<p>I heard somewhere that tech is notorious for giving students low grades, making it hard to apply to good graduate schools later on.
Is this just coming from those who spend too much time partying and get bad grades, or is this a common thing at georgia tech??</p>
<p>I don’t know if this is helpful.
My D (freshman) is making good grades. However she is not an engineering major. Most of the people around her are making good grades it seems or at least decent grades.
She works really hard -but still has a social life.
She says that some kids party too much, a few just quit going to classes etc… and some especially first gen college students -work too much out their outside jobs( they may not have a choice) . I know it is not impossible to do well.
I confess I know very little about grad school and what it takes to get in. I wonder if you called admissions and asked for average graduating GPA and also asked about statistics about the particular grad school you are interested in- you could get some real good info? I bet they could at least point you in the right direction. </p>
<p>^ Veruca, do you mind disclosing what your D’s major is?</p>
<p>I’ll PM you </p>
<p>Do you know what your major is? You can go onto course critIque and type in classes and see what the average GPA and breakdown for a class or professor is. That should give you some idea of the grades. You also should look at the classes that are generally required for everyone . For example all engineers have to take physics I & II and a number of math classes. It shouldn’t take you too long to get the picture for your major. You also need to take keep in mind what kind of student you are. For example just because average GPA for Phys 2211(Physics I) is 2.39 doesn’t mean you will be the student getting the “C” you could be the one getting the “A”…</p>
<p><a href=“http://critique.gatech.edu/”>Course Critique;
<p>This also might be helpful:</p>
<p><a href=“http://factbook.gatech.edu/academic-information/distribution-of-grades-table-5-13/”>http://factbook.gatech.edu/academic-information/distribution-of-grades-table-5-13/</a></p>
<p>@MichiganGeorgia: That sort of grading seems pretty standard for selective institutions to me, especially science and engineering. Looks like grades are generally pretty “fair” at Tech. The only reason people complain so much is because the majority of Tech is doing the STEM disciplines where the grades are obviously lower than non-STEM counterparts. Even STEM grading looks no different from other selective institutions (the only difference is that they have some “bear” classes like math 1501 and the physics sequence which have lower than normal course means. All other classes are fairly typical w/means at B-/B). I feel like the getting past the math and physics sequence is the hard part whereas most classes outside of those departments will have the standard “B-” (2.7-2.9. A healthy amount of A,B, and C grades, but not many D/F grades) sort of distribution seen in introductory courses at other selective schools. Physics and math are just flat out “C+” averages. And when you compare the content/level of exams in those courses vs. say chemistry and biology, I can see why it’s a bit lower. Tech is tough, but sometimes the fear is way overblown. In reality, a person taking introductory courses at Tech should be no more scared than students at Emory for example (physics and math kill students over there, and chemistry kills students at Emory, and so does biology to a smaller extent. One instructor with 2 sections last semester flunked 16% of the students and this isn’t counting D’s and C-'s, all grades which don’t count if you’re pre-med for example). </p>
<p>*I guess I would just say that it is no harder to get high grades than at other selective schools with “normal grading” in the sciences (some private schools will curve lower division classes to B/B+ pretty consistently, but I would say this is unusual). Tech is not really that special. And other selective publics have similar grading practices (like Chapel Hill, Virginia, Michigan, and Berkeley) in STEM courses. </p>
<p>@Bernie12 - I just thought it might give OP some perspective. BTW, GT doesn’t have “+” or “-” 's so at GT the pre-med student with a C- would get a C… </p>
<p>@MichiganGeorgia : Your perspective (which is data in this case) makes a lot of sense and should take some of the fear out of attending Tech (or any selective school). It ensures them that if they do what they are supposed to, they should do fine (even if they don’t make straight A’s). I also like what you said about the physics and 2.4ish being the mean, but the OP not having to perform that way. For some reason this never sinks into many students’ heads (it’s like self-defeating before enrolling in the course. “Because students traditionally don’t all make A’s and B’s, I won’t make one either”. To go in with that attitude may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s much better to just start planning for success). They assume that because a course will legitimately challenge them (it’s not a humdrum memorize or plug and chug class), that they will do poorly or not perform optimally. The reality is, you just need to have more drive and adjust study habits and ways of thought/learning in order to adapt that particular course/instructor. Unfortunately, low averages in such classes (especially when freshman heavy) usually reflects that students don’t want to adjust from the HS mode of learning that got them so far, and I’ve often seen them blame the instructor for making “too hard” for them (even after a couple of exams not going well in such a class, they study the exact same way for the remainder of the class). However, college isn’t supposed to be high school, and often good instructors (and even some not so good ones) want to sharpen analytical abilities and problem solving to a much higher level than can be achieved by a student who stop at rote/algorithmic learning techniques.</p>
<p>@Bernie12 - I think in the beginning a lot of the kids are worried about their gpa. However there comes a point that they have to make choices about what their goal is at GT. For example DS is not a physics major he is a engineering major. They have to take chem, physics I & II and then another science class. I suggested that DS take biology since he had in high school and most likely be able to get a decent grade. He said no that a third physics class would be more useful given his major even though it would be probably be harder. In the end I would like to believe that the kids are really are there at GT to learn not just get a degree and get out. </p>
<p>@MichiganGeorgia : Yeah, so would I, but it’s understandable that entering students (especially those at selective schools) have lots of growing pains, and sometimes the introductory experiences have to “beat” students into achievement or good study habits at least. That’s probably why many instructors at selective schools decide to make their courses challenging (they could just make it very standard level like what you may see at some less selective schools, such that like 80-90% of students can easily get A’s and B’s like in HS). Most well-meaning instructors goal is to train students so that they can think at a higher level and sometimes it is difficult to see that at first and, as a freshman, being challenged to a high level is uncomfortable and seems more like oppression because until then success has come easily. Over time, students will thank those instructors (not literally most of the time, but they’ll see the benefits), especially if the instructor delivered the material well. Georgia Tech also has the benefit of having less pre-health students for whom the bar for success is set so high. Many Tech students will truly have more freedom to embrace courses/instructors that create a challenging environment without so much fear (unfortunately pre-healths need to fear anything below an A and at a +/- school, a B+ I guess). They are basically free to learn without as much fear (and I suspect that fear often hinders learning). If Tech were mostly pre-healths in the sciences, it would be so much more stressful and annoying (I literally just overheard a standard pre-health. Her tutor was warning her that a certain instructor is really poor quality, and all the girl responds is: “but is he easy?” because apparently quality loses to ease in this environment). I imagine they “want” to learn, but unfortunately can only learn as much as they are willing to risk having very high grades…that is unless they are very talented (as many are thank goodness) or are relatively fearless (that and pre-health usually doesn’t go in the same sentence). More Tech STEM oriented students are just more “free” and empowered to push themselves to new heights in my opinion</p>
<p>I will add that there are a few professors that are just crappy when it comes to grading. My dd went to a challenging boarding school earning Cum Laude status there. That was no easy feat. She got a 5 on her AP Calculus BC exam. She started in Calc II at Tech and got an A. This term, in Calc III, she’ll be very lucky to get a C. All her other grades are likely A’s. The tests in that particular class do not reflect what was taught. So when you read horrible reviews about particular professors, I encourage you to heed the warnings. Her overall experience at Tech has been that if you work hard, study effectively, and manage your time well, you will do just fine. However, you may occasionally run across a professor where that just doesn’t hold true. Thankfully, that does not seem to be the norm. And I imagine she’ll pay a little more attention to those reviews from now on. </p>