<p>That’s not exactly the assumption. You’re right that SAT scores may not predict much about how well you, I, or any other *individual *may do in college, but it’s not faulty to assume that all other things being equal, it would be tougher to do well in a college with a higher SAT average than a lower SAT average-if they used the same curve to grade students.</p>
<p>Also, the Berkeley study that some have cited here as more valid used LSAT scores instead of SATs. I still contend that the major problem (the others are secondary IMO and don’t affect it much) with the analysis is not taking into account different major distribution.</p>
<p>SAT is predictor for freshman GPA’s right? </p>
<p>The SAT less relevant for coursework completed after freshman year relative to the LSAT, MCAT, GMAT, GRE, exams. (Though I believe SAT’s are more comprehensive and all encompassing in terms of the range of subjects tested since MCAT is geared towards science subjects, LSAT/GMAT reading/writing/critical analysis capabilities, GRE’s is like the SAT IIs for graduate school)</p>
<p>That’s not true either. Why would we assume that universally classes are graded on a curve whereby a set number of students are permitted to get As, Bs, Cs, etc? That hasn’t been the case in hardly any of my classes at Brown, except maybe a few very large ones. In most classes, even being a physical science major, the professor makes a determination about how much you should know in order to earn an A, and whoever crosses that threshold has been determined to have done A-level work. </p>
<p>Grading is not universal amongst professors or institutions, and the concept that grades are solely used as a basis of comparison to peers is not universal.</p>
<p>Is a school easier because you’ll earn an A based on mastery of material rather than competition with peers? That’s where the flaw is-- you still have to learn the material to a high level, only you’re more likely to receive a higher grade because you’re competing against yourself and the material, not peers.</p>
<p>That being said, I don’t know how the grading systems work elsewhere, but for example, taking into account 20% of grades at Brown are pass/fail, and assuming the best and saying these grades are like, 20% Cs, 50% Bs, and 30% As, you account for a huge chunk of what people refer to as “grade inflation” at Brown. The rest, I’m sure, is due to the fact that we don’t record failed courses.</p>
<p>The problem is “inflation” =/= easy, and “deflation” =/= hard. The same work in a few different schools could probably earn the whole gamut of grades, and very few (or perhaps none of us) have enough experience to make any real determination about this stuff.</p>
<p>After freshman year, SAT becomes irrelevant (I’m assuming you learn advanced topics in college. What is college for if you continue to use obsolete examination results from junior year in high school. You learn new study habits and work ethic skills while in college (meaning you would totally pwn the SATs given the chance to retake it again)</p>
<p>Graduate admissions typically use the average MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE scores in order to determine the rigor of an institution (in order to recalibrate the GPA due to a more competitive student body, more rigorous curriculumn, which would be reflected in higher avg MCAT scores, etc…)</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure I would do worse on the SAT’s if I took them again after my frosh year than I did junior year in high school. I don’t exactly think SAT’s predict how well you’ll do in college-a lot of things go into that. That being said, I think at a highly selective college (which SAT’s is a rather good proxy for) you’ll have to work harder for your grades, though not necessarily so much more to make up for the increase in selectivity.</p>
<p>modestmelody, your point makes sense. I agree that for most of my classes there usually aren’t a strict number of kids who can make certain grades-with the exception of some intro classes. It usually comes out to a certain distribution-but it’s definitely not strict. For that reason, perhaps it would be superior to compare “peer” schools average grades to determine how tough a school is? Perhaps we could look at the average gpa at Brown and Stanford to compare which school is “tougher” than between Brown and URI.</p>
<p>It fluctuates by majors.engineering is tough at purdue while liberal arts is a joke so don’t think engineering at purdue will be easy because of the high acceptance rate and low sat scores</p>
<p>Are you talking about at the end of freshman year, or in total, since frosh year gpas tend to be lower since you’re taking intro courses? At the end of freshman year I’d say a good gpa (top 1/3) would be around a 3.6 and a very good one would be 3.8. Overall though a good gpa would be at least 3.7 and a very good one would be touching 3.9. But of course this depends more on major than anything else.</p>
<p>Yup, everyone did poorly on that. Of course this is just an educated guess, but I can’t possibly imagine it being any higher than 10%. More like 5% most likely. FWIW, I only know 2 people with GPAs over 3.9 who are frosh. The reason for this is that its not so hard to get an A-, but it is to get an A. For every A- (3.7) you receive, you’d need to get at least 2 A’s (or a lucky A+) to maintain a 3.9. Did your son get a 3.9+? If so congrats!</p>
Of course this is just an educated guess, but I can’t possibly imagine it being any higher than 10%. More like 5% most likely. FWIW, I only know 2 people with GPAs over 3.9 who are frosh. The reason for this is that its not so hard to get an A-, but it is to get an A. For every A- (3.7) you receive, you’d need to get at least 2 A’s (or a lucky A+) to maintain a 3.9. Did your son get a 3.9+? If so congrats!</p>