<p>How is the grading curve for USC bio major? I've heard that it's not relatively difficult if I study, and mind you I am planning on studying my ass off :) Also, how is the courseload for bio majors?</p>
<p>Would it be manageable to earn 3.7+ (or 3.5+) and still have time to enjoy my undergrad years? How is USC in regards to research/internship opportunities? I've heard UCSD is the best in that area but I also want personal attention from a private university... (of course, I'll be seeking not sitting and waiting for someone to feed it to me)</p>
<p>What I've heard, is that Marshall for Business has the hardest curve ever. Apparently, they have a set number of As, Bs, etc. so people like kill eachother for that A. I've heard that that curves at CLAS aren't bad at all, if there even is a curve for most bio classes. </p>
<p>I'm sure it's manageable to earn a 3.5+ if you manage your time well. I procrastinate like no other, which is why I put off answering your question for an hour and a half, so I need to change that when I get to USC. lol</p>
<p>I dunno about research/intern oppurtunities.</p>
<p>As a parent of a former bio and chem student, I can tell you that the grading was very hard. The curve was set to a B- or lower average. They do not say what score you need to receive a certain grade, so your grade in the class is somewhat a mystery until you actually get it. They also pull things like "don't worry about this section--it won't be on the test" and then, sure enough, it is on the test. As the semester rolls on, and the more marginal students drop out, the curve becomes even more difficult. Perhaps the grading gets easier in the upper division classes, but the intro classes can be killers! (There is a reason they call them weeder classes!)</p>
<p>In my advanced bio and chem classes, there is no curve in the sense that there are no set amount of As that the professor has to give out. I'm not sure how regular classes work.</p>
<p>But yeah, you don't really know how well you're doing in class until the end. And the professors tend to put random questions that no one knows on the test.</p>
<p>That being said, it's not that hard maintaining a 3.0.</p>
<p>There is no curve; perhaps the grades tend to hover around a B- but there is no hard curve that the professors have to stick to like they do in Marshall.</p>
<p>diehldun, a 3.3+ means you need to get a B+ in your business classes. Not easy, but not outrageously difficult either.</p>
<p>Difficulty of a 3.0 depends a lot on your major, but in general, when they expect a 3.0 they're expecting you to be about average, or a little above average. If you're a tougher major like engineering, then a little to somewhat above average; if you're a somewhat easier major, then they're really expecting you to be an average student, or maybe even slightly below average.</p>
<p>As it comes to grading difficulty, yes a lot of the science courses are graded hard (on B/B- average). However, you are highly unlikely to find anything better at UCSD (my friend there told me the average grade in his intro chem was C+)</p>
<p>In conclusion -> neither university really has much grade inflation for science majors.</p>
<p>The science departments did not let students keep their exams, or view copies of old exams to use as study guides. Most sororities and fraternities have copies of old tests, so the students in the Greek system have an advantage. If you are a pre-med who is not considering joining, try to make friends with someone who is!</p>
<p>Although the science classes are very hard, without the grade inflation you might find at other schools, students work cooperatively and are not cut-throat.</p>
<p>Well, I was able to keep my exams for both chem and bio. The professors also post the exam from the previous year online. Of course, certain Greek organizations have test banks, and the SI leaders have some sense of the type of problems on the exam.</p>
<p>From my experience, there tends to be a lot of competition, but not to the point of sabotaging other's labs.</p>
<p>To clarify on the Marshal curve.
Students are not competitive about grades, yeah, it's easier to do well when others are failing, but no one goes out of their way to hurt you. If you need notes, or have a question etc, other students are ready to help.
And getting jobs after college is not a problem...GPA only really matters in some areas like i-banking.
Besides, lots of employers know about the curve so your application won't be thrown away just because you don't have a 3.5...although I suspect smaller companies may not know as much so it could possible be a disadvantage)
And lots of other business schools grade on a curve...so it's not unique to just Marshall.</p>
<p>Well, the curve is actually beneficial is difficult classes because it brings everyone's grade up...and it's easier to separate the grades because of the large distribution as opposed to what I hear about Stern's curve where a raw score in the mid 90's gets pulled down to a B...it reminds me of LSAT scores where there's a huge difference between a 165 and a 170.</p>
<p>I'd much rather have the Marshall curve and work as hard as I can knowing that my grade will reflect the work I put in, not if I get 1% higher than the person next to me. </p>
<p>The curve does suck in classes where everyone does well so there's no real grade distribution and then everyone ends up with B's but overall the curve isn't as bad as most people make it sound. (But perhaps those in the lower half of the curve may disagree)</p>