<p>Why are average GPAs at many colleges significantly lower for Engineering than they are for Arts and Sciences?</p>
<p>I have noticed that this if usually true, but I don't know why. I would think that colleges would want to establish standards for grading across areas, but that does not seem to be the case.</p>
<p>Engineering tends to be rigorous across all fields (electrical, mechanical, civil, nuclear, etc.), while Arts and Sciences tend to vary (Chemistry vs. History, Economics vs. Languages, Physics vs. ethnic/women studies).</p>
<p>Also, engineering programs follow the ABET requirements (to be accredited), so they tend to be more consistent (in rigor) across colleges/universities, than Arts and Sciences programs. For example, at some colleges, History may be as or more rigorous than Chemistry. </p>
<p>One of my kids is at a highly ranked STEM college where a lot of the students are engineering majors and there is a rigorous science core. At the end of the core semesters (2nd semester soph year), the average GPA is 2.8 (info from orientation). It comes up some by graduation (maybe 3.3 or 3.4), probably partly because students are focused after core more in their areas of strength.</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that this low GPA is partly because math & science is more of a strict set of information that has to be understood and learned. The subject matter is fairly unyielding compared to humanities courses, where a prof has much more leeway on what to require and how to judge quality.</p>
<p>The STEM classes are often “weeder classes” the first couple of years to help convince weaker eng’g and premed students to move on to something else. Hence there are often limited number of A’s awarded in Gen Chem, Bio, Calculus, Physics, etc…the classes that eng’g students take their first couple of years. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Very true. </p>
<p>
How would that even work?</p>
<p>Where can you find out the percentages of students on colleges deans lists and presidents lists and what GPA’s they must have? </p>
<p>OP: “I would think that colleges would want to establish standards for grading across areas, but that does not seem to be the case.”</p>
<p>@sylvan8798 “How would that even work?”</p>
<p>Answer.
For example, you could establish grading percentages, such as, up to 35% A’s, up to 50% B’s etc. These guidelines could be the same across majors. </p>
<p>^You would probably be surprised at the freedom faculty have to determine course content and grading schemes. Should the college say “Ok, all faculty must assign 35% of the students in every course to have A’s” the faculty would revolt. Schools just do not do that kind of thing. Even were they to somehow FORCE that on the faculty, professors would find a way around. For example, some instructors give partial credit, others don’t. How are you going to force me and the French professors to conform to the same quality standards when there is no way you can create a common rubric between Engineering Dynamics and French III? Really, this is just not a realistic idea.</p>
<p>I think there was a link what UCB grades should be curved for some of the lower level weeder classes. When I have time I will find the link and post it here.</p>
<p>I found the link.
<a href=“Grading Guidelines for Undergraduate Courses | EECS at UC Berkeley”>Grading Guidelines for Undergraduate Courses | EECS at UC Berkeley;
<p>
</p>
<p>Ross Business school at Michigan does this for undergrads. I don’t know the exact percents for every grade, but there’s an exact breakdown of the grade distribution they have to give. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hate these kind of “quota” grades. There should be certain criteria for obtaining each grade but if 80% of the class meets those for an A then by golly 80% of them should get an A.</p>
<p>You just can’t grade all subjects the same. It’s that simple. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This attitude has always seemed silly to me. Once you’ve passed a class, the point of grades is to point out a relative scale of where you fell relative to others. With an A you’re better than most, with a B you’re average, with a C you’re worse than most. If 80% gets an A what’s the point in getting an A. It’s useless. </p>
<p>Doesn’t Harvard give out lots of As because everyone there is so brilliant? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the people browsing the transcript a few years down the line aren’t going to know that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean what Princeton tried to do over the last five years? That doesn’t seem to be playing out nicely. The policy is still in place, but no one seems to like it.</p>
<p>"It seems to us less important that the same percentage of students in every department receive A-range grades…than that there be a high correlation between the grades students receive and the evaluative rubrics in the specific courses they take,” the report said. “Departments should spend their time developing clear and meaningful evaluative rubrics for work within their disciplines rather than aligning grades to meet specific numerical targets.”</p>
<p><a href=“No more A quotas: Faculty committee recommends Princeton University change its grading policy - nj.com”>No more A quotas: Faculty committee recommends Princeton University change its grading policy - nj.com;
<p>
</p>
<p>Other posters seem to think you can’t have this kind of approach and avoid grade inflation. Harvey Mudd doesn’t have quotas for grades, but they have pretty strict standards for achieving a grade, especially As. Average GPA in middle of sophomore year (when they are winding up their core classes) is about 2.8. Average graduating GPA is around a 3.3 or 3.4. (numbers are from last year’s orientation presentation). Only 7 or 8 students have ever graduated from Mudd with a 4.0. They have managed to keep an intense amount of rigor AND promote a cooperative environment. Students really provide a lot of support and tutoring for each other so everyone can succeed.</p>
<p>It does appear that undergrads at some elites (or maybe their parents) do seem to whine more about grades.</p>
<p>Back when I was getting an MBA, HBS and Booth (at least those 2 but maybe more) capped the GPA average at 3.25. People didn’t seem to care much.</p>
<p>@purpletitan “It does appear that undergrads at some elites (or maybe their parents) do seem to whine more about grades.”</p>
<p>Well, I am less interested in the overall level of grades and more interested in the fact that some majors seem to have average grades that are much, much lower than other majors. So, if a 2.8 GPA is average for one major and a 3.6 is the average for another, it seems like a large difference. </p>
<p>The theory that harder majors use the distribution to push weaker candidates into easier majors early in the process is interesting. To me it seems more troubling, in that this suggests that the students in a major where the GPA is 2.8 are actually likely to be stronger students than students in the major with the 3.6 average. </p>
<p>If they are not standardized or comparable, to me it does raise the question of what the purpose of the GPA is, and why colleges track and publish it. I am not sure that I understand that.</p>
<p>GPA is used when comparing students to others in the same major. In general an engineering major is not going to be competing for their first job with a student that majored in History. So it doesn’t really matter if over all engineering major’s GPA’s are lower unless they are competing to get into med school…</p>