Average GPA at MIT

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>Because the MIT administration is generally secretive about average GPAs there is much speculation on this topic. A commonly heard estimate is 4.2/5.0. A look at Quora <a href="http://www.quora.com/Massachusetts-Institute-of-Technology-MIT-2/What-does-the-distribution-of-MIT-GPAs-look-like"&gt;http://www.quora.com/Massachusetts-Institute-of-Technology-MIT-2/What-does-the-distribution-of-MIT-GPAs-look-like&lt;/a> gives a similar impression. However, I believe a closer inspection of the little actual data we have suggests the real average GPA is almost certainly much higher and probably closer to 4.4.</p>

<p>There are four sources I have found that I would believe have actual access to GPA data.
(1) 2000 report on Pass/No Record (<a href="http://web.mit.edu/committees/cup/subcommittees/pnrap/part3.pdf"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/committees/cup/subcommittees/pnrap/part3.pdf&lt;/a&gt;). The report contains average GPAs by semester for all classes (page 40) as well as GPA distributions for each of these groups (35). Unfortunately, the data are obviously quite old.
(2) 2008 report on Pass/No Record and Sophomore Exploratory (<a href="https://web.mit.edu/committees/cup/mit-only/P-NRandExp.pdf"&gt;https://web.mit.edu/committees/cup/mit-only/P-NRandExp.pdf&lt;/a> requires MIT certificates). Gives average GPAs for sophomores for several years as well as data on the percentage of Ds and Fs for freshmen and sophomores. Data is still old and the two data sources of data in the report contradict each other.
(3) Data on average FSILG GPA (<a href="http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N8/fsilg.html"&gt;http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N8/fsilg.html&lt;/a&gt;). By far the most recent data but only for a subset of students. Unclear how the data deal with P/NR grades.
(4) 2004 Data on junior year GPAs comparing FSILG students to residence hall students (<a href="http://web.mit.edu/aurorarp/report.html"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/aurorarp/report.html&lt;/a&gt;). Old data and only for juniors but allows for a more accurate comparison of (3). </p>

<p>What do the data say?
(1) From AY1995-6 to AY1999-2000 average GPAs were 4.1-4.2 for sophomores, 4.2-4.3 for juniors, and ~4.3 for seniors (page 40). It all gives data on freshmen grades which were then not included at all in GPAs. This shows that average GPAs were slightly above 4.2 in the late 1990s. Given an increase in average grades this is probably consistent with a current average GPA around 4.4.
(2) Data from the Registrar's office gives average sophomore GPA as 4.3 for all the most recent terms in the report (which were up to 2007). The other data source gave the average sophomore GPA as usually 4.2 although it was 4.3 for one term. The report noted the sources were slightly different but said it shouldn't be significant which seems to contradict the persistent difference in average sophomore GPA between them. In any case, this shows definite evidence of grade inflation compared with the previous report. Accounting for the inclusion of second semester freshmen GPA is difficult but assuming the increase in grades affected juniors and seniors as well as sophomores this would be consistent with an average GPA of roughly 4.3-4.4 in 2007 and some higher average GPA today.
(3) FSILG average was 4.38 last fall.
(4) Junior year average GPAs were 4.30 for residence hall males, 4.27 for residence hall females, 4.19 for FSILG males, and 4.28 for FSILG females. No date is given for the data but given the report was from 2004 it is presumably early 2000s. This data would be consistent with mild inflation since the report (1). This also suggests that 4.38 average from (3) is a slight underestimate of current average GPA.</p>

<p>What does Eddie's Quora post get wrong?
Eddie cites four sources. The last two are random people making claims without citations and can be ignored. He also cites two of my sources (2) and (3) but neither support a conclusion that the current average GPA is 4.2.</p>

<p>Conclusions:
(1) It is hard to see how any of the data are consistent with an average GPA of 4.2. My current guess would be 4.4/5 but I acknowledge considerable uncertainty in the estimate.
(2) FSILGs better find some actual data supporting their claim that they have higher average GPAs given (4).</p>

<p>If anyone has other sources or methodological suggestions/comments I am very interested in hearing them and very willing to revise my estimates given new data. I will post this to Quora at some point as well.</p>

2

<p>Whyyyyyy. Just why.</p>

3

<p>I posted on this on Quora and made some edits with a couple more years of FSILG data but nothing important changed.</p>

<p>There are two main reasons I looked into this other than inherent curiosity:
(1) pre-frosh ask about this and it seems preferable to give them accurate data rather than unsupported conjectures.
(2) more importantly many student groups (mostly but not exclusively FSILGs) have been taking advantage of this information vacuum to make claims about their academic performance that seem unsupported by a close inspection of the data. If the average GPA really was 4.2 then FSILG students would be outperforming non-FSILG students by something like .3 which is a pretty large effect (some claim the difference is .8! <a href=“http://wiki.mitadmissions.org/Kappa_Alpha_Theta”>http://wiki.mitadmissions.org/Kappa_Alpha_Theta&lt;/a&gt;). Based on the admittedly limited evidence we have it seems that the FSILG average GPA is actually slightly less than the overall GPA. I find it pretty disturbing when groups use unsupported GPAs averages for recruiting purposes (some examples: <a href=“http://mitathletics.com/sports/m-crewlt/FAQ09-10”>http://mitathletics.com/sports/m-crewlt/FAQ09-10&lt;/a&gt;, <a href=“http://aphi.mit.edu/why_aphi.html”>http://aphi.mit.edu/why_aphi.html&lt;/a&gt;, <a href=“http://theta.mit.edu/recruitmentfaq.php”>http://theta.mit.edu/recruitmentfaq.php&lt;/a&gt;, <a href=“http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/activity/p/panhel/Exec%20Board/2009/VP%20Public%20Relations/recruitmentguide_FINAL.pdf”>http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/activity/p/panhel/Exec%20Board/2009/VP%20Public%20Relations/recruitmentguide_FINAL.pdf&lt;/a&gt;). </p>

4

<p>Okay! I do suppose I like those reasons.</p>

<p>There do exist people who have this information; anything we say here is still conjecture. And there is a good reason this information is not public and I personally think it should stay that way, no matter how curious we may be.</p>

5

<p>I hope my post gives the impression that the 4.4 number is mainly conjecture. I do think it would be exceptionally unlikely that the 4.2 figure is correct though given that data. I think it is reasonable to keep average GPAs private but I cannot understand why you would release so much data on FSILG GPAs while keeping average GPAs public. </p>

6

<p>Because I imagine it’s the individual FSILGs polling their members and not MIT releasing the data.</p>

7

<p>The data comes from the Division of Student Life. Maybe DSL is happy to release data but the registrar’s office isn’t I’m not sure but the data on FSILG GPAs does seem to come from MIT.</p>

8

<p>LOl. for the first and second year students this week would not be a good one to hold a discussion about this topic. Passing…just passing is what most are hoping for lol. It is a rigorous school and a 3.0 is a pipe dream for many.</p>

9

<p>I just finished my second year at MIT. lostaccount is being ridiculous. Hardly anyone fails or worries about failings classes at MIT (I would guess the exceptions are mainly severe personal issues). I think most are hoping for much more than simply passing. I think the above data suggests that almost everyone has a GPA > 3.0/5 (the exceptions probably being severe personal issues) and a solid majority has a GPA > 3.0/4 If you are expecting to maintain a 5.0 you might be in for a rude awakening when you come to MIT but getting a decent GPA is very doable.</p>

10

<p>Well I suppose I’m talking about the first year students. A good many end up having to retake classes. As far as I can tell, having talked with a good number, none seem to have severe personal issues. but the first year classes for most students are tough and many end up having to retake more than one. I suppose its not really GPA issue after the first year.</p>

11

<p>Let’s be clear in the mid 2000s approximately 4% of freshmen grades were Ds or Fs which require retaking classes (source: 2008 P/NR report linked above). The vast majority of MIT freshmen are not needing to retake any classes even if the classes are “tough” (which seems too subjective a term to be useful).</p>