<p>Would you agree in saying that it is mainly the physics/calc.-based (these are relatively easy over here, but there seems to be an effort to change that), and of course engineering courses that murder GPAs at Tech? You don’t think chem. and bio are too hard over there do you (you know,if you have experience)? I’ve seen the stuff and I don’t think so, yet everyone over there complains. However, since our foundation( medicine) is different, bio, chem. (especially orgo.), and NBB murder over here despite the curve. Also, most of the electives being GPA boosters for science majors seems foreign to me. Seems that these students normally get the wrong end of the curve in social science/humanities courses here, simply b/c they underestimate them (especially intros. which are pre-law weeders so grade papers and exams harshly). I just always ask these questions because it is made out as if everyone is struggling over there, yet I meet many who do well. Seems like the ones who struggle badly are the ones with the insanely heavy courseload taking too many hours like you said.</p>
<p>I visited tech, and talked to a bunch of kids. To me, it seemed like the ‘normal’ kids there loved the school. The others weren’t satisfied with the amount of time they had to play video games (not enough). I only met two kids that didn’t like it. They were weird. Yeah, its a hard school, and the only kids who have time to rant on these boards are the ones who give up. Words of advice that I received:
- Join a frat/sorority if you want a social life. Don’t base your reasoning off of Animal House. Most of the time it’s not like that.
- If your grades aren’t where you want them to be, get more involved in clubs, sports, etc.</p>
<p>Loved the school, just put my application in last night. Im hoping!</p>
<p>This thread is scaring me.</p>
<p>Dude, if you want to go to Tech, you’ll be alright. I don’t see that many people complaining. I’d imagine Tech as being a lot different than it was when people the age of most of parents attended. I go over there all the time, and the campus is fun, or at least facilitates having fun. I don’t know if the student body participates, but it appears as if they do. And again, not all the classes are as hard as you think. Math and Physics however, are very hard! And, I’d imagine many of the engineering courses are extremely time-consuming too. However, if you want to be an engineer, and attend a top school for it, you’re going to have to deal with this as a fact of life. None of the top engineering schools are easy/moderate. I think that many people are shocked that Tech is hard because it’s a state (Well, so is Berkeley, but they rank about 20-21) school that isn’t ranked (overall, not individual programs) as high as many of its counterparts that have top engineering schools. Part of the problem may be people constantly over and underestimating (I honestly think this may still be better than “I know it all” arrogance. However, a complete lack of confidence can destroy you. This goes for any tough academic environment.) Tech. I know that there are some quasi-elitists and some slackers that truly believe that those at public/state schools do/should have it easy. Schools like Tech are among the many exceptions to this somewhat unspoken rule. This doesn’t mean you should be afraid 1081736, it just means you’ll need to own up to the challenge whether you expect it or not. Don’t be afraid of being challenged. That’s what’s going to make any top school worth it. With the right balancing act (described by many posters), you can challenge yourself while getting a solid GPA. The two need not be in opposition to each other as many would like to believe. You’re wasting money if you simply want to float through a top school.</p>
<p>Andc693: “2. If your grades aren’t where you want them to be, get more involved in clubs, sports, etc.”</p>
<p>Uhm, I think that’s one thing you don’t want to do if your grades aren’t where you want them to do be. I hope this isn’t too snide a remark, but you should probably focus on your grades.</p>
<p>Just the advice i got. I can’t vouch for this, just sharing…
My guess is that it would motivate you a lot more than just studying.</p>
<p>you mentioned that in order to have a social life, you have to join a frat/sorority… seriously? i wasn’t planning on joining one… and i dont like the idea of it.</p>
<p>what percentage of students are actually in a frat/sorority?</p>
<p>obviously, you don’t have to. From what I heard is that about 90% (unsure if this is an exaggeration or not) of the social kids are in frats, so it would be difficult if you weren’t in one.
Georgia Tech is the only school where I would join a frat, I’m not too crazy about the idea either.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You aren’t excluded from making friends if you are not in a frat. However, joining a frat will put you with others that are also looking to be in social situations. </p></li>
<li><p>Take this advice with a grain of salt. It seems counter intuitive, but people in clubs often have higher GPAs than those that are not. Essentially, being in a club acts as sort of a motivator to do well at Tech. I’ve noticed clubs at Tech are not like they were in high school (for me at least). In high school, people tend to join clubs to have something to put on their college applications. At Tech, it is more of a “I want to be in this club because I want to dedicate myself to its cause”.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Roughly a quarter of the guys and a third of the ladies go Greek. It’ll always feel like it’s much, much higher, but it’s really not, so there should be no pressure to join. I was independent at Tech, but I encourage people to rush. Speaking for the guys, just be aware that they are trying to sell you on their fraternity, so some may be putting on their best appearances. You have to trust your instinct as to whether the guys are being honest. Also know that by regulation, all houses are required to be dry during rush, and that is NOT at all accurate of what they’re like afterward.</p>
<p>I rushed my roommate’s fraternity Spring semester of my freshman year, and I talked to one of his brothers who was being a little too friendly to the point where it came off as contrived and fake. I got a similar feeling, though not as extreme, with some of the others, so when I received a bid, I let it expire. In hindsight, my instinct was right, as a few months later, that guy–along with my roommate’s then girlfriend–woke me up around 2:00 AM in the morning trying to get into my room to access some of my roommate’s liquor. They just kept knocking on the door, but I was truly too tired to get down from my lofted bed. They actually ended up calling my roommate, who was at his fraternity’s house, complaining that they knew I was awake from their knocking but wasn’t opening the door. Unlike them, my roommate was actually a really cool guy, and he plainly told them not to bother my sleep.</p>
<p>@1081736: It’s completely up to you! </p>
<p>If you really believe that, in order to have a social life you have to join a frat, then you should join one.</p>
<p>If, however, you believe you can meet people also somewhere else and have an independent, good network of friends/colleagues, then you don’t have to join a frat (realize I’m saying you don’t HAVE to). </p>
<p>My son is a freshman at GT, and he’s not in a frat (and I believe he won’t join in the future, either, however I don’t KNOW that - time will tell).
From what I hear, he’s quite busy with all sorts of activities - he’s running with the ‘Running Wreck’ a few times a week, he is participating in some ‘mock trials’ (I think that’s actually a club) and then he’s every now & then volunteering with I don’t know what other organization.
In addition to these ‘social’ activities, he, of course, builds a new network of friends in his dorm and with his department-peers. </p>
<p>And yes, he has a few new friends who are in a frat … so he’s getting to know those areas, too … </p>
<p>Bottom line:
If you are a somewhat ‘normal’ person with ‘normal’ social skills, you don’t HAVE to join a frat to have a social life outside the classroom. But yes, it takes some initiative and curiosity from your side to get to know all those new ‘opportunities’ - maybe a little more if you don’t join a frat, but therefore you can tailor it much more to your personal needs than a frat usually can.</p>
<p>I am a somphmore at Gt right now and all i can say is that this school is one big g0@t-*****. Just going to your classes can be mentally exhausting, because you were up all night trying to figure out how to fix your intro cs1371 hw trying to make it before the deadline. </p>
<p>Same goes for physics. Most kids spend about 4-7 days getting ready to make high C’s only to be devistated by a High F. And its not because they were slackers, the whole class average was a 60. </p>
<p>I thought it would be fun to challenge myself at this level, but it comes out to misery that i do not feel makes you stronger in any way, because life does not work the way tech does and life does not entail the same challenges you will face at tech either. Tech is bs work after bs work to break you down, not because you can’t do it or that you are not smart enough, its just that you are mentally exhausted every single day because of high work load and lack of sleep, and the general lack of positive psychology from your peers</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know that this means a 60 isn’t an F. Professors have test averages in the 50-70 range because it creates more variance in the data, making it easier to identify the “sort of know it” from the “know it very well.”</p>
<p>I find that many students, especially internationals (don’t know if he is one) are not used to being graded on that type of curve. This is often the case here, especially in organic chemistry and most of the upperlevel chem. courses where I have to explain to some friends currently taking it how it works b/c they are devastated by the first exam. But it’s more understandable here b/c the gen. chem. and bio sections won’t be curved up even when the average dips. But basically, this person is probably still in high school mode. Every top engineering school has many courses with very low averages. Heck, he was lucky that the average was a 60 at Tech. Could have been worse. Perhaps he should not be at a top engineering as this is not limited to Tech. Berkeley, and many others have the same rigor/difficulty if not more in their engineering school. Of course you don’t want to admit this when you’re struggling though. You want to believe you have it the worst.</p>
<p>That sort of curve is not just limited to top engineering schools - it’s pretty universal.</p>
<p>In a class there’s practically very little that separates an 89 (B) and 90 (A). If you set your grading based on hard-limits like that, the difference between an A and a B student could just be luck (one student’s test was graded early, when the TA was nice and was giving lots of partial credit, the other student’s test was graded later when the TA wanted to go to bed and was rushing through the grading). That’s not really fair to students.</p>
<p>So, instead, you set the average around a 60 and have much more freedom in giving grades. When you do that, you normally see a group of students that will cluster in the 80’s/90’s (the A students that really understood the material), a group of students in the 60’s/70’s (the B students that understood most of the material), a group that will cluster in the 50’s (the C students), and a group that will cluster below 40 (the D/F students). To drop a letter grade, you need to lose something like 10 points on your exam, which is too much to be due to luck. It’s a much more organic and fair way to set grading. </p>
<p>The other thing a lower average does is that it helps the students that really know the material. If your test has an average of an 85, the students that work really hard and do well can only score 15 points above average. If your average is a 60, those students can score 30-40 points above average and really solidify their grade or make up for another exam where they did very poor.</p>
<p>Ya, for my Calc 2 class with Geronimo, he sends out Bell curves for each tests and an overall where you stand curve.</p>
<p>85+ A
76-84 B
53-75 C
41-52 D
Below 41 F</p>
<p>Currently have an 84…</p>
<p>But, I am so glad I did not listen to CC advice when it came to picking classes…
People advised me to take
Physics 2212, Math 1502, CS 1371, and English 1101. I chose to do Econ 2106 instead of CS 1371. If CS 1371 is the freshman fail out class, then Physics 2212 is definitely the Sophomore fail out class.I went to lecture, tutoring,office hours, and did all the homework and practiced all the old tests.I made a 77, the class average was a 65. The best way to describe physics 2 tests at Tech is by comparing them to the Physics C AP exam. Tests at Tech are harder then AP exams, without the generous curve. Calc 2 at Tech is a different story, the material is not that bad, but the teachers are horrible, the book is horrible,and no one knows whats going on because each class is doing something different. So, if you don’t get a good TA, you are screwed.
My friend from Emory came to visit during his fall break. I was shocked to hear that his first Calc 3 class test average was curved from a C+ to a B-.</p>
<p>That sounds about right. Everything at Emory in math and science sits at B- (either average is already 2.6-2.9 or it’s curved up to it) to begin except Bio 141/142 which is a mid C+. In fact, bio here actually aims to get the same average in each section, so is willing to adjust grades downward in a particular section to achieve it. Most physics classes won’t curve either. There is another guy who teaches Calc. 3 and is apparently pretty good whose class average is normally about 54-55, but the average there would only get maybe a C+. Also keep in mind, that you have HW grades to help, whereas that is rarely graded here, so they only have their exams. So, in many cases, if you get a 77 on a test in a course that is not curved here (say bio or gen. chem), this is what you have in there. This is what makes bio tough. The exam and quiz averages are usually C/C+ at the end, and lab is B/B+ with exception of Bio 142 (perhaps B-), this makes C+/B- most common in bio. </p>
<p>Ilyssa C+ to B- is fair I guess. Because C+ is 77. In the class you mention, this is a solid 3.0, whereas they only get a 2.7 average. Also, I’m honestly surprised their average wasn’t higher than C+ to begin with. I hear there are many profs. that make calc. 3 extremely easy, and still decide to inflate the grades. This happens much less in science courses. Keeping in mind that many/most here are pre-med, a B- is a perfect weedout. It’s a grade that a student won’t be willing to raise hell to the prof. about, but a grade that is low enough to cause folks to drop pre-med.</p>
<p>Banjohitter: I guess my perspective is different since I attend private school. For one, often TAs don’t grade unless the class is very large. Given this, normally gen. chem, orgo, bio, and physics profs. grade their own tests here (in fact it isn’t really even normal for these profs. to have grad. TAs). Also, even in sections, of say Organic Chemistry (this is very challenging here), with very difficult exams, like Jose Soria or Dr. Matthew Weinschenk, still have about a 65-69 average (maybe b/c of class size, teaching quality/teacher accessibilty, learning resources accessibility, etc…there are always students who do quite well). Fortunately Jose doesn’t grade on a traditional curve. Instead he does an adjusted 5 point scale (A is 95, but B- is very attainable at 75). But Weinschenk on the other hand, normally gives people on or in the vicinity the average/median (normally 65-69 at the end) a B-. However, a person with a 78-79 may only get a B. This compresses the grades and makes the 10 point difference look negligible. He also kind of arbitrarily decides who gets B+, A-, A once you get past say 82-84. The only way to guarantee a solid A is to have an 90 (if he has an exceptionally strong year where the average is maybe 73, then an 89 might not be enough) which is fair, but in the A- to B- range, grades are badly compressed and somewhat arbitrary. Given that, I took Jose and prefer his method. The other profs. normally do some sort of bellcurve where Fs=As. Needless to say, it’s done in a way so that there are hardly any of each. Most people in these end up anywhere between B and C+, with B- being the most common. They normally have slightly below a B-. </p>
<p>Private school is very tricky/arbitrary with grading. The methods of inflation kind of suck, which is why you basically have to make an A-/A to distinguish yourself (B+s aren’t too hurtful). Public school grading seems actually more fair and predictable even if it is much harsher. I often don’t how I’m being graded until the very end. That’s actually why it’s kind of scary to get like a 7? on a test in many, b/c you don’t know what type of curve you’re being grading on, if one at all. Like in biochem. right now (our last test on Thursday was awful), we haven’t heard any type of specifics on grading (and it’s not in the syllabus). This is common in courses past 100 level here. To just not know. Very annoying!</p>
<p>Oh, and very good ilyssa. Slugging it out in one of the “4 horsemen” My friends have told me about them, plus I think they were mentioned here. Glad you are doing well!</p>
<p>Just a warning… When I took Geronimo (Fall 09), he spent all year giving out “estimated curves” after each test. And they looked like what you mentioned (~85 up = A). Don’t trust them. They disappeared when it came time for final grades and it went back to the 30-70 = C curve that’s been mentioned already. :(</p>
<p>That sucks ekb242. Guess it’s better to not be told than to be told lies. Was the final really hard or something so that it crashed averages to a point where he wanted to make a C easier to get? However, the A and B students have to get to the 90 and 80 (respectively) as a consequence?</p>