Why should Ivies "count for more"?

[Ernham]

---

Members do not see this ad.

In 1966, 22% of Harvard undergraduate students earned A's. By 1996, that figure rose to 48%. That same year, 82% of Harvard seniors graduated with honors.

Really, all I see is the rich people ****ing over the less thans. It's like the AA debate all over again. I wonder if Marx is watching us with a smile or a frown.

 

[TRUE]

Grade inflation at Harvard is a well-publicized phenomenon. However, let me assure you that doesn't happen everywhere in the ivy league. At some schools, A's are almost impossible to get in a lot of science classes. Sure, humanities classes might have a more lenient grading system, but that happens at a lot of places.

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by facted
Grade inflation at Harvard is a well-publicized phenomenon. However, let me assure you that doesn't happen everywhere in the ivy league. At some schools, A's are almost impossible to get in a lot of science classes. Sure, humanities classes might have a more lenient grading system, but that happens at a lot of places.

I have the data on princeton, too. It's pretty much the same as Harvard. Do you have any cites for any other Ivies that suggest they have taken a different route? Usually Ivies are like lemmings.

 

[gschl1234]

Originally posted by Ernham
I have the data on princeton, too. It's pretty much the same as Harvard. Do you have any cites for any other Ivies that suggest they have taken a different route? Usually Ivies are like lemmings.

That's strange because a friend of mine is finishing her 2nd year at Princeton and according to her, there is no grade inflation. She says they definitely give D's in science classes.

 

[TRUE]

I go to Columbia and our transcripts ahve the % of students who get A's in each class posted on them. For science classes it's generally betwee 20 and 30%. Labs of course are much higher.

The engineering school here has an average GPA of 3.1 or so (that's what my friend tells me so I can't be sure about that).

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by gschl1234
That's strange because a friend of mine is finishing her 2nd year at Princeton and according to her, there is no grade inflation. She says they definitely give D's in science classes.

45% A's in '97.

 

[gschl1234]

Originally posted by Ernham
45% A's in '97.

That was 6-7 years ago. Is it still true today?

 

[BigRedPingpong]

Marx said on his deathbed, "I am not a communist."

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by gschl1234
That was 6-7 years ago. Is it still true today?

It's more likely they went up than they went down...

 

[Wrigleyville]

Are you suggesting that Harvard gives out all As as a nod toward socialist grading?

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by Wrigleyville
Are you suggesting that Harvard gives out all As as a nod toward socialist grading?

Interesting concept, but no. I'm suggesting that Harvard inflates grades. I can see how such inflation is easily rationalized; however, if both admission to graduate programs AND the grading while attending an Ivy make adjustments(inflate) for the relative worth of any given GPA, you have greatly exaggerated that GPA.

 

[gschl1234]

Originally posted by Ernham
It's more likely they went up than they went down...

Do you have any valid reason for thinking that there would be more grade inflation (if there ever was any) now at Princeton than 6-7 years ago?

 

[TheFlash]

Originally posted by facted
The engineering school here has an average GPA of 3.1 or so (that's what my friend tells me so I can't be sure about that).

A 3.1 average is high for an E-school. It could actually be a sign of grade inflation. At my undergrad, our engineers average ~2.8. And our science and liberal arts departments average ~3.2.

 

[sanoge7]

As a graduate from one of these schools that we are discussing, i can tell you that grade inflation does not occur in the science. classes are curved at a C and A's in EVERY science course i have taken are issued sparingly. Inflation occurs in the humanities, I admit. THAT IS PROBABLY WHAT YOUR PERCENTS REFER TO. Yes, This is how it is at my school (HYP). I"m not going to generalize about the others. TO the OP - you shouldn't either. Get your facts straight. Oh, and by the way, you sounds really bitter with comments like "Really, all I see is the rich people ****ing over the less thans", "Usually Ivies are like lemmings" , etc.

Lay Off.

 

[Wrigleyville]

Originally posted by Ernham
Interesting concept, but no. I'm suggesting that Harvard inflates grades. I can see how such inflation is easily rationalized; however, if both admission to graduate programs AND the grading while attending an Ivy make adjustments(inflate) for the relative worth of any given GPA, you have greatly exaggerated that GPA.

Is there any data on grade inflation at more ordinary schools? I suspect grade inflation is a more general trend, and not at all something exclusive to Harvard.

 

[sanoge7]

thanks for that post to that ernham about the ivies. SO ANNOYING. what a loser. i'm so sick of people like that.

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by sanoge7
thanks for that post to that ernham about the ivies. SO ANNOYING. what a loser. i'm so sick of people like that.

Exhibit A. This guy GRADUATED from an ivy!

 

[sanoge7]

Sorry for the immature outburst. "This guy" did not mean to offend anyone. I just get a little heated up over these things because I feel like your perception is only defended by ivy-leaguers and no one else.

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by sanoge7
Sorry for the immature outburst. "This guy" did not mean to offend anyone. I just get a little heated up over these things because I feel like your perception is only defended by ivy-leaguers and no one else.

If my perception was being defended by ivy leaguers, I would think it would be quite valid.

Exhibit B, your honor.

 

[TTSD]

..what's an A? Is that even part of the normal grading system? :-D

 

[group_theory]

As Benjamin Disraeli (1804?1881) once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." (and quoted by Mark Twain in his autobiography, ch. 29)

Percentage of people getting As is interesting, but it means nothing because it is too generalized. What is the breakdown among majors? Are there more liberal arts majors than social science majors than physical/biological science majors? How has that changed from 1966 to 1996? Is it grade inflation across the board (as it is implied by the original author) or more rampant in certain disciplines?

Also, the majority of students at ivy league schools (and equivalent) are there because of merit, not due to daddy's pocketbook. Most are from the middle class. Although having legacy helps in admission, it does not compensate for poor GPAs or poor standardize test scores.

It would also help if you actually spent significant time at some of these schools, else you will always hold a perconceive stereotype of a typical ivy league student.

 

[Rendar5]

jeez, what's with the hatred of Ivies? They're just really good schools that have a shared history. The problem of grade inflation is not a problem of the Ivies vs non-Ivies. It is a problem of private colleges vs public colleges. private colleges GPAs have risen at a much higher rate than public.

Despite grade inflation, a 3.5 at a top-end private NY school is still harder to earn than a 3.5 at a SUNY. Not as hard as it used to be, sure, but still harder. Why? simply due to the class population? You'll still get a great education at any SUNY school, but it won't be quite as hard to compete against the other students. I personally think grade inflation is a way of making up for this. Not a good way by any means. It's more a result of lack of confidence that people will understand the inequality of GPAs.

Edit: Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that that going to an Ivy makes you better or some BS like that. I know plenty of people who are smarter than me that go to public schools. I'm just saying what school you go to will affect your GPA because each school's GPA is based on how you compare to the other students within the same population. It's just some stupid numbers game.

 

[Rendar5]

http://www.gradeinflation.com/composite11.gif

Just wanted to point out that my school is below the average grade inflation 🙂
From my friend who graduated SEAS, the average engineer GPA is 2.something or really low 3.something

 

[Ernham]

"Also, the majority of students at ivy league schools (and equivalent) are there because of merit, not due to daddy's pocketbook. Most are from the middle class. Although having legacy helps in admission, it does not compensate for poor GPAs or poor standardize test scores."

Over 75% of students in the ivy league come from the upper quartile of the economic spectrum(data from 2003; carvale). ~3% comes from the lowest quartile. Do the arithmetic for me, smart guy.

 

[Rendar5]

Originally posted by Ernham
"Also, the majority of students at ivy league schools (and equivalent) are there because of merit, not due to daddy's pocketbook. Most are from the middle class. Although having legacy helps in admission, it does not compensate for poor GPAs or poor standardize test scores."

Over 75% of students in the ivy league come from the upper quartile of the economic spectrum(data from 2003; carvale). ~3% comes from the lowest quartile. Do the arithmetic for me, smart guy.

How much money do you have to earn in order to be in the upper quartile of the economic spectrum?

Anyway, all you've proven is that Ivy League schools are expensive as hell. You havne't proven that there isn't merit involved in getting into them. What are the average SAT scores for an Ivy leaguer, what is the average high school class ranking for an Ivy leaguer, and how does that compare to the average?

 

[Rendar5]

ok. from a current friend at SEAS (Columbia Engineering). Avg. GPA is 2.8-2.9

 

[Ernham]

What is your problem, Rendar5? You a little shocked maybe? Can't believe that poor people are fuqed over far more than minorities(which make up ~13% of the ivies)?

I don't know the exact upper quartile offhand, but it is above 70k annual income or thereabouts.

 

[Rendar5]

so 2 parents earning 40K a year is upper quartile? That sounds like middle class to me.

My problem is you're telling me that I didn't earn my grades and that I'm some rich spoiled brat who got into my school because of my dad's pocket book (both parents are public high school teachers) all based on what school I went to for college.

 

[Rendar5]

Poor people are screwed over by private schools in general. Not just ivies.

 

[group_theory]

Originally posted by Ernham

Over 75% of students in the ivy league come from the upper quartile of the economic spectrum(data from 2003; carvale). ~3% comes from the lowest quartile. Do the arithmetic for me, smart guy.

Hmmm ... could you please elaborate on the reference, I might be interested in reading that (personal curiosity)

According to the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org), based on 2001 Federal Income Tax, the upper quartile consist of people who make more than $56,085. Top 10% of all tax-payers earn more than $92,754. However, please note that this is only the top 25% of tax payers, and does not include people who don't pay taxes.

According to the US Census Bureau for 2001 (http://www.census.gov), the top 20% of all household (including all races) makes at least $83,500 (top 40% makes at least $53,000).

So between, the 2 numbers, it would be reasonable to say that the top 25% of the people (tax-payers and non-taxpayers) would have to earn a minimum amount between $56,085 and $83,500

So the claim that 75% of students are from the upper quartile is certainly reasonable (and I should modify my statement by saying that most students come from upper-middle class). I will also concede that you will find more students from wealthier family at ivy league (and like) schools than your average public school down the street. But this is far from the public stereotype of ivy leaguers wearing polo t-shirts with a sweater drapped round their necks and wearing shorts while out sailing on yachts (your typical Ralph Lauren commercial)

 

[MedAppGurl]

two of my closest friends are in a very bad financial state at home. one is graduating from yale, the other harvard. they got there because of hard work, great scores and being incredibly active. there will be rich kids at every private school, that is the nature of the beast - however, some kids actually do earn their keep at the ivies. i hope some people can see that.

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by group_theory
Hmmm ... could you please elaborate on the reference, I might be interested in reading that (personal curiosity)

According to the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org), based on 2001 Federal Income Tax, the upper quartile consist of people who make more than $56,085. Top 10% of all tax-payers earn more than $92,754. However, please note that this is only the top 25% of tax payers, and does not include people who don't pay taxes.

According to the US Census Bureau for 2001 (http://www.census.gov), the top 20% of all household (including all races) makes at least $83,500 (top 40% makes at least $53,000).

So between, the 2 numbers, it would be reasonable to say that the top 25% of the people (tax-payers and non-taxpayers) would have to earn a minimum amount between $56,085 and $83,500

So the claim that 75% of students are from the upper quartile is certainly reasonable (and I should modify my statement by saying that most students come from upper-middle class). I will also concede that you will find more students from wealthier family at ivy league (and like) schools than your average public school down the street. But this is far from the public stereotype of ivy leaguers wearing polo t-shirts with a sweater drapped round their necks and wearing shorts while out sailing on yachts (your typical Ralph Lauren commercial)

Get off the god damn crack pipe you misinformation spewing piece of trash. I KNOW the upper quartile is WELL over that figure, you little liar. Nice cite, by the way. "Sorry, no search results found for upper quartile/75th quartile"found for upper quartile/75th quartile"

 

[Rendar5]

Originally posted by Ernham
Get off the god damn crack pipe you misinformation spewing piece of trash. I KNOW the upper quartile is WELL over that figure, you little liar. Nice cite, by the way. "Sorry, no search results found for upper quartile/75th quartile"found for upper quartile/75th quartile"

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Top 25% income split: above $ 56,085

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by Rendar5
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Top 25% income split: above $ 56,085

Hrm. Don't know what to say. Last statistic I saw was something like 69,760.

 

[Rendar5]

ya got me. Either way, middle class is definitely in the top 25%

 

[Tezzie]

This subject usually gets beaten to death.

I think that there will always be a "wow" factor when someone sees a 4.0 from MIT. That is understandable. Most of my friends have/are attending "elite" schools. I have yet to hear someone IRL say some of the things said on SDN though.

I understand that adcoms give a slight advantage to an Ivy or Ivy-type applicant. I am not saying it is right or wrong (although i believe is wrong). However no applicant is lost. Nothing will ever compensate for a subpar MCAT or GPA. That as far as the process goes. However it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable when i read on SDN statements like "a 3.8 from Whatever U equals to a 3.3 from an Ivy". I think it is an extremely rude statement. Noone has the right to deny another persons hard work in such a harsh way. Especially when there is no way to prove that the person who got a 3.9 at the State U - Whatever Extension would have gotten a 3.3 at Harvard.

Plus what are you trying to prove by making such a statement? That the particular person is not smart? Or wouldn't have "cut" it in another institution? How can you confront another persons intellectual level and work without any evidence that your theory holds truth?

Sadly, the people who do make such a statement spent more than 100k on tuition at a great university but never really got anything out of their education because such biased statements show both lack of class and maturity.

Furthermore, for the people who are just the classic "pre-med" majors - things are usually equal. To be honest when i took a physics course at a CC i didn't notice many differences in comparison to my school. The professor was great, the fellow students were really nice and the teaching methods were good. So i am not so sure how different O-Chem can truly be between school A and school B.

Remember something else when comparing avg MCATs (or whatever other test) between schools. They don't mean jack **** when you get down to the application process. You are applying with YOUR MCAT and YOUR ECs. Not your schools avg.

Oh and btw i remember at least one Ivy league school that had a not need-blind admissions process (i think they changed that now though).

Last but not least, the next time someone says to you "your 4.0 is like a 2.9 from my school" just don't fall for the bait and say "Yeah but i eat p**sy better so guess who wins?".

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by Rendar5
ya got me. Either way, middle class is definitely in the top 25%

Umm, no, middle class is defined by their quartile; that is why there is an upper and lower. According to Carnevale's data, less than 10% come from the bottom two quartiles. So, as I stated, the vast majority of these students come from the BARE MINIMUM of an upper-middle class family. Whether anyone likes it or not "upper middle" is still "upper," and they are seriously over represented.

Even worse, this study found that if you take two completely equal college hopefuls, the one with the higher class background is MORE likely to be accepted to these schools. I think that about drives a nail into the coffin of the supposed idea of AA helping the economically disadvantaged. This is no real surprise to anyone with eyeballs, though.

 

[ice_23]

Originally posted by Tezzie

Furthermore, for the people who are just the classic "pre-med" majors - things are usually equal. To be honest when i took a physics course at a CC i didn't notice many differences in comparison to my school. The professor was great, the fellow students were really nice and the teaching methods were good. So i am not so sure how different O-Chem can truly be between school A and school B.

Wow, I know a bunch of my friends who took classes at UCLA and breezed through them while they struggled at their counterpart classes at my school (Stanford). I agree that there is some grade inflation in certain majors, but when it comes to hardcore science classes/engineering majors, it is very difficult to do well. I'm not sure what it's like at HYP, but here, the level of competition is very high, esp. for premed classes. And grades are often curved to a B-, leaving an "avg. student" at my school in the sciences with a GPA below a 3.0.

I often actually feel that this fact is not taken into account enough due to the perception of rampant grade inflation. This problem is especially troubling for those ppl who graduated in difficult majors at a school with incredibly high levels of competition.

-Ice

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by ice_23
Wow, I know a bunch of my friends who took classes at UCLA and breezed through them while they struggled at their counterpart classes at my school (Stanford). I agree that there is some grade inflation in certain majors, but when it comes to hardcore science classes/engineering majors, it is very difficult to do well. I'm not sure what it's like at HYP, but here, the level of competition is very high, esp. for premed classes. And grades are often curved to a B-, leaving an "avg. student" at my school in the sciences with a GPA below a 3.0.

I often actually feel that this fact is not taken into account enough due to the perception of rampant grade inflation. This problem is especially troubling for those ppl who graduated in difficult majors at a school with incredibly high levels of competition.

-Ice

The competition really means nothing. As a matter of fact, it should drive you to do better. The reason I say it means nothing, by the way, is that most of the schools are not using a bell curve despite often times claiming they do. The data does not support the assumption of a bell curve, not even close. With no bell curve, "competition" is meaningless.

Additionally, if your education there was so much more rigorous, put your money where your mouth is and kill the MCAT, eh?

 

[Tezzie]

Ernham don't be so hostile. Both ice and rendar are really good posters and most of their posts are not arrogant but rather informative.

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by group_theory
Hmmm ... could you please elaborate on the reference, I might be interested in reading that (personal curiosity)

Carnevale did a big study on selective colleges' admissions. Sorry that I didn't see you ask this and that I jumped at you about the figures(which I still think are incorrect.)

 

[Tezzie]

Originally posted by ice_23
Wow, I know a bunch of my friends who took classes at UCLA and breezed through them while they struggled at their counterpart classes at my school (Stanford). I agree that there is some grade inflation in certain majors, but when it comes to hardcore science classes/engineering majors, it is very difficult to do well. I'm not sure what it's like at HYP, but here, the level of competition is very high, esp. for premed classes. And grades are often curved to a B-, leaving an "avg. student" at my school in the sciences with a GPA below a 3.0.

I often actually feel that this fact is not taken into account enough due to the perception of rampant grade inflation. This problem is especially troubling for those ppl who graduated in difficult majors at a school with incredibly high levels of competition.

-Ice

I think hardcore courses are going to be hardcore everywhere.

There can be a number of reasons why someone did well over summer break taking a couple of courses vs the regular semesters. Nevertheless, i still find it hard to compare schools. Or even courses between schools for that matter.

I don't think anything in my college life came "easy". Whenever i expected something to come easy i got Cs ( microeconomics),

 

[Taleof50]

I got to UPenn... of course people that go to the Ivies know best about the grading system. If you don't go to one, you can't generally comment. The stats you have cover EVERY class, not sciences, not engineering. UPenn's cum. average GPA in engineering is 2.8.

Yes, grade inflation is present. HOWEVER, you need to consider what classes. Our sciences are ALSO curved to a B- (which doesn't help!). It was mentioned that science classes are not inflated. This is so true. These are from my sci classes:
Bio 101- A and A-s to 15% (class of ~250)
Bio 102- A/A- to 15% (class of ~250)
Physics 102- A/A- to 18% (the means for this class were 92%... that was a freakin' B-!)
Chem 245 (Organic Chem Lab): A/A-s to only 15%
ETC ETC ETC

you get the picture. Come to any UPenn and see if you think grade inflation in the sciences exist. Also, we're not all rich kids. I come from a lowe middle class family and am on tons of fin. aid.
It's not fair for you to bash our schools. I would never do that to you. So deal.

 

[ixitixl]

Originally posted by Ernham
I have the data on princeton, too. It's pretty much the same as Harvard. Do you have any cites for any other Ivies that suggest they have taken a different route? Usually Ivies are like lemmings.

This is highly dependent on the department. I can tell you with 100% confidence that grades in the Chemistry department at Princeton are curved to a "B-". Most natural sciences have a similar curve. However, humanities is a different story. Many engineering courses curve to a "C"

 

[WatchingWaiting]

Let me put this for you in very simple terms. The average person in the average public college is much dumber and much less motivated than the average person at Yale. I went to public school for high school. I knew my classmates pretty well, and I know where they ended up going to college. And I know that if I look at which ones ended up at top schools, which ended up at middle level schools, and which ended up at community colleges, there was a vast differential in brain power and motivation. If you think the average grade at Stanford and the average grade at University of Duluth should be the same, you're truly a fool. If anything, I think Ivy schools don't inflate their grades enough. Also, the MCAT IS the equalizer, which is why every year you get many Ivy league grads who had a 3.3 or 3.4 cumulative science gpa and then get a mid 30s MCAT. This has been posted-- but the median ivy mcat is in the low-to-mid 30s, as compared to a low 20 for your average state school. Guess what-- Ivy leaguers SHOULD be getting a gpa boost, and a big one at that.

Also, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but part of having a meritocracy is that over time, the meritorious actually accumulate wealth and become the upper quartile for income. Guess what-- the kids of doctors, lawyers, professors, and the like are much brighter and much more motivated (on average) than the children of janitors and waitresses (over time-- 100 years ago societal success was almost entirely a function of inherited wealth which bore little relationship to brainpower or motivation). We have many people who rise from the "lower class" to smashing success in our society, but, overall, people in this country who are flunkies are flunkies for a reason and people who are successful are successful due to hard work and brain power. This generally carries over to their children, due to some combo of better social environment and genes.

 

[Ernham]

"Let me put this for you in very simple terms. The average person in the average public college is much dumber and much less motivated than the average person at Yale."

If they are all so smart, it should be reflected in their GPA without inflation, right? Hmm?

"I went to public school for high school. I knew my classmates pretty well, and I know where they ended up going to college. "

Your correlation coefficient seems to be highly scientific. Did they teach you this at inflation U?

"And I know that if I look at which ones ended up at top schools, which ended up at middle level schools, and which ended up at community colleges, there was a vast differential in brain power and motivation. If you think the average grade at Stanford and the average grade at University of Duluth should be the same, you're truly a fool. "

If they are so much smarter and motivated, such as you claim, you are the fool.


"If anything, I think Ivy schools don't inflate their grades enough. Also, the MCAT IS the equalizer, which is why every year you get many Ivy league grads who had a 3.3 or 3.4 cumulative science gpa and then get a mid 30s MCAT. This has been posted-- but the median ivy mcat is in the low-to-mid 30s, as compared to a low 20 for your average state school. Guess what-- Ivy leaguers SHOULD be getting a gpa boost, and a big one at that."

Again, why would they need the boost if the MCAT can do the talking for them?

C'mon, I thought you were bright and motivated! get on that answer. I can't wait to hear more of your piss-poor logic.

 

[yeeester]

ernham-

you are full of sh.t and i think you are the only one who doesn't realize it. at least at my school the average SAT score was about 1500, and the average gpa is around 3.35 in the social sciences, 3.15 in the natural sciences, and less than 3 in engineering. try telling a bunch of high school valedictorians with 1550s on the SAT that they aren't capable of getting A's in science classes and see how they react. if the playing field were level across the united states, the average gpa in the ivies would be tons higher than state schools simply because the students are better and they work hard. i am not saying that there arent smart and motivated people elsewhere, just that the proportion of them in the ivies is higher. finding an unmotivated person who messes around just to get by at my school is like finding a needle in a haystack. i dont understand all this ivy envy. if you dont go to one, just dominate your school and youll do just as well in the end. just dont expect any sympathy from me for your ivy bashing. i have taken summer courses at public universities and they were damned laughable compared to here.

y

ps the average mcat here is 32 in the past several years, while our average applicant has a gpa of 3.20 or so. go figure

 

[ice_23]

Originally posted by Tezzie
I think hardcore courses are going to be hardcore everywhere.

But the level of competition can be significantly different, which is what I'm asserting.

There can be a number of reasons why someone did well over summer break taking a couple of courses vs the regular semesters. Nevertheless, i still find it hard to compare schools. Or even courses between schools for that matter.

This statement is, of course, true, but the material and tests for the course taught at UCLA was significantly easier. This is, of course, just my opinion and anectdotal by its very nature, but that's obviously what I was going off of.

I don't think anything in my college life came "easy". Whenever i expected something to come easy i got Cs ( microeconomics),

Yea I definitely didn't mean my post as a personal attack on you at all. I simply meant that it seems that, with all this talk of ivy league type schools having the proclivity to grade inflate, sometimes people forget how hard it is in some majors, given the competition, at these very schools, to earn great grades. Even the extra "boost" given to these majors at these universities by medical schools might not make up for the difficulty of both their curriculum and the competition around them.

-Ice

 

[Ernham]

Originally posted by yeeester
ernham-

you are full of sh.t and i think you are the only one who doesn't realize it. at least at my school the average SAT score was about 1500, and the average gpa is around 3.35 in the social sciences, 3.15 in the natural sciences, and less than 3 in engineering. try telling a bunch of high school valedictorians with 1550s on the SAT that they aren't capable of getting A's in science classes and see how they react. if the playing field were level across the united states, the average gpa in the ivies would be tons higher than state schools simply because the students are better and they work hard. i am not saying that there arent smart and motivated people elsewhere, just that the proportion of them in the ivies is higher. finding an unmotivated person who messes around just to get by at my school is like finding a needle in a haystack. i dont understand all this ivy envy. if you dont go to one, just dominate your school and youll do just as well in the end. just dont expect any sympathy from me for your ivy bashing. i have taken summer courses at public universities and they were damned laughable compared to here.

y

ps the average mcat here is 32 in the past several years, while our average applicant has a gpa of 3.20 or so. go figure

Bah. There is no way you could know this chit. Let that be a hint as to how much veracity I feel you speak with.

 

[Tezzie]

Originally posted by ice_23

But the level of competition can be significantly different, which is what I'm asserting.

I go to a non-grade inflated school (in the top of the USNews list) and in my major although the classes are hardcore there is minimal competition. I think thats mainly to the fact that we don't produce many pre-meds vs Biology. Actually i only know of 2-3 people that are applying to med school this year vs my biology/chemistry major friends that tell me about how crazy competitive it is for them and how many people from their depts are applying to med school.

This statement is, of course, true, but the material and tests for the course taught at UCLA was significantly easier. This is, of course, just my opinion and anectdotal by its very nature, but that's obviously what I was going off of.

Understood! However i am not so sure how much difference in material can there truly be between UCLA and Stanford. Esp for the basic courses. In more advanced courses i assume that in the "elite" schools with the famous professors things get far more in depth. Again for various reasons.

Yea I definitely didn't mean my post as a personal attack on you at all. I simply meant that it seems that, with all this talk of ivy league type schools having the proclivity to grade inflate, sometimes people forget how hard it is in some majors, given the competition, at these very schools, to earn great grades. Even the extra "boost" given to these majors at these universities by medical schools might not make up for the difficulty of both their curriculum and the competition around them.

I didn't get what you said as a personal attack 🙂. I do think that as far as grade inflation goes people get that misconception from the psychology, history of economics etc majors at Ivy schools. I have come across students from Ivy schools who got 4.0s while majoring in underwater basketweaving (how hard can Sex Drugs and Rock n Roll at Stanford be 😛). Sciences though are truly a different story. Again my arguement in the first place was that it is not a sign of an educated person to rub their personal accomplishments on another persons face while invalidating whatever the person has done. Going to an "elite" school should not only be done for the prestige or the aptitude in sciences but also getting things such as humility and nobility out of all the other courses (eg philosophy).