<p>I have 2 options.
1. Industrial Engineering and Operations Research undergrad at Berkeley
2. Computer Engineering/Science and Applied Mathematics undergrad at Brown</p>
<p>Which option can help me get into these great grad schools?
- Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia (Financial Engineering), Wharton</p>
<p>Another question is, doe Ivy undergrad have better chance for grad school?</p>
<p>Thank you very much!</p>
<p>it helps in the sense that a) competition isn't as fierce in the sciences because the curves aren't nearly as bad as most top publics, and b) it's easier to get to know your department/profs/do research etc. Similar stats and recs and research from both wouldn't make a difference, but that's assuming you could get the same grades at Brown you would at Berkeley</p>
<p>
[quote]
competition isn't as fierce in the sciences because the curves aren't nearly as bad as most top publics,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is ridiculous! The curves at publics are almost identical as to Ivies (both being curved to around a B- for intro courses and a B/B+ for high level). Furthermore, even if the Ivy curves were worse, it would still be much more difficult to attain high grades. You have to compete with students capable of much better scores. </p>
<p>As for the OP, some people might consider Berkeley even better than Brown. Both are great schools and there's essentially no difference between however. Although, given the equality of their prestige and admissions standards, one can assume that since Berkeley is higher ranked in engineering that the Berk engineering school is actually of higher quality. I'd say either one is perfectly fine. It should come down to location, student body, etc.</p>
<p>One definitely doesn't need undergrad majors in IE/FE/OR to get into those grad schools for IE/FE/OR right?</p>
<p>"This is ridiculous! The curves at publics are almost identical as to Ivies (both being curved to around a B- for intro courses and a B/B+ for high level). Furthermore, even if the Ivy curves were worse, it would still be much more difficult to attain high grades. You have to compete with students capable of much better scores."</p>
<p>Um, no, it's not. I go to Brown and my (equally smart) friends at state schools have a much harder time with grades because of the curve. While you'll very rarely find a class below a B curve here (and that's considered low anyway), B- or often C+ is the norm at state schools (not just intro classes, all of them in most science), which is a <em>huge</em> difference in terms of grad distribution. Yes the students are stronger, but the fact is that the difference, especially between a Berkeley and a Brown, isn't large enough to mean that you could just get better grades anyway. People really overestimate the "I'm better than everyone else" factor--the harder the curve, the less room you have for error, even if you are smarter.</p>
<p>Plus, it's Berkeley on top of that. The average <em>engineering</em> student there probably isn't any less smart than your average Brown student, and there's much more competition to get noticed within your major if you're an engineer there.</p>
<p>I go to a state school, and I know my department pretty damn well. And I've been doing research since the middle of my freshman year. And my case isn't a special one, I know plenty of people at my school who have the same familiarity with their departments as I do.</p>
<p>The ivy league isn't necessary to get that kind of experience. It really all depends on you, not your school. I think people forget that in the college search.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is ridiculous! The curves at publics are almost identical as to Ivies (both being curved to around a B- for intro courses and a B/B+ for high level). Furthermore, even if the Ivy curves were worse, it would still be much more difficult to attain high grades. You have to compete with students capable of much better scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm afraid I have to agree with elpope on this one, particularly as it has to do with the specific policies of Brown. One of the unique advantages of Brown - in fact, so much so that I wish Berkeley and other schools would implement it - is that you can take almost any course you want on either a satisfactory/no-credit basis, or an A/B/C/no-credit, even courses in your major. Furthermore, if you choose the latter and you perform so poorly that you receive a NC, that grade is not marked on your transcript. </p>
<p>The upshot is that it's practically impossible to actually get a truly bad grade at Brown, and this an immense advantage when it comes to grad school admissions. For example, every major generally has at least a few classes that you won't like and probably won't do well in. If you're at Brown, you can just take those courses on a S/NC basis and do just enough work to get the S, which is not that hard. Contrast that with Berkeley where, with very few exceptions, you must take every course in your major on a graded basis, and if you get a terrible grade, that's too bad for you. Berkeley will mark that grade on your transcript, which will greatly damage your chances of getting into grad school.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that while top grades won't guarantee that you will get into grade school, terrible grades can keep you out. In other words, the way to get into grad school is not so much to get good grades, but to avoid bad grades. Brown makes that very easy to do in the way that Berkeley (and other public schools) do not. I wish they did, but they seem to delight in tagging less-capable students with bad grades. </p>
<p>I also agree with elpope regarding the competitive quality of the students. We're not just talking about the average Berkeley student across the board. We're talking about Berkeley engineering students, who have had to undergo a significantly more selective admissions process. I too suspect that the average Berkeley engineering student is probably equivalent to the average Brown student. Yet like I said, the Brown student enjoys significant benefits in terms of 'concealing' bad grades that Berkeley engineering students ought to have but don't. </p>
<p>Now, to be fair, I think that Berkeley is a significantly better engineering school than is Brown. Berkeley also has more extensive research resources. Berkeley is also deeply tied into a top technological locale in a way that Brown is not. Hence, being one of the best students in Berkeley, especially for engineering, will probably make you better off than being one of the best students at Brown. </p>
<p>But that gets back to something that I've always said about Berkeley: Berkeley is a fantastic school for those students who do well. For them, numerous doors open up and their career potential is unlimited. But what about those students who don't do well? What happens to them? Brown is the risk-averse choice. There's nothing wrong with being risk-averse.</p>
<p>I don't know if what sakky and elope are trying to say is that UG at an Ivy is easy, but if that is what they are implying an overwhelming body of evidence agrees with them. One of the nicest thing about gaining admission to an Ivy is that you can quit working after your freshman year, party your entire undergrad, spend a semester in Punta Cana and still manage a B+ average. This statement will likely draw the ire of any number of Ivy leaguers/Ivy leaguers' parents (of which there seem to be a hilarious amount around here) but I find it difficult for anyone to deny that grading at almost all of the Ivies is incredibly lax.</p>
<p>any more comments?</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I find it difficult for anyone to deny that grading at almost all of the Ivies is incredibly lax
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not for certain subjects that a wrong answer is a wrong answer no matter what, like engineering , science , math, finance classes.
One exception may be Brown, there, you can conceal bad grades, not at other Ivies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know if what sakky and elope are trying to say is that UG at an Ivy is easy
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More precisely, what I am saying is that it is extremely unlikely for you to get truly bad grades - and you're almost certainly not going to flunk out - at an Ivy, with the possible exception of engineering at Cornell. Getting top grades is still difficult, but generally speaking, as long as you put in the bare minimum of effort, you're still going to pass. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Not for certain subjects that a wrong answer is a wrong answer no matter what, like engineering , science , math, finance classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, that's a different topic entirely. Sure, in subjects like engineering and science, a wrong answer is a wrong answer no matter what school you are at.</p>
<p>What we're talking about is what having 'wrong answers' means in terms of letter grading. In short, the curves in the Ivies are set such that even those students who get many wrong answers are still almost certain to get a passing letter grade. Sure, it may be a mediocre grade (i.e. a 'C'), but hey, that's still a passing grade. Contrast that with other schools who will absolutely not hesitate for one moment to give you an F, which is clearly one of the easiest ways to completely destroy your chances at grad school. Heck, you may not even be able to successfully finish your bachelor's degree at all.</p>
<p>How can one evaluate "standard of grading system" of a certain school? Is there any standard way of doing so? </p>
<p>does any one have any idea of how grad schools evaluate schools in terms of grading standards?</p>
<p>One law school published a list that judged the difficulty of getting good grades at a given college, taking both the quality of the student body and grading standards into account (I think they might have compared LSAT scores with the GPA of applicants from each college over the years), and came up with a numerical value that could be used to adjust the GPAs of applicants. I think Swarthmore led the list. </p>
<p>I've been trying to google it but I couldn't find it. Maybe another poster can help.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What we're talking about is what having 'wrong answers' means in terms of letter grading. In short, the curves in the Ivies are set such that even those students who get many wrong answers are still almost certain to get a passing letter grade. Sure, it may be a mediocre grade (i.e. a 'C'), but hey, that's still a passing grade. Contrast that with other schools who will absolutely not hesitate for one moment to give you an F, which is clearly one of the easiest ways to completely destroy your chances at grad school. Heck, you may not even be able to successfully finish your bachelor's degree at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you know how curves are set in each school? Or by different profs?</p>
<p>So basically what sakky and others are saying is this: A given student is asking advice on whether to attend an Ivy (not Brown b/c of all their weird crap) or their local state school (not Berkeley or top top public schools that have student bodies almost identical to some Ivies). The student is applying to law school so GPA (and not strength of school) matters. He wants to know where to go. Your advice is to go to the Ivy because going there it'll be easier to get good grades. I think that's ridiculous. </p>
<p>I do understand your point about failing, yet you provide no evidence of it. But whatever, I'll accept it. Maybe it is harder to fail out of an Ivy b/c simply they don't fail anyone. But to get a god GPA (above a 3.4) at an Ivy is much more difficult because the curve is much harder to beat due to the intelligence of the other students. I think it's pretty simple. Put a student whose intelligence is around 90% of the general public in an Ivy classroom. He'll do just alright b/c there are plenty of people over and around his intelligence. But put him at LSU. He'll be one of the smartest students and it'll be much easier for him (less studying, etc...) to beat the curve and get top grades.</p>
<p>[Note: Yes I went to Cornell engineering and I'll be going to Princeton next year, but I'm not biased.]</p>
<p>Frankly, this is the type of ludicrous response I was prepared to get when I stated that grading at most Ivies was lax. Sure, it's hard to get a 3.98 at an Ivy but that is the case pretty much everywhere. At most schools only about 3% of the student body will have a GPA that high so stating that grading at Ivies is tough because you cant walk in, do nothing, and walk out with a 4.0 is not very convincing. Getting over a 3.4, which seems to be the cutoff for a "good" GPA according to you, is not at all difficult at most Ivies. Sure, you are competing against good students but most of those students realize after their first semester that they dont have to bust their asses like they did in high school anymore and simply do the work and expect a 3.5+, which they often get.
Don't get me wrong, I respect Ivy League students immensely just because it is so very difficult to be admitted as an UG to schools like Yale and Harvard that practically all the students at these schools worked themselves to the bone during their high school years just for a chance (and a small one at that) of being admitted to some of these schools. Being from Canada, I always find it hilarious when people who attend places like UofT or McGill, both of which regularly accept students with B averages or lower in high school, think that admission at their schools is in any way, shape, or form comparable to places like Princeton or Harvard where perfect SAT scores and HS GPAs are just the beginning of the admission process.
That said, however, I know several individuals who are attending Ivies as undergrads or graduated from an Ivy and the consensus really is that grading just isnt taken very seriously. Profs know they have smart and talented students on their hands and mostly dont see the point of failing any of them or even giving them poor grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you know how curves are set in each school? Or by different profs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know, how about school graduation rates? Every one of the Ivies (except possibly for Cornell) has a significantly higher graduation rate than Berkeley does. Why? </p>
<p>Now, granted several factors go into determining graduation rates, not just the grade curves. But then combine that with the well-known reputation, as judged by the students themselves, regarding the grading competitiveness of Berkeley as stated in the Fiske Guide and other publications.</p>
<p>And if you really want to dig deeper, then you can take a gander at websites like [Pick-A-Prof[/url</a>] where you can really begin to compare grade curves from prof to prof and school to school. </p>
<p>One may also consider this data.</p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/brown.html%5DBrown">http://www.gradeinflation.com/brown.html]Brown</a> University GPA Trends](<a href="http://www.pickaprof.com/%5DPick-A-Prof%5B/url">http://www.pickaprof.com/)
University</a> of California GPA Trends</p>
<p>Now, granted, no one piece of evidence will prove that one school is harsher than another. But when the evidence piles up, you notice a pattern. There is significant evidence that suggests that Brown (and most other Ivies) are easier than Berkeley, but little evidence to suggest the contrary. Hence, you have to judge where the preponderance of evidence lies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your advice is to go to the Ivy because going there it'll be easier to get good grades. I think that's ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, I didn't say that. What I actually said is to go to Ivies to avoid BAD grades. Getting good grades is difficult at any school. But getting into grad school is not so much about getting good grades than it is about avoiding bad grades. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I do understand your point about failing, yet you provide no evidence of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And has anybody provided evidence of the contrary case? </p>
<p>But anyway, since you want evidence, here is some. Granted, it's from UCLA, not Berkeley, but the same idea applies: Berkeley is at least as competitive as UCLA, if not more so. If it's this rough at UCLA, imagine how it would be at Berkeley.</p>
<p>*Is There REALLY A Curve?
You might have heard about this. I remember in my high school, curves were a myth. No such thing there. However, in college, yes, they are reality. Don't rely on them to save you. They are NOT THERE TO GIVE OUT A's. They are there to give out C's. Most classes are curved so that the average grade is a C+. This means if the average grade was a 50% (F), the professor may curve it to make the average grade 75% (C). I stress MAY. Impacted courses (high demand) such as chemistry and computer science will fail kids left and right and rarely have generous curves. Also, professors will curve some classes only to a C- or sometimes all the way up to a A-. It really depends on the professor and subject, and whether or not the course is a weeder.</p>
<p>Weeder?? What's That?
At UCLA there is something called a "weeder" class. "Impacted" courses (courses that have strict guidlines about adding or dropping them due to their high demand) are often "weeders." Most majors have at least one weeder course. Many have more than one (called "weeder series"). A weeder is a course that is designed to flunk out kids who aren't good enough for the major, thus "weeding" them out. FEAR THEM. You're at a school with the best and the brightest... and these courses are designed to flunk a big chunk of them out, of course not on an official level. Most of the time you won't know your class is a weeder until you go to UCLA for a while and you hear the rumor. I will do my best to inform you of what classes you may take as an incoming freshman that may be weeders. UCLA is a pre-med school... remember that. Anything here that is pre-med is *<strong><em>ING HARD. All of the chem courses are considered weeders. Computer science and engineering in general is considered one giant weeder. No, they do not get easier as you move up; in fact, they get really *</em></strong>ing hard. To illustrate, I have a friend who is a graduating senior, Electrical Engineer, I quote him saying, "A's? What is an A? I thought it went from F to C-." It's his last quarter here and yet at least once a week he won't come back from studying until four or five in the morning... and yet it's not midterm or finals season...</p>
<p>I once took a weeder course in North campus (largely considered the "easier" side of campus). It is the weeder for the communications major (Comm 10). However, because this is an introductory weeder (anybody can take it), it is considered by many as North campus' hardest class. I didn't know this and I took it as an incoming frosh. I was quite scared. The material is ****ing common sense; you get a ton of it. I had 13 pages of single space, font 10 notes covering only HALF of the course (this is back when I was a good student and took notes). I was supposed to memorize the entire list including all the categories and how the list was arranged by them. And I did. Fearing it yet? My friend told me about his chem midterm... the average grade was a 16%.. No, they didn't fail the whole class; I'm sure they curved it so only half the kids failed. My freshman year, I met this friend of mine who was crying because she got an 76% on her math midterm. I told her that she should be glad she passed, she told me, "the average grade was 93%, the curve fails me." Weeders can have curves, as these three examples show... but only to make sure some people pass... and some fail. Famous weeders are courses like: Communications 10, Life Scienes 1 (and 2 & 3), Chemistry 14a (and all the subsequent ones get only harder), English 10a (OMG that class was hard), CS33, etc. Oh, and if you're wondering, my friend ended up getting a C- in her math class after studying her butt off. Lucky her!!! *</p>
<p>*But to get a god GPA (above a 3.4) at an Ivy is much more difficult because the curve is much harder to beat due to the intelligence of the other students. I think it's pretty simple. Put a student whose intelligence is around 90% of the general public in an Ivy classroom. He'll do just alright b/c there are plenty of people over and around his intelligence. But put him at LSU. He'll be one of the smartest students and it'll be much easier for him (less studying, etc...) to beat the curve and get top grades. *</p>
<p>But you don't really NEED to beat the curve in order to get good grades at Ivies. </p>
<p>*A Harvard University report last spring complained of grade inflation that makes it easier to get high grades. Now the academic dean, Susan Pedersen, has released data showing that 49 percent of undergraduate grades were A's in 2001, up considerably from 23 percent in 1986. *</p>
<p>Lessons</a> -- Doubling of A's at Harvard: Grade Inflation or Brains?</p>
<p>*Brown and Stanford dropped the D and F grades entirely out of their system during the 70's. Ever since, a Brown student has yet to fail a course. *</p>
<p>*In the 2000-2001 school year at Brown, A and B grades constituted 44 percent and 25 percent, respectively, of received grades, while only 5 percent of grades received were C grades. Twenty-three percent of the grades were 'Satisfactory,' similar to 'Pass' in a 'Pass/Fail' system, and three percent were 'No credit.' *</p>
<p>The</a> Dartmouth Review: Grade Inflation at the Other Ivies</p>
<p>
[quote]
He'll do just alright b/c there are plenty of people over and around his intelligence. But put him at LSU. He'll be one of the smartest students and it'll be much easier for him (less studying, etc...) to beat the curve and get top grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, what you are presuming is the deterministic nature of the grading, as if grading was always determined only by what you know. Come on. We all know that doesn't happen: that there is no perfect correspondence between what you know and your grade in the course. I think we can all think of people who knew the material of the course, yet got a poor grade anyway. For example, maybe there was just a personality conflict between the student and the prof. Or the student simply misread an important part of an exam. Or the student just panicked during the exam. Or the course grade was mostly based on a final paper, and the student happened to write a paper that the prof just didn't like. These things happen.</p>
<p>What matters is the downside risk when these things happen. Like I said, at Brown, the absolute worst you will get is a C (or a no credit, which is not even recorded on your transcript), and even that is highly unlikely. But at other schools, you can very easily end up with a D or an F. </p>
<p>Look, no student is perfect. Even the best students will have some unlucky days. The question is, what happens to those students who have unlucky days during their final exams or final papers. At the Ivies, your downside risk is protected. At other schools, not so much. You have an unlucky day during exam time at those schools, hey, that's too bad for you.</p>
<p>Sakky is on point in regards to this issue. Anyone who thinks that succeeding at an Ivy is harder because students are smarter there is either completely unaware of how grading works at Ivies in comparison to most other universities or is simply to proud to admit that maybe they are being given an easy ride.
As I said before, I dont find these grading policies necessarily unfair because Ivy league students are almost all hard working and bright individuals who worked incredibly hard to be admitted to these schools. Furthermore, of the hundreds of thousands of university students graduating from American universities every year, a very small percentage comes from the Ivies which means that you will rarely be competing against a bunch of Ivy leaguers for admission to grad school unless you plan on applying to Yale Law School or Harvard Business School in which case your chances of admission are fairly low to begin with. Add on to this the fact that all admissions committees are well aware of the grading policies at the Ivies and likely understand that the difficulty of these schools is questionable at best.</p>
<p>I think it helps tremendously but maybe not in the direct sense you expect it to. Going to an undergrad ivy gives you, aside from the immediate name recognition of course, access to a multitude of contacts and fellowship opportunities that may not be available to other schools. </p>
<p>Plus all the ivies (almost) are very involved in research and studies, so depending on your field and how deeply you get involved your application can get very impressive from attending one of those institutions. </p>
<p>And let's not kid ourselves here, a 3.9 from Yale will be considered, accurately or not, FAR more impressive than a 3.9 from Miami state.</p>
<p>It also gives you the chance to get recommendation letters from very well-known people (though that isn't exclusive to the ivies...it's just more likely there than at the average school).</p>
<p>And finally if like me your post-undergrad future requires you to work before attending grad school then an ivy diploma will open better doors.</p>
<p>If you make the best of your time there, an ivy league undergraduate degree can be the best thing you have going for you. </p>
<p>My $0.02 of course.</p>
<p>If the average undergrad GPA at ivies are pretty high, what does it mean for a liberal arts college ranked ~70s to have average undergrad GPA of 2.6? Does this mean the grading system is difficult?</p>