<p>Tech classes are pretty much a final degree for those going into the respective field (and a very difficult field too). Non-tech classes however, don't prepare the student for practicing law or medicine, so they don't have to be as tough. This is quite different when you get to law school or medicine school.</p>
<p>Where is the documentation that grades are lower in tech classes? From what I heard, they stopped counting the A+ in GPA to prevent having a science student always be the valedictorian. Evidently the humanities students' work is rarely considered perfect.</p>
<p>The documentation exists in the memories of any college student who has taken an engineering or science class. Ask anybody on any campus, engineering majors are the hardest majors. When I visited Princeton, I remember reading a newspaper article about how the young man who was salutatorian at Pton last year was only the 2nd engineering student in Pton's history to receive the honor, and not a single engineering student has ever been valedictorian. This may differ from science degrees, which are still tough but not as tough as engineering.</p>
<p>Here, aparent5:</p>
<p>"Matching national trends, humanities students have the highest GPAs, followed by social science students and then those in natural sciences and engineering."</p>
<p>"Instructors of science and math suffer the worst under the current evaluation system and are at the bottom of the ratings because they teach tough courses, give lower grades and demand a lot of hard work"</p>
<p>"It's also clear that science and engineering programs have much stiffer grading standards than the liberal arts, humanities, social sciences and other nontechnical disciplines, adding to an already abysmal understanding of science and technology among the U.S. populace. Unfortunately, programs such as print and broadcast journalism, public relations, advertising and communications studies are among the highest graders at the college level."</p>
<p>I thought that this was such a well-known fact that it didn't need to be documented. But Ok, you wanted documentation, you got it.</p>
<p>Besides, just think of it qualitatively. I don't think there is a single school in the country where, say, engineering is considered to be the 'joke' major where all the stupid and lazy kids and/or the athletes hang out, and where liberal arts are the really difficult majors. When was the last time you ever heard anybody say "Yeah, I wanted to major in American Studies, but it was just too hard, so now I'm majoring in electrical engineering?" </p>
<p>I would also question whether the advanced notion that non-tech classes don't have to be tough, and what does that have to do with law or medicine. The fact is, law schools and med-schools accept plenty of applicants from these non-tech (and hence not difficult) majors. Case in point. Consider the premeds coming out of MIT, the overwhelmingly majority which will be majoring in science or engineering. Compare them to the premeds coming out of Princeton, which will be less weighted towards science/engineering majors (hence, the Princeton premed pool will have more humanities students than will the MIT premed pool). So you could say that, on the aggregate, the MIT premed pool, on average, went through more difficult coursework and more difficult grading than did the Princeton premed pool, because the MIT premed pool is weighted towards science and engineering. Yet the fact is, the admitted MIT premeds actually needed a HIGHER average gpa than did the admitted Princeton premeds. In other words, the med-school adcoms demanded higher grades from the MIT premeds than they did from the Princeton premeds, despite the fact that the MIT students, on average, were taking more difficult classes. </p>
<p><a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/2004.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/2004.pdf</a></p>
<p>I'll just be proud to have a Princeton degree, I don't care what my G.P.A is.</p>
<p>LESS? I think so.</p>
<p>Sakky, the reason I asked for documentation is that the valedictorians of the classes of 2003 and 2004 at Princeton were molecular biology majors, the valedictorian in 2002 was a math major, and the co-valedictorians in 2001 were "an engineering student in the computer science department" and a physics major. </p>
<p>In fact, there is an interesting note in the article about those last two in 2001: the engineering student "earned A+'s in courses in chemistry, operations research, computer science, economics, electrical engineering, math, molecular biology and physics. In fact, his only non-A grade at Princeton was in a course about the development of the U.S. Constitution. The intellectual challenge of that class was one of the factors in his decision to head to Harvard Law School in the fall." <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0604/%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0604/</a> </p>
<p>As I said before, the reason the A+ is no longer counted in the GPA at Princeton is because far more science than humanities students were getting them. <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epaw/archive_old/PAW99-00/05-1117/1117notx.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_old/PAW99-00/05-1117/1117notx.html</a> "The committee recommended that the A-plus, and its 4.3 numerical value, be replaced with an A with Distinction (A*) and a 4.0 value. Departments award A-pluses inconsistently: Students in the natural sciences and engineering are more likely to earn them than students in other disciplines. Many academic honors and prizes are based on grade point averages."</p>
<p>QUOTE:</p>
<p>" I'll just be proud to have a Princeton degree, I don't care what my G.P.A is. "</p>
<p>Great for you! But doesn't work for us wanting to go to grad school!</p>
<p>The difference is the fact that in science/math courses, if you really know your stuff and get the answer right all of the time, how can you not get 100%? It's not subjective like liberal arts courses, and the subjectiveness is what leads to grade inflation and all those things.</p>
<p>
All this is saying is that the Princeton premed pool is more well-rounded that the MIT premed pool because the Princeton premed pool took more courses in the humanities than its MIT counterpart. Have you ever considered that some people who excel in the sciences find courses in the humanities very difficult? I would like to see how the MIT premeds would fare if they had to take more courses in the humanities before you can make a sweeping statement like this.</p>
<p>
Perhaps it is because of the Princeton premed pool has a higher MCAT average(32.1) than its MIT counterpart(30.85), the figures are taken from the link you provided.</p>
<p>Sakky, do you have a breakdown of the MIT MCAT scores? I am interested to see how well they did on the verbal part compared to the Princeton pool. Maybe we may see the benefits of doing a well-rounded curriculum.</p>
<p>Inhaven, not sure whether you saw my post above...directly relates to your points.</p>
<p>Aparent5, I read it and it is very related.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All this is saying is that the Princeton premed pool is more well-rounded that the MIT premed pool because the Princeton premed pool took more courses in the humanities than its MIT counterpart. Have you ever considered that some people who excel in the sciences find courses in the humanities very difficult? I would like to see how the MIT premeds would fare if they had to take more courses in the humanities before you can make a sweeping statement like this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that it is you that has just made the rather sweeping statement by attempting to attribute everything to the codeword of 'well-roundedness', which is often times used as an excuse for arbitrarily admitting or rejecting whoever you want. Yet putting that aside, I think that even you, inhaven, would not seriously dispute that MIT is, on the aggregate, is a more difficult school at which to get high grades than is Princeton. Or are you contending that this is in fact false, and that it is just as easy to get an 'A' at MIT as it is at Princeton, on the whole? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps it is because of the Princeton premed pool has a higher MCAT average(32.1) than its MIT counterpart(30.85), the figures are taken from the link you provided.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That might go somewhat towards explaining a bit of the difference of the admissions rates of the premeds of the two schools. Yet if you look closer at the links I provided, you will see that the average ADMITTED MIT premed had an MCAT of 32.87, whereas the ADMITTEd MIT premed had an MCAT of 32.6 So, once again, we are at an impasse. The average admitted MIT premed had both a higher MCAT and a higher GPA than did the average admitted Princeton premed. Perhaps you'd care to offer an explanation? Or are you simply going to, once again, attribute it all to 'well-roundedness'?</p>
<p>Now, to aparent5, I surely hope you're not trying to say that just because some a few guys happen to do extremely well in science classes, that you are not saying that science classes are easier in general. I can agree with you that science classes offer a greater degree of separation and differentiation - if somebody gets a question correct, it's very difficult to argue that he doesn't know his stuff. However, I think that you must concede that in general, the grading in science classes tends to be more difficult than non-science classes. Yes, a few A+'s thrown around here and there, but on the whole, the grading is tougher. To say that science classes are easier is like looking at a Third World country, noting the handful of highly conspicuous millionaires and billionaires, and then concluding that everybody in the country must be rich. If you want to continue this discussion of where grade inflation tends to be, I'm happy to oblige, but I think it's a fairly clearcut issue.</p>
<p>
I am saying that this is difficult to prove. The only way that you can prove this is to have the same set of students doing courses at both MIT and Princeton. You are comparing the GPA's of two different set of students at two different schools. Come on sakky, you and I know that to compare two things, all the other factors should be equal. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, we need to see the breakdown of the MIT and Princeton applicants for the different medical schools before any logical conclusion can be made. We need to only compare the stats for the medical schools that both pools applied to and then draw a conclusion.</p>
<p>On a side note: Who are you sakky? I may not agree with your comparisons but you seem to have a lot of valuable information on medical school acceptances.</p>
<p>....and sakky, I do not care if MIT students do better than Princeton students in the MCAT or have higher GPA's. I just didn't agree with your statements.</p>
<p>Sakky, re "well-known facts," my experience tells me that often these turn out to be faulty assumptions, which is why I look for documentation. </p>
<p>You haven't told me anything specific to Princeton. So far this is the only thing I've found: "Based on 2002-03 grading data, eight departments (one in the humanities, one in the social sciences, six in the natural sciences) fell between 35 and 39 percent A's in course grades; nine departments (three in the humanities, two in the social sciences, two in the natural sciences, two in engineering) fell below 55 percent for senior thesis grades; nine departments (four in the humanities, three in the social sciences, two in the natural sciences) -- but not the same nine -- fell at 57 percent or below for junior independent work grades." <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eodoc/grading_proposals/04.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/~odoc/grading_proposals/04.html</a> So...easier for nonscientists in course grades, maybe easier for scientists in thesis grades. Hard to conclude anything definitive from these numbers, and so where you decide it is a "fairly clearcut issue" I believe further investigation is in order. </p>
<p>With the new grading guidelines at Princeton, of course, any discrepancies should disappear.</p>
<p>So, Princeton has been giving out more and more A's. A couple of thoughts:</p>
<p>1.) Look at the grades of the entering students. The number of A's on the total transcript must be AT LEAST in the area of 90-95%. Now, while Princeton is harder than even advanced/AP/IB courses, the fact remains that these are almost all students that get mostly A's. As such, while 90% would be too high, 35% seems a bit low, and as a downer for many of the students.</p>
<p>2.) Inflation occurs as more money (students) are one the market (I know, this is a weak metaphor). However, as more and more student compete at a high level for top schools, and the number of Princeton students remains relatively the same, the calibur of students entering should raise.</p>
<p>While I think the issue deserves serious consideration on both sides, and I have yet to choose a firm position, I would just like to put these ideas out there.</p>
<p>as some people already have mentioned, to me it's not about what GPA i would get or whatever. but it's about what kind of learning experience and atmospher would I have in Princeton. I guess THE CAP will at least to some degree make all college experince a little more competitive, aware of peers and 35% whatever, and so on.</p>
<p>of course, i still bet the princeton would be a awesome place to spend 4 years :)</p>
<p>To Inhaven, of course I agree that you need to compare the data side-by-side in order to draw true final analyses. </p>
<p>However, I presented the data that I did to illustrate the following points that often times seem to be missed. </p>
<h1>1 - There seems to be little clearcut numerical evidence that attending a difficult school will be compensated for by med-school adcoms. For example, if you go to MIT and are doing premed, you shouldn't think that just because you go to MIT and that it has a reputation for being difficult, then the med-school adcoms will know that MIT is difficult and will be more forgiving of your grades. The numerical evidence does not seem to bear this out. Is it possible that it is still happening under the covers? Yes. But clearly this cannot be a superstrong phenomenom otherwise it would be showing up in the admittee numbers.</h1>
<p>This is a point that seems to come up again and again. A continuing myth as far as med-school admissions is concerned is that med-school adcoms compensate people who attend difficult schools. I hear people say all the time that "well, I go to a difficult school, so adcoms are going to mentally add X number of gpa points when looking at my application". All I can say is that the numerical evidence does not bear this out. Those successful premed applicants who come from difficult schools seem to have suspiciously similar numbers to those premed applicants who come from easier schools. </p>
<h1>2 - It's far too convenient to simply attribute all statistical discrepenacies to a plastic mantra like 'well-roundedness'. You can always sweep anything under the rug under the rubric of 'well-roundedness'. The problem with that word is that you can constantly redefine it to explain anything and everything, and nobody can challenge you. You can always say that I admitted person X and rejected person Y even though person Y has far better numbers, just by saying that X was more "well-rounded", even if he wasn't.</h1>
<p>And now to aparent5, your link that you provided, I believe, makes it precisely clearcut. Seems to me that in every sort of class that Princeton holds, it is at least as easy to get an A in a humanities/social-science class than it is in a natural-science/engineering class, and it is usually easier. I don't understand why you don't take it as fairly clearcut. </p>
<p>But in any case, I wasn't even really talking about intra-Princeton grading. The real issue is rather, inter-school grading, and in particular, why is it that Princeton's average grades are higher than, say, the grades at a place like MIT. </p>
<p>In 2004, the average gpa at Princeton was a 3.4/4</p>
<p>The average gpa at MIT is about a 3.0/4 (a B average)</p>
<p>"says Dean Robert Redwine of MIT, where the average grade is a B."
<a href="http://conversations.tamu.edu/topics/2003spr/grade_inflation.html%5B/url%5D">http://conversations.tamu.edu/topics/2003spr/grade_inflation.html</a></p>
<p>The interesting question to me is, why is that? There's a big gap between a 3.4/4 and a 3.0/4. Is it because MIT students are just that much stupider and lazier than Princeton students, and so MIT students deserve to get lower grades? I think you'd get quite a response if you suggested that MIT students are lazy and stupid.</p>