get a scholarship, which is rare). Gradeinflation.com is probably the worst cite to go to to study grade inflation/deflation.

I agree with the bolded. If colleges actually admitted hardworking and dedicated students rather than village idiots from the street, their reputation will soar.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

Lol I wonder where Baylor and UT rank in terms of rigor ?

 

[sliceofbread136]

Lol I wonder where Baylor and UT rank in terms of rigor ?

UT in the middle, baylor lower middle. My guess atleast 😎

 

[Status Sciaticus]

UT in the middle, baylor lower middle. My guess atleast 😎

I was going to say the opposite lol.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I was going to say the opposite lol.

Maybe. Atleast from what I've heard Baylor has a real garbage reputation, so I don't think many adcoms would put it above UT. Then again what do I know

 

[Status Sciaticus]

Maybe. Atleast from what I've heard Baylor has a real garbage reputation, so I don't think many adcoms would put it above UT. Then again what do I know

Daamn lol. Should've gone to UT... would've been better and cheaper.

Definitely gonna be researching ahead on residency so I dont drop the ball again.