Re: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-more-americans-dont-major-in-the-math-and-science/
Seems like muck of that is about students aiming at GPA-focused major-agnostic professional school like law school, rather than students seeking major-specific careers or PhD programs.
I would guess some of it is about the level of competition and the realization of ones talent level.
STEM…STEM…STEM… it’s been non-stop for years. In high school, good students have options for AP and honors math and science classes that drive weighted GPA and class rank. In our school, non-STEM kids are at a severe disadvantage for weighted GPA (far fewer classes with bonus GPA points).
Then they get to college, and are confronted with 2 realities… 1) this stuff is really hard, and 2) these other kids are really smart. After a semester or two, non-STEM majors look like they have a lot more fun than the folks in my classes.
As for Pass/Fail mentioned in the article, I think most schools use the letter grade for your major in calculating GPA.
In the working world rarely does your gpa come up. Elite schools on a resume may get put in a pile for an interview but it boils down to experience that gives a person an edge. Too many threads on CC get caught up in school rankings, prestige and the like but college is a four year bubble. A person’s career will span decades. So I say to those HS kids on here, follow your passion, make wise financial choices when it comes to paying for college and don’t get caught up in the hype and stress of picking a school for the reputation if you can’t afford it. A degree from an Ivy League may open more doors but career success really depends on the person and how they create and take advantage of opportunities.
Just an anecdote, I work in healthcare and I’ve dealt with students from both state universities and elite privates doing their clinical rounds. I’ve been very impressed with the public school students. Comparing drive, work ethic and critical thinking skills I would say they have held their own against the elite private school students and in some cases outshined them.
I think the name of the school and the GPA can be factors in landing that first job…or at least the interview that might get you the first job. But then it comes down to “fit”. Does the guy interviewing think he can stand working side by side with you?
I recently attended a career session at a top university that my daughter was accepted to and it seemed that GPA wasn’t as important as other things, such as the interview and other resume items that might come out in the interview. I think it probably has to be high enough to make a certain cut (some recruiting companies have cut offs). But in speaking with a recent grad who had a great job he said he had friends with 3.1’s that had better job offers than friends with 3.9’s (same major).
" @cobrat Reed, along with colleges like JHU, UChicago, MIT/Caltech/CMU, Harvey Mudd, Gtech, Swat, Cornell, etc…are colleges which have a merited reputation for having unusually higher academic rigor/quantity of workload even among colleges with same/higher admission selectivity.
… "
From http://universitybenchmarks.com/All_University_Academic_Rankings.html
Caltech, MIT, Gatech, Princeton, Chicago, Harvey Mudd, Olin, Vanderbilt, RPI
Are listed as the most difficult colleges based on avg gpas, stem, and test scores. CMU is listed at 20 for some reason. CMUs stem percentage is lower than the other engineering schools. Reed is 26th.
That university benchmarks site looks like a 1990s geocities page, and many of its rankings are suspect, to say the least. Makes you wonder who put that together and whether they fudged the data.
@Greymeer : Yeah no! You can straight up put up course materials and it will tell a much different story. I have done it before, and I would say that an okay amount of them would be left, and Reed and CMU would replace those that I remove. Don’t really care about average GPAs and test scores, I care more about the complexity of the tasks given to students. Some places just do not match their position on that list in those terms and students at those places likely know it. In addition, recently a ranking of colleges with the “hardest working students” had Vanderbilt students claiming they work as hard as MIT students (it was survey based) and harder than Harvard students. I really doubt this is the case, and if they do, having looked at STEM course material (the area where you expect students to work the hardest), I have no clue why… The level is simply not comparable on average. It compares better to the schools it ranks near whereas schools like CMU and Reed in certain areas compare much better to higher tiered schools. Again, I am just going based upon the level of complexity here.
This (this person would be considered a “normal” level instructor there): http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Chemistry/Rizzo/Chem220b/chem220b.htm
Does not compare well to: http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chem27/exams/
Or any of those other places (and perhaps even some surrounding places, but with those places, it can win some and lose others, with the ones you place it by, any win is a fluke that does not reflect a normal instructor for that class and even then I have yet to observe such a fluke)
.
I could take more examples from intro. to intermediate STEM courses and the difference is quite striking in most cases. Sometimes data just has limitations in revealing some patterns.
Interestingly, elite there is defined by the mere criteria of “over 1400/1600 SAT”…interesting criteria given some of the differences I know of academically.
@ThankYouforHelp : I have no idea how some of those categories are ranked or how/why you would measure them.
Gonna remember that Berkeley does not have an elite undergraduate program because it has a 1371 SAT average which suggests an academically elite student body, but I guess just not elite enough (rolls eyes). It also does this irrespective of other metrics lol. Now Northeastern (admittedly a rising, excellent school), now that is definitely a more elite undergraduate program because they have a 1402 average! 
Also, isn’t it scary that there are now schools that have over 1500/1600 average SAT (mostly top Ivies and Caltech, but you have some nons like Chicago there and several others gunning for it, it seems)? Wow! Why? And that still isn’t enough for some folks who want to sue some of these schools for being non-meritocratic/unfair. Guess they gotta eventually achieve 1600 to convince the naysayers and with the new SAT, that may be possible.
Considering what I’ve heard from HS classmates and colleagues who graduated from Vanderbilt, …the comment they work as hard as MIT or peer schools like CMU, Caltech, UChicago, Reed, Cornell, etc would prompt ROTFLOL laughs…even from those Vandy alums.
Things might have changed in the last 1-2 decades, but back when I was in HS, Vanderbilt was actually considered one of the more academically laid back schools among the elites in our HS and by most Vandy alums I’ve encountered.
Heck, if the Federal Service Academy → Caltech attending cousin heard a similar comment from his brother who attended RPI as hard as that school may be, he’d be ROTFLOLing on the floor.
I don’t know much about Vandy, but I think their engineering program is very challenging. I know a junior there now who was a top, top student in our high school and I know her mom worries about her because she works very hard all of the time and barely ever goes out. So, back to one of the original points, I think it depends on major.
@collegemomjam : Their engineering program is indeed very challenging. But this can be said of a) elite engineering programs or b) engineering programs at overall elite undergraduate institutions.
Outside of that, VU is still relatively tame compared to the upper half of the top top 20 and several places outside. Again, it is really about the same level as the schools tied with it and below. Also, in general, students there value balance so they are generally a more laid back student body than more pre-professional oriented schools like JHU, Emory, WUSTL, or those with super heavy STEM biases like Rice.
@cobrat : Some schools have students who like to rate themselves high on every. VU is one of the schools on hotstreak right now so students are very happy about the ranking, scores, qol. They tend to rate themselves very high on happiness while also turning around and saying they are also one of the most rigorous schools at the same time (they still have many students who complain about grade deflation. Grading patterns in the subjects they complain about are similar to other schools in their tier). Could it be that “rigor” is being measured more so by expectations than actual complexity? Could be. If students find it annoyingly harder than expected to balance a super full EC life (an aspect that stood out to them when choosing) and academics, then they may “feel” kind of oppressed or more challenged than what they actually are or even should be. But students attending many other schools kind of expect to feel that burn or to make a compromise. I think it results from just a different culture. I don’t think much has changed. It is claimed (okay, it is data supported, they list major popularity stats themselves) that many still do the Peabody major (maybe ranks like 3rd) and that many also do econ. along with it and one is known as a very easy but still employable major and econ. is known as medium difficulty and definitely employable. Really not much different from other schools in its bracket except maybe students who are less geared toward the big 3 pre-professions as a whole. This may make it laid back compared to others, but I imagine many students are caught by surprise (so they assert that grading is harsher or that stuff is very hard).
That may all be true, but for them to extend that to say they work just as hard/face as much academic rigor/expectations as students from MIT and schools like it strains the bounds of credibility in the same manner that would have happened if say…the RPI cousin made the claim his workload as an engineering major was comparable to that of his Caltech attending/graduate brother.
Especially considering after comparing notes, the Caltech brother’s workload was much more rigorous/in depth than that of the one attending RPI. While RPI is rigorous and elite in its own right, Caltech and schools like it such as MIT are on a whole nother level beyond.
As a Vandy student (non-engineer), I think much of what @bernie12 says is correct. Vandy puts a premium on “happiness”, “work hard/play hard”, and “having it all” so that students often stress themselves out trying to replicate an ideal image of what the college atmosphere is supposed to be like. The school itself isn’t “laid back”, but that’s the general perception everyone has. With that said, I don’t know how Vandy students could say they work equally as hard as students at MIT, (especially without going to both institutions), I just think the institution is tougher than advertised.
I’m sure you are right. I was responding to the comments someone made about Vandy being EASY. It has rigorous majors, but I’m sure MIT is more rigorous. I can’t imagine what it’s like there, honestly.
@collegemomjam Yeah, I’m guessing the comparison was made based on claims of grade inflation at schools like Harvard, that are perhaps less pronounced at MIT (and Vandy). It’s really hard to compare across cases to determine school rigor though, even when looking at GPA averages.
@TheAtlantic : It is easier if you are STEM. STEM instructors tend to often use course websites or other platforms open to the public. I generally find that most instructors do not change over time, so you can often even rely on older course websites. Like, the guy I posted for ochem at VU has been at about that level for…ever and he ain’t changing for the selectivity. Matthew Shair at Harvard (a well-known organic chemist) and David Evans were not changing for anyone either. The time when it gets tricky is when there is a lot of faculty turn-over, then you have to wait for their materials to start surfacing. But in the case of MIT for example, though Open Courseware materials are old, they are representative.
The social sciences are much harder, but I suspect that unless one is a liberal arts college or have a different program structure, they are very similar within tiers. Political Science is fairly standard for example. I stumbled upon this for example and it was interesting (I noticed that lots of students complain about the workload of a particular instructor at my alma mater so attemped to find her syllabus. I failed, but found something else):
http://jee3.web.rice.edu/teaching.htm
The Rice and Emory syllabi are strikingly similar. However, the two courses (like their numbering) suggest some differences about the departments (I will look into Rice eventually). For Emory, that statistics course is almost foundational/intermediat"ish" and is now even after a a basic stats course required for pols (QTM 100) and numerous other majors as I mentioned earlier. Why? Emory’s Political Science Department has a much heavier research methods emphasis at the UG level and you have quite a few mathematicians teaching. There is a Polsci/Math joint major for example (Courtney Brown, which is “interesting” to say the least, for example, even in a freshman seminar course, includes a differential equations resource in his reading list lol: http://atlas.college.emory.edu/schedules/index.php?select=POLS&view=cse&t=5179&sc=POLS&cn=190&sn=1
I can only wonder if it flops, I do not know how often he offers this seminar, but I imagine it is supposed to be a primer or talent selection site for his upper division course)
The typical school either has a methods class as optional or as a requirement that is independent of other courses. There, many upper division courses (especially the new research requirement) actually require the methods course.
I suspect Rice must be traditional putting that course at such a high number, but they just may use numbering differently.
Idea is that you can learn a lot by looking at this type of stuff when accessible (a departmental website also goes a long way).
IMO, a rough but pretty good way to tell rigor in a subject at different schools is to look at how many undergrads they send in to PhD programs in a subject. If a school sends a lot of students in to PhD programs (absolute number or proportional) in a subject, that doesn’t mean they won’t have easy courses in that subject (some unis track) but it does mean that they definitely have the rigor, resources, and know-how to do well in PhD admissions and some kid can get a top education if they want it.
This holds even more for the top PhD programs in a subject.
As for inflation, while unfortunate in some ways, one can argue that H students deserve the inflation in certain courses/areas at least compared to some places that aspire to compete with H (as not the places that already do). Also, from my skulking around on their “i-sites” when more were available, it appears many courses, even your traditional STEM weed-outs are less dependent on exams as the only grading method and use more graded assignments and problem sets. No doubt that in comparison to many/most elites, exams in those courses are brutal, so having other means to assess students doesn’t hurt. I am fairly comfortable if it results in higher grades because at least they will know which skills indicate a high level of competence in the field. Another form of grade inflation or higher grades even in STEM at certain Ivies is the course tiering. Like often the very high level freshman and sophomore courses designated for those with high prior exposure and high ambition in the field, assign a much more generous distribution of grades perhaps to incentivize students taking the courses. Usually courses like Physics 16 and Math 55 (and now LSci 50 I guess) at H for example demand a lot more time than even the course right under so to get any enrollment, you can’t be too stringent in grading or else folks aren’t gonna enroll. “Bait”(okay, reassurance) is kind of needed.
@PurpleTitan @TheAtlantic @cobrat @CALSmom : Just to show I wasn’t pulling your legs or being super shady lol: http://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-with-the-hardest-working-students-2015-12/#17-harvey-mudd-college-34
This definitely reveals little about rigor, but it does reveal a lot about perceptions of students. Like H at 25…not surprised. They tend to be much more self-critical and criticize the school a lot (maybe one reason they stay in solid shape despite unfairly functioning as a poster child of a lot of negative things occurring in higher education. Hey, if you are at the top, you are a big target in every respect). JHU could be up there partly because it is very rigorous and students expectations for it (created by its reputation) were met versus their ability levels. Some student bodies may be more self-aggrandizing or complacent with the current state or status quo and some may be more humble, aware, or critical. Who knows?
PT: Many of the schools producing lots of PhD’s do seem to have special strengths in areas that they feed from. It is likely a mixture of the nature of coursework along with a heavy encouragement for students to engage in more co-curricular opps as opposed to only EC. Basically, intellectual engagement goes beyond random late night convs. at said schools. Takes a particular sort of institutional culture which could include more students taking academic risks (especially since some graduate schools actually do consider the level of course work you took a lot when just evaluating the transcript portion of the profile). They aren’t like: “bring me some shiny objects, even if fool’s gold and we may interview you”. It is more like: “Do we have evidence that you can survive this or see through independent projects driven by your own inquiry”. The latter case is more complex than just selecting bright people and great test takers. Also, to get an unusual amount of students to even attempt a PhD takes a curriculum, opps, and mentoring that actually inspire students to go in that field as opposed to kind of just using it as a vehicle.
Isn’t JHU a school with a large number of pre-meds relative to its size? That may induce students to work harder than otherwise indicated by the difficulty of the material, in order to earn Acceptable grades and avoid Bad, Catastrophic, or Disastrous grades that would cause them to be weeded out.
@ucbalumnus : Yes it does. JHU actually looks like a confused school. It has a curriculum that clearly feeds lots of PhD candidates, but has lots of pre-meds. When attending Emory, I stumbled across some of their materials and other than chemistry courses and maybe like neuroscience, Emory is basically JHU lite where they would have to make some of the lower division math and physics courses substantially more challenging and interesting across the board. The instructor options make it vary wildly, especially when an intro. calc. course offers like 15 sections! The general biology course would have to be restored (yes it has gone down, even one of the traditionally more rigorous sections has turned it down and they all changed the curriculum again to make the course slower and the first semester easier by moving some of the more complex genetics topics to the second semester) to a higher level and bchem instructors would have to change their philosophy some despite it being just a tad better than what I have seen elsewhere. JHU was more: “doing what we are supposed to do educationally” on a more consistent basis and that may have to do with less sections with much larger sizes. Much easier to control quality and level.).
There was generally the same type of course offerings (like both had a bio-calc series that pre-meds and bio/neuro sciences majors took) and tiering in some areas but JHU was blow for blow more rigorous in most courses. Granted that a more “sciencey” pre-med core (as in required pre-health in it focus more on higher level problem solving and research scenarios, even biology courses such as general biology and bchem which traditionally and at some other elites are still stuck on essentially rote memorization) could be excellent for something like the new MCAT (and maybe the most recent old one), it still isn’t usually friendly to raw grades. Those classes are tough and yet JHU grades/curves more like a VU or Emory (still using the B- average).
Basically JHU gets a disproportionate of pre-healths (another reputational thing/halo effect) but is not ultra pre-med friendly. More pre-industry or pre-science friendly than anything else, but it seems like one of the schools actually cut some slack for lower GPAs in med. school admissions. If you do not make the cut for med. school the first time there but get an okay GPA even in something like biology, the major is structured such that you will come out with key skills and experiences that make you competitive for alternative or gap year opps it seems. I think JHU has the right model, but it certainly will lead to a complaint/stress oriented culture with that amount of pre-healths.