GPA deflation and excesive workload at the University of Chicago?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>I may study undergraduate physics at the University of Chicago. However, I have heard many claims of "GPA deflation" and unusually excessive workloads at Chicago. These are two things that would not normally deter me, but I have recently had some worries about the impact of these characteristics upon my future. I am wondering how prevalent this deflation is, if it exists at all. Particularly, I am interested in the top graduate programs in physics and engineering, and it seems that a high GPA is necessary.</p>

<p>The other universities that I am considering are Cornell and Columbia. Is it true that I would have to work less to get a higher GPA at these schools? My research (which is limited to the anecdotal) indicates so.</p>

<p>In high school, grades are the least of my concerns. I am far more interested in actually learning the material and doing something interesting with it. However, I still manage to score highly. I will graduate with a 4.0 unweighted and 5.0 weighted with an intense schedule: this semester, I am taking AP Chem, English Lit, Biology, and Physics C, and I will have no problem getting a 5 on these and the other four AP tests I am taking. My standardized test scores exceed the average at Chicago (I seem to be near the 75th percentile). Do you think that a physical sciences student such as myself would be able to balance a few extracurricular activities, research, and sleep/hobbies while aiming for a GPA in the 3.6/3.7 area?</p>

<p>If grades are lower at Chicago, do top graduate schools and employers adjust their admissions appropriately?</p>

<p>I am not looking for an easy education, but I do know that my daily tolerance for work and study has a limit. I do not want to ignore that limit, especially if I am not going to advance myself for it.</p>

2

<p>I’m not sure how much grade deflation occurs in the physics dept. at UChicago, but if you want to go to grad school (i.e. MA or PhD programs), UChicago is really one of the best schools out there as far as preparation and placement goes. </p>

<p>Graduate schools care less about GPA and more about professor recommendations, promise as a future scholar, etc. UChicago prepares students for that extremely well.</p>

3

<p>Don’t worry about graduate school placement at the University of Chicago.</p>

<p><a href=“https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/pdfs/careers_higher_ed.pdf[/url]”>https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/pdfs/careers_higher_ed.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The top physical science graduate school destinations for UChicago undergrads are:</p>

<p>1) University of Chicago
2) Harvard University
3) CalTech
4) MIT
5) Stanford
6) UC Berkeley
7) University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
8) Northwestern
9) University of Wisconsin - Madison
10) UCLA
11) University of Washington</p>

4

<p>^I’ve seen those lists too, I was wondering what is meant by “top.”
Do they mean the most prestigious/difficult-to-get-in grad schools? Or do they mean the ones most frequently attended? If it’s the latter, it’s shocking to see that so many (from the looks of it, majority) end up at top schools. Even coming from UChicago, this list seems almost too unreal for more frequent destinations.</p>

5

<p>HonorsCentaur:</p>

<p>As a graduate, I can tell you that that’s a pretty reasonable list. Chicago is seen as one of the top 5 or so schools in the nation by graduate schools, and so Harvard, Caltech, and MIT love to pick up Chicago undergrads. Most of the people I knew who went on to graduate school from undergrad went to one of those schools for grad school.</p>

6

<p>^That’s incredible!!! So if my understanding is correct, what these tables are saying is that, of those going to graduate school (in this case for physics), most of them end up at one of those on this list? Like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc? Wow!</p>

7

<p>Well, two factors here:</p>

<p>1) Counter-intuitively, getting into a prestigious grad school isn’t quite as difficult as getting into a prestigious undergraduate university. Most of the top graduates from Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, etc. get top jobs after graduating from undergraduate and take themselves out of the pools. Also, many graduate programs are full-pay, which means that universities don’t have as much of a problem with admitting students who aren’t so deserving.</p>

<p>2) Chicago is a much more prestigious university than the people on CC or average college graduates think. The people at the top (who happen to be on the admissions panels at the top graduate schools) consider Chicago to be in the same league as Harvard, et al., and this is especially true for academia. In my job, where I interact with the most educated people in the international political scene, I haven’t met a single person who hasn’t pointed out that Chicago is a fantastic school after I mention that I went there.</p>

<p>As difficult as it is to believe, even after Chicago’s increase in popularity for college admissions, Chicago’s reputation among high school/college graduates is still MUCH lower than its reputation among employers and elites.</p>

8

<p>One thing to note is that while the top 5 graduate programs may be the 5 common graduate programs that doesn’t imply most people go to a top 5 program because there are a lot more non top 5 programs than top 5 programs. Ex 5% of people who go to graduate school go to each top 5 program, 3% go to each of the next 10 programs, 2% go to each of the next ten after that, and 1% each go to each program 26-50. Thus while the top 5 programs are the 5 most common only 25% of students who go to graduate school go to a top 5 program. Obviously I’m making up those numbers but I suspect that sort of thing is closer to the truth than most students going to top 5 programs.</p>

<p>It’s also important to distinguish between masters and phd programs and even between different fields. When phuriku says, “many graduate programs are full-pay, which means that universities don’t have as much of a problem with admitting students who aren’t so deserving” that’s only true of masters programs in the sciences as any decent phd program will give you a stipend that covers your tuition and your living expenses. Phd programs are also much more competitive particularly in math and physics.</p>

<p>I definitely agree that Chicago has a better reputation among elites than the general populace and is a fantastic school but that doesn’t necessarily imply it’s as prestigious as Harvard among such people.</p>

<p>In this thread <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1324932-undergraduate-origins-harvard-physics-phds.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1324932-undergraduate-origins-harvard-physics-phds.html&lt;/a&gt;, I examined the undergraduate origins of Harvard physics phds. Chicago ranked seventh which while extremely respectable and considerably ahead of Columbia and Cornell is still significantly behind Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. Extrapolating that data suggests Chicago send about 4 physics majors per year to top 5 phd programs.</p>

9

<ol>
<li><p>Not an expert on physics grad school admissions, but let me at least point out that factors driving grad school admissions, choice,and destination are usually much different than undergrad admissions-- as in, what is your research, who on faculty would advise you? </p></li>
<li><p>OP, you are asking a question to which there is no real answer. Unfortunately the U.S. Doesnt provide transcripts that reveal class rank or other performance indicators relative to peers. I think you are best off assuming that the talent/competition, if that’s the way you’re thinking, at Chicago, Cornell, and Columbia is the same. At all of these schools you are going to meet your match and probably get a little tossed around.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>If I were you, I’d try to find syllabi from each of these college’s physics sequences, assuming that the curriculum stays the same year by year. Look at the workload for an honors physics course at Uchicago-- what are the labs, readings, and p-sets like?what is the Cornell/ Columbia equivallent of this course?</p>

<p>What labs readily accept undergrads?</p>

<p>What electives are offered?</p>

10

<p>The people on [Physics</a> GRE Discussion Forums](<a href=“http://www.physicsgre.com%5DPhysics”>http://www.physicsgre.com) will likely have more reliable answers than the average CollegeConfidential user, who is still in high school. The aforementioned site is geared at people who are applying to graduate school in the USA for physics.</p>

<p>I feel it necessary to point out that for Physics PhDs, the “prestigious” places are usually different from undergrad. For example, UofArizona and University of Hawaii are excellent places for astrophysics and from what I gather, anyone hiring Physics PhDs usually has a PhD themselves (for e.g, postdoc jobs at universities or jobs in quantitative finance) and anyone in the field would know that going to say, Princeton is not that big of a deal. For example, they may (just a guess) not have a research group in astroparticle physics and this happens to be your field of interest. In that case, you really don’t want to apply there.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that the factors in determining the quality of a physics doctoral program are different to those for a(n) (undergraduate) college. </p>

<p>There’s actually been a lot of discussions on the topic of physics PhDs and employment in industry (because most people <em>don’t</em> become professors or even stay in academia for too long!) following the PhD on [Physics</a> Help and Math Help - Physics Forums](<a href=“http://www.physicsforums.com%5DPhysics”>http://www.physicsforums.com)</p>

11

<p>My dual enrollment professor said that top unis don’t accept their own undergrads for their grad programs (for anthropology) so the list linked above contradicts that and surpises me. I haven’t done much research on this, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be true. They wouldn’t want to in-breed.</p>

<p>It’s weird how every division on the list begins with UChicago…</p>

12

<p>To add to what Phuriku said:</p>

<p>Traditionally, UChicago was a fabulous “niche” school - meaning that for certain circles, it was seen as a very highly coveted degree. Academia, certain think tanks, etc. really hold the UChicago brand up to a high regard. Certainly in academia, strong performance at UChicago undergrad conveys a lot. </p>

<p>I’m not sure if I’m as high on UChicago’s brand outside of these circles, though. As far as general employers go, the school used to have a reputation for being overly wonky. That’s changing now, but, whereas the Harvard brand is strong pretty much everywhere, UChicago is certainly more hit or miss.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>Not true for most schools. All of UChicago’s graduate programs accept their own undergraduates.</p>

14

<p>Yeah, I see that ^…but where would my prof get that idea??</p>

15

<p>Departments sometimes recommend that their undergrads go elsewhere but they rarely reject all of their undergrads.</p>

16

<p>Why would they want their undergraduates to go elsewhere?</p>

17

<p>(a) To get different perspectives, work with different faculty.</p>

<p>(b) To soften the blow when their mentors decide they want someone else. It’s way more comfortable for everyone if there’s a general idea that people should go elsewhere so students won’t expect the faculty who are writing their recommendations to be making them an offer. It’s sort of a thin fiction, though, because 9 out of 10 schools breach the supposed rule regularly.</p>

18

<p>I just finished my first year at Chicago and am a Math major who is still on track to double in Physics. The sequences are tough, but they give you plenty of space to have a life. Judging by your high school experience, you will be FINE - one of the worst things you can do is stress out about the academics. </p>

<p>The two 1st-year physics sequences for physics majors are 130s and 140s. 140s is Honors and is meant to be your hardest class while taking it. I know one person who took this sequence and he got B’s and B+'s while putting about 10-15 hours a week toward the class outside of lecture and lab - very reasonable. I and several other people I know took 130s, which is not honors, but assumes some background in physics (120s and lower classes exist for non-majors). We all got A’s or A-'s and put about 7-10 hours per week toward the class outside of lecture/lab. I took AP Physics B my senior year and had no prior experience besides that. 130s is seen as a very reasonable and even “easier” (for math/sci people) class at UChicago. You can find out more about this stuff at the University’s catalog and evaluations websites (you might need ID and pw to access these).</p>

<p>If you take 140s, you will probably have to work 15-20 hours a week outside of lecture/lab to get an A or A-, but hey, it’s an honors class and consists basically of the more advanced half of a given year’s physics majors. If you take 130s, your grades will be better, but you will have to take Math 220 in Spring, which is a very tough course that is required for Physics majors. It crams all of the extra math the 140s kids pick up over the year into one quarter. 220 will be the challenge for 130s kids, and it is definitely more challenging than 130s, but even this does not require much more work per week than the 140s sequence (in my opinion). A friend and I took 220 together and we both got A’s with about 13 hours/week outside of lecture/discussion. </p>

<p>It’s also great to see everyone talking about how well our school is respected among “elites/educated people.”</p>

19

<p>Chicago seems to grade the same as places like Cornell, Columbia, Emory, and Vanderbilt. Chicago, like these schools has an average graduating GPA of about 3.4. This means most people have very solid GPAs. The only issue is that you are going into the sciences. Schools in the 3.3-3.4 suite of grading tend to grade sciences more traditionally than schools like Harvard, Brown, Yale, or Stanford. At schools like Chicago and the others, it is still typical for curved science courses to only be adjusted to a solid B- mean (and sometimes somewhere between C+/B-) as opposed to the B/B+ (and in Brown, Yale, and Stanford’s case, B+/A-). However, often upper division courses in sciences, while difficult, will have less stricter standards for grading. It is not atypical for them to adjust to a B average or design a curriculum/workload that allows for a solid B average w/o any adjustment (like keeping exams difficult, but having other components like projects and presentations that can buffer the effect of a bad/mediocre exam score). While Chicago is certainly more rigorous than many of its peers, it seems not to go through any lengths to make good grades impossible or even difficult to get (looks like most people get As and Bs and are fine). It’s not as tough with grading rigor as places like Princeton, MIT, and Johns Hopkins for example. Chicago rewards you nicely for “putting up with” their challenging coursework in comparison to those 3 schools.</p>

20

<p>I’ve never seen the figures, but it would be interesting to see some sort of analysis of average grades at UChicago and other schools over time.</p>

<p>In some ways, you could say that the old ‘5-point’ grade scale (with a ‘Gentleman’s C’) has become compressed toward the high end with fine distinctions made between the 3.0 and 4.0 range. Maybe a 3.0 is closer to the C of yesteryear with a 3.5 and 3.9 approximating the B and A of yesteryear, or whatever.</p>

<p>Still, there are a lot of things wrong with higher education in this country and an over-emphasis on grades is part of it. Education is about what you learn, not your grades. That may shock some people who aren’t aware that there is a difference. Imagine if the goal of college weren’t to get a 3.9 GPA but rather to get a liberal arts education–to learn how to think critically and write well, etc. </p>

<p>Grades are sort of the practical result of having to keep people honest and not slack off entirely and trying to provide a way for grad schools and employers to assess people.</p>

<p>The British (for better or worse) manage to do without grades under their tutorial system, as I understand it, until their final exams (although there are other issues with the British system.) Certain grad schools in this country also de-emphasize grades.</p>

<p>The reason you study physics is to learn physics not get a 3.9 or 4.0 on a sheet of paper. I like the stories about Nobel prize winners who had C averages in college. Sometimes you get more (or less) out of school than the GPA indicates.</p>

<p>(Overemphasizing grades also makes people less inclined to take risks and study things they really aren’t good at and should brush up on. But you don’t dare spoil the ol’ GPA.)</p>

<p>OK, that may be a bit too philosophical or detached for some. But I think there are people at UChicago who can understand what I am getting at.</p>

<p>And, of course, some cynics might say that in the humanities the best way to get an ‘A’ is to tell the professor what they want to hear, which was the general wisdom when I was in college (…advice often heard in the work place as well for dealing with one’s boss.)</p>