From a 4.0 Student: Why GPA shouldn't matter

[futuredrcrawfor]

---

Members do not see this ad.

College station is lame.

the town is lame but the education is good- i didn't go there but i have been to the campus before for math/science competitions while in middle and high school

 

[etf]

I agree with the completely OP.

I must admit, I always laugh at people who take the stance "The MCAT is a one day measure of your abilities that puts people under pressure, its just a standardized test, etc."

Woe is me... I can't perform under pressure with a standardized test. Oh really? Did you know that a doctor must perform under pressure when a patient's life is on the line? "Greatness" isn't measured in controlled situations. MJ wasn't the greatest basketball player ever because he could pull up and hit a 20 foot jump shot in practice. He could pull up and hit the same shot with one of the league's best defenders on him, with time running out to win the Eastern Conference Championship. All while RELISHING in it when it COUNTS the most. I suggest you choose another profession if you can't handle the heat. Deal with it.

MCAT is easier to fluke than a great GPA? Do tell me, can you go to the person grading your MCAT and grub, argue and force points back on the test? Can you beg the test graders to give you a 30 from a 29 because "I just have to have this score in order to still be competitive?" Can you get last year's copy of a test in order to have any advantage over another student?

In my opinion, someone with a 3.9 and a 29 should automatically receive a large red flag on their application. You were exposed to 99% of the material in your premed classes that you've "aced" and you can't score above a 30, please. Perfect example of grade inflation. You didn't deserve those As. I've taught MCAT classes for quite sometime and many of the students that brag about their astronomical GPAs struggle the most with equations they learned just 2 years ago. In one ear, out the other without any information ACTUALLY shoved in those egotistical little brains of theirs.

MCAT should definitely be measured in a higher regard in comparison to your overall GPA (Which I think is a better measure of work ethic).

i'm a high mcat/low gpa person (also a reapplicant), so take this how you will...

you can get lucky on the mcat. you can get a specific test that just so happens to focus on the things you know, and the hard part you weren't prepared for at all and left totally blank - well that could very well be the experimental section. hell, you could fill in random bubbles and break 40 once in a full moon. it's not likely, but it's possible.

the same isn't true for gpa. yes, you can always pick the easier professor, and grade-grub/brownnose. but these are also good skills to have in medschool, particularly when you are on the wards, and you are subjectively evaluated by someone else. you can't really get lucky with your gpa - a 4.0 takes discipline, even if you have the answer key to every test you take available.

those people with low mcats but with 3.9 gpas - all it takes is one saturday for you to move from the likes of not getting secondaries to those actively recruited by WashU. those with low gpas, might never be able to bring it up to a 3.7-4.0.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I don't think you can say applicant B is more qualified than applicant A for a lot of reasons other than just stats. However, if we're speaking in terms of stats, you have to consider that the MCAT is a one day assessment of your ability to think through material that is presented that day. Each test is different and depending which form you get may affect what scaled score you receive. For example, when I was taking my mocks my scores ranged from as low as 30 to as high as 41. On the real deal, I scored somewhere in between, but I could've just as easily scored a 30 if I had gotten a "bad" form for me and by your definition, a person with a 33 would have had a better grasp on the basic science. Or on the flip side, I could've scored a 41 and said that I have one of the best grasps on basic science and critical thinking than anyone applying to medical school, which wouldn't have been necessarily accurate either; I could've just gotten a form that was tailored to my strengths. The point is the difference between say a 30 and 33 can be only a handful of questions, and I think the questions one is asked on a given sitting can have a large effect on their overall score. AAMC likes to believe there isn't this kind of fluctuation on the tests, but I'm sure many of you can attest, your practice scores can be somewhat bipolar at times as were mine. In addition to MCAT discrepancies, grades are subject to this kind of bias as well. The person with a 3.7 could've taken an easy major at an easier institution and done relatively well and the person with a 3.3 could've had a hard major etc. You get the idea. Thus, I think both grades and the MCAT can be subjective and the truth as to which is a better indicator probably lies somewhere in between the two. They both have their pros and cons, and I think using the combination of the two helps balance these factors. And since grades and mcat scores are used to screen applicants, just do well on both and save yourself and adcoms the trouble of deciding whether or not you're qualified enough for their school. edit: sorry about the block of text, my work computer is acting up.

Very good post. MCAT would be much more reliable if we were required to take it 3 times. People can get lucky or unlucky once but it's extremely unlikey that they would get lucky or unlucky 3 times in a row. I know a guy who was getting 30-31 on all practice tests but got a 38 on the real thing. I also know of reverse cases. A one day test can never be a reliable indicator of an applicant's ability. A high GPA (e.g. 3.85+) from a top 25 school is really hard to get and no amount of studying is enough if you are not bright enough.

Grades are subjective too to an extent. There are people who know way more than just about anybody in their class (in fact they help and tutor others in their class) but they don't always get higher grades than the people they have tutored. Unless you are orders of magnitude better than your classmates, there is luck involved in getting good grades...

 

[gotmeds?]

Very good post. MCAT would be much more reliable if we were required to take it 3 times. People can get lucky or unlucky once but it's extremely unlikey that they would get lucky or unlucky 3 times in a row. I know a guy who was getting 30-31 on all practice tests but got a 38 on the real thing. I also know of reverse cases. A one day test can never be a reliable indicator of an applicant's ability. A high GPA (e.g. 3.85+) from a top 25 school is really hard to get and no amount of studying is enough if you are not bright enough.

MCAT 3 times, eh? Sounds like fun. Hey, you can take it as often as you like, but I was happy just taking it once. I guess I got lucky.

 

[BrokenGlass]

MCAT 3 times, eh? Sounds like fun. Hey, you can take it as often as you like, but I was happy just taking it once. I guess I got lucky.

I didn't say it's practical or pleasant. I said it's more reliable.

 

[drizzt3117]

Very good post. MCAT would be much more reliable if we were required to take it 3 times. People can get lucky or unlucky once but it's extremely unlikey that they would get lucky or unlucky 3 times in a row. I know a guy who was getting 30-31 on all practice tests but got a 38 on the real thing. I also know of reverse cases. A one day test can never be a reliable indicator of an applicant's ability. A high GPA (e.g. 3.85+) from a top 25 school is really hard to get and no amount of studying is enough if you are not bright enough.

Grades are subjective too to an extent. There are people who know way more than just about anybody in their class (in fact they help and tutor others in their class) but they don't always get higher grades than the people they have tutored. Unless you are orders of magnitude better than your classmates, there is luck involved in getting good grades...

Step 1 is a one day test. Residency directors don't seem to have a problem with using it as a primary factor for residency selection and putting even more emphasis on it than medical schools do for MCAT.

The State Bar Exam for law is a one day test, and State Bars don't seem to have a problem with using it to accredit lawyers.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Step 1 is a one day test. Residency directors don't seem to have a problem with using it as a primary factor for residency selection and putting even more emphasis on it than medical schools do for MCAT.

The State Bar Exam for law is a one day test, and State Bars don't seem to have a problem with using it to accredit lawyers.

State bar is a one day test but you can take it again if you don't pass it. Residency directors can do whatever they want because they have the power not because they care about being 100% objective.

 

[Jew Alcindor]

Doing poorly at a good school is still doing poorly, and doing well at a bad school is still doing well. The MCAT is the great equalizer, and everything I've read seems to indicate that it's weighted basically equal to the GPA. Also, I'm sure schools have data on average UG GPA and they certainly know which schools are prestigious and which have a reputation for being difficult. Same thing goes for majors. And they clearly care about school name a little bit. Michigan has its list of schools where x GPA and x MCAT warrant an automatic invite; I'm guessing Mankato State isn't on that list.

Here's a hint; there are smart kids in every city, county and state in the country. Anywhere, but especially in Middle America, a lot of these kids, for reasons not related to intelligence, ability or chances of admission, choose to go to state schools and unknown privates over the "top 25". They're at any school in the country. And getting a 4.0 is difficult anywhere; one slip and you're done. I think you'd have to get at or VERY near that to have a good shot at the top 5.

Funny how all these theories always come back to "And here's why the admissions process is unfair to me personally". I'm guessing most of these kids don't exactly light the world on fire once they make it to med school.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Doing poorly at a good school is still doing poorly, and doing well at a bad school is still doing well. The MCAT is the great equalizer, and everything I've read seems to indicate that it's weighted basically equal to the GPA. Also, I'm sure schools have data on average UG GPA and they certainly know which schools are prestigious and which have a reputation for being difficult. Same thing goes for majors. And they clearly care about school name a little bit. Michigan has its list of schools where x GPA and x MCAT warrant an automatic invite; I'm guessing Mankato State isn't on that list.

Here's a hint; there are smart kids in every city, county and state in the country. Anywhere, but especially in Middle America, a lot of these kids, for reasons not related to intelligence, ability or chances of admission, choose to go to state schools and unknown privates over the "top 25". They're at any school in the country. And getting a 4.0 is difficult anywhere; one slip and you're done. I think you'd have to get at or VERY near that to have a good shot at the top 5.

Funny how all these theories always come back to "And here's why the admissions process is unfair to me personally". I'm guessing most of these kids don't exactly light the world on fire once they make it to med school.

Someone once said that everybody has great ideas, except smart people's ideas are spaced closer together.

There are smart kids at any school but top schools have many more of them. So if you are smart kid at a top school, you may get your ass handed to you by even smarter kids. On the other hand, if you are a smart kid at a bad school, you'll be dominating your "peers" GPA-wise.

 

[drizzt3117]

State bar is a one day test but you can take it again if you don't pass it.

Kind of how you can take the MCAT again if you don't like your score?

Residency directors can do whatever they want because they have the power not because they care about being 100% objective.

One could assume if their selection criteria was netting them unqualified people, they would change it. So far, it seems to be working.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Kind of how you can take the MCAT again if you don't like your score?

Sure. Except if they required everybody to take it say 3 times and then averages the scores (or whatever other criteria they choose to use, as long as it's uniform), the MCAT scores would be much more reliable.

One could assume if their selection criteria was netting them unqualified people, they would change it. So far, it seems to be working.

I didn't say unqualified people get residencies but you cannot argue that there is a luck component involved on any test.

If the same batch of people took step 1 again, the chips may fall differently.

I once got the highest grade in the class on a midterm at Stanford and I didn't know 10% of what others knew. I got my ass kicked on the final and ended up with an A-. A person looking at my 59/60 on the midterm might have concluded that I was the best student in the class, which I was not.

 

[osli]

There are smart kids at any school but top schools have many more of them. So if you are smart kid at a top school, you may get your ass handed to you by even smarter kids. On the other hand, if you are a smart kid at a bad school, you'll be dominating your "peers" GPA-wise.

I call BS on this, unless every single one of your classes is heavily curved. In the majority of my classes, you simply received what you earned... it wouldn't matter if Einstein and Newton were in your class - you'd just have more company at the top. Most of my classes set that bar for the A somewhere from 90 to 93%. I can count the truly curved classes I took in undergrad on one hand, and the ones that had perhaps one test curved or a minor adjustment in scale (i.e., everyone shifted up a point or two equally) on the other hand.

 

[BrokenGlass]

I call BS on this, unless every single one of your classes is heavily curved. In the majority of my classes, you simply received what you earned... it wouldn't matter if Einstein and Newton were in your class - you'd just have more company at the top. Most of my classes set that bar for the A somewhere from 90 to 93%. I can count the truly curved classes I took in undergrad on one hand, and the ones that had perhaps one test curved or a minor adjustment in scale (i.e., everyone shifted up a point or two equally) on the other hand.

BS is kind of harsh. I have attended 2 different top 25 schools and the vast majority of my classes were heavily curved.

 

[drizzt3117]

BS is kind of harsh. I have attended 2 different top 25 schools and the vast majority of my classes were heavily curved.

Just depends on the school. Many LACs, even very top ones, do not curve. Also, some professors choose not to curve, even if it hurts their students. Some other schools do curve, but the mean is a C, so you need to be two standard deviations above the mean to get an A.

 

[Blade28]

I agree with this 100% (even though my GPA blows).

As much as it sucks to hear, the system works decently well. GPA gives a long-term report on academic results and the MCAT is the great equalizer - but only 1 day's worth of results. If it were just one or the other, people would get screwed. Although, if a vote came up to only count MCAT scores, I would be tempted . . .

And everyone can be shocked that people play the game. I have bad news for you, you'll be playing games for a long time in this process and unless you're really bright you have to play along.

You have an example of a great balanced app - high MCAT, decent GPA with a tough major. See, this is what I think gets you far.

 

[BrokenGlass]

Just depends on the school. Many LACs, even very top ones, do not curve. Also, some professors choose not to curve, even if it hurts their students. Some other schools do curve, but the mean is a C, so you need to be two standard deviations above the mean to get an A.

Even at schools that don't curve, exam difficulty is set such that only ~20% of students get As.

 

[BrokenGlass]

You have an example of a great balanced app - high MCAT, decent GPA with a tough major. See, this is what I think gets you far.

Blade I have a question for you. There are a bunch of X-rays taken for each trama patient (that's what I have seen). Sure doctors are wearing vests but don't they get way too much exposure to radiation? How likely are they to get cancer from this?

 

[Vihsadas]

BS is kind of harsh. I have attended 2 different top 25 schools and the vast majority of my classes were heavily curved.

wow. are you serious? I attend a top 20 school (international, canada, mcgill) and only one of my courses were curved. If everyone got a c on the exam, then that's what everyone would get!
Sheesh!

 

[brianmartin]

Sure doctors are wearing vests but don't they get way too much exposure to radiation? How likely are they to get cancer from this?

Wait, you mean those long black vests with splattered neon paint scheme aren't just the latest fashion!?

 

[drizzt3117]

Even at schools that don't curve, exam difficulty is set such that only ~20% of students get As.

That completely depends on the school, professor, and the quality of the students. At the LAC where I did my postbac, it's pretty much 90% = A and the vast majority of postbacs get As or A-s in all their classes. This doesn't affect the grades of any of the undergrads b/c there's no curve.

 

[beachblonde]

wow. are you serious? I attend a top 20 school (international, canada, mcgill) and only one of my courses were curved. If everyone got a c on the exam, then that's what everyone would get!
Sheesh!

Top 20 according to whom? I'm not being snarky-what list are you using? I think most people on these boards say "top 20" in reference to US News and World Report.

Even at schools that don't curve, exam difficulty is set such that only ~20% of students get As.

Maybe at some schools....others set it at 10%, or even lower.


This debate really will never end because all of us have had different experiences at our different schools. That's why the MCAT exists-to equalize everybody. I definitely don't believe that GPA should be the be-all, end-all during admissions, because schools vary wildly when it comes to difficulty and caliber of classes. A simple number-a GPA of 3.67 or whatever-tells you very little about a person and their educational background. There are too many variables in the equation-school, major, courses taken, hec even the prof who taught the class.

 

[Vihsadas]

Top 20 according to whom? I'm not being snarky-what list are you using? I think most people on these boards say "top 20" in reference to US News and World Report.

It's International, but is considered 'American' when referring to prereqs and such. It's one of the Top Canadian Universities along with University of Toronto. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. It's 12th in the world right now according to the Times-Highler Supplement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THES_-_QS_World_University_Rankings

 

[nomoreplz]

I'm replying to the OP. And I say this: that is sad. I've spent my college career taking the classes that I wanted to take, and it was awesome.

 

[veaselhaufen]

a

 

[Blade28]

Blade I have a question for you. There are a bunch of X-rays taken for each trama patient (that's what I have seen). Sure doctors are wearing vests but don't they get way too much exposure to radiation? How likely are they to get cancer from this?

Actually, usually most of us don't wear lead vests in the trauma bays - we just stand at least 6 feet away from the portable x-ray machines.

Is this safe? Supposedly. How likely are we to get cancer? No idea...hopefully very unlikely!

With all that's going on in our trauma bays, there's no way you could keep pulling on and taking off your lead vest. And you can't keep wearing it because it's damn heavy. (Well, I guess you could, but it'd be tough to run around.)

 

[Vvandenn]

s

 

[Vihsadas]

I think that one of the reasons the MCAT is used as a differentiator is simply because of the numbers.

The nature of the MCAT ensures that there are fewer students who have a spectacular MCAT than students who have a 3.9-4.0 GPA. Because of this, having a 99 percentile MCAT puts you in a smaller cohort of applicants than having a ridiculously high GPA.

This isn't a comment on whether this is a 'fair' way to differentiate, but rather only on why it might be that the MCAT is used.

 

[batman1983]

wow. are you serious? I attend a top 20 school (international, canada, mcgill) and only one of my courses were curved. If everyone got a c on the exam, then that's what everyone would get!
Sheesh!

Top 20 school in Canada? Arent there like only 20 schools in Canada? Just playing 🙂. McGill is a really good school, according to a couple Canadians I work with, they say it is the Harvard of Canada.

 

[Vihsadas]

Top 20 school in Canada? Arent there like only 20 schools in Canada? Just playing 🙂. McGill is a really good school, according to a couple Canadians I work with, they say it is the Harvard of Canada.

Haha. Touche.

 

[HumbleMD]

Haha. Touche.

Ahem. According to most toque-wearers I know, Harvard is the McGill of the U.S.

 

[Blade28]

Ah, "toque" - good crossword answer. 🙂

 

[deleted127837]

.

 

[beachblonde]

It's International, but is considered 'American' when referring to prereqs and such. It's one of the Top Canadian Universities along with University of Toronto. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. It's 12th in the world right now according to the Times-Highler Supplement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THES_-_QS_World_University_Rankings

I have heard of McGill-I just didn't get the context of where you were getting the Top 20 from. Like most people on these boards, I have a perspective of top 20 being typically limited to US schools-hence, the US News and World Report rankings.

 

[Vihsadas]

I have heard of McGill-I just didn't get the context of where you were getting the Top 20 from. Like most people on these boards, I have a perspective of top 20 being typically limited to US schools-hence, the US News and World Report rankings.

I understand that. But the important thing is how the school is viewed in terms of medical school admissions. McGill is considered in the 'top tier' of universities by the admissions committees of US medical schools. So for our purposes, McGill is a top tier university.

Most of the Canadian universities are accredited and recognized by the AAMC, and are fully recognized as institutions that meet the prerequisite course requirements for any US medical school. Unlike students who attend undergraduate universities in Europe or other continents, if a student goes to a Canadian university, his prerequisites are counted without having to take a year of medical prerequisites in the USA to be eligible for US medical school admissions.

So by that measure, McGill may as well be a 'Top 20' or 'Top tier' school for US medical school admissions purposes. Admissions committees will consider it as such.

 

[osli]

BS is kind of harsh.

Yeah, sorry, BS was kind of harsh. I'm sure there is a wide variation in how heavily schools curve, and it looks like you went to one that does use it heavily. My point was that it certainly isn't universal (at least heavy usage isn't universal), so it becomes impossible to compare students from "the top 25" directly to each other or to any other school without knowing all sorts of nearly unknowable details. Which is one of the primary reasons I think the seemingly popular idea that a 3.5 from a "top 25" is a better record than a higher GPA from some other school is just unfounded flights of fancy.

 

[osli]

Even at schools that don't curve, exam difficulty is set such that only ~20% of students get As.

That certainly isn't universal either. Seems like you are taking your singular experiences from the one school you attend and are extrapolating (assuming) that all other schools across the country must be similar.

I've had classes where the curve attempted to fit the distribution to a near normal one with the mean at B-, top score at 100, and the bottom end wherever it fell.

I've had classes that had absolutely no curve and you earned what you earned. No attempt was made to modify exam difficulty to bring up a bad class average, nor where exams unduly difficult if everyone was doing well.

I've had classes that had no curve, but "bonus points" on exams, "drop grades" and the weighting of particular exams all fluctuated a bit to try and maintain a decent spectrum of grades (i.e., if everyone bombed a particular exam it didn't count much, and if the class average was dropping too low a few extra bonus questions showed up on the next few exams).

I've had classes where you earned what you earned, but at the end the top grade was slid up to 100% and all others by the same number of points as that top grade, and then letters assigned on a strict cut-off.

I've had classes (math) where every single test went through some crazy computer algorithm that tried to account for outliers in the data and derive the "perfect" adjustment curve.

And that is from just two universities... I can imagine there are many more variations out there. How again are you supposed to know that school A has more "smart" people than school B based on average GPA or reputation? Or that your organic chemistry grade corresponds to a particular grade from every other school?

 

[beachblonde]

I understand that. But the important thing is how the school is viewed in terms of medical school admissions. McGill is considered in the 'top tier' of universities by the admissions committees of US medical schools. So for our purposes, McGill is a top tier university.

Most of the Canadian universities are accredited and recognized by the AAMC, and are fully recognized as institutions that meet the prerequisite course requirements for any US medical school. Unlike students who attend undergraduate universities in Europe or other continents, if a student goes to a Canadian university, his prerequisites are counted without having to take a year of medical prerequisites in the USA to be eligible for US medical school admissions.

So by that measure, McGill may as well be a 'Top 20' or 'Top tier' school for US medical school admissions purposes. Admissions committees will consider it as such.

dude, chill, we get that it's a good school. what's with the diatribe?

 

[Vihsadas]

dude, chill, we get that it's a good school. what's with the diatribe?

oh I didn't realize that we were tiffing. haha. I'm actually quite relaxed. You asked, I answered, you replied, then I replied. That's all. This is pretty off topic for the thread, so I'm out. peace.

 

[anomalous738232]

I don't know if your university grades on a bell-curve, but mine does.

Meaning, if a student took an "easy" professor, than that would mean the class average would be higher than the class average of a "hard" professor.

4.0's are only rewarded to the top 4% of the class, and 2.6's are awarded to anyone scoring within the class average.

I'm pretty sure a lot of universities play this "bell-curve" when it comes to science courses. This prevents SOME people from getting 4.0's just by taking the easier prof.

 

[batman1983]

All I know is that our parents, teachers, guidance counselors, and etc, lied to us about what undergrad school matters. Unless you do law, business, or engineering, school really doesnt make a difference.

 

[Perrotfish]

Just mcat? If this where the case someone with a 30 MCAT with a 2.9 GPA would be accepted over someone with a 29 MCAT and a 3.9 GPA. Ridiculous IMO

Well then you should be judged soley based on your grades in your premed courses (not BCPM, just the half-a-dozen classes required for admissions to medical school), and those courses should have standardized tests that are the same at every institution (The ACS is already implementing this for the Chemistry courses). At the very least a student shouldn't be at a severe disadvantage because they took engineering classes at MIT rather than pottery classes at a community college, which is how the system works right now.

 

[Drogba]

I don't know if your university grades on a bell-curve, but mine does.

Meaning, if a student took an "easy" professor, than that would mean the class average would be higher than the class average of a "hard" professor.

4.0's are only rewarded to the top 4% of the class, and 2.6's are awarded to anyone scoring within the class average.

I'm pretty sure a lot of universities play this "bell-curve" when it comes to science courses. This prevents SOME people from getting 4.0's just by taking the easier prof.

???

You are telling me only 4 people of 100 make As? What if the class only has 25 people or less? They are all fighting for the one A?

 

[MDHopeful08]

???

You are telling me only 4 people of 100 make As? What if the class only has 25 people or less? They are all fighting for the one A?

Exactly. They do this in Canadian schools like my school (U of Toronto) all the time, so no matter how well you study for an exam and not matter how well you THINK you did, you are not guaranteed an A/A+......so sad🙁

 

[Decicco]

At my school, the science courses have a test average of about 78%. The top half of the class gets As and Bs while the bottom half gets Cs, Ds, and Fs. Overall, about the top 20% of the class gets A's.

 

[atomi]

I reluctantly play the GPA game so that I can get into medical school.

This is hogwash. The only difference between taking a difficult course and making an A and taking an easy course and making an A is that you have to work harder in the more difficult course. I think that medical schools would recognize and appreciate this. If you really want to be competitive, it seems like taking interesting and difficult courses and working hard enough to do well in them is the way to go. I don't think there is any course out there that can't be aced. Sounds like you are just trying to justify being lazy and having a fear of getting anything other than an A. Sorry.

 

[majik1213]

to balance things out, the MCAT exists .. especially for folks who are into the GPA inflation game .. they are the ones who the MCAT destroys

 

[paradocs we are]

???

You are telling me only 4 people of 100 make As? What if the class only has 25 people or less? They are all fighting for the one A?

Exactly. They do this in Canadian schools like my school (U of Toronto) all the time, so no matter how well you study for an exam and not matter how well you THINK you did, you are not guaranteed an A/A+......so sad🙁

Which is why you don't go to UofT....

 

[novastorm]

I dunno from my experience the most shrewed adcoms see if your grades are lower you made poor decisions as an undergrad, if your grades are higher then you made better ones...I don't see them really caring what you took unless you are to an extreme and even then I don't think its that important.

Didn't notice this was a zombie thread

 

[Drogba]

I LOVE the thread resurrections. It sends me back man!

 

[RySerr21]

I call BS on this, unless every single one of your classes is heavily curved. In the majority of my classes, you simply received what you earned... it wouldn't matter if Einstein and Newton were in your class - you'd just have more company at the top. Most of my classes set that bar for the A somewhere from 90 to 93%. I can count the truly curved classes I took in undergrad on one hand, and the ones that had perhaps one test curved or a minor adjustment in scale (i.e., everyone shifted up a point or two equally) on the other hand.

agreed. i've never been in a class with a true curve. most all the classes i have taken were straight points. if everyone got an A then everyone got an A. the problem is that there are often very few points. in my anatomy class if you miss 16 points the entire semester thats alreayd a B+.

i did have a class that was curved to the highest grade in the class, so if the highest grade was a 92/100 then the test was then out of 92.