Question about GPA and Notorious Grade Deflation

[V5RED]

@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 read your post again, the data you used did not help your point in the way you seem to think it did.

I addressed how the professors can test students in a way that allows the lower achieving students to pass while still challenging the top students. It is very easy to either set a curve such that almost everyone basses but almost noone gets an A or throw in some gimme questions so the lower achieving students can pass the class.

You seem to think that at a school where it is easy to get in, professors hand you an A for showing up. Again, you lack the data to make such a conclusion and you have just asserted that noone at a school outside the top 20 deserves their grades.

You cannot make the assertion that probability supports your guess that people who score high GPAs at these schools do not deserve their GPAs. You have no data at all to support what you said. You have nothing but the knowledge that there is a bulk of students at these schools that were not competitive for top schools. This means nothing for the students who are at the very top, and if most of these schools are like mine, they give out so few A's that only students who really deserve than get the A's.

Your argument takes the following form:

Many people with low scores are admitted to this school.(supported by data)
People who could do well at top 20 schools are not admitted to this school. (made up)
The classes are structured such that getting an A is very easy to allow everyone to pass. (made up and unreasonable)
Therefore noone at a non top 20 institution deserves their GPA unless it is below 4.0 to confirm their dumbness.

Your assertions are offensive, elitist, and not supported by the data you offered.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[V5RED]

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.

It is better to call it grade protection. They won't give you a free A, but you can protect your GPA if a class is going badly for you much like at schools that have ridiculously late add/drop periods.

 

[orangeman25]

People that attend prestigious schools get a leg up from others when it comes to applying to medical school. It may be very little but I'm sure it happens. Who cares if their school is grade inflated or not, they were smart enough to get into these schools & now they benefit.

For others, including myself, hard work is the great equalizer. Not everyone in life starts on an even playing field.

 

[Plecopotamus]

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.

Grade inflation in this case is not the same as GPA inflation.

If you want to call it "GPA inflation" as I said above to another poster, that's fine, as is "GPA protection" as suggested by another SDNer above. It ends up having the same effect as late drop periods at many schools.

However, I'm not sure where this gradeinflation.com is getting their data from, b/c Brown does not calculate GPAs, and ostensibly they don't publish average GPAs (the exception being some of the pre-med advising data, b/c they publish the calculated AMCAS GPA). This means they have to be collecting them from another source (self-reported at standardized tests? AMCAS? no clue) or the school is releasing the numbers of A/B/C grades given and someone is erroneously calculating a GPA from it -- it's the fact that they're attempting to calculate a GPA from a different grading system that results in it being inflated. Inflation of the GPA, however, doesn't necessarily reflect "grade inflation" of the individual course grades, which is really what most people up-thread are talking about -- there is no evidence that the threshold for an A is lowered just b/c the Ds/Fs aren't in the grading system. I would add that it's also inappropriate to compare the GPAs, because of the fact that there are no pluses and minuses. There are no C-'s, so by default, the lowest GPA you can have is a 2.0, so the GPAs will naturally be somewhat higher due to that as well. You wouldn't be here arguing that a school that doesn't give letter grades is inflating/deflating, b/c it's a different system -- that's the case here, too.

With regards to being lazy . . . keep in mind that if you do this and effectively fail a course, you get no credit, and you end up with semesters on your transcript where you were quite clearly enrolled fulltime and have no/reduced courseload. Because of the fact that an explanation of the grading system accompanies transcripts (and med schools are quite aware of a few schools well known for having an atypical grading system), if you submit a transcript with many semesters with less than a full courseload, it becomes quite obvious you were failing (b/c it also says you're enrolled as a fulltime matriculant).

 

[MDforMee]

I read your post again, the data you used did not help your point in the way you seem to think it did...
Your assertions are offensive, elitist, and not supported by the data you offered.

Calm down, cochise. There's an easy way to solve this problem; look up science professors from both state schools and top 25 schools. Seriously.

Just search university websites for instructors of record in the sciences. Next, google these professors names with keywords like "grade history."

Bingo, a lot of websites like koofers and myedu post professor's grade histories.

Guess what? Easy state schools are handing out 30+% A's in science courses.

Guess what else? Check out Touro's (an osteopathic medical school) admissions history: looks like they prefer UCLA and UCB, to me. UCD is local.

The CSU kids (EASY STATE SCHOOLS!!!!) are up a creek without a paddle.

University of California: 67
Berkeley 20
Davis 16
Los Angeles 13
Irvine 5
San Diego 5
Santa Cruz 4
Santa Barbara 2
Riverside 1
San Francisco 1

California State University: 10
Bakersfield 1
Humbolt 1
Northridge 1
Riverside 1
Sacramento 1
San Diego 1
San Francisco 1
San Jose 1
Santa Barbara 1
Sonoma 1

 

[Aerus]

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).

While I DEFINITELY agree with the point you are trying to make, you still need to understand that, no matter what college it's at, A's are not easy to come by. Is there a difference in difficulty for getting A's? Yes, and it also depends on grade inflation/deflation policies. From what I've seen, grade inflation is rarely seen at public schools. Mostly private schools grade inflate.

Anyways, when people go to college, they get their stuff together. They actually start studying and caring about their grades. Thus, I'm arguing that getting an A at an institution with lower SAT/GPA admission averages IS NOT EASY. Easier than Princeton and MIT? Probably. What about top schools that give 60+% A's? That's when I'd argue that it's probably the same.

For example, at my school, we have tons of people who easily got into all the ivy league schools, who had amazing extracurricular activities as high schoolers and whose resumes easily surpass the premeds I see one SDN. Are they at the top of the class? No. In many cases, they are average. Are the "Regent Scholars" (top 1% of applicant pool in a given UC -- typically 4.8+GPA and 2300+ SAT) at our school setting the curves? No, I've met many who struggle to maintain the minimum GPA to keep their scholarship. The people who set the curve in our science classes, in most cases, couldn't get into a better school. These are the people who most likely slacked off in high school, but decided to get their priorities straight in college. It's amazing how much people change when put into a college environment.

Just because a school has lower SAT/GPA averages and a higher acceptance rate does NOT mean it's easy to get an A. Judging by the people you see on SDN, even a person who was barely passing high school could pull 4.0's in college. This leads me to believe that SAT scores and GPA are VERY poor predictors of success in college and even worse predictors of potential. And college unlocks the potential of a lot of people, especially when they must pay hefty tuition and school fees and their future is riding on their academic success.

At the end of the day, is a 4.0 at Princeton harder to get than one at NSU (Nowhere State University)? Of course. But it doesn't mean a 4.0 at NSU is easy to get. People's potential are very hard to predict in college admissions.

 

[Euxox]

For example, at my school, we have tons of people who easily got into all the ivy league schools, who had amazing extracurricular activities as high schoolers and whose resumes easily surpass the premeds I see one SDN. Are they at the top of the class? No. In many cases, they are average. Are the "Regent Scholars" (top 1% of applicant pool in a given UC -- typically 4.8+GPA and 2300+ SAT) at our school setting the curves? No, I've met many who struggle to maintain the minimum GPA to keep their scholarship. The people who set the curve in our science classes, in most cases, couldn't get into a better school. These are the people who most likely slacked off in high school, but decided to get their priorities straight in college. It's amazing how much people change when put into a college environment.

Just because a school has lower SAT/GPA averages and a higher acceptance rate does NOT mean it's easy to get an A. Judging by the people you see on SDN, even a person who was barely passing high school could pull 4.0's in college. This leads me to believe that SAT scores and GPA are VERY poor predictors of success in college and even worse predictors of potential. And college unlocks the potential of a lot of people, especially when they must pay hefty tuition and school fees and their future is riding on their academic success.

You are confusing two things here. SAT scores are terrible performance predictors for individuals, but good predictors for groups. If Joe has a 2300 and Bob has a 2100, does it mean that Joe is smarter than Bob? Of course not. People's scores can very easily fluctuate +-50 points between sittings and Bob might have been having an off day while Joe was having a good day. Even if that wasn't the base, Joe may be good at standardized tests, but poor at applying himself over the three or four months of sustained effort required to get an A in college. Joe might also lack the responsibility and maturity that he will need to succeed without his parents constantly watching him over the shoulder.

But now let's look at things from the scale of entire colleges. If X University has 20,000 students with an SAT average of 2300 and Y University has 20,000 students with an SAT average of 2100, there is a significant difference between the two. For most colleges, the difference between the SAT of the 25%ile and the 75%ile is only around 100 points. Yes, many of the 2400 SAT kids who are admitted will find themselves on academic probation by the end of freshman year and many 1900 SAT kids will find themselves on the Dean's list. But on average, students with lower SAT scores will be doing worse than students with higher SAT scores. It is a weak correlation, but it is there. Take that trend and apply it to all 20,000 students, and you will see that it averages out such that the student body at X University is slightly more competitive than that Y University. That is how a random sampling works: as the sample size goes up, the standard deviation of the sample falls.

And this is why undergrad colleges and medical schools alike use standardized exams to make admissions decisions. Yes, the exams are relatively poor predictors of success on the individual level, but admissions offices are not concerned with finding individual shining stars. They want to build a class that will be successful as a whole. So from a medical school admissions perspective, I don't think it is unreasonable to use average SAT score to estimate the quality of an undergrad institution as long as it isn't the only criterion adcoms use, and as long as adcoms don't discount applicants with 3.9+ GPAs just because they come from less competitive schools.

 

[Aerus]

You are confusing two things here. SAT are terrible performance predictors for individuals, but good predictors for groups. If Joe has a 2300 and Bob has a 2100, does it mean that Joe is smarter than Bob? Of course not. People's scores can very easily fluctuate +-50 points between sittings and Bob might have been having an off day while Joe was having a good day. Joe may be good at standardized tests, but poor at applying himself over the three or four months of sustained effort required to get an A in college. Joe might also lack the responsibility and maturity that he will need to succeed without his parents constantly watching him over the shoulder.

But now let's look at things from the scale of colleges. If X University has 20,000 students with an SAT average of 2300 and Y University has 20,000 students with an SAT average of 2100, there is a significant difference between the two; for most colleges, the difference between the SAT of the 25%ile and the 75%ile is only around 100 points. Yes, many of the 2400 SAT kids who are admitted will find themselves on academic probation by the end of freshman year and many 1900 SAT kids will find themselves on the Dean's list. But overall it will average out such that the student body at X University is slightly more competitive than that Y University. That is how a random sampling works: as the sample size goes up, the standard deviation of the sample falls.

And this is why undergrad colleges and medical schools alike use standardized exams to make admissions decisions. Yes, the exams are relatively poor predictors of success on the individual level, but admissions offices are not concerned with finding individual shining stars. They want to build a class that will be successful as a whole.

No, I understand how the SAT is used as a whole. That's why you never have nor never will see me arguing to take away the MCAT and SAT for admission decisions. I completely see their validity.

But I'm addressing the issue that a single applicant who goes to an ivy league school or similar upper institution can easily get a 4.0 at another "lower tiered" public school. My argument is that, no, there are plenty of examples of kids who are ivy league material who don't do well at all at a "lower tiered" institution with lower admission requirements. It's not a good assumption to make. It's not like high school where every single kid was forced to go, where education was basically free, and (if taken into the context of premed classes) where your career is on the line.

 

[Euxox]

But I'm addressing the issue that a single applicant who goes to an ivy league school and gets a 3.7 can easily get a 4.0 at another "lower tiered" public school. My argument is that, no, there are plenty of examples of kids who are ivy league material who don't do well at all at a "lower tiered" institution with lower admission requirements. It's not a good assumption to make.

You are absolutely right that an Ivy league student won't necessarily be a superstar at a state school. But again, med school adcoms are not concerned with the performance of individual students that they admit as much as the performance of the class as a whole. Even if the adcom spent five years trying to build the perfect class, they would still end up admitting one or two students who would fail class after class. So they won't pull their hair out trying to figure our whether the Ivy league applicant is better than the state school applicant. They will just make their best guess. If the GPAs are the same, they will first look at the MCAT score, then the LoRs and ECs and essays, and finally they will look at prestige of the undergrad institution. None of these things are excellent predictors of future success for the individual, but they work out well enough when you look at the class as a whole.

 

[Aerus]

You are absolutely right that an Ivy league student won't necessarily be a superstar at a state school. But again, med school adcoms are not concerned with the performance of individual students that they admit as much as the performance of the class as a whole. Even if the adcom spent five years trying to build the perfect class, they would still end up admitting one or two students who would fail class after class. So they won't pull their hair out trying to figure our whether the Ivy league applicant is better than the state school applicant. They will just make their best guess. If the GPAs are the same, they will first look at the MCAT score, then the LoRs and ECs and essays, and finally they will look at prestige of the undergrad institution. None of these things are excellent predictors of future success for the individual, but they work out well enough when you look at the class as a whole.

Agreed with everything you said. As a whole, prestige of undergrad SHOULD be taken into account. Ignoring it would be foolish. But when someone gets to the point where they say "My __ mediocre GPA at Princeton should be preferred over ___ excellent GPA at State School because these Princeton students would have had that excellent GPA if they went to State School so they deserve that boost", then you'll see me arguing.

Were we even in disagreement?

 

[Euxox]

I guess not.

 

[kevin2400]

I don't know man. I went to UCLA where you gotta work your butt off to get to the top 15-20% in the pre-med classes, and I'm not gonna lie, sometimes I wish to a different school.

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof13.htm When ~83% of the student body had a 3.7-4.0 unweighted GPA in high school (~84% of UCLA's students graduated in the top 9% of their class), it's pretty clear that UCLA and UC Berkeley are pretty damn smart, and seriously sometimes I felt no matter how hard you try/study as much as you can, you're just average..... only giving 15% A's in a pre-med class just doesn't cut it--even if you think you're a good student, you then realize so are ~80% of your classmates. To be honest, some of my classmates belong to Ivy-leagues but for one reason or another chose UCLA for idk, (very cheap) in-state tuition, being close to home, their friends etc.

I think its a BIG shame that the prestige of the UCLA/UC Berkeley name is not even anywhere close to the Ivy-Leagues.

Bottom line? Obviously go to a good school with one or the other, beter both: 1. a good reputation (ivy league) 2. high GPA averages or with pre-med classes where they give out a large percentage of A's. So pretty much: go to the ivy-league schools. In retrospect, I wish I did.

 

[centillion]

Berkeley:
2012-13 Common Data Set

SAT Ranges for admitted students (25th-75th):
Reading: 590-720
Math: 630-770
Writing: 620-750

ACT: 27-33
UCLA:
2012-13 Common Data Set
SAT Ranges (25th-75th):
Reading: 570-690
Math: 600-750
Writing: 580-720

ACT: 25-32

Princeton:
2013-14 Common Data Set

SAT Ranges (25th-75th):
Reading: 700-800
Math: 710-800
Writing: 710-790

ACT: 31-35



*It's really hard to make fair comparisons between GPA/Class Rank among all three schools because while 100% of students submitted class rank to UCLA, only 27% submitted it to Princeton. Also, most students at UCB and UCLA are from CA, which likely has a more homogeneous GPA/rank calculation system across schools than do the variety of school systems around the country that send kids to Princeton.

 

[Euxox]

I think its a BIG shame that the prestige of the UCLA/UC Berkeley name is not even anywhere close to the Ivy-Leagues.

I'd say that Berkeley is similar in prestige to Cornell.

 

[sourdoughllama]

.

 

[BurberryDoc]

Cornell is also considered one of the joke Ivies by many hahaha

But in all seriousness UCLA and Cal will suffer in terms of prestige and quality of admits as long as they're state schools and it'll continue to be that way. Private schools have a lot more leeway in terms of what they choose to do

Hey, check this site out:

Www.safetyschool.org

 

[sourdoughllama]

Hey, check this site out:

Www.safetyschool.org

Lol I'm actually not quite sure at what I'm looking at . If it's regarding my comment on Cornell, it's not my opinion (I think Cornell is good); it's just an opinion that does exist and includes schools like brown

 

[SunsFun]

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.

Not in all circumstances.

 

[BurberryDoc]

Lol I'm actually not quite sure at what I'm looking at

It redirects to the Yale website.

It's so ignorant when the other ivies (and really, it's only the other ivies that say this about Cornell) assert that the 'Nell isn't a real Ivy. Foolish.

 

[sourdoughllama]

.

 

[sourdoughllama]

.

 

[centillion]

I think there is a sweet spot (US News #15-30ish) where the caliber of students is similar enough to top 10 or 15 to have very similar competition yet the prestige doesn't help nearly as much

That seems valid.

I'd say that Berkeley is similar in prestige to Cornell.

To be honest, I hold Berkeley in really high regard, especially since it's such a great research powerhouse (and has a really nice campus to boot) and, at least in my perspective depending on your field, I don't see much prestige/caliber difference between Berkeley, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, etc.

They're all within the same tier, imo.

 

[knv2u]

Your argument takes the following form:

Many people with low scores are admitted to this school.(supported by data)
People who could do well at top 20 schools are not admitted to this school. (made up)
The classes are structured such that getting an A is very easy to allow everyone to pass. (made up and unreasonable)
Therefore noone at a non top 20 institution deserves their GPA unless it is below 4.0 to confirm their dumbness.

Your assertions are offensive, elitist, and not supported by the data you offered.

Actually, it is more along the lines of this, including the underlying assumptions:

1. The schools mentioned have a lower quality student body based on the previous academic history of its students to include SAT and high school GPA considerations. (Provided for specifically by the data).

2a. The vast majority of college science classes are curved regardless of whether the curve is upwards or downwards; the more competitive the study body as a whole, the more difficult it will be to receive an "A."

(You might challenge the first part, but I address this in the alternative argument in 2B; the second part seems like common sense to me: In a number of top schools, As are restricted to the top 10-20% of the class. Even if you stretch this to the top 1/3 or higher, in a student body where the bottom quartile of the student body exceeds the top quartile at another, probability suggests that there is less competition to be at the very top of your class.)

2b. Even in the absence of the curve, professors must fashion their lectures toward their audiences. The quality and level of instruction are directly dependent on the quality of the student body. Do you seriously think that professors are going to teach physics to a student body with an average SAT I math score of less than <500 in the same manner in which the same professor would teach a student body where the vast majority score >700? (Call this a leap of faith- something that often takes place in science). The argument is that the quality of instruction will suffer and therefore the grades are not comparable.

3. Regardless of whether an "A" is easy to come by or not (discarding inflation/deflation), not all As are created equally (see 2B, level of instruction).

4. The "A" grades at non-selective institution are not equal to "A" grades at upper tier schools in many cases, meaning that I would place much less emphasis on transcript of students from the least selective institutions. This is not to say that they wouldn't be admitted, but standardized tests (e.g. the MCAT) become much more important as would other exemplars of academic achievement (extracurricular activities that include significant research projects or publications, for instance).


My problem with your interpretation of my argument is that:

People who could do well at top 20 schools are not admitted to this school.

Based on the statistics of the school, how many academically bright students do you really think are going to attend? If you could do well in a top 20, why would you go to a school like this (i.e. pretty much a degree mill) even if offered a scholarship? If there are top students attending such institutions, in many (but not all cases), I would question that student's judgment anyway so I wouldn't be overly concerned.

The classes are structured such that getting an A is very easy to allow everyone to pass.

My thought is that the grades are not equal in terms of quality, which may or may not mean that the grades are equally difficult to obtain. Even if it is difficult to receive an "A" at one of the schools above, the quality of the student body is correlated to the quality of instruction (see argument 2B), the premise still holds: not all A grades are created equally.

Therefore noone at a non top 20 institution deserves their GPA unless it is below 4.0 to confirm their dumbness.

I didn't say that the students didn't deserve their GPA; I said that I wouldn't place much weight on their GPA (assuming that they don't bomb). It would all come down to factors that were more neutral such as MCAT and publications, etc. If there is a student at one of these schools that could pull off a stellar MCAT score and had research or other things to fortify the application, then I would have no problem admitting such a student. The point still holds that the transcript/high grades would have little value to me.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

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.

so... how many?

 

[MDforMee]

I don't know man. I went to UCLA where you gotta work your butt off to get to the top 15-20% in the pre-med classes, and I'm not gonna lie, sometimes I wish to a different school.

...To be honest, some of my classmates belong to Ivy-leagues but for one reason or another chose UCLA for idk, (very cheap) in-state tuition, being close to home, their friends etc.

I think its a BIG shame that the prestige of the UCLA/UC Berkeley name is not even anywhere close to the Ivy-Leagues.

I also went to UCLA, and said pretty much the same things that you did earlier in the thread.

When I first started at UCLA, I wasn't aware of how much time I had to study to earn good grades. After I stopped working as many hours and developed better time management, I did pretty well in the upper division courses for my major (Biochemistry). I wish that I could go back and redo the physics and LS series knowing what I know, now.

The Ivy leagues probably have "harder" classes than ours, but I'd bet that our grade curves are more strict. Basically, I'd guess that the Ivies make their courses "difficult" by integrating more logic and reasoning into test questions than they did with ours. When professors start writing tests that way, you start seeing students drop like flies; I remember in multivariable calculus, physical chemistry, and biochemistry, even, when professors did this you'd start seeing really ridiculous score ranges. I'd be curious to know what our Princeton friend has to say about class structure in the premed class series, there.

 

[sourdoughllama]

I also went to UCLA, and said pretty much the same things that you did earlier in the thread.

When I first started at UCLA, I wasn't aware of how much time I had to study to earn good grades. After I stopped working as many hours and developed better time management, I did pretty well in the upper division courses for my major (Biochemistry). I wish that I could go back and redo the physics and LS series knowing what I know, now.

The Ivy leagues probably have "harder" classes than ours, but I'd bet that our grade curves are more strict. Basically, I'd guess that the Ivies make their courses "difficult" by integrating more logic and reasoning into test questions than they did with ours. When professors start writing tests that way, you start seeing students drop like flies; I remember in multivariable calculus, physical chemistry, and biochemistry, even, when professors did this you'd start seeing really ridiculous score ranges. I'd be curious to know what our Princeton friend has to say about class structure in the premed class series, there.

.

 

[centillion]

The Ivy leagues probably have "harder" classes than ours, but I'd bet that our grade curves are more strict. Basically, I'd guess that the Ivies make their courses "difficult" by integrating more logic and reasoning into test questions than they did with ours. When professors start writing tests that way, you start seeing students drop like flies; I remember in multivariable calculus, physical chemistry, and biochemistry, even, when professors did this you'd start seeing really ridiculous score ranges. I'd be curious to know what our Princeton friend has to say about class structure in the premed class series, there.

Well, from my perspective, our premed classes are definitely more emphatic on logic, analysis, and reasoning, rather than pure memorization. Oh sure, there's still a **** ton of memorization in biology courses, etc., but test questions go way beyond that. There are few multiple choice questions in comparison to a lot more free-response style ones, with a lot of case study type things that require application of knowledge. In addition, we teach organic chemistry open note and open book, and ask questions that require an understanding of organic chemistry mechanisms (arrow pushing, synthesis, lab-based questions, etc.) and the chemical reasoning behind these things. I remember looking at a Rutgers orgo final and literally it consisted of questions like "What is this mechanism? A) Schiff base B) Claisen condensation, etc." or "What reagent would you use? A) HBr B) Br2, etc."... which in my opinion is an absolutely ridiculous way to learn organic chemistry. Our semesters are also only 12 weeks rather than the normal 15, so our curriculum is generally more condensed and fast-paced.

I'm pretty sure other schools are similar in terms of demanding logic/reason over memorization, but anyhow that's how we do it here at least.

 

[Aerus]

Well, from my perspective, our premed classes are definitely more emphatic on logic, analysis, and reasoning, rather than pure memorization. Oh sure, there's still a **** ton of memorization in biology courses, etc., but test questions go way beyond that. There are few multiple choice questions in comparison to a lot more free-response style ones, with a lot of case study type things that require application of knowledge. In addition, we teach organic chemistry open note and open book, and ask questions that require an understanding of organic chemistry mechanisms (arrow pushing, synthesis, lab-based questions, etc.) and the chemical reasoning behind these things.
Our semesters are also only 12 weeks rather than the normal 15, so our curriculum is generally more condensed and fast-paced.

I'm pretty sure other schools are similar in terms of demanding logic/reason over memorization, but anyhow that's how we do it here at least.

Sounds like your typical UC Organic Chemistry class. Also, most UC's are quarter system so we have 10 weeks.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Sounds like your typical UC Organic Chemistry class. Also, most UC's are quarter system so we have 10 weeks.

.

 

[Aerus]

Yep. But we take 3-4 classes at a time while semester people take 4-5. Our student body is not as crazy as Yale but we get harsher grading schemes. I guess it all works out in the end. Dat 4.0/45 will work from any school

But yeah I agree the style of testing sounds just like the UCs

Agreed.

so... how many?

A LOT. I don't go to an Ivy, but we still have a lot of students who were pretty stellar high school super stars.

 

[solitarius]

I think there is a sweet spot (US News #15-30ish) where the caliber of students is similar enough to top 10 or 15 to have very similar competition yet the prestige doesn't help nearly as much

Yeah, I'm sure there are some true geniuses at Harvard ( e.g., Noam Elkies). But you can't say all or even most HYPS undergrads are in that elite level. These schools aim for diversity too, which means they'll take the person with a world-class skill, desirable athletic talent, or the person with leadership skills but with less stellar academics.

A significant plurality of the Harvard student body could easily have been replaced by a group that got rejected, with little effect on Harvard itself.

As for whether UCLA or Cal deserves "Ivy"-level recognition, I don't agree. Those schools have history, influence and resources. And it's just tougher to get into those schools, so props to whoever got in. Just like props to us who got into an allopathic medical school. It's prestigious precisely because it's more difficult to gain acceptance.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

A LOT. I don't go to an Ivy, but we still have a lot of students who were pretty stellar high school super stars.

"pretty stellar" isn't "2300+SAT/4.8+ GPA/36 ACT/did research as high schoolers." what i'm trying to say is i heavily doubt what you're describing is the norm anywhere, or even close to the norm. 2300+/4.8+ in hs is no common to start with and takes a significant amount of character and intellect that doesn't just go away in college. yes, some will fall through the cracks, often due to new found freedoms in college, but by any reasonable standards probably not A LOT.

I think SkinMD essentially ended this thread already with the astute observation that there seems to be a lot of certainty in this thread.

 

[Aerus]

"pretty stellar" isn't "2300+SAT/4.8+ GPA/36 ACT/did research as high schoolers." what i'm trying to say is i heavily doubt what you're describing is the norm anywhere, or even close to the norm. 2300+/4.8+ in hs is no common to start with and takes a significant amount of character and intellect that doesn't just go away in college. yes, some will fall through the cracks, often due to new found freedoms in college, but by any reasonable standards probably not A LOT.

I think SkinMD essentially ended this thread already with the astute observation that there seems to be a lot of certainty in this thread.

Of course it's not the norm. We would live in a pretty crazy world if that was the case. However, there are plenty of people who do fall into this category that it merits attention that people at Ivy League schools are not invincible. There are actually very very very few "geniuses" anywhere, no matter how concentrated the talent. We're all human.

There are many people who get a 2300 and they plague the UC schools. A 4.8 GPA takes a school that offers enough AP classes. Getting an A in these classes then depends on the student body at that high school. There are enough high schools in the country to fill the UC's with these types of students. Research as a high schooler is rare but getting more and more common these days. And when you have a concentrated premed population (like a Cali school), you'll meet many people who have done this.

Why post if SkinMD already ended the thread? Just let people talk based off of their experiences after that.

 

[V5RED]

Actually, it is more along the lines of this, including the underlying assumptions:

1. The schools mentioned have a lower quality student body based on the previous academic history of its students to include SAT and high school GPA considerations. (Provided for specifically by the data).

2a. The vast majority of college science classes are curved regardless of whether the curve is upwards or downwards; the more competitive the study body as a whole, the more difficult it will be to receive an "A."

(You might challenge the first part, but I address this in the alternative argument in 2B; the second part seems like common sense to me: In a number of top schools, As are restricted to the top 10-20% of the class. Even if you stretch this to the top 1/3 or higher, in a student body where the bottom quartile of the student body exceeds the top quartile at another, probability suggests that there is less competition to be at the very top of your class.)

2b. Even in the absence of the curve, professors must fashion their lectures toward their audiences. The quality and level of instruction are directly dependent on the quality of the student body. Do you seriously think that professors are going to teach physics to a student body with an average SAT I math score of less than <500 in the same manner in which the same professor would teach a student body where the vast majority score >700? (Call this a leap of faith- something that often takes place in science). The argument is that the quality of instruction will suffer and therefore the grades are not comparable.

3. Regardless of whether an "A" is easy to come by or not (discarding inflation/deflation), not all As are created equally (see 2B, level of instruction).

4. The "A" grades at non-selective institution are not equal to "A" grades at upper tier schools in many cases, meaning that I would place much less emphasis on transcript of students from the least selective institutions. This is not to say that they wouldn't be admitted, but standardized tests (e.g. the MCAT) become much more important as would other exemplars of academic achievement (extracurricular activities that include significant research projects or publications, for instance).


My problem with your interpretation of my argument is that:

People who could do well at top 20 schools are not admitted to this school.

Based on the statistics of the school, how many academically bright students do you really think are going to attend? If you could do well in a top 20, why would you go to a school like this (i.e. pretty much a degree mill) even if offered a scholarship? If there are top students attending such institutions, in many (but not all cases), I would question that student's judgment anyway so I wouldn't be overly concerned.

The classes are structured such that getting an A is very easy to allow everyone to pass.

My thought is that the grades are not equal in terms of quality, which may or may not mean that the grades are equally difficult to obtain. Even if it is difficult to receive an "A" at one of the schools above, the quality of the student body is correlated to the quality of instruction (see argument 2B), the premise still holds: not all A grades are created equally.

Therefore noone at a non top 20 institution deserves their GPA unless it is below 4.0 to confirm their dumbness.

I didn't say that the students didn't deserve their GPA; I said that I wouldn't place much weight on their GPA (assuming that they don't bomb). It would all come down to factors that were more neutral such as MCAT and publications, etc. If there is a student at one of these schools that could pull off a stellar MCAT score and had research or other things to fortify the application, then I would have no problem admitting such a student. The point still holds that the transcript/high grades would have little value to me.

1) True
2a) Maybe, but even if you could show that it is fairly universal that the difficulty of achieving an A at top institutions is significantly higher than at lower institutions (recall that Harvard's median grade is an A), you still get the benefit of showing hard work. A GPA may or may not show intellect, but it absolutely shows that you will do all that is asked of you for four whole years(putting aside cheaters).
2b) There is no way to know this. General chemistry is general chemistry, it isn't like the rules of science change at different schools.
3) They are not all equal, but there are plenty of Ivy students with undeserved A's just like there are students at low tier schools with undeserved A's. A Princeton A is far better than a Harvard A according to most sources on grade inflation. Should all of Harvard's GPAs also be tossed in the bin? In fact, only the grade deflating Ivies GPAs should matter at all based on your argument.
4) How does having a publication validate a GPA? As to the MCAT, if you have a 4.0 from ANYWHERE and a 30 MCAT, people will think your 4.0 is inflated just like if you have a 38 MCAT and a 3.6 from ANYWHERE people will think your GPA might be deflated. If However you have said 30 MCAT and a 3.4 GPA, nobody will believe that it is your school's fault you had a lowish GPA.
Extra Stuff) You can't say that a GPA has no value and that it is earned, so you either say they don't deserve it so it doesn't count or they deserve it so it counts, don't beat around the bush.

source for undeserved A's: [url]http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/12/26/why-college-grade-inflation-is-a-real-problem-and-how-to-fix-it[/URL]
One professor at Harvard was literally pushed to give undeserved grades, so he gives two grades. One is the earned grade and the other is the unearned one that will appear on the transcript.

 

[Lucca]

This thread in a nutshell:

All skills translate all the time into any other area.
Let's get together and make blanket statements while we pound statistics into the grave.
Unfounded, confounding logic. So much confounding. Like seriously, it's criminal.

The only thing that matters in this thread is that ivy league courses do tend to focus more on logic but so do the courses a lots of non-ivies - however, at those schools you generally see that in honors classes (for example, my honors math course was mostly just proofs and the same class number in the non-honors division was just rigorous calculation).

 

[sourdoughllama]

This thread in a nutshell:

All skills translate all the time into any other area.
Let's get together and make blanket statements while we pound statistics into the grave.
Unfounded, confounding logic. So much confounding. Like seriously, it's criminal.

The only thing that matters in this thread is that ivy league courses do tend to focus more on logic but so do the courses a lots of non-ivies - however, at those schools you generally see that in honors classes (for example, my honors math course was mostly just proofs and the same class number in the non-honors division was just rigorous calculation).

Blanket statement yo... If you show me a transcript with you attending multiple Ivies and lots of non-ivies then I'll shut up and go away

 

[Lucca]

Blanket statement yo... If you show me a transcript with you attending multiple Ivies and lots of non-ivies then I'll shut up and go away

Lol, touché, touché.

I haven't attended multiple ivies but I took several courses online during high school and one during this semester:

Harvard's CS51 2012
Joe Blitzstein's (Harvard) Statistics 110: Probability (reallllly great calculus based stats course, available for free on Itunes U. Most recommended on this list)
MIT 6.00SC Introduction to Computer Science and Programming
MIT 18.304 Undergrad seminar in discrete mathematics (in all fairness, this is basically a logic class...)
Stanford Game Theory (Coursera, 2013)
HarvardX Al12.2x: Poetry in America, Whitman (edX)

Admittedly, Harvard is the only ivy on that list but the schools are of comparable caliber. Highly technical schools focus on logic because it's more important to building sustainable skills (you can teach a man Python or you can teach a man Object oriented programming, etc.) for changing times/technology. Liberal arts schools (of which all the ivies are, as people so often forget....) focus on logic because Philosophia is the center of a liberal arts education - as in rigorous logical argument. It's been the tradition and cornerstone of a liberal arts education for thousands of years so it just is this way.

Also, LizzyM definitively answered this question by the OP in her "AMA" thread.

 

[papi89]

I would go to the best college that you can for UG, it's too hard to predict how easy / hard it will be to get an A in any given class or at any given school.

 

[knv2u]

@V5RED
2b) You can kid yourself if you want, but it doesn't match reality. The quality of instruction is going to absolutely depend on the quality of the student body. As I said, let's take physics for example because it is mathematically intensive. A professor teaching a student with SAT math scores <500 is going to teach differently and than one in which the student body >700. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
3)The rigor of an institution is one factor that is and should be considered. Grade inflation/deflation is another. In short, applicants are and should be viewed in the light of their individual circumstances and environment.
Extra stuff) Why can't I? A GPA from an easy school is worth less than one earned from a rigorous curriculum, and both are worth more than one from a degree mill. By your logic, I guess the Caribbean medical schools are right on par with U.S medical schools, huh? A degree is a degree even if it is from a degree mill, right? Screw the MCAT - let's all run to the Caribbean! There is enough attrition there; I bet it is hard to receive an A there too (which probably is more a reflection of student ability). I guess by your argument, they're right on par with Harvard?

 

[knv2u]

Also, LizzyM definitively answered this question by the OP in her "AMA" thread.

Yes she did -

Question:
Hi LizzyM!

How does your adcom view the GPA of applicants from HYPSM-level undergrads, specifically at Princeton or MIT which are known for grade deflation policies relative to their top tier peers?

Answer: @centillion
Some schools are known for deflation and a excellent gpa from such a school is highly regarded. A gpa that is a bit below our mean but above the mean for that school might be recognized as "very good" relative to other applicants from that school.

 

[knv2u]

Unfounded, confounding logic. So much confounding. Like seriously, it's criminal.

I think the biggest issue with this thread has been conflating academic rigor with GPA inflation/deflation, which although related to some extent, are not necessarily the same concept. And to this end, the diversion was largely my fault. I initially replied to a poster disagreeing with his assertion that all college classes should be based on a curve. Posters took issue with some points that I made in reference to that post, and I proceeded to defend myself and in the process inadvertently hijacked the thread to discuss academic rigor, degree mills, etc. I also think that prompted some of the question about the data that I introduced (I was attempting to make a different point - not necessarily about inflation but about rigor generally which was related to my initial post).

To the OP: I am sorry for the diversion.

 

[PantherPride]

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.

Interesting. The the average sGPA/MCAT for accepted students from my state school is 3.65/29

 

[MDforMee]

I think that the OP should feel privileged to not be in a public/non-Ivy top 25 school.

He also isn't being forced to sit in the crowds of public/medical magnet high school AP dorks; he's around kids that are actually smart... the best and brightest in the country. That's reason enough to not transfer from Princeton, IMO.