<p>Brown would be an utter waste of money if you're a California resident.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But they don't care! Or, at least, the top grad programs don't seem to care. For example, according to the alumni database, of the top undergrad programs who produce graduates who later on complete MBA's at Harvard Business School, the top 4 are (unsurprisingly) HYPS. Similarly, at Harvard Law and Yale Law, the 2 most highly represented undergrad programs are (again, unsurprisingly), Harvard and Yale. Similarly, within the Harvard PhD student population, by far the most highly represented undergrad program is, again unsurprisingly, Harvard itself. The Harvard home-field-advantage is undeniable.</p>
<p>{Note, other schools are noted for providing the same home-field advantage. MIT grad programs, for example, are notorious for selecting their own undergrads, to the point that a well known saying at MIT that the best way to get into MIT for grad school is to just go there for undergrad and stay there. Similarly, Caltech grad school has a high representation of former Caltech undergrads.} </p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I actually take a slightly different tack on this issue (although perhaps the end analysis is the same). I don't begrudge the Ivies for providing 'GPA-protection' to their students. I actually think all schools should be doing that, and those that don't are just being stupid because they're simply hurting their own students' futures (and by extension, hurting themselves). Let's face it. Whether we like it or not, we live in a competitive world where GPA matters, and in particular, where bad grades matter, as some organizations are going to judge you purely on your grades without regard to how difficult it was to get them. As I've said in other threads, in the context of grad school admissions, it is better to not take a difficult class at all than to take it and get a bad grade. Sad but true. And of course, the best solution of all is for a school to not even have any classes that stick students with bad grades. </p>
<p>In short, grade inflation works. It shouldn't work. But unfortunately, it does. And until it stops working - for which I won't hold my breath- students at schools that don't inflate its grades are going to be at a competitive disadvantage. Sad but true. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Brown would be an utter waste of money if you're a California resident.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some people are rich enough that it doesn't matter. When you come from a family of millionaires - and I know quite a few who do - then who really cares about paying another $25k a year? </p>
<p>Secondly, the Ivies are also quite well known for offering extensive financial aid, such that you might end up paying less than you would at UC. While I don't know any Brown examples off the top of my head, I know quite a few Harvard examples. For example, I know 2 guys from California who got into Berkeley and Harvard and found out that Harvard would actually be cheaper once financial aid was factored in. I will always remember one of them mordantly joking that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it and so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard.</p>
<p>In fact, within the Berkeley section of CC, I laid down the following challenge which I will repeat here. Harvard has now committed to providing what are effectively full rides (in that there is zero expected family contribution) to any student whose family makes less than $60k a year. Can Berkeley say the same? Why won't Berkeley commit to an equivalent aid policy? {Now, some of you might counter that Berkeley has far more relatively poor students than Harvard does, but that's neither here nor there to the individual sub-$60k student who is weighing aid packages, as he doesn't really care that there are lots of other students like him at a particular school. What he really cares about is what the school is going to cost to him. If Harvard commits to a better aid package than Berkeley does, then it is entirely rational for that student to pick Harvard.}</p>
<p>Does any one has answers to my concerns?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That means that the college has an average GPA between a C+ and B- (closer to B-). I would guess that it means the college isn't handing out As to students, but it looks like it's not failing students right and left either. Then again, it depends. If there is a huge standard deviation between grades it could mean that some students (the ones on scholarships and stuff) are doing very well while other students are doing very poorly and getting D averages.</p>
<p>I would say that going to an Ivy increases your chances or getting into an Ivy grad school only if you try to stay with the same school. At my school students have the ability (if they complete courses in a set amount of time and have strong grades) to submatriculate into Master's programs to get BA+MA in 4-5 years. If you do that you get an Ivy graduate degree. Also, if you are performing research with a professor who has a lot of sway in a deparetment might help you get into a PhD program. Furthermore, attending my school gives you a leg up when applying to our top 5 med school and top 10 law school. The leg up seems negated by the fact that probably every premed and prelaw student applies to our school's med and law schools, but for the qualified students, they probably see a higher admission rate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As a Princeton undergraduate, I think many people have the wrong impression of Princeton in the context of Ivy League schools. While Brown has a grading system that is much different from that of its fellow schools (and public schools), it is certainly difficult to get over a 3.4 at Princeton. The median grade for seniors in 2007 was 3.3, so that means getting a 3.4 or above is definitely not very easy. In fact, one would have to be in the top 40% of the class at Princeton to get over a 3.4 While that may seem like a large number, keep in mind that it is very difficult to get into this group when you are competing with many great applicants.</p>
<p>An argument in response may be: public universities don't have over 40% of the class with over a 3.4. True. If we are grading on a relative basis, Princetonians may certainly be lucky (the Princeton name + average GPA > Public name + average GPA). But, based purely on my own anecdotal experience, many kids who did very well in high school and went to Princeton and Stanford end up with GPA's that are measurably lower than those of lower-caliber applicants who went to state schools.</p>
<p>Of course, those initially mediocre applicants may have improved greatly in college, but based on the numbers, I find that unlikely.</p>
<p>Tiger,</p>
<p>Your analysis would be spot on if success in high school was a good indication of how students will do in college, which often it is not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your analysis would be spot on if success in high school was a good indication of how students will do in college, which often it is not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Success in high school is sometimes, not "often," not an indicator of how well students will do in college. Yes, I think sometimes we overvalue the importance of grades, but I don't think anyone would argue that students with higher grades and SAT score * often * don't do as well in college as students with lower grades and SAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they dont have to bust their asses like they did in high school anymore and simply do the work and expect a 3.5+
[/quote]
I work far harder at Yale than I ever did in high school. My friends at Berkeley and other top CA publics tell me that they are way easier than high school was. What gives?
To be fair, getting a B at an Ivy is really easy, possibly easier than at at the best state schools (and on the avoiding failing issue, sakky is spot on, the Ivies make sure you don't fail, the top publics don't care). But students at top schools generally aren't content with getting by on a B average, and most end up working very hard in pursuit of As that are probably harder to get than at the publics (face it, HYP have stronger student bodies than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, etc - this is a huge factor in the higher GPAs). Both my parents are professors at top publics (and both grade relatively harshly compared to their colleagues) - one a top 5 public, the other a top 15 - and I can guarantee you that, particularly at the lower ranked school, the students are on average weaker than my classmates at Yale and top grades are easier to come by than they are at Yale. In fact, at the lower-ranked school, work that would be entirely unacceptable at Yale (but no Yale student would ever produce) receives passing grades, if only a C or D.
This idea that the Ivies are slacker schools (except perhaps for Brown) while the top publics aren't is simply ludicrous.</p>
<p>This may or may not be representative of all Ivy's, but I did a MS at Columbia and found the work to be significantly easier than my undergrad. I'd estimate I put in 1/2 the effort and got the same GPA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This may or may not be representative of all Ivy's, but I did a MS at Columbia and found the work to be significantly easier than my undergrad. I'd estimate I put in 1/2 the effort and got the same GPA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ken, MS and Ph.D. programs, both at Ivy Leagues and at public universities, are known to have easy coursework. Undergraduates are graded more rigorously. </p>
<p>I can't speak for all Ivy League Schools--only for Princeton (where I went) and Stanford (where my friends went). Princeton, in fact, has instituted a policy of grade deflation which essentially forces 30% A's and A- 's, and 70% B's and below.</p>
<p>I can provide a financial example of why students might want to go to an Ivy league.</p>
<p>It would have been $14,000 more expensive next year for me to attend Berkley over Harvard. It would have cost me $5,000 more to attend Fresno State or Long Beach over Harvard</p>
<p>For someone going to Harvard, that is an awfully stupid example.</p>
<p>Why? A previous poster was asking for examples of how an Ivy League education isn't as expensive as people think.</p>