Princeton reining in grade inflation

[tank you]

cnn
maybe others will follow suit

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Chrissy]

I think whats ironic about the ivy league grade inflation debate is after they actually crack down on grades, even more ivy grads are going to go to top tier med schools because their "average" GPA's are gonna be worth much much more and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of kids with high GPA's even changes much if at all. Students of a certain level of prowess (to generalize the ivy league premeds) are going to do well no matter where they go or how hard it is to get an A in Physics at Yale. There's always gonna be people smart enough to get that high grade even if it's given to less people, which will ultimately help those "average" ivy leaguers because then their "borderline" GPA's will be better than higher GPA's from lower tier schools.....then there will be a whole other new debate on sdn about how that's not fair. I'm not trying to start another debate on this but in my opinion, this issue will more significantly effect non-ivy leaguers than applicants from top schools. thoughts?

 

[jjy2103]

i went to undergrad at UC berkeley...and am doing postbacc an Columbia...

took gen chem at UC berkeley...found it extremely competitive...worked my ass off and was on a borderline of A- B+(and this was from the "easy" professor that everyone told me to take)

took gen chem at columbia (again with "easy" professor) never went to class...got A's...

i think public schools are much more stringent on their grades(this is generally speaking, as some professors obviously are very difficult even at private schools). this is due to the fact that they give about 10-15% A's...

people at Berkeley have a much wider range of intelligence level as well, making th top 15% almost an impossibility unless you are one of them...

i found that top people at berkeley were absolute geniuses(due to its cheap instate tuition, a lot of stanford and harvard bounds ended up in berkeley from my highschool)...and these people balance out those who are not so bright..(as berkeley as a rep for being sometimes very random in its acceptance)

i think at columbia, most people are (im not talking about postbaccs but undergrads) at similar level of intelligence...and so even if the A's were only given to top 15%, nevertheless, you can achieve it by working hard...you are on par with your classmates in terms of your capability...

grade inflation or not, public school will always have it tougher than private schools...it pays to have money...bottom line...

 

[Pepper1o1]

i went to undergrad at UC berkeley...and am doing postbacc an Columbia...

took gen chem at UC berkeley...found it extremely competitive...worked my ass off and was on a borderline of A- B+(and this was from the "easy" professor that everyone told me to take)

took gen chem at columbia (again with "easy" professor) never went to class...got A's...

i think public schools are much more stringent on their grades(this is generally speaking, as some professors obviously are very difficult even at private schools). this is due to the fact that they give about 10-15% A's...

people at Berkeley have a much wider range of intelligence level as well, making th top 15% almost an impossibility unless you are one of them...

i found that top people at berkeley were absolute geniuses(due to its cheap instate tuition, a lot of stanford and harvard bounds ended up in berkeley from my highschool)...and these people balance out those who are not so bright..(as berkeley as a rep for being sometimes very random in its acceptance)

i think at columbia, most people are (im not talking about postbaccs but undergrads) at similar level of intelligence...and so even if the A's were only given to top 15%, nevertheless, you can achieve it by working hard...you are on par with your classmates in terms of your capability...

grade inflation or not, public school will always have it tougher than private schools...it pays to have money...bottom line...

I think it would be great if people did not generalize about the difference in difficulty between private/public institutions. There are always going to be some differences. For example, people often cite University of Chicago as one of the schools having the most stringent grading criteria. Moreover, it is well-known that grade inflation can run rampant in some departments at Ivy League institutions such as Harvard and Princeton. However, it is hard to say that this is also the case in other departments.

Going into more depth for my undergrad (Princeton, because it's the only undergrad I've ever been to so I can't speak with any authority on any other school), I can say that while there was a serious grade inflation problem several years ago in some departments such as Psychology, English, and History, there was never a problem in others such as Woodrow Wilson, Physics, and Molecular Biology. This was pointed out once grade deflation policies were put into effect across the University, and certain departments were affected very heavily (ie, had to seriously change grading policies due to inflation) while others were not.

That being said, all of this of course depends on the exact definition of grade inflation. Discussing percentage of As and A-s given in a school is a very good way to compare "inflation". However, if we are talking about amount of "curving" done (as I've seen on some other posts that claim Ivy League schools are easier because of the practice of "curving" exams), then that is a different story. The reason that many schools curve exams to the extent that they do has more to do with the egos of the professors, in my experience. At Princeton, for example, there will always be some hotshot professor who wants to make his exams really difficult to prove a point about how smart he is/how dumb you are, and the class average will end up being a 20. Clearly, that does not mean that we should all fail the class, because the odds are unlikely in a 50 person lecture that all of us are slacking on our work to that extent. Hence, curving.

FURTHERMORE (and I do apologize for the length of this rant, but you must excuse me, and really, why would you be reading this far into the post if you didn't want to read it anyway?) on the "price of school" issue, again, let me cite Princeton as an example. It is an Ivy-League institution, yes? Arguably one of the best in the country (although I really don't put much stock in the US News and World rankings. I just know I had a good time there 🙂). Several years ago, Princeton was the first US institution to make sure that all people who are accepted (need blind admissions!!!!!) can graduate debt-free through a combination of grants (not loans!!!) and work-study programs. Equals people who don't really have the money (like me!!!!!) to attend such a University can do so. Equals diversity. Equals, as you call it, "people [to] balance out those who are not so bright," like those pesky "legacies" at Princeton.

That's all for now 🙂 That'll teach me to read these kinds of threads on SDN... my fingers are typed to the bone!

Love, Pepper

 

[Centinel]

i went to undergrad at UC berkeley...and am doing postbacc an Columbia...

took gen chem at UC berkeley...found it extremely competitive...worked my ass off and was on a borderline of A- B+(and this was from the "easy" professor that everyone told me to take)

took gen chem at columbia (again with "easy" professor) never went to class...got A's...

Wait wait wait, this is groundbreaking. You took a class once and got an A-/B+. You then retook the class and did better!? OMFG teh Ivies are TTT skewls!

 

[Centinel]

Equals, as you call it, "people [to] balance out those who are not so bright," like those pesky "legacies" at Princeton.

Also, as I am wont to point out, legacies outperform their peers at Ivy institutions. No, I'm not a legacy but yes, I think that's an interesting piece of empirical data.

 

[Pepper1o1]

Wait wait wait, this is groundbreaking. You took a class once and got an A-/B+. You then retook the class and did better!? OMFG teh Ivies are TTT skewls!

Haha thank you, Drinklord, I noticed that too, but after my epic post.

 

[Pepper1o1]

Also, as I am wont to point out, legacies outperform their peers at Ivy institutions. No, I'm not a legacy but yes, I think that's an interesting piece of empirical data.

Again, you're right 🙂 . I just always use that group as an example because the "only here because of their parents/their money/the campus center that is named after them" group is usually the most oft-abused.

Another thing to think about though...that is a piece of empirical data,yes, but may I also point out that it could be a little bit more complicated than it appears due to the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" phenomenon. Could this statistic be revealing an underlying sociological trend of "students do better at Ivy institutions when they have:
a) parents who went to Ivy League Schools and may be more able to provide for their darling child to go to a swanky prep school that will prepare them for the challenges of college?
b) parents/brothers/sisters who went to an Ivy League School and are therefore more knowledgeable about how to apply to/succeed in such a college and give their children/brother/sister advice to that tune?
c) parents/brothers/sisters who expose said student to a high level of intellectual discussion from a young age and provide role models for the student to aspire to?

Food for thought.

[Note, I am not a legacy either, though many of my most brilliant peers are. I found it rather difficult to transition to the pace of an Ivy League school, however, largely because I went to a very small parochial school in which many of the teachers weren't certified, neither of my parents went to college and had no idea how to advise me, and none of my family members or family friends had ever attended an Ivy League college so they also had no advice for me. That being said, I figured my s**t out eventually, and am not in the least bitter about it because I learned a great deal about time management and study skills in the process]

 

[Centinel]

Again, you're right 🙂 . I just always use that group as an example because the "only here because of their parents/their money/the campus center that is named after them" group is usually the most oft-abused.

Another thing to think about though...that is a piece of empirical data,yes, but may I also point out that it could be a little bit more complicated than it appears due to the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" phenomenon. Could this statistic be revealing an underlying sociological trend of "students do better at Ivy institutions when they have:
a) parents who went to Ivy League Schools and may be more able to provide for their darling child to go to a swanky prep school that will prepare them for the challenges of college?
b) parents/brothers/sisters who went to an Ivy League School and are therefore more knowledgeable about how to apply to/succeed in such a college and give their children/brother/sister advice to that tune?
c) parents/brothers/sisters who expose said student to a high level of intellectual discussion from a young age and provide role models for the student to aspire to?

Food for thought.

[Note, I am not a legacy either, though many of my most brilliant peers are. I found it rather difficult to transition to the pace of an Ivy League school, however, largely because I went to a very small parochial school in which many of the teachers weren't certified, neither of my parents went to college and had no idea how to advise me, and none of my family members or family friends had ever attended an Ivy League college so they also had no advice for me. That being said, I figured my s**t out eventually, and am not in the least bitter about it because I learned a great deal about time management and study skills in the process]

I totally agree. I'd think the factors you listed are the major players, and would add a few more if I wasn't feeling sick right now. Thanks for the illuminating posts.