<p>Maybe I'm spending too much time reading college books, but, here goes...
my S may have a choice between very competitive UC schools which grade very tough and private schools which give a much larger number of A's and B's. I went to Northwestern which was very heavy on A's and B's and very very light on C 's. </p>
<p>I know Ivy's are even more grade inflated than Northwestern and the like (90 of harvard student's graduate with honors). My S won't get the Ivies, but will probably get a chance at some better private schools. </p>
<p>I don't know if this applies to other public ivies or not, but the compeititve UC schools are very grade competitive. Does anyone know where to find colleges rated by average gpa or numbers of A's and B's. I found the ivy league grading info, but nothing else reliable.</p>
<p>Of course, this is not the only factor to consider, but its something I completely overlooked until now.</p>
<p>pickaprof.com provides information on grading curves. The website supposedly gets this information from the college itself, so it should be reliable (as long as their claim is true).</p>
<p>My answer to the initial query would be an unequivocal no. Any person making employment or graduate school admissions decisions would be aware of differences in curves.</p>
<p>One question is - is it worth it on that basis alone? I agree with some of your grade inflation points but consider that grad schools and some employers (only some but not all look at grades anyway) are likely aware of the grade inflation/deflation at particular schools and there's usually a big difference in cost (depending on aid received) between a UC in-state versus a private.</p>
<p>Although there might be something to the grade inflation thing, from what I've seen the kids do the best wherever they are the happiest. And even if they don't get as high a GPA at University X as University Y, the happiness factor makes up for it. The happier a student is, the harder he'll work, the more things he'll get involved in, the better he will "develop" personally.</p>
<p>I don't know whether grades at Ivies are inflated. If you physically dump all the students at Harvard into the UC system, what is the chance that those "former" Harvard students will score better GPA than the current UC students? </p>
<p>Now, if you refer to Latin Honor, it is true that Harvard had to change their scroing recently to lower that number. But that is not equivalent with more A's and B's.</p>
<p>Perhaps a more reasonable analysis is to compare grades between schools where the entry students have comparable credentials.</p>
<p>Not all private schools have grade inflation, though I agree that the higher the ranking, the greater the inflation?? </p>
<p>However, some private schools are notoriously tough on grade inflation.</p>
<p>If I were you though, I'd be very wary of sending a "High GPA Trumps All' message to my son. In the end, he'll do best if he's thrilled about what he's learning.</p>
<p>When my mom attended the university of washington- she had a C average in high school. She doesn't even remember if she had to take the SATs,I doubt it.</p>
<p>Now the average student needs a A- average for admittance- even if you have two years of community college classes with a 3.70 GPA, that doesn't get you automatically accepted.</p>
<p>My daughter attended one of the most rigourous schools in teh country- however it had such a reputation, that students were self selected and the year she applied it had a 74% admit rate- yet turned out a higher percentage of graduates that went on to recieve Phds than Ivies.</p>
<p>Now- their admit rate is in the low 30%s just 6 years later.</p>
<p>SATs and GPA are probably similar- for accepted students though.</p>
<p>Thanks Canuckguy. I was looking for exactly that kind of information. Your site stops at 2001, I wonder if there is something more recent to bring it up to date.</p>
<p>BTW, I think the average UC Berkeley kid can match up pretty well with average ivy kid, but GPA's will be wildly different. I wasn't trying to compare all UC's to ivies. </p>
<p>I know that when I applied to grad school, pure GPA was significant and I think I did benefit from some grade inflation in the process. Again, not saying it's a good thing, just saying I think I did benefit.</p>
<p>I agree with Cheers. Focusing on gpa, rather than on how rewarding one's classes might be or how much inspiration, insight, and knowledge one might gain from them, is a mistake. If your student is excited about his courses and finds a field that motivates him to go on to a higher level, he will succeed in grad school admissions even if his gpa is 0.3 lower than it might have been at some other school.
Hnddreds of Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan kids manage to get into excellent grad and law schools every year. I wouldn't worry about this at all if I were you. Help your child find the best fit. The rest will take care of itself.</p>
<p>I know law school has some sort of normalizing application for undergraduate GPAs (not sure what to call it...)? Right? I honestly have just heard people talk about it. </p>
<p>But if we were talking about a school as well known as UC Berkeley, I have a feeling if the student excels at a good pace within his class, then most graduate programs will know what's up there. I go to a school known for grade deflation, but is pretty well respected and there doesn't seem to be any significant difference in grad school admission success for individuals here vs from the other state flagship which is also pretty highly ranked but known for grading somewhat easier (not immensely though). This is on the other coast though and both are public schools, I don't know near enough people at Ivies to really say. I think it would make a difference if you wanted to pursue graduate studies locally or farther away, but Berkeley's rep and networking should be pretty good anywhere I'd think.</p>
<p>the data in gradeinflation.com is mostly garbage. If you dig into the sources of the data there, as I did, you will find it all over the place, but seldom from the institution itself, which I consider the only reliable source.</p>
<p>I also think some of the difference among otherwise similar schools in selectivity, (take Berkeley versus Yale as an example) stem from differences in percentage of hard science and engineering majors. Any report that discussed grading that I've ever seen (and I saw my first in 1969!) has shown that engineering has the lowest GPA, followed by hard sciences, then social sciences with humanities at the top of the GPA pile. </p>
<p>It would follow that the more science and engineering oriented schools, like Berkeley, would have a lower average GPA than a school like Harvard that has more kids majoring in the social sciences and humanities.</p>
<p>Of course there are institutional differences too. For example, Harvard's grading was totally out of control in the late 1990s, and is only marginally better today. But consider that the grading practices of individual schools are well known, so I don't think anyone is getting over on anyone else just because they go to a grade inflated school. In fact, the strongest students are actually hurt by grade inflation, as it is harder for them to stand out.</p>
<p>I hate the term grade inflation. Some people see it as average GPAs increasing over time; others see it in terms of how easy or difficult it is to get different grades; some see it as average GPA comparisons school to school. Those are pretty different issues. </p>
<p>Anyway, average GPA is more important than whether that GPA has increased or decreased recently, but remember that student atmospheres come into play with GPAs, too. Two schools can have average GPAs of 3.4, but at one school students may universally work harder for that 3.4 than at another school with the same average GPA. </p>
<p>Major matters, too. Math and science classes tend to be graded on a curve. Some schools I know of curve with a B+ or even higher average; others curve with a B-/C+ average, or even a flat C average. Sometimes higher level courses will have a more relaxed curve, so a class with only science majors won't actually have 50% of the class getting below a C, even if that's the curve used in intro or required classes. It's harder to compare grading practices in the humanities because people can rarely compare the quality of papers in those classes (not to mention differences in teaching) or how much work such a paper requires in that class or school. Science and engineering GPAs are often lower than the rest, which means that schools more focused on the sciences may have a lower average GPA.</p>
<p>Anyway, sure, you can think about it, but there are many more important things.</p>
<p>I also don't think grade inflation is always unwarranted. If you have accepted a class full of over-achievers who all do top-notch work, why shouldn't they all get As?</p>
<p>mathmom, see my earlier post. BTW, your argument is Harvard's argument. If your really feel that way, why not just give everyone a pass? why have the charade?</p>
<p>IMHO, grades should show how students differ in their performance in a particular class. Surely you don't believe everyone will be doing the same "top notch" work? And for your information, even Harvard has its share of slackers. I formerly worked their and knew faculty and grad student instructors who routinely complained about the quality of the work of the bottom third of their students, who would still receive a B. (institutional pressure!)</p>
<p>Someone asked why I was so worried about GPA in the first place. I applied to law school and GPA was absolutely the most important factor in getting in. LSAT and any other factors were very secondary at most competitive schools. I remember feeling a bit ripped off that I had to choose classes where I thought I would do well rather than classes I was really interested in. Of course, the end of the story is that I went to a top law school and practiced law... But, part of me thinks that a top school is enough pressure for a college student without the huge pressure of competing with others on a different curve.</p>