<p>Also, the average GPA at MIT at graduation is something like a 4.2. Definitely not a 4.5.</p>
<p>Lidusha, I think you bring up an excellent point. MIT tends to be really hard on those other intangibles that affect your ability to perform in class. And that makes it hard. This would be the subject of an entirely different thread about why you feel kicked to the ground, and why for many students it’s the depression that gets them. </p>
<p>While you are felling kicked around, depressed, etc., classes are difficult. But they aren’t difficult because of any extra rigor, they are hard because you can’t use your abilities fully, as you said. It’s like you are having to dig with a shovel and the happy person is digging with a back-hoe. However, just because you are working harder doesn’t mean your ditch is deeper.</p>
<p>UMTYMP is eager to dig a hole right to the core of the earth, and I agree with him that he is more likely to find a few other friends that really want to dig deep (especially in math) at MIT than at Berkeley. </p>
<p>Is MIT really that depressing compared to other places?</p>
<p>I don’t think 4.2 average GPA claim is accurate. Lots of people say that or something similar but the claim seems to arise from a 2008 tech article that said the average GPA for sophomores was 4.2. It’s almost certainly the case that there has been some grade inflation since than and sophomores on average get lower GPAs so I don’t think 4.2 is a good number for the average graduating GPA. I will write a post soon on this depth as well.</p>
<p>
That is not what I said. Not even a little. I absolutely disagree.</p>
<p>
Good question. Another thing I never said is that MIT is particularly depressing compared to other places. What I did say is that from the people I know with low GPAs, all of them are very intelligent but not able to perform at their best because of depression.</p>
<p>Regarding average GPA (at graduation or not at graduation): <a href=“http://www.quora.com/Massachusetts-Institute-of-Technology-MIT-2/What-does-the-distribution-of-MIT-GPAs-look-like”>http://www.quora.com/Massachusetts-Institute-of-Technology-MIT-2/What-does-the-distribution-of-MIT-GPAs-look-like</a></p>
<p>The culture and grading also vary wildly by department. In my experience course 18 usually grades nicer than course 6, which usually grades nicer than course 7. In the classes I’ve taken course 18 has either set precise cutoffs from the outset or been like, hey math is cool let’s talk about this cool math what are grades, course 6 is like, grades don’t matter anyway because almost all of you are going into industry, eh, how bout that bell curve I guess, and course 7 is like, let’s be honest here biology is a difficult life get ready for the real world suckerssssss.</p>
<p>But this has absolutely nothing to do with rigor.</p>
<p>I don’t think we should have grades at all. They absolutely do not measure what they are supposed to measure.</p>
<p>UMTMYP student’s comment that one has to take Math H104 at Berkeley to have the same text as 18.100B/C at MIT is unsurprising. Berkeley serves a broader group of students. The top Berkeley math students take H104 (or they start beyond it). They might have a slightly larger class in H104 than in each of MIT’s two sections of 18.100 B/C. </p>
<p>There might not be a “large” contingent at Berkeley who skip out of H104 (in parallel to MIT’s “large” contingent who start beyond 18.100). However, I am quite certain that there are some who do. I think that 100% of the MIT admissions group will back up my statement that being quite advanced in mathematics is not sufficient to get a student into MIT. There are very advanced math students who wind up at other schools.</p>
<p>I think that there is an advantage for an undergraduate to be able to take math classes labeled as “undergraduate” rather than those labeled as “graduate” for the same level of rigor, because one is more likely to have one’s own age-mates in the class. However, I am very confident that the top undergrad math students can go as deep into the subject at Berkeley as they can at MIT–they will just need to start grad courses sooner at Berkeley, in all likelihood.</p>
<p>I can’t really comment on the development of mathematical intuition in the undergrad classes either place. I took math so long ago that the advanced undergrad math was pretty formal, and not that different from the grad math I took. Active efforts to develop intuition are better, I think–some books on that issue came as real revelations to me when I was a grad student.</p>
<p>If you are going to compare academic rigor on an individual basis, or in terms of what is possible, you really have to look at the <em>individual</em> transcripts, and not at the average level of student in any pair of colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re right about your second point, but I think it only really works for theoretical subjects because grad schools take classes seriously in math and physics (and probably engineering.) However, in non-theoretical subjects, the attitude is that you should just be in the lab, so the classes may not be well-done. It is highly variable. I think many top faculty may see a graduate class as an opporunity to mail it in and have a journal club discussion they don’t have to prepare for.</p>
<p>Valuable point, collegealum314–I have seen that alternate approach to teaching grad courses. Math and theoretical physics do tend to teach <em>real</em> grad classes, as you say. Our engineers teach real grad classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not ridiculous, and I’ve taken at or taught undergrad classes at several top 10 universities (though not Berkeley).</p>
<p>I could conceive of some C students at MIT becoming excellent students at Berkeley, but by no means all of them. It depends a lot on the profile of the C student. Someone who is depressed at MIT might not be depressed at Berkeley, and that could make a significant difference.</p>
<p>The response of the student to challenging academics also makes a difference. I have encountered students who get 80-90% of the material up to a very high level, and other students who score 100% when the material is in the easy to moderately challenging range, but then have a very steep drop-off to near zero when the going gets tougher. I have encountered quite smart students who were trying to operate in an environment that was just a little too challenging and a little too fast-moving for them, and have thought that if the course work were just a little easier, they would be able to keep up, and so would acquire much better understanding overall. On an anecdotal basis with a sample size of 1, we had a C student from MIT who was admitted to the graduate program on an “exception” basis, and it did not work out. Perhaps he was too demoralized by MIT to regroup.</p>
<p>In any event, I think that it is uncommon for students to have a C equivalent average at MIT, so we are considering somewhat rare cases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, how much time did he take off between MIT and the grad program?</p>
<p>No time in between, PiperXP. He might not have recovered from MIT yet when he started.</p>
<p>I think I previously promised to reply to some arguments in this thread but then got busy with finals and forgot. If there are some points you still want me to respond to that I haven’t please let me know.</p>
<p>There are a few things that set MIT (and Cal Tech) apart from schools like UC that are relevant to this issue. At MIT all students have to take 2 courses of Calc (not just any math), 2 courses in physics (not just any science), chem, and bio. And, there will not be any students in any of those classes who are not really great at math and science. There will be no students who are totally into humanities and are just taking those courses because they have to take them. There will be no legacies or students who hate math to round out the bottom of the distribution in STEM classes. All the students at MIT chose a college that requires 5 of the most rigorous courses offered by the university and all come on with outstanding credentials in math and science. Students at UC are not all outstanding math and science students. You’ll find some students in the rigorous math/science classes who are not great at math or science but are taking the classes as part of pre-med. That would not happen at MIT because no matter how good a student is in the humanities, they have to be outstanding in math and science to get into MIT. That puts a new spin on the meaning of an average grade in a STEM class. When STEM classes include less strong students accepted because they are legacies or their parents have influence, or they aren’t great in math and science but are taking some science for pre med, then it is far easier to find yourself on the top half of the class then if the class is filled with only students who are very strong in math and science. At UC-B English and history majors, often less strong in STEM, have to take one course in 7 specific areas so they may end up in Biology 1A or 1B with engineering students. Those students raise the averages of the strong STEM students at UC Berkeley but are not present at schools like MIT or CalTEch. </p>
<p>I took a look at the list of chemistry classes at UC Berkely, and I do not think that a MIT-caliber student who went to UC instead would be in classes with “students in the rigorous math/science classes who are not great at math or science but are taking the classes as part of pre-med.”</p>
<p>The principal reason for this is that UC Berkeley, like many large schools, offers multiple levels of its classes, and pre-meds who are not particularly good at math and science will almost always opt for the easier/easiest option. For example, General Chemistry at Berkeley is offered in at least two forms, CHEM 1A/1B and the labs, vs. CHEM 4A/4B for majors in physical and biological sciences and engineering. Organic chemistry is offered in at least two forms, CHEM 3A/3B, and CHEM 112A/112B. The lower-level versions fully satisfy pre-med admissions requirements. The higher-level versions are parallel (but harder) courses, which do not require the lower-level courses as prerequisites. An MIT-caliber student would take the higher-level classes, almost certainly.</p>
<p>My own university offers 3 levels of organic chemistry for undergrads. Only pre-meds who are strong in the field take the highest level.</p>
<p>Physics and math usually run similarly at large universities. My university has 2 levels of physics, and about 6 different entry-level math courses, including beginning calculus as an entry-level course + many math options of higher level that are taken by entering freshmen.</p>
<p>There is really no such thing as a “level of rigor” of a large university as a whole. (It is possible that LAC’s could be described as having a more uniform level of rigor–I don’t know.) For a large university, the level of rigor needs to be determined transcript by transcript, depending on the course selection.</p>
<p>
This keeps getting thrown around. I thought pre-meds were <em>exceptionally</em> good at life sciences, at least when it comes to doing well on exams? Like, the pre-meds are the kids setting the curve? And freaking out over Bs? Otherwise they wouldn’t have the grades to be pre-meds? Maybe this is just at MIT? I’m so confused.</p>
<p>At other universities, there are pre-meds who are reasonably good at math and science, but not at the level that would make a math or science PhD program a good idea for them. It takes an unusual pre-med to decide to go to MIT to begin with.</p>
<p>TIL.</p>