<p>so when you tell your average classmate "im going to uchicago"
the typical response is :</p>
<p>wow, that is going to be so much hard work, it is impossible there, everyone has like a 2.0</p>
<p>SO, how hard is it really?
i know last year's average ugrad gpa was in the low 3.2's which is definitely not terrible but still pretty low.
would you expect that the average for social science majors is around 3.3-3.4?
also, how about the famous econ program, is that also known as more difficult than other social sciences, or is it equally as demanding?
how hard would you think it to be to get a 3.8 or above? do 20% of kids do it?</p>
<p>We have had a lot of similar conversations in the past (run a search) but I'll tell you in short that if your emotional well-being is tied to your grades and the idea of working pretty darn hard for those pretty darn high grades does not appeal to you, this is probably not the right school for you. I don't mean that to be snippy or nasty when I say that-- I have a lot of friends whose grades are tied into their sense of self, and as smart and as cool as they are, and as much as I love them, they couldn't see themselves as going to a school that made it not easier, but harder for them to be happy. </p>
<p>On my end, I work pretty hard, whether there's a grade at the end of the rainbow or not. I always like to talk about how my grades went up second semester senior year, as I was working on a research paper for my English class that totally swallowed me. In a good way. If the grading curve is tougher, I don't necessarily work harder...I work as hard as I feel comfortable working and I just accept a lower grade and call it a day.</p>
<p>I can also say that students don't usually share grades, so I really have no idea how my friends are doing, not even my closest friends. Some CC kids have offered to share their grades along with how hard they work for them; that's my only reference for how students are doing in general.</p>
<p>My GPA is a 3.2267 (yes, I had to look it up, I didn't know it). That number doesn't really mean that much to me... it means that I'm not the smartest nor the hardest-working person here (which I already knew), but it doesn't account for all the great times I've had here, both intellectually and socially, nor does it take into account the pride I have in the work I've produced, nor does it take into account how much I've grown as a person and a student.</p>
<p>^^ But to answer the OP's question (which I realized I totally forgot to do after I went off on my rant)....</p>
<p>I don't know enough econ majors to judge whether the program is "easy" or "hard," but I know a lot of people do it and they all survive.</p>
<p>And as far as students who maintain a 3.8+ GPA....I have no idea how many students go above that. My not at all accurate guess would be somewhere around 5-10% of the student body has a 3.8+ GPA.</p>
<p>Unalove's comments about the grades and self-worth link is true. If you cannot swallow the idea that a B to B+ is a good grade and a A- or above is superlative, then UChicago will be a harsh lover. There are people every year who find this issue to be such a sticking point that they really just shut down socially, intellectually, or what have you, and then often do worse that they initially would. It can be a vicious downward spiral. </p>
<p>5-10% for a 3.8+ GPA is likewise a good approximation. As far as the average across majors goes, there is at least an element of fairness insofar as the forced curve the school lays down effects everyone equally, which means you are just as likely to get a B+ in econ as you are in a more obscure program like East Asian studies. With the exception of a few majors, talent seems to distribute fairly well so that no one major is inordinately privileged in its number of standout students.</p>
<p>OP- my U of C 1st year has found that even among core courses there is enough choice (of focus and prof) that he is interested in each class even if it's not a strength. The material is compelling enough and satisfying enough that grades matter far less that HS. I'm sure he'll hit some duds, but for now he feels it's just fabulous to be learning and thinking at Chicago. The culture doesn't seem to tie grades to happiness.</p>
<p>So is it just as hard to do bad as to do good? I mean if you're trying and putting the effort in, you're not going to sink into Cs and all that, you'll probably get Bs?</p>
<p>it completely depends on the student, what courses the student's taking, and what professors the student gets. if you take really hard courses from tough professors, you might get lower grades than if you take easier courses from easier professors - this is the case at most schools, i'd think. </p>
<p>for my first quarter, i worked decently hard and got 3.325 gpa... but i also had one professor who decided not to give any grades other than A, B, C or F.... i also had a professor who didn't really speak english. this was an issue. </p>
<p>you'll do fine if you work hard. people here don't tend (in my experience) to care a lot about grades - they mostly care about learning the material</p>
<p>Sachmoney, you're assuming that a C is a bad or otherwise unacceptable grade, which it's not. At Chicago, a C means (or can mean, again, depending on your professor) that you're doing the work and you're doing it seriously, but that you are not of the level that the professor judges as a B or an A. Grade scales are quite arbitrary, when you think about them, and one professor's B+ might be another professor's C.</p>
<p>I think a common faulty assumption is that the C-granting professor is somehow angry or unimpressed with his/her students. Again, if you're the kind of person who ties self-worth to grades, a C will serve as a major self-esteem blow. However, if you look at the grade pragmatically, you will probably see that your professor thinks that you are capable of doing better (and, let's be realistic, who isn't capable of doing better?) and your prof probably wants you to utilize office hours, study groups, etc. in achieving not only a higher grade but also a greater command of the material.</p>
<p>The students who have the toughest time adjusting to this system, I have found, are students who were at the very top of their class in high school. They are not used to getting grades that are not A's, and they worked very very hard for those A's in high school, so they expect the hard work=A equation to work in college. I think the students who have the easiest time adjusting to this system are people like me, who had gotten some low grades and some high grades throughout high school, and have adapted to maintaining a zest for learning, regardless of the grade that came out of the last assignment.</p>
<p>A high grade is a confirmation that you've excelled at the material-- it's something that you strive to earn, not something that you think you'll get.</p>
you'll do fine if you work hard. people here don't tend (in my experience) to care a lot about grades - they mostly care about learning the material
[/quote]
</p>
<p>fine, i care about the material and the learning experience. but i do believe that many, if not most, uchicago students are like me, looking to grad/med/law school and wanting the high gpa's that are required.</p>
<p>My impression is that students who are looking to maintain high grades still care more about learning than they do about grades. Two of my good friends are heavily considering law school, and while their approach to schoolwork is probably more serious than mine, they are very much like me in the way of liking schoolwork.</p>
<p>I have no idea how either is doing in the GPA department. My impression is that one is doing exceptionally well-- she's very demanding on herself and I don't see her around at parties and such, and my impression is that the other is doing well, but not exceptionally well. The second pays dutiful attention in class, does a good deal (but not all) of the readings assigned, and goes out to parties pretty often.</p>
<p>Unalove, I wasn't near the top of my class, but I was at a top private high school in MA. I did get my share of bad grades, and I did get used to it. While I've gotten much better grades in college (because of the work I've put in), it's not like I pride myself on having better grades than everyone else. I do, however, feel good when I do get good grades. My personal concern is more along beefs, though, about grades to getting into graduate school. I guess admissions will take into account U of Chicago. </p>
<p>I don't know if it'll be much of a change from my current school other than the quarter system. If the mean GPA for undergrads were in the 3.2s, it's similar at my school, but we have engineering. Anyways, I think learning is more important because the classes that I get excited about or am interested in the most are the classes where I'm excited about learning.</p>
<p>I think that at U of C, the GPA's are generally lower by about ~0.2 than at other schools. For instance, at Georgetown, dean's list is 3.5 whereas at U of C, it's 3.25. Grad schools will take this into account.</p>
<p>Honors tend to be I think around 3.5 in your major.</p>
<p>The school grades pretty tough. I think math/science kids have it harder because I think the competition in those areas is pretty fierce. Even so, the HUM/SOSC core can knock you around a bit.</p>
<p>A- was the highest grade anyone in my HUM class got.</p>
<p>If you are concerned about grades, you can look at evaluations, talk to other students etc. to find professors who are known to give out higher grades.</p>
<p>However, with that said, I would not recommend taking a professor just because they give high grades. You need to learn your stuff/become more intelligent for whatever you plan to pursue in life. There are many professors who are excellent professors, but have the mentality that student's have professional goals in life and low grades can hamper their success, and therefore, they tend to be more lenient. </p>
<p>But take a class and don't do the work? Your digging your own grave.</p>
<p>Grade inflation is particularly nasty for this reason. If the U of C does not decide to participate in grade inflation to the extent that other peer schools do, it's potentially putting its students at a disadvantage. If nothing else, it spurs lots of conversations like these that wouldn't otherwise happen.</p>
<p>I'm inclined to think that rampant grade inflation cheapens the student's sense of accomplishment and cheapens the quality of the work they produce. The more often A's are given, the less meaningful they are, the less they are used to denote true quality work. If a student is able to get away with doing a so-so job on an assignment and get an A on it, what's to push the student into doing more? There's probably a good deal of self-motivation among students at Chicago and at similar schools, but I'm also inclined to think that there are many students who value external evaluation more than internal evaluation, and the "A" is a symbol that they have achieved all that they can achieve.</p>
<p>Equilibrium does not really mean anything. You either inflate over the basket of your peer schools or you deflate. However, the present problem with grade inflation at places other than the U of C is that schools have hit the ceiling of their grading systems (giving out straight A’s to the majority of students). As unalove points out, this gives ug’s little motivation to go the extra mile, in addition to failing to differentiate who is truly the strongest. I can say that amongst the undergraduates in the courses I work with now in graduate school, the difference between one ‘A’ paper and the next is objectively the difference of a whole letter grade, i.e. ‘A’ to ‘B’. Consequently, graduate school recommendations become highly influential, giving professors too much say in a pupil’s future, since a student’s record above 3.7+ or so is fairly meaningless. Likewise, companies are forced to rely on poor measures to differentiate students, such as ethnically questionable networking events. </p>
<p>Yet, if you are the school that inflates on the margin ahead of the pack, enough to make your students look stronger but not draw negative press like Harvard has, then you really do help your students out in terms of post-graduation placement. However, since every rational university tries to do this the effect basically washes out most of the time, leaving all the negative consequences for the inflators in terms of their internal student dynamics in addition to imposing a very negative externality on those schools who hold back for philosophical reasons. This is why the U of C has to constantly talk up how hardcore it is so as to maintain rational expectations about student performance. Whether it is effective in this vein is a matter of debate.</p>