<p>
And of course, B. Haha!</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s interesting having the two Midwestern universities (Chicago and Northwestern) both on quarters. Northwestern advertises it as offering more variety and ease of double majoring . . . UChicago advertises it as “We’re more hardcore*”. Think about why these schedules were adopted, and why they remain today.</p>
<p>*Core. Hard. Get it? Get it?</p>
<p>OP,
I am sorry that your self-confidence was shaken during first year.
I well remember what the president of Emory said at my son’s matriculation.
He looked around the audience, and asked how many of the students present had been in the top 10% of their high school class. Almost every hand went up.
Then he said, “You are all excellent students. But I can guarantee that 90% of you will not be in the top 10% here. And that’s ok.”
And, of course, he is right.
And it is ok.
You are still learning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That makes absolutely no logical sense. Frosh Chem is Frosh Chem, whether it is taught over semester (2x15 weeks) or quarter (3x10 weeks). It is still ~30 weeks. (Excluding Dartmouth, whose D-Plan is compacted.)</p>
<p>In the UC system, Berkeley and Merced are on the semester system, while all of the other UCs are quarter. Is there really a justification for UCLA to inflate it grades just bcos its on quarter?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on the school and sometimes on the subject. In many cases, whole 15-week material is compressed into 10 weeks. This is often the case at Stanford; I think they intentionally do this to keep students on their toes. There’s a reason that quarters are noticeably more intense and to some “rushed.” But IMO the added rigor does make higher grades more plausible (“you’ve worked this hard, here’s a grade to recognize that”). And I did not say that it legitimizes all grade inflation, but “some” of it.</p>
<p>I also think this contributes a lot to the “Duck Syndrome” at Stanford. It’s not the “California attitude” (which isn’t actually real) that causes it; any extremely selective school will have lots of ducks around if it pushes them harder. That’s because with selectivity comes more neurotic, overachieving students who are less willing to show they’re struggling. Quarters bring out the “inner duck” in these overachieving students, but that wouldn’t be the case if quarters worked at the same pace as semesters. It’s because of their pace that they’re harder. And it’s because HYP, for example, are on semesters that they aren’t known for the duck syndrome too.</p>
<p>Of course not all quarter-system schools do this, as it does largely depend on the student body and what the students are capable of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does S do for the other five weeks, then? Move on to organic early?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So Northwestern and Chicago also quack? And UCLA? How about UC Riverside?</p>
<p>Do you really believe any of this? </p>
<p>IMO, Stanford projects the chill image, and until the last 10 years or so, was comprised of a majority of (chill) Californians; thus the duck story works there. HYP students do not even attempt to project a chill image (too many hyper Yankees…). IMO, it has nothing to do with semesters/quarters. If it did, what about LACs like Carleton – it’s trimesters are in name only? And of course, the Dartmouth’s D-Plan, two terms of which aren’t even 10 weeks long?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve never taken chemistry in college, so I’m not the one to ask.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought I explained this clearly. It depends, again, on the capabilities of the students, which is highly dependent on selectivity. UCLA and UCR are far from the selectivity of Stanford; I doubt they would usually compress 15-week material into 10 weeks. (In my experience my friends at UC’s don’t complain nearly as much about quarters as they do at Stanford.) NU and Chicago are still a bit far as well - their admit rates may have dropped, but they still lose the overwhelming majority (roughly 2/3 of their admits) of “star students” to more selective schools. Chicago alone only started getting more selective in the past few years, despite the many fabled “self-selectivity” stories that students will tell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s an image that people from the outside project onto Stanford. Once you’re there, you see that “Stanford is chill” is just a stereotype, with only a degree of truth. Even if that were the case, it would have nothing to do with the duck syndrome; I also used to think that there was a relationship there before I realized there isn’t. To those who have experienced it, it quickly becomes obvious that the “duck syndrome” is not about students wanting to seem “chill” or “laid-back,” but to seem capable and to not show that they actually are struggling and might not be able to do it. So no matter how much they struggle or how low they perform, they’re reluctant to show that it’s getting to them. This struggle is largely due to the intensity of the quarter system, administered intentionally at a higher pace. And it wouldn’t be so intense if, as you suggest, quarters went at the same pace as semesters.</p>
<p>That’s why many at Stanford think the “duck” analogy isn’t quite right, which suggests that students are calm and composed on the surface, which outsiders interpret as “chill and laid-back.” But students are very willing to show just how much work they have (and often make a competition out of it), how hard they’re working, etc. They’re simply not willing to show how it’s affecting them: that they aren’t doing well or that they doubt themselves. So in a way the duck analogy works if you don’t interpret “calm and composed on the surface” to mean “chill and laid-back,” but rather just “not visibly harmed.” One Daily article suggested a hummingbird analogy instead of a duck.</p>
<p>And again, I think this comes to be the case when two factors collide: (1) you have overachieving students who have never before had to own up to personal failure, and (2), you work these students to the bone. Selectivity accomplishes (1), and quarters, at a higher pace, accomplish (2).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm, no, not for that reason (quarter versus semester system). Consider the typical freshman and sophomore math sequence (not the honors or accelerated versions). At Stanford, it is six quarter courses (Math 19, 20, 21, 51, 52, 53). At semester system schools, it is four semester courses (e.g. at Berkeley, Math 1A, 1B, 53, 54; at Harvard, Math 1a, 1b, 21a, 21b). Total 60 weeks of instruction in each case, with approximately the same material learned.</p>
<p>Quarter system schools may seem more intense, because you have more final exams (six instead of four for the freshman and sophomore math sequence – but the final exams in semester courses cover 15 weeks of material instead of 10 weeks of material). But semester courses are likely to give two tests instead of one during the term, so either way, you are likely to get a test approximately every five weeks.</p>
<p>^ your single example isn’t illustrative because it’s an introductory sequence, which is fairly standardized. The pace noticeably picks up after intro classes, though in disciplines with less standardized intro curricula (math is very standardized), like CS or psychology or linguistics, even the intro classes can work at a faster pace. </p>
<p>And it’s not really the exams that make the quarters more intense, though the suddenness of midterms is jarring. It’s the amount of reading that you have to do with less time; the assignments that you have to complete; the projects, presentations, etc. that you have to do with less time. It all adds up.</p>
<p>I’m sick of berkeley people associating themselves with Harvard and Stanford.</p>
<p>Well, at least this started out as a support/advising thread for rising college freshman.</p>
<p>I went through both quarter and semester systems. If it takes time to get to speed for you, then semester is better.</p>
<p>Tiger2014, unless a thread is stickied for a specific purpose, it will eventually go off topic after a few pages. And it stands even less a chance in this main forum than if it were posted in the ‘college life’ subforum. ;)</p>
<p>The impact that the quarter system has on assignments should really be emphasized. Midterms or equivalent assignments might start in the third week and last through the ninth, so on top of your usual reading and homework basically you get two ‘chill’ weeks at the beginning and it’s work work work for the rest of the quarter.</p>
<p>So yes, it does add up. Of course, how you deal with it is your problem. Some people approach the faster pace and tighter workload and just bury themselves in their work. This is BAD. BAD. </p>
<p>Others respond by making better use of their time, becoming more efficient, and setting realistic goals. These guys are going to end up doing better and feeling better in the long run, even if they might miss an assignment or two every so often. After all, another advantage of the quarter system is that any given class will be over in ten weeks, and you can move on to something you can do better and smarter. And when you’re loving what you’re doing and having fun and actively socializing, time really flies.</p>
<p>I’m also sick of berkeley, UCLA, and USC students comparing themselves with HYP</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, it can go the other way. For example, introductory economics may be two quarters at a quarter system school, but compressed into one semester at a semester system school.</p>
<p>
Berkeley students who survive 650 students classes and pull out As, deserved to be called genius.</p>
<p>Concerning this rif raf over the “difficulty” and the “stature” of certain colleges, there are two scenarios. You can be a big fish in a small pond or a small fish in a big pond. Elite schools are obviously the latter scenario. (I guess there is also the middle size fish in a middle size pond scenario). </p>
<p>In Schwartz’s book “The Paradox of Choice,” it discuses that humans overwhelmingly prefer to be a big fish in a small pond. People who make 150K/year in a workplace where the average salary is 100K/year are happier and more fulfilled than people who make 150K/year in a workplace where the average salary is 200K/year. </p>
<p>The key to avoid feeling overwhelmed is learning to adapt to a big pond.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I was barely top 25% at my hs and once I got into Cornell, I a now have a 3.9 and am in the top 10% here. Anything is possible ;)</p>
<p>Are you getting 3.9 from STEM major? Just curious.</p>