Question about GPA and Notorious Grade Deflation

[centillion]

Hey guys! I'm new around here, and I know there are a lot of posts on undergraduate reputation and medical schools (and how top school applicants are maybe given a small bump but nothing much), but I was wondering if anyone had any insights into how top schools with grade deflation are viewed in medical school admissions. Specificalwhich is known for having strict A quotas at about 35% (compared to 62% at Yale and god knows how high at Harvard), with a median GPA hovering around 3.28.

I'm not trying to blame or compensate

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pacna]

The only thing I have heard on here is that they give you more leeway in GPA, like maybe about 0.1-0.2?

^ This is the entire story with the small caveat that not all medical schools will give you that break.

 

[235009]

^ This is the entire story with the small caveat that not all medical schools will give you that break.

The certainty with which this horribly wrong answer was delivered is impressive.

The truth is that no one knows how each med school will take that into account but logic would dictate that a med school ad com would be insane to throw away an application from one of the top 10% of college students in the country without giving it a closer look.

That being said Ivy League school graduates are absurdly overrepresented in med school. Sure part of it is selection bias but a big part is also that these students, just by being at one of these schools, have proven them selves to be the cream of the academic crop and they get a very significant (though unquantifiable) amount of leeway when it comes to med school admissions....I know I certainly did! In addition I was told by one of the ad com members from my former med school that they prefer interviewing and accepting students from top schools. The preference is even more blatant at top med schools.

Bottom line is that if you have the opportunity to go to one of these elite colleges TAKE IT. Don't think twice about it. It will give an enormous boost in life no matter what you decide to do. That said beyond the uppermost tier (ivys plus a handful of others) where you go to college does not matter.

 

[slickwillbo]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call Princeton's grade deflation "notorious". The average grade there is a 3.28. That is low compared to Harvard (3.45) and Yale (3.51), but high compared to many other schools. There are schools with grade averages below 3.0.

www.gradeinflation.com

 

[sourdoughllama]

.

 

[Euxox]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call Princeton's grade deflation "notorious". The average grade there is a 3.28. That is low compared to Harvard (3.45) and Yale (3.51), but high compared to many other schools. There are schools with grade averages below 3.0.

www.gradeinflation.com

That may be the case, but there is no arguing that getting a 3.28 at Princeton is easier than getting a 3.28 at (I'm just picking a university from that site at random) Purdue. If I remember correctly, 20 - 30% of Princeton students were the valedictorians of their high school classes. Certainly not the case at Purdue. If you want to compare one engineering school to another, MIT also has a higher average GPA (~3.3) than Purdue (~2.8). Does that mean that MIT is grade inflated? Would a Purdue student with a 3.3 get a 3.8 if you moved him or her to MIT? No.

Princeton is grade deflated.

 

[bunnyg]

That may be the case, but there is no arguing that getting a 3.28 at Princeton is easier than getting a 3.28 at (I'm just picking a university from that site at random) Purdue. If I remember correctly, 20 - 30% of Princeton students were the valedictorians of their high school classes. Certainly not the case at Purdue. If you want to compare one engineering school to another, MIT also has a higher average GPA (~3.3) than Purdue (~2.8). Does that mean that MIT is grade inflated? Would a Purdue student with a 3.3 get a 3.8 if you moved him or her to MIT? No.

Princeton is grade deflated.

Are you kidding? 35% As is grade INFLATION if you compare the school to all schools in the US. Go to any UC school and the percent of As in premed classes is 10-20%, as it should be. While I realize that Princeton is a good school, grading should be based on a curve. If you want to get a 4.0 with minimal effort go to a party school (although there are many disadvantages here besides GPA).

Fact of the matter is, if you work hard it will reflect on your GPA and MCAT no matter where you go.

 

[MDforMee]

I'm posting in this thread to keep it in my post history, so that I can reference it.

Personally, I'm glad that people from Ivy League schools get a preference for medical school admissions; for every one of them, there are 10 others that went to state schools and majored in soft sciences/liberal arts that have 3.95 GPAs (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ct-application-process.1046753/#post-14742419)

Are you kidding? 35% As is grade INFLATION if you compare the school to all schools in the US. Go to any UC school and the percent of As in premed classes is 10-20%....

All UC schools aren't the same. UCLA and UCB are harder than the others.

 

[smarts1]

Are you kidding? 35% As is grade INFLATION if you compare the school to all schools in the US. Go to any UC school and the percent of As in premed classes is 10-20%, as it should be. While I realize that Princeton is a good school, grading should be based on a curve. If you want to get a 4.0 with minimal effort go to a party school (although there are many disadvantages here besides GPA).

Fact of the matter is, if you work hard it will reflect on your GPA and MCAT no matter where you go.

I'm pretty sure the UCs are pretty grade inflated themselves. Even Berkeley which is supposedly notorious for horrible grade deflation doesn't seem to have much grade deflation at all and Berkeley's pre-med science curves are pretty much in line with its peer institutions outside of California (curving to around a C+/B-). If you want real grade deflation, go to Reed College or Harvey Mudd.

 

[nemo123]

I actually met a couple people from Princeton on the interview trail. A lot of them told me that some of their interviewers would ask them about specific grades on their transcript and ask them why they were so low. I guess it didn't really hurt them anyway because they had interviews at some top schools.

 

[Euxox]

Are you kidding? 35% As is grade INFLATION if you compare the school to all schools in the US. Go to any UC school and the percent of As in premed classes is 10-20%, as it should be. While I realize that Princeton is a good school, grading should be based on a curve. If you want to get a 4.0 with minimal effort go to a party school (although there are many disadvantages here besides GPA).

Lower level Princeton science classes are graded on a curve. That's how they are able to fix a hard upper limit to the number of As.

According to gradeinflation.com, UCLA has an average GPA of 3.22 and Berkeley has an average GPA of 3.27. So they both have the same level of grade inflation as Princeton, which is to say none at all.

Princeton is certainly not the place to go if you want an easy 4.0. As I said before, you are gathering together a whole bunch of students who were high school valedictorians with six or seven 5s on AP exams and 2300+ SAT scores, and even then the average GPA is only 3.28. That is grade deflation. The same applies to Harvard and Yale to a lesser extent.

 

[MDforMee]

I'm pretty sure the UCs are pretty grade inflated themselves. Even Berkeley which is supposedly notorious for horrible grade deflation doesn't seem to have much grade deflation at all and Berkeley's pre-med science curves are pretty much in line with its peer institutions outside of California (curving to around a C+/B-). If you want real grade deflation, go to Reed College or Harvard Mudd.

Harvard Mudd?

Did you even attend a UC?

 

[smarts1]

Harvard Mudd?

Did you even attend a UC?

Lol big typo there. No, but some of my best friends are from UCs and I've met lots of people from UCLA and UCB at interviews.

 

[BurberryDoc]

It is important to consider, that for many of the top schools (Cornell, Harvard, Stanford, Penn Northwestern, WashU, Georgetown, and so on and so forth) the students enrolling at these colleges are exceptional and that a higher proportion of students earning high grades (and thus a higher average GPA) is not necessarily the product of direct grade inflation, but rather is self-selecting on the action of who the college is admitting to the school. I can speak from personal experience, that Cornell purposefully grade deflates - often, in the larger courses I took as a student there, the mid-80's I scored on exams would equate to a B-. On what planet does an 85 equal a B- and get called grade inflation? Also, noone should buy into the historical trend of increasing average GPA's: as time progresses, do does society, and education plays a direct role in that. Innovative approaches to education, new discoveries, new pedagogic methods, etc. It only makes sense that students in colleges now are learning more than they did 5, 10, or 15 years ago. There is more to learn, and educators have better means with which to deliver a greater volume of knowledge. 15 years ago, laptops were probably not as commonplace as they are now - mobility = more opportunity to study when you aren't at your desk....the list goes on.

In the end though, the original conversation here has been hashed out many times on SDN, and it goes nowhere. Here is a picture of a duck:

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I picture adcoms sitting around, looking over transcripts, and shaking their heads over the poor, disadvantaged Princetonians. If only, only they'd gone to Harvard! Then that 3.8 would be a 3.9!

Life is certainly rough for the young Princeton grad.

 

[MDforMee]

Lol big typo there. No, but some of my best friends are from UCs and I've met lots of people from UCLA and UCB at interviews.

I see. My point is that the UCs are tiered, and that you're half right and half wrong. It's not that grades are inflated at the UCs, it's that our state is the largest in the country and not every household will pay to send their kid to a private East Coast Ivy/semi Ivy. All of our magnet, charter, whatever private or public high schools send their maggots to UCB or UCLA. Our state has the silicon valley, greater SF, LA, San Diego, and so on with lots of these schools, and lots of smart kids.

Also, UCLA and UCB don't participate in the transfer admission guarantee from our monstrous California community college system (the "TAG" http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/transfer/guarantee/). Even still, major counts for a lot at UCB and UCLA. The next time you're at an interview, ask the UCB or UCLA kid to tell you what they majored in. I'm done ranting.

 

[centillion]

Hey everyone! Thanks for all of the thoughtful answers - I'm actually really surprised by how many responses I've gotten.

I think that while 35% A's isn't necessarily a horrible cut-off compared empirically to other school's A cut-offs, I think something that is important to consider that a few people have already touched on are the competitiveness of the student body that fills up these classes at Princeton. It's almost impossible to measure intelligence, so I won't say that the average Princeton student is smarter than a student at another university, but rather from what I've seen is super well-trained and prepared to thrive in a pre-med and science environment. I think the large majority of people I've met at Princeton scored higher than a 2300 on their SAT (or 35+ ACT), had straight A's in all advanced/AP classes in high school (basically 5's on 10+ AP exams), did research in high school (Intel, Siemens, etc.), or won stuff in Science Olympiad, etc. It's also amazing to me how some students even learned organic chemistry before coming here through some of their high schools - I took it as a freshman, and there were other freshmen who basically already knew everything. The reason why I asked this question was because I was worried whether or not being in a competitive school with already arbitrary grading standards would allow for my GPA to be viewed within the context of Princeton - or if it was just cast aside as a moderately lower Ivy League GPA and nothing else.

 

[Lucca]

Short Answer: No one knows for sure and we would need every single adcom from every single medical school to weigh in on their individual policies. There is no universal council of adcoms that decides what to do with each applicant.

Caveat: AdComs don't live under rocks and probably have plenty of information about most undergrad institutions in the country, especially well-known, prestigious Ivies, with which to render a complete image of the applicant.

Hard-line: Act like your pedigree will do absolutely nothing for you at all and sigh away that slightly lower GPA by remembering that you are getting a top-notch undergraduate focused education at a fantastic school; consequently, that training will translate into a stellar MCAT that will bump up that LizzyM anyways.


Don't focus so much on the GPA, in my opinion. Of course, try to stay above a 3.7 and hit that hard A cutoff as much as possible but otherwise I think your time is better spent on ECs.

 

[Goro]

At our school, we view an "A" as an "A" whether it's from Kutztown State or Harvard. It's only when someone is a borderline candidate that an AdCom member will point out "y'know, s/he got a 3.4 from _____".

Then the committee might bump the kid up to accept, or as likely, ignore that comment, and keep applicant at high wait list.

Therefore, I suspect the UG college isn't as important as you think it might be.

Hey guys! I'm new around here, and I know there are a lot of posts on undergraduate reputation and medical schools (and how top school applicants are maybe given a small bump but nothing much), but I was wondering if anyone had any insights into how top schools with grade deflation are viewed in medical school admissions. Specifically, Princeton, which is known for having strict A quotas at about 35% (compared to 62% at Yale and god knows how high at Harvard), with a median GPA hovering around 3.28.

I'm not trying to blame or compensate in anyway, I was just genuinely curious if any knowledgeable SDNers knew anything about how admissions committees would potentially evaluate situations like this since I think Princeton's grade deflation is fairly well known (and is explained in a letter with every transcript mailed out). The only thing I have heard on here is that they give you more leeway in GPA, like maybe about 0.1-0.2?

Thanks in advance!

 

[slickwillbo]

For funsies, I plotted the SAT scores of incoming freshmen (score and %ile) versus the average GPA at some schools. I used some private schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Emory), engineering schools (MIT, Purdue, Georgia Tech), and some top state schools (UNC, Michigan, UC-Berkeley). It formed a much nicer line that I was expecting (r^2 of 0.55 for score, 0.59 for percentile). I would think the bottom chart is more realistic- is there that much difference between someone who scores in the 96th SAT percentile versus the 99th? By this, I wouldn't say Princeton is that deflated "notoriously." It would appear that Brown is quite inflated and Georgia Tech is quite deflated.

Note: This is by no means intended to be scientific. I picked some schools I was interested in (a convenience sample), and used the average SAT when available and took the average of the 25/75th percentile SAT scores when the true average was not available.

 

[sourdoughllama]

It is important to consider, that for many of the top schools (Cornell, Harvard, Stanford, Penn Northwestern, WashU, Georgetown, and so on and so forth) the students enrolling at these colleges are exceptional and that a higher proportion of students earning high grades (and thus a higher average GPA) is not necessarily the product of direct grade inflation, but rather is self-selecting on the action of who the college is admitting to the school.

Sorry, disagree. I've said this before, but comparing across schools is not accurate. By your standards, schools in the bottom 100 of US News should all have GPAs below like 2.0 while Harvard should be close to 4.0. It doesn't work that way, sorry - you curve within your own school. I attended UCLA (which takes the same caliber students as Berkeley) yet Berkeley students complain all day long about grade deflation yet it clearly shows both schools have the same avg GPA. I'm not buying this whole deflation thing. Harvard/Yale are clearly inflating if they have 60%+ A's. The other poster is correct; UCs have 10-20% A's.

Edit: If you want to compare across schools, then you have to be fair. Either set up a national standard where all schools are curved together so your top schools get 4.0s and crap schools get 1.0s, or you leave it as is and curve within each school. I find it hard to believe people don't subconsciously correct for 3.2 princeton vs 3.2 ghetto school

 

[Euxox]

Sorry, disagree. I've said this before, but comparing across schools is not accurate. By your standards, schools in the bottom 100 of US News should all have GPAs below like 2.0 while Harvard should be close to 4.0. It doesn't work that way, sorry - you curve within your own school.

Like it or not, that is how it works. Harvard and Yale will have had and will continue to have higher average GPAs than UCLA. And UCLA will continue to have a much higher average GPA than CSU Northridge. What I (and others in this thread) are saying is that even with the higher average GPAs, it is harder to get a given GPA at Harvard and Yale than it is at most other schools. If HYP were to only give out 10 - 20% A grades like the UCs, then this assertion would be even more true.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Like it or not, that is how it works. Harvard and Yale will have had and will continue to have higher average GPAs than UCLA. And UCLA will continue to have a much higher average GPA than CSU Northridge. What I (and others in this thread) are saying is that even with the higher average GPAs, it is harder to get a given GPA at Harvard and Yale than it is at most other schools. If HYP were to only give out 10 - 20% A grades like the UCs, then this assertion would be even more true.

If every single top 15/20 or whatever school had similar avg GPAs, or there was a nice gradient overall, then your point would be correct. And you cannot have both "HYP student caliber is better = higher GPA" and "it is harder to get a 3.5 at HYP vs Cal State" in the same argument. You either have a harder time getting the same GPA because the caliber is higher AND the % of A's is the same, or you have it corrected by having a higher caliber of students and more % of A's. H/Y have 60% A's (vs 20% max at UCs). I don't think they're 3 times as smart as UC students.

 

[Aerus]

Hey everyone! Thanks for all of the thoughtful answers - I'm actually really surprised by how many responses I've gotten.

I think that while 35% A's isn't necessarily a horrible cut-off compared empirically to other school's A cut-offs, I think something that is important to consider that a few people have already touched on are the competitiveness of the student body that fills up these classes at Princeton. It's almost impossible to measure intelligence, so I won't say that the average Princeton student is smarter than a student at another university, but rather from what I've seen is super well-trained and prepared to thrive in a pre-med and science environment. I think the large majority of people I've met at Princeton scored higher than a 2300 on their SAT (or 35+ ACT), had straight A's in all advanced/AP classes in high school (basically 5's on 10+ AP exams), did research in high school (Intel, Siemens, etc.), or won stuff in Science Olympiad, etc. It's also amazing to me how some students even learned organic chemistry before coming here through some of their high schools - I took it as a freshman, and there were other freshmen who basically already knew everything. The reason why I asked this question was because I was worried whether or not being in a competitive school with already arbitrary grading standards would allow for my GPA to be viewed within the context of Princeton - or if it was just cast aside as a moderately lower Ivy League GPA and nothing else.

I go to a UC and I've met quite a few exceptional students here who did get accepted to every Ivy League school and were valedictorians themselves. Let me just tell you that, with hard work and efficiency, you can beat these people. These Ivy League kids aren't aliens. They're human. Humans can't magically know stuff without studying it first. If you're still in the middle of your undergrad career, still try to work hard efficiently with the thought in your mind that these people ARE HUMAN.

Also note that you (and Princeton) are measuring the capability of these students through high school GPA and SAT scores. These numbers are not the best indicators of good students. There IS a correlation, but it is NOT a rule. I cannot tell you how many "2300+SAT/4.8+ GPA/36 ACT/did research as high schoolers" students I've met here at my school who were horrible students who average sub 3.0 GPA's.

You CAN do it.

With that said, schools do view coming from Princeton in a positive light. They aren't completely blind to your undergraduate institution.

 

[Euxox]

If every single top 15/20 or whatever school had similar avg GPAs, or there was a nice gradient overall, then your point would be correct. And you cannot have both "HYP student caliber is better = higher GPA" and "it is harder to get a 3.5 at HYP vs Cal State" in the same argument. You either have a harder time getting the same GPA because the caliber is higher AND the % of A's is the same, or you have it corrected by having a higher caliber of students and more % of A's.

Or there is a slight GPA correction where the average GPA of HYP is higher than that of CSU, but the difference in GPA still isn't quite enough to make up for the difference in competitiveness.

H/Y have 60% A's (vs 20% max at UCs). I don't think they're 3 times as smart as UC students.

The number of As is the wrong way to look at it. Of course the number of As will rise dramatically because that's where grades "cap out." If you compare the 3.5 average Harvard GPA to the 3.3 average Berkeley GPA, you get a much better representation of relative grade inflation, which is in this case 1.06. I hardly think that is unfair.

 

[ThisCouldBeYou]

Sadly, I think those who are totally looking to keep their gpa high are taking those cushy courses. Or they schmooze with their professors. I look at the number of those who have a 4.0 or a 3.98 gpa, got a low-ish SAT or an MCAT score of 32…. well, that tells me something. To me, I think the MCAT is much more telling than the gpa.

 

[Aerus]

Sadly, I think those who are totally looking to keep their gpa high are taking those cushy courses. Or they schmooze with their professors. I look at the number of those who have a 4.0 or a 3.98 gpa, got a low-ish SAT or an MCAT score of 32…. well, that tells me something. To me, I think the MCAT is much more telling than the gpa.

While we like to think of the MCAT as the great equalizer of medical school admissions, we all need to keep in mind that it IS one test on one day with different ratios of chem/physics/bio/organic chem each time. If a person is terrible at physics and owns at chem, they could receive pretty different scores on two separate exams. This doesn't even take into account "having a bad day", "gone through a tragic, life altering event recently", etc.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Or there is a slight GPA correction where the average GPA of HYP is higher than that of CSU, but the difference in GPA still isn't quite enough to make up for the difference in competitiveness.
The number of As is the wrong way to look at it. Of course the number of As will rise dramatically because that's where grades "cap out." If you compare the 3.5 average Harvard GPA to the 3.3 average Berkeley GPA, you get a much better representation of relative grade inflation, which is in this case 1.06. I hardly think that is unfair.

Agree to disagree.

 

[knv2u]

Are you kidding? 35% As is grade INFLATION if you compare the school to all schools in the US. Go to any UC school and the percent of As in premed classes is 10-20%, as it should be. While I realize that Princeton is a good school, grading should be based on a curve. If you want to get a 4.0 with minimal effort go to a party school (although there are many disadvantages here besides GPA).

Fact of the matter is, if you work hard it will reflect on your GPA and MCAT no matter where you go.

I vehemently disagree with your assertion that grading should be based on a curve. Grading on a curve means that relative ranking of the students is more important than the level of content mastered/knowledge attained. I care about the level of knowledge and your ability to apply those skills. If that means everybody receives an A, then great. If it means that less than 5% receive A grades, then so be it. What happens if you have an unusually dumb or bright class? Are you rewarded because of the stupidity or lack of studying of your classmates or are you punished if your classmates are exceptionally bright? My alma matter has actually rounded grades downward at times, and I don't think that is fair (and it is a top 20 school that isn't known for handing out As like candy). How would you feel if the cut-off for your classes became greater than the normal cutoff? What if a 96 became the cut-off for a solid A and a 93 the cut-off for the A- to keep the number of As artificially low? A system like this can lead to results where the difference between grading intervals does not represent a significant difference in level of knowledge attained. At that point, I question the purpose of even grading if the differences between an "A" and a "B" are minor/trivial.

Also, by your own argument, medical schools should weigh the reputation/rigor of the undergraduate schools more than they actually do. Assuming a curve is used as referenced above, where do you think it is harder to receive the "A": a school where the average high school GPA is greater than 3.8 and the average SAT is 1400-1500 or a school where the average GPA is 2.8-3.2 and SAT is 1000 (all on the old scale)? Interestingly, some adcoms have opined that the undergraduate institution makes no difference (Goro, if I interpreted his statement accurately), and others tend to take my approach (LizzyM), but even LizzyM only equated the difference in rigor to something along the lines of 0.5 on her LizzyM scale if my memory serves me correctly. Why should a student competing against a brighter class be punished? Equity requires that students who can and do produce excellent work should not be punished for going to a school with better quality students (on average).

 

[Aerus]

I vehemently disagree with your assertion that grading should be based on a curve. Grading on a curve means that relative ranking of the students is more important than the level of content mastered/knowledge attained. I care about the level of knowledge and your ability to apply those skills. If that means everybody receives an A, then great. If it means that less than 5% receive A grades, then so be it. What happens if you have an unusually dumb or bright class? Are you rewarded because of the stupidity or lack of studying of your classmates or are you punished if your classmates are exceptionally bright? My alma matter has actually rounded grades downward at times, and I don't think that is fair (and it is a top 20 school that isn't known for handing out As like candy). How would you feel if the cut-off for your classes became greater than the normal cutoff? What if a 96 became the cut-off for a solid A and a 93 the cut-off for the A- to keep the number of As artificially low? A system like this can lead to results where the difference between grading intervals does not represent a significant difference in level of knowledge attained. At that point, I question the purpose of even grading if the differences between an "A" and a "B" are minor/trivial.

Also, by your own argument, medical schools should weigh the reputation/rigor of the undergraduate schools more than they actually do. Assuming a curve is used as referenced above, where do you think it is harder to receive the "A": a school where the average high school GPA is greater than 3.8 and the average SAT is 1400-1500 or a school where the average GPA is 2.8-3.2 and SAT is 1000 (all on the old scale)? Interestingly, some adcoms have opined that the undergraduate institution makes no difference (Goro, if I interpreted his statement accurately), and others tend to take my approach (LizzyM), but even LizzyM only equated the difference in rigor to something along the lines of 0.5 on her LizzyM scale if my memory serves me correctly. Why should a student competing against a brighter class be punished? Equity requires that students who can and do produce excellent work should not be punished for going to a school with better quality students (on average).

If this is the case, what about high school students who go to a significantly tougher high school? Why are they punished in terms of applying to undergraduate institutions? It's just life. There's very little that can be done. At least school name is taken into consideration, unlike undergraduate admissions where high school names mean nothing. If a school decides to grade deflate, then unfortunately the students who chose that school (that's you) will have to put up with it. It isn't impossible to do well at schools with high caliber students. Everyone is human, in the end.

 

[sourdoughllama]

If this is the case, what about high school students who go to a significantly tougher high school? Why are they punished in terms of applying to undergraduate institutions? It's just life. There's very little that can be done. At least school name is taken into consideration, unlike undergraduate admissions where high school names mean nothing. If a school decides to grade deflate, then unfortunately the students who chose that school (that's you) will have to put up with it. It isn't impossible to do well at schools with high caliber students. Everyone is human, in the end.

Like med school debt, people are choosing to go to "grade deflating" or elite colleges, so it's not like there should be a compensation for that. Should people pay their employees more to go buy more expensive cars? You all can go to a random state school and get a 4.0 (I doubt it) but you chose to go to MIT and get a 3.2. And people do take into account where you got your grades from. Even Goro, who says he doesn't proves human nature is easily impressed by pedigree just a few posts above. If there is a set standard for all colleges across America and HYP are getting 4.0s then I have no qualms with that. But you cannot set your own academic standards then grade based off everyone else.

 

[centillion]

If this is the case, what about high school students who go to a significantly tougher high school? Why are they punished in terms of applying to undergraduate institutions? It's just life. There's very little that can be done. At least school name is taken into consideration, unlike undergraduate admissions where high school names mean nothing.

Except high school reputation is factored into undergraduate admissions, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Aerus]

Except high school reputation is factored into undergraduate admissions, as far as I'm aware.

There are literally way too much high schools in the country for undergraduate admissions to know. Maybe they know the ones in their area and the feeder schools, but I highly doubt more than that.

 

[Euxox]

There are literally way too much high schools in the country for undergraduate admissions to know. Maybe they know the ones in their area and the feeder schools, but I highly doubt more than that.

Total tangent, but undergrad admissions offices usually have a single staffer who acts as the "specialist" for a given region and tends to know a reasonable amount of the dozen or so schools in the area that send in the most applications. In addition, pretty much every high school sends a report that describes the school along with your transcript. This includes information such as a list of required courses, the GPA distribution, how common it is for students to take honors and AP classes, and so on. I definitely don't think high schoolers who go to difficult high schools are punished. To offer some anecdotal evidence, in my high school class of 350, only three or four students graduated with 4.0s, but 40 or 50 went to top 20 colleges.

Of course, college is different because you choose where you go. But if med school adcoms didn't reward people who took the more difficult path, there would be no incentive for anyone to challenge themselves.

Anyway, I've beaten this topic to death already. As you said, sourdoughllama, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[knv2u]

If this is the case, what about high school students who go to a significantly tougher high school? Why are they punished in terms of applying to undergraduate institutions? It's just life. There's very little that can be done. At least school name is taken into consideration, unlike undergraduate admissions where high school names mean nothing. If a school decides to grade deflate, then unfortunately the students who chose that school (that's you) will have to put up with it. It isn't impossible to do well at schools with high caliber students. Everyone is human, in the end.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but you are misinformed. There are high schools that are notorious feeder schools to the Ivies and other top 30 undergraduate institutions. This is well known. On another note, when visiting the campus of a few of the Ivies back before matriculating to college, I think I could count the number of public school kids I ran into on campus on one hand (including myself). I'm sure my experience was far from unique. Draw your own conclusions.

With regards to arguing about fairness, the concern far exceeds equitable considerations. It is about putting together the best possible class that you can. I'll be flamed for this, but not all 4.0s are created equally. If I was an adcom, I would rather have a class of students with GPAs in the 3.7-3.8 range from top 25 schools than a class full of 4.0s from non-selective institutions (and I bet the average MCAT score for those 3.7-3.8 students is probably higher than the 4.0s from less rigorous colleges). I know for a fact that one state school in my state routinely doles out 30-35% As in Organic Chemistry I; the average SAT score for the school is below 1050 (old scale), and the average high school GPA around 3.0-3.2. I know for a fact that the class is curved upwards. Do you really think this "A" should be equivalent to an "A" from a top school with student body that is much more qualified and where the "A" grade is awarded less frequently? I think not.

 

[knv2u]

There are literally way too much high schools in the country for undergraduate admissions to know. Maybe they know the ones in their area and the feeder schools, but I highly doubt more than that.

This is far easier than you think, both for determining the rigor of high schools and undergraduate institutions. Although not perfect, one could easily compare the average GPA compared to an average standardized test score of a student body to calculate a relative difference in rigor. For instance, a high school with an average GPA of 3.4 and an average SAT score of 1400+ (old scale) will more than likely be much more rigorous than a school where the average GPA is a 3.7-3.8 or higher with an average SAT score of <=1100. All of this can be accomplished with data readily available in the public domain (most high schools report average SAT scores) or gleaned from your college application (class standing or relative percentage in class depending on your school's policy). Alternatively, most schools archive their applications electronically, and it would be easy to see where most of their successful applications are coming from and what applicants form these schools may have looked like from the past.

The same premise can be applied using AMCAS data that is surely available to medical schools. Considering the average applicant GPA to MCAT score can be used to assess rigor. The grades from less rigorous schools should be viewed with a grain of salt, making the MCAT score (which is standardized) much more important. Similarly, grades from schools with grade deflation make the MCAT that much more important.

 

[Long Way to Go]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but you are misinformed. There are high schools that are notorious feeder schools to the Ivies and other top 30 undergraduate institutions. This is well known. On another note, when visiting the campus of the a few of the Ivies back before matriculating to college, I think I could count the number of public school kids I ran into on campus on one hand (including myself). I'm sure my experience was far from unique. Draw your own conclusions.

I randomly selected three of the top 30 USNWR undergraduate universities. All had summary sheets on their admissions websites that showed that 55-60% of their incoming classes went to public schools and another 10% to religious schools. Now, many of those public schools will certainly be magnet schools or in extremely wealthy school districts. But on the flip side, not every private school is Phillips Andover, and many religious schools are not substantially better or worse than the local public--parents send their kids there because they want their children to have a religious education.

I went to a public school for high school, and a private school for college.

 

[knv2u]

I randomly selected three of the top 30 USNWR undergraduate universities. All had summary sheets on their admissions websites that showed that 55-60% of their incoming classes went to public schools and another 10% to religious schools. Now, many of those public schools will certainly be magnet schools or in extremely wealthy school districts. But on the flip side, not every private school is Phillips Andover, and many religious schools are not substantially better or worse than the local public--parents send their kids there because they want their children to have a religious education.

I went to a public school for high school, and a private school for college.

Fair enough; I was using private school as a shorthand for feeder schools or those known for academic rigor. There are some upper echelon public schools that are heavily represented. In terms of top public schools, the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology is Virginia comes to mind (Fairfax County). My comments were aimed towards the "average" public high school, not of the TJ sort.. This just reinforces my other post about average GPA versus standardized test score of a student body to assess rigor.

It is also notable that towards the bottom of the top 30, there are a few public schools. Given geographic quotas, this could bias the data set (i.e. the number of in state public school candidates probably outnumbers the number of in state private school candidates). It's worth a thought. The premise of my comment stands: academic rigor can and is considered.

 

[knv2u]

Also note that you (and Princeton) are measuring the capability of these students through high school GPA and SAT scores. These numbers are not the best indicators of good students. There IS a correlation, but it is NOT a rule. I cannot tell you how many "2300+SAT/4.8+ GPA/36 ACT/did research as high schoolers" students I've met here at my school who were horrible students who average sub 3.0 GPA's.

You CAN do it.

No one, and I mean no one suggested that someone from a lesser known or less rigorous institution cannot be successful nor has anyone suggested that they are not worthy or capable of competing/gaining admission to a top medical school. No one is suggesting that someone with crappy grades from a prestigious school will be accepted over a much more qualified applicant from a less selective institution. What people are saying is that higher grades mean more coming from a more rigorous school (which is highly but not perfectly correlated with ranking). For those with extremely inflated or deflated grades, the MCAT (no matter how imperfect it may be) is much more important and is the grade equalizer.

 

[BurberryDoc]

I randomly selected three of the top 30 USNWR undergraduate universities. All had summary sheets on their admissions websites that showed that 55-60% of their incoming classes went to public schools and another 10% to religious schools. Now, many of those public schools will certainly be magnet schools or in extremely wealthy school districts. But on the flip side, not every private school is Phillips Andover, and many religious schools are not substantially better or worse than the local public--parents send their kids there because they want their children to have a religious education.

I went to a public school for high school, and a private school for college.

Nice avatar ;-)

 

[Plecopotamus]

It would appear that Brown is quite inflated and Georgia Tech is quite deflated.

If you're going to make comments that to some effect are disparaging of others' academic records, please bother to be informed.

You cant conclude form that graph that Brown has dramatically more grade inflation than Harvard, Yale, etc. Due to the "new curriculum" (new since the '60s) they don't have D's or F's (those become "No Credit"). If you get below a C in a course, it just drops off your transcript, so the average GPA is inevitably higher. On top of that, if you can tell you're getting a C, you can intentionally blow the final or take an INC and never complete it --> NC --> like you never took the course. Furthermore, students are encouraged and at times required to take courses P/F (S/NC). Your data doesn't mean they're giving out more A's or less Cs/Ds/Fs than their peer institutions, rather it is consistent with the fact that the use a different grading system that doesn't include those marks on the external transcript (they're on the internal one for academic probation and awards). You're comparing apples and oranges.

It is a much less punitive system than that used by other schools & one created specifically to encourage people to explore material they might not be good at.

Having done undergraduate and graduate work at multiple Ivies and Cal, I believe (1) that the inflation does not extend nearly so dramatically into the sciences at any of those programs, (2) that some of the difference you're seeing there reflects the distribution of science vs non-science coursework undertaken by students at those schools, b/c you often can't enforce a strict curve in humanities classes, and (3) that there is not so much grade inflation at Harvard/Yale/Brown as there is extremely and unnecessarily punitive and harsh grading at some other institutions that draw from the same pool of bright students.

 

[Aerus]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but you are misinformed. There are high schools that are notorious feeder schools to the Ivies and other top 30 undergraduate institutions. This is well known. On another note, when visiting the campus of a few of the Ivies back before matriculating to college, I think I could count the number of public school kids I ran into on campus on one hand (including myself). I'm sure my experience was far from unique. Draw your own conclusions.

With regards to arguing about fairness, the concern far exceeds equitable considerations. It is about putting together the best possible class that you can. I'll be flamed for this, but not all 4.0s are created equally. If I was an adcom, I would rather have a class of students with GPAs in the 3.7-3.8 range from top 25 schools than a class full of 4.0s from non-selective institutions (and I bet the average MCAT score for those 3.7-3.8 students is probably higher than the 4.0s from less rigorous colleges). I know for a fact that one state school in my state routinely doles out 30-35% As in Organic Chemistry I; the average SAT score for the school is below 1050 (old scale), and the average high school GPA around 3.0-3.2. I know for a fact that the class is curved upwards. Do you really think this "A" should be equivalent to an "A" from a top school with student body that is much more qualified and where the "A" grade is awarded less frequently? I think not.

The question is: do they actually equalize it based on rigor between different high schools? I'm not arguing that it isn't deserved. I went to one of these high schools where the average 3.0 joe probably scored a 1350+ (old test) on the SAT. Take one of my classmates for example - 3.3 GPA unweighted, 2300+ SAT (new test), amazing extracurriculars (for a high schooler), rejected from every Ivy League. I'm sure if he attended another, easier high school, his results might have been different.

I'm also not arguing that harder undergraduate institutions shouldn't be taken into consideration. But the fact is that adcoms don't equalize the playing field that much. That's reality. They may get a tiny boost for going to a reputably grade deflating, top tiered institution, but the "boost" isn't enough to compensate a mediocre GPA. Same with high school admissions. That's all I was saying with that post.

This is far easier than you think, both for determining the rigor of high schools and undergraduate institutions. Although not perfect, one could easily compare the average GPA compared to an average standardized test score of a student body to calculate a relative difference in rigor. For instance, a high school with an average GPA of 3.4 and an average SAT score of 1400+ (old scale) will more than likely be much more rigorous than a school where the average GPA is a 3.7-3.8 or higher with an average SAT score of <=1100. All of this can be accomplished with data readily available in the public domain (most high schools report average SAT scores) or gleaned from your college application (class standing or relative percentage in class depending on your school's policy). Alternatively, most schools archive their applications electronically, and it would be easy to see where most of their successful applications are coming from and what applicants form these schools may have looked like from the past.

The same premise can be applied using AMCAS data that is surely available to medical schools. Considering the average applicant GPA to MCAT score can be used to assess rigor. The grades from less rigorous schools should be viewed with a grain of salt, making the MCAT score (which is standardized) much more important. Similarly, grades from schools with grade deflation make the MCAT that much more important.

See above. Sure, they can draw conclusions, but do admissions genuinely award people for going to more difficult high schools. Or are these students who go to these high schools more "high-achiever" than your typical American high school student?

No one, and I mean no one suggested that someone from a lesser known or less rigorous institution cannot be successful nor has anyone suggested that they are not worthy or capable of competing/gaining admission to a top medical school.

You sort of did suggest with this:

If I was an adcom, I would rather have a class of students with GPAs in the 3.7-3.8 range from top 25 schools than a class full of 4.0s from non-selective institutions

So I guess a person with a 4.0 from a non-selective institution doesn't deserve to be in your med school if you were an adcom as much as a 3.7 student from the top 30

No one is suggesting that someone with crappy grades from a prestigious school will be accepted over a much more qualified applicant from a less selective institution. What people are saying is that higher grades mean more coming from a more rigorous school (which is highly but not perfectly correlated with ranking). For those with extremely inflated or deflated grades, the MCAT (no matter how imperfect it may be) is much more important and is the grade equalizer.

I didn't claim any of that stuff. All I'm saying is that, addressing the OP, he CAN succeed at Princeton. There might be a couple gems there, but for the majority of their class, they were selected because they were GPA/SAT superstars with a bunch of cookie cutter clubs, which you can find at most institutions in the US. And having a bunch of them in all my classes, I can say that beating these people is not a difficult feat, and some even are not good students themselves. There are bound to be many like that plaguing the Ivy Leagues, since GPA/SAT is not a perfect measure of success in college, like you said.

 

[Aerus]

If you're going to make comments that to some effect are disparaging of others' academic records, please bother to be informed.

You cant conclude form that graph that Brown has dramatically more grade inflation than Harvard, Yale, etc. Due to the "new curriculum" (new since the '60s) they don't have D's or F's (those become "No Credit"). If you get below a C in a course, it just drops off your transcript, so the average GPA is inevitably higher. On top of that, if you can tell you're getting a C, you can intentionally blow the final or take an INC and never complete it --> NC --> like you never took the course. Furthermore, students are encouraged and at times required to take courses P/F (S/NC). Your data doesn't mean they're giving out more A's or less Cs/Ds/Fs than their peer institutions, rather it is consistent with the fact that the use a different grading system that doesn't include those. You're comparing apples and oranges.

It is a much less punitive system than that used by other schools & one created specifically to encourage people to explore material they might not be good at.

Having done undergraduate and graduate work at multiple Ivies and Cal, I believe (1) that the inflation does not extend nearly so dramatically into the sciences at any of those programs, (2) that some of the difference you're seeing there reflects the distribution of science vs non-science coursework undertaken by students at those schools, b/c you often can't enforce a strict curve in humanities classes, and (3) that there is not so much grade inflation at Harvard/Yale/Brown as there is extremely and unnecessarily punitive and harsh grading at some other institutions that draw from the same pool of bright students.

This policy (unless I read it wrong or misunderstood) sounds a lot better than your typical grade inflation. :O

 

[Plecopotamus]

This policy (unless I read it wrong or misunderstood) sounds a lot better than your typical grade inflation. :O

Yes. It reflects a different (and in my opinion better) educational philosophy. If you're really committed to the philosophy, you can take all of your courses P/F for all 4 years (you ask for written evaluations instead which are more constructive and capture your strengths/weaknesses more accurately). It encourages people to try classes in areas completely foreign to them without jeopardizing, for instance, their ability to get into medical school. On the other hand, plenty of people don't bother to understand it and make erroneous conclusions like our friend up-thread did and end up thinking a 3.5 from there in hard science courses is less impressive than a 3.5 from another school . . . so it doesn't do alumni a lot of favors in that regard.

I bristle at calling it grade inflation, though. It's still really hard to get an A in a hard course there -- people aren't just strolling through Orgo, or most other science courses. If you must call it such, I'd say it's GPA inflation without being grade inflation if that makes sense.

 

[knv2u]

So I guess a person with a 4.0 from a non-selective institution doesn't deserve to be in your med school if you were an adcom as much as a 3.7 student from the top 30

Preface: This addresses only my comment about relative strength of grades at certain institutions that was called out above and is not necessarily meant to address grade inflation specifically.

The problem is in trying to keep the comments related to grades alone as much as is possible. Based on this, yes, there are a number of schools where 4.0 GPAs are much easier to come by, and I would be equally or more impressed by a 3.7-3.8 from a top school than a 4.0 from a mediocre university with rampant grade inflation (notice I used the term non-selective, which should imply that I am not throwing out all schools outside of the top 30). With this said, I thought it was understood that applications are not viewed in a vacuum. Obviously MCAT scores, research/publications, and other factors come into play. Despite the strong language used (which you are correct to call out), I wouldn't auto reject a 4.0 with a high MCAT score and excellent recommendations/ECs based on institution alone. The transcript, however, would mean much less to me and more emphasis would be placed on other factors such as the MCAT.

Here is a somewhat extreme example of my definition of non-selective (this is real data from 2012):

Edited to add: The underlying assumption is that the quality of student body going will affect the quality of instruction at the institution, and the quality of the grades at those institutions. Less selective institutions have less selective student bodies, meaning that one can infer that it will be easier to receive an A because of reduced competition (someone WILL receive an A in almost every college class).

School #1:

• Percent of Applicants Admitted: 84%
• Average High School GPA: 2.80
• Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
  • SAT Critical Reading: 390 / 460
  • SAT Math: 390 / 460
  • SAT Writing: 370 / 450
  • ACT Composite: 16 / 20
  • ACT English: 14 / 19
  • ACT Math: 15 / 18

School #2

• Percent of Applicants Admitted: 67%
• Average High School GPA: 2.75
• Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
  • SAT Critical Reading: 400 / 470
  • SAT Math: 400 / 470
  • SAT Writing: 370 / 450
  • ACT Composite: 17 / 19
  • ACT English: - / -
  • ACT Math: - / -
• A 3.0 GPA and a 1550 combined SAT score (out of a 2400 maximum) would qualify you for their "honors" college.

Obviously these are extreme examples, but they illustrate my point nicely. I would set the bar much higher. At the two institutions listed, the grades would be absolutely worthless to me if I was an adcom (assuming a curve is used and even in the absence of a curve, one would wonder how easy the curriculum would need to be to allow a portion of the class to even pass). The decision would hinge all on the MCAT/research/ECs, and even then, I would probably still have concerns about ability to balance a difficult course load (but I wouldn't auto reject an applicant because of this).

 

[V5RED]

The problem is in trying to keep the comments related to grades alone as much as is possible. Based on this, yes, there are a number of schools where 4.0 GPAs are much easier to come by, and I would be equally or more impressed by a 3.7-3.8 from a top school than a 4.0 from a mediocre university with rampant grade inflation (notice I used the term non-selective, which should imply that I am not throwing out all schools outside of the top 30). With this said, I thought it was understood that applications are not viewed in a vacuum. Obviously MCAT scores, research/publications, and other factors come into play. Despite the strong language used (which you are correct to call out), I wouldn't auto reject a 4.0 with a high MCAT score and excellent recommendations/ECs based on institution alone. The transcript, however, would mean much less to me and more emphasis would be placed on other factors such as the MCAT.

Here is a somewhat extreme example of my definition of non-selective (this is real data from 2012):

School #1:

• Percent of Applicants Admitted: 84%
• Average High School GPA: 2.80
• Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
  • SAT Critical Reading: 390 / 460
  • SAT Math: 390 / 460
  • SAT Writing: 370 / 450
  • ACT Composite: 16 / 20
  • ACT English: 14 / 19
  • ACT Math: 15 / 18

School #2

• Percent of Applicants Admitted: 67%
• Average High School GPA: 2.75
• Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
  • SAT Critical Reading: 400 / 470
  • SAT Math: 400 / 470
  • SAT Writing: 370 / 450
  • ACT Composite: 17 / 19
  • ACT English: - / -
  • ACT Math: - / -
• A 3.0 GPA and a 1550 combined SAT score (out of a 2400 maximum) would qualify you for their "honors" college.

Obviously these are extreme examples, but they illustrate my point nicely. I would set the bar much higher. At the two institutions listed, the grades would be absolutely worthless to me if I was an adcom (assuming a curve is used and even in the absence of a curve, one would wonder how easy the curriculum would need to be to allow a portion of the class to even pass). The decision would hinge all on the MCAT/research/ECs, and even then, I would probably still have concerns about ability to balance a difficult course load (but I wouldn't auto reject an applicant because of this).

I am glad you are not on an adcom. It is very easy to get into many state schools, but that does not mean it is easy to get an A.

In most of my classes, 10% or fewer of the students get an A. In some it is fewer than 5%. Getting a middling grade like a C is incredibly easy. They either allow stupidly low scores to get a C or include enough no brainer questions so someone can get a C, but to get to the A level, the classes either require you to get a "true" A (ie >92%) or there are enough super hard questions on the exams that you can only get an A if you truly mastered the material.

Your point is in no way illustrated by your data. All your data shows is that a lot of non stellar students were admitted to those schools. You did not show the average graduating GPAs of the colleges, you did not show the average MCAT scores of students at those colleges compared to their GPAs, you did not show anything about how difficult it is to earn any grade in those colleges.

The MCAT helps a lot to balance things out. If a 3.7 at a given school is really more impressive than a 4.0 at another, then the average MCAT earned by 3.7 GPA students at that school should be higher than the average MCAT score earned by 4.0 GPA students at the other school. Find data showing the trend of GPA/MCAT at one school versus another and then you have a semi-worthwhile way to say a 3.7 at school x is as difficult as a 4.0 at school y.

 

[jeghaber]

The MCAT helps a lot to balance things out. If a 3.7 at a given school is really more impressive than a 4.0 at another, then the average MCAT earned by 3.7 GPA students at that school should be higher than the average MCAT score earned by 4.0 GPA students at the other school. Find data showing the trend of GPA/MCAT at one school versus another and then you have a semi-worthwhile way to say a 3.7 at school x is as difficult as a 4.0 at school y.

The average sGPA/MCAT for accepted students from Brown is 3.64/34 (http://brown.edu/academics/college/advising/health-careers/medical-admission-data-snapshot). For Yale, the averages are 3.66/35 for accepted applicants and 3.66/34 for all applicants (http://ucs.yalecollege.yale.edu/sites/default/files/med_school_applicant_profile.pdf). Obviously, just a few data points but still informative.

 

[knv2u]

@V5RED - If you reread my comments, you will see that the post you quoted was responding directly to his criticism of my assertion that I would rather have a 3.7 from a top 20 school than a 4.0 from many non selective institutions. The data there was meant to address and justify that comment and not specifically to address grade inflation. With that said, in reference to your other comments:

In almost every college class, there will be students that will receive an "A." How much competition do you think there is going to be for that "A" at a school like those above? Even the top quartile of students admitted is significantly below the average of most U.S. colleges. You also forget that professors target their lectures toward their audience. The prospective audience seems to be one of very poor students, so how good do you think the quality of instruction will be compared to that provided by a research powerhouse? If you are teaching physics, for instance, which is highly math based, I am going to venture to say that you are going to teach it differently to a class with an average SAT I Math score of 700+ than one around 400 or less (remember it is a 800 point sub scale - at top schools there are students who scored higher, at, or near the combination of two of subject areas for the students at the less selective school). I suppose that there could be a very small population that performs well on the MCAT, but the odds are stacked against those students from the beginning IMO. Probability supports the inference that I was making.

I am glad you are not on an adcom. It is very easy to get into many state schools, but that does not mean it is easy to get an A.

 

[slickwillbo]

If you're going to make comments that to some effect are disparaging of others' academic records, please bother to be informed.

You cant conclude form that graph that Brown has dramatically more grade inflation than Harvard, Yale, etc. Due to the "new curriculum" (new since the '60s) they don't have D's or F's (those become "No Credit"). If you get below a C in a course, it just drops off your transcript, so the average GPA is inevitably higher. On top of that, if you can tell you're getting a C, you can intentionally blow the final or take an INC and never complete it --> NC --> like you never took the course. Furthermore, students are encouraged and at times required to take courses P/F (S/NC). Your data doesn't mean they're giving out more A's or less Cs/Ds/Fs than their peer institutions, rather it is consistent with the fact that the use a different grading system that doesn't include those marks on the external transcript (they're on the internal one for academic probation and awards). You're comparing apples and oranges.

First, I said in my original post that my comments weren't meant to be rigorous or scientific.

Second, not giving Ds and Fs only strengthens the perception that it's easier to get a high GPA at Brown than elsewhere. What you're saying is that you can be incredibly lazy ("blow off the final") and not be penalized. If that's not grade inflation, I'm not sure what qualifies.

 

[vagabondrunning]

As a grad student in Boston, a lot of us were floored in December when articles like this started appearing about Harvard grading:

Harvard Crimson: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/12/3/grade-inflation-mode-a/
Boston Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...e-inflation/McZHfRZ2RxpoP5Xvwged1N/story.html
Then with reports that Boston University is notorious of grade "deflation" in the sciences.

My experience taking courses with faculty from both institutions is that it's not too difficult to get an A, at least in the humanities and social sciences. I cannot comment about science grading as I did my bachelor's in a different state. I will add, though, that the students are in no way smarter at BU or Harvard compared to my friends at my state school, but there does tend to be a lot more students motivated to do well in school at both these institutions (for a number of reasons, I would imagine). Of course, this is just my experience and in no way a universal statement!