<p>Hey guys, I just wanted to know how hard is it to get a high GPA at Caltech 3.7+. I am really interested in mechanical engineering and BEM, but I want to go to law school after my undergrad. I really need a high GPA to get into a t14 Law school but I've heard that Caltech is one of the hardest schools in the country and its really hard to pull of a solid GPA here.</p>
<p>I'd say I have a really good work ethic, and I'm also good at math. In general, how many people have a 3.7+ at Caltech ?</p>
<p>I'll tell you straight up--unless you go to a very, very rigorous high school, Caltech will be nothing like high school. It's very hard to have a good indicator of your success. "I'm good at math" is pretty meaningless unless you mean "I taught myself PDEs in sixth grade" or something like that. You have to be good at math to get in. </p>
<p>A 3.7 is doable, but don't count on it or expect it. I know far too many who came in expecting a GPA like that and became utterly disappointed in their performance. If your number one goal is getting into a "T14" law school, then this is probably the wrong place to be.</p>
<p>Why do you want to go here, and why do you want to go to law school?</p>
<p>Edit: Looked through your post history. You seem to be really into Ivy League schools and law school. Your "chances" thread in the Harvard forum shows no real passion for math and science. Unless you've suddenly had a massive change of goals I strongly recommend you not attend Caltech. </p>
<p>One of my best friends wanted to go to Harvard for chemistry/biology. He decided to go here when he didn't get into the Ivy Leagues. He struggled for two years and eventually tried to transfer out--but his GPA was too low. He did not get into any school he applied to--UCLA, Berkeley, UCSD, Cornell. Luckily he's starting to figure out his place here; but I have no doubts if he could go to Harvard he would have. In my opinion he would have been happier at a Liberal Arts college with a lower "US News ranking". I've said it before and I'll say it again--prestige is a horrible reason to come here.</p>
<p>According to some data sheet on the Caltech website a while ago (in other words, it might be slightly different now), ~33% have a 3.5 or higher, and ~10% have a 4.0 or higher. Our median/average GPA remains fairly steady at around between 3.2 and 3.3.</p>
<p>How many people have a 3.7+ is irrelevant though, since it's really dependent on your major. MechE is considered a very reasonable major to do well in here, even so far as to be called MechEasy, and doubling with BEM is fairly common, and not too difficult to do well in apparently. Unfortunately, I don't know the GPA breakdown for MechE, but you could infer some info from DONUT about the grade distributions in MechE and BEM courses. And saying you're "good" at math means absolutely nothing. We're all good at math. That's why we're here.</p>
<p>If going to a Top 14 (?) law school is the most important thing to you, more important than learning and doing science and engineering, then I strongly recommend NOT coming here, and perhaps looking at cushier engineering schools such as Princeton, Brown, or Stanford, to name a few. You should want to go to Caltech because you want to do and love science and engineering, otherwise, I promise you'll be miserable here.</p>
<p>A good GPA is not THAT hard to achieve. I've just completed my freshman year with a 4.13 (majoring in ACM). </p>
<p>Granted, I'll probably get killed by harder classes next year, but among other freshmen in my House, I know someone with a 4.2 GPA and at least 5 with a 4.0+.</p>
<p>We've had one term of grades Caltecher, a lot of frosh have over 4.0's, I could name 4 off of the top of my head who live in my hovse as well. It's 3rd term frosh year, it's not that bad now. But there is a reason why about 1 in 3 Techers has a GPA over 3.5 later on.</p>
<p>There are definitely ways to game the system to get a high GPA. For example, if you take IST4 and write an extra essay, you're virtually guaranteed an A+. Most HSS courses give out A+s like they're going out of style, so if you double-major in, say, BEM, your GPA is likely to rise. You also have the option of taking "practical" math and physics (i.e. Core for Wusses) which are at a totally different level of difficulty from the "analytical" versions, and I know several MechEs who took that path.</p>
<p>My best recommendation is to take upper-division courses to boost your GPA. In some majors (e.g. math and biology) it's easier to get an A in these classes because (a) they're usually offered in seminar format, (b) the work is minimal - say, an oral exam at the end - because it's really a graduate course, and (c) standards for grading are different at the grad level (in those majors, at least). Added benefit: most everyone thinks you are a rock star because they haven't figured it out yet. Caveat: you will not be well-trained as a MechE if you take only the light-workload courses...but you're going to law school anyway!</p>
<p>As an aside, third term frosh year is not representative of your time at tech (it was definitely a lot easier than anything sophomore year, which is all I can speak for)</p>
<p>Dead on, jdhutchin. I remember a regis newsletter that was posted at the beginning of fall term one year which said that 8% or so of Caltech students had a 4.0. I wonder what that number would be at the beginning of spring term?</p>
<p>Prac math and physics is hardly "core for wusses" . . . If you're an engineer like me, you realize that the hands-on lab component of prac physics and numerical problem solving of prac math are probably more valuable and relevant given your future classes and career choice.</p>
<p>Actually, a good chunk of people moved up from Prac math 2A to Anal math 2A for this fall, because they heard anal was easier.</p>
<p>And it's not that getting a high GPA is impossible, but if your main goal in college to get into law school, why would risk that by going here?</p>
<p>Dauntless, I agree entirely with you on prac vs. anal math. Practical math is literally more practical, featuring more problem solving strategies whereas anal focuses on proofs and other things math-major type people might be interested in (my roommate was in anal math, I was in prac, we kept a running tab). </p>
<p>I disagree with you on prac vs. anal phys. First off, there is no longer a lab component to practical physics, (yours was the last year to have it) which really just makes it hard phys vs. easy phys. In addition, Phys 1bc anal is reasonably practical as it is in terms of problem solving. I'd honestly like to see prac phys done away with. </p>
<p>I took anal phys--EEs almost always take anal phys; the reason being that we don't exactly need any extra soldering practice :P</p>
<p>Anal phys definitely wins in terms of problem solving, but when I said hands-on, I literally meant I took prac instead of anal because I wanted to get the experience from the labs. I'm not a EE, so I won't ever get the joy of soldering circuits for EEasy 52 in the party room in the sub-basement of Moore.</p>
<p>The lab stuff still exists, it's just now separate from prac and anal. Prac people, however, are still responsible for the information garnered from the labs (Zap! is still required for it). I know all about the changes, since I was an ombudsperson for prac phys, and Politzer was very open with us about what was going on. The point to the change was that now you can get frosh lab credit for the doing the lab components, anal or prac. All prac people are highly encouraged to take the labs. If people choose to do prac and avoid the labs to take the "easy" way out . . . then it's their loss as far as I'm concerned. If the new system doesn't work, they'll change it.</p>
<p>Admittedly, I wouldn't really mind if prac phys was done away with either. But I had some fun doing the labs in prac.</p>
<p>Your point is valid but at the end of the day Caltech has some responsibility for the knowledge of its graduates; i.e., if a student takes the easy way out it hurts not only the student but also potentially Caltech's reputation. Of course, two terms of physics is unlikely to make a huge difference in this regard, but it is a matter of principle.</p>
<p>Looking back on my post, I feel that I might have given you the wrong impression about Caltech........I don't want to give you the impression that everyone at Tech is obsessed about their GPAs.... I feel that while people are concerned with keeping a good GPA, it's not important in the sense that it establishes a "smartness pecking order" and dominates everyone's thoughts all the time. In fact, I feel that most students have a "don't worry about it" type of attidude- once we're actually in a class and struggling through sets and tests, we just try our best and don't worry about the grade that we get.
(Also, Caltech IS very hard......... while many have high grades, they work for it)</p>
<p>-Is sophomore year that much harder?!! The general impression I get is that sophomore year is still kind of relaxed and then everyone gets pwned junior year in their major classes. Plus, in my House, most of the rising sophomores (we're still frosh now, haha) are only taking 3/4 classes on grades every term next year.</p>
<p>Sophmore year is a world of difference from frosh year. And if it is a major goal of yours to get a 3.7+ GPA at tech, it's not hard at all. Just be prepared that there may be terms where you're giving up a lot of time and hobbies, etc. I'm sure that most techers, if all they did was study all day, would be able to maintain a 3.7 GPA. Though I may be on the optimistic side of the spectrum. Wow. I sound fancy. Too bad I don't talk like this in real life. </p>
<p>Looks like there's lots of techers here. I was curious 'bout this forum since Woods mentioned it to me.</p>
<p>Depends on the major, MinJaBenji... (Benji?). I wouldn't be able to pull a 3.7 in math or physics even if I studied day and night. EE is a little more my style :P</p>
<p>Besides, if you come to college and do nothing but work and study all day, you're doing it wrong (my personal opinion). You've got a lifetime to do nothing but work.</p>
<p>Of course. I'm just saying- that it is possible for almost all people here (maybe not in the major of their choice, or with the social life of their choice) to get a 3.7 GPA. :)</p>
<p>I mean, I could never get a 3.7 in Physics either, but I'm sure there are physics majors who couldn't get a 3.7 in ChemE. Or ChemE's who couldn't get a 3.7 in Bio, etc. But if you make it a serious goal of yours to get a 3.7 here and work hard towards it, I think it's definitely within reach for almost everyone here. (I'm wary of making generalizations.)</p>
<p>I guess my point is that I don't think people are always able to pull that GPA in their intended major and switching majors just to get a higher GPA isn't really that good of an idea (unless you're doing really poorly). </p>
<p>Additionally, I would much rather prepare prefrosh to think that a 3.7 is possible but not probable than I would to say that it only requires some amount of hard work. For example, I doubt that a certain mutual friend of ours would have been able to pull a 3.7 at this point regardless of how hard he worked. (Now that he's getting into upperlevel classes it might be easier for him, we'll see)</p>
<p>lol. That's cool. I don't really want to "prepare" the prefrosh to think any way. I'm just calling it as I see it. He asked how hard it is- and I replied with, that from a numbers standpoint, as snowcapk mentioned, it's not hard to game the system and get a 3.7 GPA- I know several people who know squat and have above a 3.7 GPA, the result of massively begging people for homework help (this coupled with picking classes that have a very small percentage of the grade being based on tests, and many upper level classes don't even have tests), avoiding difficult classes, loading up on easy hums, sucking up to lab TA's, etc. (Especially now that they're opening up these new classes for premeds. Like Orgo lab-lite.)</p>
<p>Do I think one should do this? No. Not really. But they can choose what they want out of this place. lol. You're a much more caring person than I in terms of priming the prefrosh to get ready for tech. :)</p>
<p>And slightly off topic, but in my opinion the only reason that this mutual friend of ours is not going to be able to pull of 3.7 was because enough people convinced him that Ph12 was a good idea. Otherwise, I think a 3.7 for him would have been very doable in his current major.</p>