<p>Ricz, I wonder if you can speak more specifically about the way admissions at your law school are now regarding Princeton. For example, would a student with a 3.65 from Princeton be seen as just as strong as a 3.8 from Harvard, with equal LSATs, etc? I think that is a very reasonable assumption, given the new grading system, but I wonder whether anyone outside Princeton knows this.</p>
<p>aparent5 - I'd be happy to provide you with my opinion on this matter. However, rather than post it on this board, send me a PM. I think it is unfair that youngsters like Eric Meng continue to twist and turn my comments and frankly are misleading many of you who seek solid information. (A side note to Eric...I'm really sorry I did not mention that Princeton's policy change was not reported in the main stream media. Your accusations that I have no credibiility because I did not mention this illustrates your unprofessional behavior. Melisa Gao would not be happy if she found out that you wrote articles in a similar manner.</p>
<p>From Daily Stanford</p>
<p>Some beg, some plead, some even flirt with their professors all in the name of getting an A. But for Stanford students, achieving those top grades might not be so hard after all, according to a recent grade inflation study at Duke University.
Stuart Rojstaczer, a professor of environmental science at Duke, claims that universities throughout the nation including Stanford employ grade inflation to award greater numbers of students with higher grades. </p>
<p>The C grade has gone the way of the nickel candy bar, Rojstaczer said. </p>
<p>He stated that students are more likely than ever to achieve top marks.</p>
<p>With data from 34 colleges, Rojstaczer compiled a database of grade-point averages dating back to the 1960s and published the information on his Web site, <a href="http://www.GradeInflation.com%5B/url%5D">www.GradeInflation.com</a>. The findings show that grade inflation has occurred at all institutions, whether large or small, public or private.</p>
<p>According to Rojstaczers database, Stanford students graduating in 1968 averaged a GPA of 3.04. By 1992, that figure increased to 3.44. </p>
<p>The average GPAs are so high, its difficult to distinguish between those who are exceptional and those who are merely good, Rojstaczer said. As a result, the higher grades have been devalued.</p>
<p>A similar phenomenon is hitting high schools, as well. A recent UCLA survey of college freshman supported Rojstaczers findings and claimed that, while just over 15 percent of first-year college students carried A averages in high school, the portion was 44 percent by 2001.</p>
<p>However, homework hours have hit an all-time low, the report stated. Nearly 85 percent of high school seniors spend 10 hours per week or less on homework. </p>
<p>Rojstaczer said that, aside from devaluation, grade inflation disadvantages those who have graduated from institutions employing fairer methods of student evaluation.</p>
<p>Its speculation of course, Rojstaczer said. But a Stanford student with a GPA of 3.6 percent, for example, would probably have a better chance of getting employment than a student with a similar GPA from an institution where assessment is stricter.</p>
<p>So you looked up the name of our Editor in Chief. That doesn't prove anything.</p>
<p>RE: UCLA vs. Berkeley. I'm sorry - I based my statements on misremembered facts, there! If anything, I thought Berkeley had an at most marginal advantage over UCLA. I'd be glad to say they were equal, though.</p>
<p>thanks ericmeng. i was just getting a little nervous since sakky (?) cited stats that berkeley students need higher GPA than yale students to get into the same law schools, and if UCLA isn't regarded on the same level as berkeley, then i'd be completely screwed as a UCLA student. </p>
<p>*just a side comment: why would ricz, a (self-proclaimed) admissions officer, find the name of melisa gao of the princetonian and relate that to you? i just found that to be kind of awkward and not something an admissions officer would do...</p>
<p>kfc4u: Well, I write for the Dao;y Princetonian.</p>
<p>Oh, I completely disagree with sakky there. I think, at least among respectable schools (of which UCLA is obviously one), GPA is GPA.</p>
<p>Ericmeng, there is no point disagreeing with me. I am just reporting the stats. They're not my stats, they are official Berkeley and Yale stats. If people don't like the stats, hey, don't blame me for them. I am not responsible for them. </p>
<p>In fact, I actually agree with you - GPA is GPA. But what that means is that if you take difficult classes at a difficult school, don't expect law school adcoms to care. For the purposes of getting into law school, getting an 'A' in an easy class at an easy school is better than getting a 'B' in Advanced Algorithms at MIT.</p>
<p>Sakky, UChicago has the following info on their website (see the link on my other thread): "The LSDAS reports GPA distribution for all applicants by undergraduate institution. This permits the law schools to evaluate GPA in the context of the institution from which it is earned. For this reason, applicants from the University of Chicago should not be as concerned about differences in grading between different undergraduate institutions."</p>
<p>Forgive my ignorance, but can Journalism be a law school major? I'm guessing no, but posters here seem to be more informed than me.</p>
<p>Journalism can be a fine major for law school. I know several people who did that route; many of them want to go into intellectual property.</p>
<p>Aparent5, UChicago (or any other school) can say whatever it wants. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The relevant question is, what is the average GPA of the undergraduates at a particular school that get admitted into various top-ranked law school, and how does that average GPA compare to the average applicant to that law school? The data that I have seen regarding UChicago is that the difference is insignificant - that UChicago undergrads require roughly the same GPA that nationwideapplicants require to get into top law schools. Hence, there is minimal adjustment for grade deflation. If you have data that shows the contrary, I'm happy to see it.</p>
<p>Whoa... you law guys sure know how to lie...</p>
<p>but U of Chicago does incredibly well in placing its students. It only has 950 students or so and Northwestern in the same region has close to 2000, and the U of Chicago placed roughly the same # of kids in at Harvard Law.</p>
<p>A lot of the posts talk about the top universities and their placement in Law Schools, but what about LACs?<br>
Are LACs looked down upon unfavorably or as "easy schools" by Law Schools?
I will attend a LAC in the fall that I chose because of the money, and it is not Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst, or Carleton - but still a top LAC.<br>
Thanks,
~SS</p>
<p>Nope, I don't think LAC's are looked down upon at all. The top LAC's are highly successful in placing their students into law school. When you normalize the number of students they manage to place by the number of total students in the LAC, you will see that students from top LAC's have a quite high chance of getting into top law schools.</p>
<p>this grade deflation business i think is incredibly meaingless. No one truly knows how hard it is to get a certain GPA at any college unless you attended. The #s don't give the whole picture at all. At some places, you have kids who work harder, get better grades, and what not. At other places, this is not the case. I feel like any university whether it be the U of Chicago, Cornell, UPenn, or Duke if they have the quality professors, the grade distribution will be similar among each other.</p>
<p>I'm afraid I have to disagree and say that the grade deflation business is quite meaningful. It is obviously true that nobody can ever truly know how hard it is to get a certain GPA at a certain school unless you attend. But there are educated guesses you can make. There are things you can surmise. For example, I think that even Harvard and Stanford students would concede that, on average, it is probably easier to get high grades at Harvard and Stanford than at, say, MIT or Caltech. All of these schools have quality professors, yet I think we can all agree that the grade distribution will not be similar among the four.</p>
<p>Thanks for input, Sakky.</p>
<p>~SS :)</p>
<p>This is not FAIR, ***, this is outrageous, my 3.7 at Cornell would be a 4.0 at Stanford lol. I want my money refunded. Maybe, I should have sent my deposit to Northwestern, I hear they got grade inflation.</p>
<p>Collegekid1988, I know you said that facetiously, but on a serious note, the fact is, for the purposes of law school admissions, grade inflation works. All other things being equal, you want grade inflation. All other things being equal, you want to take easy classes that will give you high grades. Law schools don't really seem to care that certain classes grade harder than others. When it comes to the different grading schemes used for different classes, law schools adcoms don't know, or they don't WANT to know. Go ask ariesathena.</p>