<p>Departments at Princeton try to have 35% of the grades that they give out be A's. Some departments go above, and some go below, but it seems that much lower grades are given out at Princeton compared to other elite schools.</p>
<p>According to an undergrad who I talked to today, this seems to be accomplished by setting up classes with a curve so that a certain fixed percentage of the top students earns an A.</p>
<p>Do you think that this policy where students have to fight extra hard for grades, not just with themselves but with their fellow students, promotes an atmosphere of competitiveness? </p>
<p>I'd imagine that Princetonians would not work together if helping others meant sacrificing their own grades. Specifically, is there a noticeable "everyone-for-themselves" atmosphere among the science majors at Princeton?</p>
<p>Please correct me if I'm wrong in any of my assumptions about Princeton grading policies or atmosphere.</p>
<p>Although maybe this is partly my choice of classes, I have never experienced any competitiveness in terms of grades. I ask for help and give help on problem sets all the time. As problem sets are generally pretty challenging, it’s hard to survive without working together. </p>
<p>I know it would be logical for grade deflation to create more competition, but that just isn’t really the case. Also, the policy doesn’t really affect science majors all that much. Science classes have always used a curve, and the curve generally helps you and doesn’t hurt you. And setting the curve up so that more than 35% of students get A’s is just ridiculous. Grade deflation is more aimed towards liberal arts classes, and making professors have higher standards towards what work deserves an A.</p>
<p>A loaded question if I ever saw one. What do you expect if you put a bunch of intelligent, hard-working students in a small university setting? Competition.</p>
<p>To answer your question: Yes, many Princeton kids are competitive with each other, and it is worst in the introductory math and science courses that double as pre-med requirements (i.e. Intro Biology, Gen Chem, Calc I, etc.) </p>
<p>Overall, grade deflation hasn’t really made the sciences more competitive; however, the effect on the humanities has been far worse. In a number if intro Politics, History, and Language courses, instructors often try to use “grading by precept.” Under this system, only a certain number of kids assigned to each TA can get a A- or an A; as such, competition within the precepts (TA sessions) is often quite nasty, with some students trying their best to maximize their participation in discussions at the expense of others’ participation. In some intro language courses, grades as high as 96 percent have been termed “B+” grades because of the policy.</p>
<p>Granted, my experience might not accurately reflect that of the typical Princeton student. Just be warned, though, that grade deflation is a far bigger problem than it may appear.</p>
<p>I would say that people are competitive, but that they don’t necessarily compete against each other. The people I know tend to compete against themselves and work toward goals they set for themselves, but I have never seen a single person express the desire to do well at the expense of others. Granted, I have yet to take a large class where precept participation mattered (the only course with a class discussion component in the grade was my freshman seminar, where everyone was extremely civil), so I don’t know how things might play out in lower-level politics courses, for example. And yes, there is a terrible reverse curve in intro Russian. I think what people have trouble adjusting to is that the 90+ = A, 80-89 = B, etc., system from high school does not exist here (or anywhere, really, especially in the sciences). In one of my math classes, at least three fifths of the class scored below 60%, but the students who scored below 60 didn’t fail the exam. Likewise, a 90% does not and should not guarantee at least an A-. </p>
<p>As far as “setting up classes with a curve so that a certain fixed percentage of the top students earns an A” is concerned, this happens everywhere, even at places as grade-inflated as Yale. It’s just that Princeton curves allow for fewer A grades. </p>
<p>Working with other students on assignments like problem sets and labs is almost always mutually beneficial, and I can’t think of a circumstance in which anyone refused to help another person for fear that the other person would steal a top grade. Actually, I saw small groups (normally at least two but no more than four or five people) working on problem sets in intro math, econ, and physics courses on a regular basis in the basement of my hall. Again, grading in humanities courses is often very different from grading in more quantitative courses so I don’t know how this atmosphere might carry over to different fields, but I really don’t see an “everyone for themselves” atmosphere as far as math, science, and engineering are concerned. Most of us care much more about mastering the material than getting an A.</p>
<p>I did my undergrad work at JHU (which is known for grade deflation and competition) but from what I observed, very rarely do professors in introductory courses give A’s to 35% of the class. More often, it’s closer to 25%. It seems like it would be more of an issue in the upper-level courses where most of the students like the material and are pretty good at it. That’s when it seems like 50% of the people getting A’s is a more realistic possibility. Any current students have a perspective on this?</p>
<p>^That’s why the 35% rule applies to the department as a whole rather than for individual classes. From what I’ve garnered, in intro classes, it’s more likely that 25-30% of a class will get A’s, leaving more A’s for those in upper-level courses.</p>