<p>
[quote]
If the paper is legitimately an A, that is, if it is an A according to its own merits, then it deserves an A.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This begs the question: Deserving according to what standard? As noted, the standards for an A are higher at Reed, MIT, Swat, Caltech, and Chicago, than at many other schools, and grad schools take this into account, so there's not much of a problem; it all works out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And no, I don't think grad schools or professional schools take into account the "grade deflation" at WM or WF. There are only a few schools that have this luxury with post-grad institutions: Reed, MIT, Swat, Caltech, and Chicago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wrong. Grad schools / professional schools know about many different undergrad institutions. That's what their job is, to be familiar with the applicants and their backgrounds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This begs the question:
[/quote]
My post was not fallacious.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Deserving according to what standard? As noted, the standards for an A are higher at Reed, MIT, Swat, Caltech, and Chicago, than at many other schools, and grad schools take this into account, so there's not much of a problem; it all works out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This doesn't make sense. My argument was against grade-distribution standards as a matter of principle, not standards of excellence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Grad schools / professional schools know about many different undergrad institutions. That's what their job is, to be familiar with the applicants and their backgrounds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This post does not contradict my argument. Of course grad schools and professional schools know about undergraduate institutions. The only schools that enjoy a "benefit of the doubt," so to speak, on the applicant's part are MIT, Reed, Swat, Caltech, and Chicago. I know school pride prevents you from recognizing this, but no one really cares about Wake Forest or William and Mary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My argument was against grade-distribution standards as a matter of principle
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Say that in 1986 a given school's GPA was 3.0, spread from 2.0 to 4.0, and due to the rising quality of students, the GPA is now 3.9, spread from 3.8 to 4.0, using the 1986 academic standards. Do you find this reasonable and acceptable? (The numbers don't matter; they only illustrate the point.) Is it okay if the spread narrows to, say, 3.98 to 4.0, as student quality further improves?</p>
<p>These particular numbers serve as a ridiculous example.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know school pride prevents you from recognizing this, but no one really cares about Wake Forest or William and Mary.
[/quote]
Yeah, perhaps the average ignorant person, but for people who actually know something (ie: graduate adcoms) they know that Wake and W&M students will not have as high GPAs, because our schools hold us to higher standards. Wake Forest and William and Mary are top schools in this nation, and it isn't "school pride" that makes me think that, it is a fact. Both schools are actually underrated, because they don't have strong graduate programs like the aforementioned schools. They focus on undergraduate education. I really find that to be an elitist and pretentious comment from a person who goes to a school that is on the same level as Wake/W&M.</p>
<p>Certain populations know what excellent schools Wake Forest and William and Mary are. People who are truly acedemic and not just "College Brand Shopping". I, for one, think Gerogetown is overrated here in the northeast. Go to southeast, (yes, they are still there, Sherman was not totally successful) and everyone knows Wake Forest, and it like George-what? Now, maybe you don't care about what they think in the southeast, but remember, they don't care about what you think! Be happy where you are, there is a big world out there, and no one really cares about your little over-priced schools but you (or ya'll, if you please!
(and your parents)</p>
<p>
[quote]
(The numbers don't matter; they only illustrate the point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, they do!</p>
<p>
[quote]
but for people who actually know something (ie: graduate adcoms) they know that Wake and W&M students will not have as high GPAs, because our schools hold us to higher standards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Please, do disabuse me as to the number of Ph.D candidates at top schools who originated either from Wake Forest or William and Mary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a school that is on the same level as Wake/W&M.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HA! You wish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Certain populations know what excellent schools Wake Forest and William and Mary are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, they are definitely excellent schools. Are adcoms at top post-grad programs going to give them special treatment like they give to MIT, Reed, and so forth? No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I, for one, think Gerogetown is overrated here in the northeast.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, definitely. I agree with you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, maybe you don't care about what they think in the southeast, but remember, they don't care about what you think!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm from Texas, and I find Rice very appealing.</p>
<p>Please don't make assumptions about me when they are not logically implied by my posts.</p>
<p>I know I may have angered some of you with my comments, but you shouldn't draw illogical conclusions from them. WM and WF are great schools. Do they receive special treatment from post-grad programs? No. </p>
<p>Yes, students from those schools will receive better treatment than students from, say, GWU or NYU, but when pitted against a Georgetown student or a Dartmouth student, for instance, the higher GPA will win, regardless of context.</p>
<p>This is probably a bad example, but the number of Georgetown students represented at Harvard Law School far outnumbers the combined number of WF and WM students that are represented:
<a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php</a></p>
<p>That is pretty appalling, especially for schools that are apparently at the "same level" as Georgetown (I assure you that they are not).</p>
<p>Quote:
Now, maybe you don't care about what they think in the southeast, but remember, they don't care about what you think! </p>
<p>I'm from Texas, and I find Rice very appealing.</p>
<hr>
<p>I said people from the south find Wake appealing. People from the Northeast find Georgetown appealing. You are from Texas and find Rice appealing. Thank you. You just agreed with me. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I said people from the south find Wake appealing. People from the Northeast find Georgetown appealing. You are from Texas and find Rice appealing. Thank you. You just agreed with me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and yet, I chose to attend Georgetown. So I guess I must... disagree with you!</p>
<p>And I am not arguing about the reputations of the schools; you misinterpreted my claim. I am arguing about how GPAs from those schools are handled by post-grad institutions. I know this isn't easily understandable in terms of "biases" and "regions," but don't worry about it. It's beyond what many people here can understand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but don't worry about it. It's beyond what many people here can understand.
[/quote]
Great attitude! You don't know what your talking about. You just are arbitrarily saying that Wake/W&M students don't get the treatment that MIT, Reed, and UChicago students get without any backing. And I do know that Wake and Georgetown are on the same level. I'm not going to get into it that much, but I will give you a little statistic:
Georgetown endowment ranked #77 in the country, is that the endowment of a top tier school? I don't think so. Georgetown has almost 3000 more kids than Wake yet their endowment is over 225 million dollars lower. Hmmm... Also it is ranked #23, Wake is ranked #30, they are the same tier if you wanted to break it down like that. There really isn't that much of a difference, so before you start rattling off your pretentious "Georgetown--I'm better than you" arguments look at some numbers, but then again your own arguments lack any hard backing, so don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You just are arbitrarily saying that Wake/W&M students don't get the treatment that MIT, Reed, and UChicago students get without any backing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The HLS link I provided is pretty decent. Even UChicago beats the combined numbers of WF and WM students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I will give you a little statistic:
Georgetown endowment ranked #77 in the country, is that the endowment of a top tier school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...Sorry, I never knew endowment was indicative of excellence. But since that is the only ranking where WF is higher, it is obvious that you would choose to focus on it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmmm... Also it is ranked #23, Wake is ranked #30, they are the same tier if you wanted to break it down like that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, let's not break it down like that. If you want to do it that way, then Wake Forest is as good as Harvard since Harvard is in the same tier. Are you that much of an idiot?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Georgetown--I'm better than you"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said Georgetown is better. You should really learn to argue from reason rather than from passion. If you read my post as a rational observer, then you will also conclude that I said nothing about Georgetown in comparison to those schools, except that students with a higher GPA at Georgetown – LSAT being equal – will get them the spot over students with alower GPA at WF and WM at a competitive law school. This point should be obvious: law school admissions can be numbers-oriented. </p>
<p>By the way, if you really want to make this a debate between schools, I don't care. I love my school, but I am not blindly in love. Every school has its flaws, and Georgetown has its fair share. Now I could've gone to UChicago, which is ranked #9 according to USNews, and whose endowment is much larger than Georgetown's and WFs. Perhaps the superiority of Chicago over WF and WM is much more apparent in this case. Unfortunately, under your schema, they are just as good because they are in the same tier. That is pretty stupid.</p>
<p>Your quote:
I know school pride prevents you from recognizing this, but no one really cares about Wake Forest or William and Mary.</p>
<p>That is not nice. Not representative of a good Jesuit education, either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is probably a bad example, but the number of Georgetown students represented at Harvard Law School far outnumbers the combined number of WF and WM students that are represented:
<a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>William & Mary - 3
Swarthmore - 10
Penn State - 6
Morehouse College - 4
University of Maryland - 13</p>
<p>So I now I will rank the schools:
1. Univeristy of Maryland
2. Swarthmore
3. Penn State
4. Morehouse College
5. William and Mary</p>
<p>Find me someone who agrees with that ranking up there and I will give you a million dollars. And a bonus amount if you can tell me the middle 50% SATs for the academic powerhouse of Morehouse College without looking them up.</p>
<p>At least you admited it was probably a "bad example".</p>
<p>
[quote]
At least you admited it was probably a "bad example".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh please, 32 at Georgetown compared to a few at WM is a pretty huge discrepency. </p>
<p>Of course, there are other factors to consider: amount of students who applied to Harvard Law, and so forth. Nevertheless, given that as a law student, you would want to attend the highest-ranked school, and given that they would apply to the highest-ranked school that admits students with an identical GPA, one of the following is the case:</p>
<p>1) Not many William and Mary students are interested in law <- this option is clearly implausible. WM is not an engineering school or a special school of any sort. It is a decent school that caters to the humanities, and is not especially inclined toward producing a higher number of Ph.D candidates like Reed, Swat, and Chicago.
2) Not many William and Mary students have a high enough GPA, so they do not apply to Harvard Law School. This is plausible, but proves nothing for either of us.
3) Many William and Mary students do not have a high enough GPA for HLS, but apply anyways hoping, as you do, that Harvard will take into account the context in which that GPA was earned. This seems to me also plausible, but it proves my point: given the dismal number of acceptances, it is clear that Harvard does not compensate for lower GPAs with context.
4) Many William and Mary students have a high GPA, but not a high enough LSAT for Harvard. This is implausible because it contradicts the notion WM grade deflates, so we can rule this out.</p>
<p>So we are left with two options: in both cases, not a lot of William and Mary students are not getting into Harvard Law School (to say nothing of Wake Forest students). Now you could argue that the students are getting into Harvard Law School, but that they are also getting into and opting for either SLS or YLS; however, I have charts for the latter that still demonstrate my point.</p>
<p>Toodles;)</p>
<p>Oh, and I never said schools should be ranked in accordance with how many students are representing them at HLS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At least you admited it was probably a "bad example".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So next time, learn to read. I'm sure that William and Mary education is teaching you just that!</p>
<p>I did argue, though, that since there are not many W&M students at HLS, HLS is clearly not giving breaks to WM students for grade deflation.</p>
<p>My arguments regarding Reed, Chicago, and Swat are substantiated by the fact that they produce the highest amount of Ph.D candidates of any other school in the nation. Neither WM nor WF approaches those schools in that category.</p>
<p>And I'm saying that there are more to things than numbers. The people who should know about WM know about WM. That's all that matters. You can try to convince me otherwise but you won't. There's a reason a fair number of good job offers (for undergrads) come through our school looking specifically for our students. They know what they are going to get.</p>
<p>srory i canot read good. mY publik skoll dosenot hav lots of monies.</p>
<p>dang, it must be pretty impossible to get a 4.0 in college...i studied alot for this class and i felt like i pretty much did the best i could. i had the highest grade for my "section" by a pretty decent amount (the class of like 500 is split up into "sections" of like 30 students for lab and quizes), so im assuming it was near the very top of the whole class since it was two standard deviations above the average, and i still got a 3.8....now im not complaining, i know a 3.8 is really good, but i just wanna know who the hell gets a 4.0???!! lol, you have to be even higher than two standard deviations above the average to get a 4.0??? does like 1 person out of a class of 500 get a 4.0? it seems impossible...maybe it was just the class? and what is a 3.8? A-? there's so many people on here who talk about getting straight A's...how is that possible! i destroyed this class and i didnt get an A! lol...</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can try to convince me otherwise but you won't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...just like you cannot convince Islamic or Christian fundamentalists to change their views. No worries, soccerguy, I understand:)</p>
<p>deskfannokia... in the last 3 years, I believe there were 4 people (out of roughly 1500 per year) from my school who graduated with a 4.0.</p>
<p>nspeds, good deal =)</p>
<p>ps we are changing everyone's mind in the middle east though. Just you wait. =P</p>
<p>Yeah, currently no one in the senior class has a 4.0 and I think I remember hearing in orientation that only a few kids over the last few decades have gotten a 4.0...</p>