<p>The discussion about privatization morphed into a discussion about transfer students. Then it came to grade inflation, or the lack thereof in certain departments' courses.</p>
<p>There is a web site about grade</a> inflation. It claims that Berkeley has actually had quite a bit of grade inflation, going</a> from an average of 2.51 in 1960 to 3.27 in 2006. For comparison, [Stanford[/url</a>] appears to have inflated less over a similar period, but started out at a higher base (some may argue that grades were already more inflated back then).</p>
<p>I believe all colleges raised their avg gpa in the 60’s to keep their students from being drafted and fighting in Vietnam. It would be really mean to fail a kid out of college and have him die… </p>
<p>Also, your argument on comparing avg gpas to those in the past is a moot point because why would you even need to compare GPAs with someone from the 60s? Your college GPA is only important the first few years after graduation.</p>
<p>Berkeley has a lower avg gpa compared to its peer institutions. That’s the fact. Why you even bother to compare it to community colleges is beyond my understanding. Its not that there is grade deflation, its because they aren’t as smart and actually fail. There is too much faulty logic in your argument and too many false comparisons.</p>
<p>Why do you even bring up this topic when you don’t even understand what you are talking about?</p>
<p>Yet, as ucbalumnus pointed out, and has been documented in a library-full of studies, certain majors, notably natural science and engineering, did not raise their GPA’s at anywhere near the same rate as the humanities and social sciences. The dark implication would be that engineering and natural science professors didn’t care about having their students die in Vietnam. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid that I don’t see the basis of your accusations. You say that ucbalumnus used faulty logic in his arguments. How so? I don’t see that he used any type of logic to support his argument, or that he even made any argument at all. In fact, that seems to be ucbalumnus’s point. All he did was post a set of facts, which he is perfectly free to do. It is then incumbent upon us to provide the logic and arguments to interpret those facts.</p>
<p>Honestly, I am inclined to agree with the OP because I am so sick of hearing Berkeley students complain about grade deflation this grade deflation that oh my god engineering and sciences are so much harder than social sciences and humanities blah blah blah I am so stressed but it’s okay because grad schools know Berkeley is deflated (which I doubt, because I doubt Berkeley is deflated).</p>
<p>Sometimes I feel like people actually enjoy bragging about how supposedly deflated Berkeley is so that they feel better about not attending a top 10 USNWR school.</p>
<p>Not all classes are just about studying for a test which is graded objectively based on the material in lecture/readings. Many classes are subjective (ie essays, speeches) and when those classes are set on a strict curve like the Haas curve, it becomes less about how well you performed and more about how much the GSI liked you/your topic. </p>
<p>While I am annoyed by people that complain Berkeley is too hard, I am equally frustrated by those that think hard work will pay off. Working your ass off may be enough to get an A-, but often times getting an A involves a bit of luck to go that extra inch.</p>
<p>Of course there’s luck. I’m just not entirely convinced Berkeley is any harder than other top tier universities. Work hard, study hard. If your best is an A-, that’s wonderful. I’m sure luck will get you the occasional A or A+.</p>