<p>I could have taken on an average course load during my first semester and a 4.0 GPA wouldn't have been a problem, or I could have went to a CC with the same result. Instead I chose the four hardest first year courses offered by the university and I came out with a 3.7 GPA. Now I'm wondering if I made the right move. Will the top colleges I am applying to (Amherst, Duke, Cornell, etc.) recognize that I enjoy challenging myself and give extra credit based on that?</p>
<p>seems fairly hard to determine what makes for a rigorous course load…I too have pondered this…I would say the low GPA hurts a ton as the difference in difficulty between an intro Micro Econ class and a Calc II class may not be completely obvious</p>
<p>Well, I had two honors math classes to start with. Also, instead of taking intro physics, I took the advanced newtonian mechanics class that all of the physics majors take. </p>
<p>There is certainly differences in difficulty though. It’s easy to see with pre-med students, many of whom underachieve so they can get a 4.0 GPA by taking courses such as sociology, psychology, classics, intro sciences, intro elementary calculus, etc.</p>
<p>I can see where you’re coming from however I think a high gpa is paramount in this process. I am one of those pre-meds that managed a 4.0 semester w/Calc II, Chem, Bio, & the advanced mechanics course. While this may appear to be a rigorous course load I feel I would have been hard pressed to achieve the same marks had I taken some combination of advanced Eng Lit/Ethics/Philosophy…in that way it seems hard to be truly objective about ‘rigor’</p>
<p>Even then, is an A in regular linear algebra better than a B+ or A- in honors linear algebra? I don’t know. I did Calc II in high school and it’s nothing like the honors math stream.</p>