Have I been lied to all this time?

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>
[quote]
I never said it was impossible to flunk out of Harvard for cheating.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You just contradicted yourself here.
[quote]
I therefore make the assertion that, at Harvard, it is practically impossible to flunk out,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky, just because you attended Berkeley and Harvard grad school doesn't give you inside knowledge of their administrations. Just because we have no public knowledge of anyone who was caught cheating and allowed to graduate at Berkeley, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.</p>

22

<p>I think "practically impossible" gives light to sakky's use of hyperbole to make a point; that statement isn't finite.</p>

<p>And no one has inside knowledge. 99% of everything on CC (note: use of hyperbole to make a point) is speculation because only a few members actually work at a university and make decisions based on their respective university's methodology and philosophy.</p>

23

<p>Ted Kennedy was in danger of failing Spanish and hired someone to take His final exam for him. I count that as cheating once. He was EXPELLED, not suspended, in 1951. Reality is that if Ted Kennedy weren't Ted Kennedy, he might have gotten away with it. But the proctor knew what he looked like and knew that the person handing in an exam as Ted Kennedy was not in fact Ted Kennedy and so he got caught. After serving a tour of duty in the US army, he petitioned for and was permitted to re-enroll. It wasn't a suspension--he wasn't told BEFORE enlisting in the army that if he did so, he would be re-admitted to Harvard College. </p>

<p>What the heck Ted Kennedy's cheating 58 years ago has to do with LS admissions today is beyond me. And how Sakky can be so certain that Berkeley would have punished him more stringently than Harvard is beyond me. Nor do I think what happened to ONE student 58 years ago says anything whatsoever about how much any college would punish cheating today. </p>

<p>It is easier to get a very high gpa at Berkeley than at Harvard. One reason for this is that Berkeley gives A+s. Harvard does not. Now, I admit that it's hard to get one at Berkeley, but they are given. And thus, it is possible to graduate with a 4.0 at Berkeley even if you have received a grade or two below a straight A. Not so at Harvard. And, 4.0s at Harvard are exceedingly rare. </p>

<p>The way LSs measure inflation is to compare the median gpa as calculated by LSDAS of students at that college who submit their actual transcripts to the LSDAS with the LSAT scored by those students in the AGGREGATE. Since relatively few engineering majors go on to LS, LSs really aren't worried about comparing the difficulty of grading for engineers at Harvard with that at Cal Tech. </p>

<p>They will compare the median gpa at a particular college as calculated by LSDAS vs. the median LSAT students at that college obtained. By that measure, Harvard is LESS grade inflated than Berkeley. Mike did all the math in an earlier thread and established that. </p>

<p>The fact that Harvard or Yale or Princeton is less likely to let a student who is suffering from depression or has a famiy crisis "crash and burn"--as Sakky claims--also doesn't mean to me that they are more "grade inflated." Historically, Harvard in fact let some students "crash and burn." After multiple suicides, Harvard realized that doing so isn't always the best course of action. If Berkeley really hasn't figured that out yet--I don't claim to have any idea if it is in fact deficient in that area--I for one would not give it "credit" for that. That's not really a matter of grade inflation/deflation. </p>

<p>Moreover, if I understand Sakky's claim, the data prove the opposite of what he wants to prove. He claims the "weak" students at Berkeley will NOT apply to law school because they will get Ds and Fs and not even bother to apply. The "weak" students at Harvard will be granted Bs and so will still apply. Wouldn't that make Harvard's data look like it's more grade inflated than Berkeley's? After all, the "weak" students at Berkeley are eliminated from the LS applicant pool according to Sakky, but in the applicant pool at Harvard. I think that means that one would expect the median LSAT at Berkeley to be higher than it is at Harvard. In reality, that is NOT the case. Moreover, comparing the median gpa/LSAT of ACTUAL LS APPLICANTS at the two colleges, Berkeley is more grade inflated that Harvard. </p>

<p>As for Nick and others...get the best LSAT you can, the best grades you can, and try to get to know your profs. Don't worry about all of the rest. No top LS is going to rule you out of contention because you went to UCR.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
You just contradicted yourself here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong. I never said that it was impossible to flunk out of Harvard for cheating. I am simply saying that I believe that it is less likely to happen than it is at Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, just because you attended Berkeley and Harvard grad school doesn't give you inside knowledge of their administrations. Just because we have no public knowledge of anyone who was caught cheating and allowed to graduate at Berkeley, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sure that it may exist. But the fact that we can't think of any for Berkeley (and I can think of a prominent example for Harvard) leads me to believe that I am correct. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it. Otherwise, I think you should concede that I have presented a stronger case than you have, for you have presented nothing.</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
nd how Sakky can be so certain that Berkeley would have punished him more stringently than Harvard is beyond me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said I was certain. I am simply saying that, given the (admittedly limited) evidence, I think I am correct. If somebody else has countervailing evidence, by all means, let's see it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Moreover, if I understand Sakky's claim, the data prove the opposite of what he wants to prove. He claims the "weak" students at Berkeley will NOT apply to law school because they will get Ds and Fs and not even bother to apply. The "weak" students at Harvard will be granted Bs and so will still apply. Wouldn't that make Harvard's data look like it's more grade inflated than Berkeley's? After all, the "weak" students at Berkeley are eliminated from the LS applicant pool according to Sakky, but in the applicant pool at Harvard. I think that means that one would expect the median LSAT at Berkeley to be higher than it is at Harvard. In reality, that is NOT the case. Moreover, comparing the median gpa/LSAT of ACTUAL LS APPLICANTS at the two colleges, Berkeley is more grade inflated that Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You didn't understand my case. What I have said is that Berkeley exhibits more variable grading. That is, a top-notch student might nonetheless receive bad grades at Berkeley. On the other hand, a mediocre student might nonetheless receive top grades. Harvard's grading system is more 'precise', in that it is more difficult to get truly bad (or truly great) grades. </p>

<p>However, in the context of grade inflation, I place my greatest focus on the lowest end of the grade spectrum, and like I said, it is more likely for somebody to get a bad grade at Berkeley than it is at Harvard. When was the last time you heard of anybody getting less than a C at Harvard? Getting into law school is not so much about getting good grades as it is about avoiding bad grades, and that's obviously easier to do at schools that hardly ever give out bad grades in the first place.</p>

<p>Let me demonstrate my point in another way. The mean GPA for each school is something around 3.1-3.3. What means is that even an A+, which is worth 4.3 points according to the LSAC scale, is still 'valued' at no more than 1.2 delta GPA points above your school's mean GPA. On the other hand, an F is valued at 3.1-3.3 points less. In other words, the GPA is highly left-skewed, such that it is almost three times more crucial to avoid F's than to get A+'s if you want to get a top GPA. But when was the last time anybody at Harvard ever got an F?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Mike did all the math in an earlier thread and established that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And it is precisely that math I am disputing, because I believe his data is left-censored, which he has conceded is possible. I am anxiously awaiting a revised calculation, or at least, his raw calculation so that I can correct for the censorship.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
I'm sure that it may exist. But the fact that we can't think of any for Berkeley (and I can think of a prominent example for Harvard) leads me to believe that I am correct. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please present it. Otherwise, I think you should concede that I have presented a stronger case than you have, for you have presented nothing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here is my presentation.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailycal.org/article/18628/the_causes-and_the_consequences-of_cheating%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailycal.org/article/18628/the_causes-and_the_consequences-of_cheating&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This particular student was caught cheating at an exam at Berkeley. Unlike Ted Kennedy who was suspended, this student was only put on probation.So Sakky, you are absolutely wrong.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I just said that I suspected it was more difficult to flunk out for cheating at Harvard than at Berkeley. I don't know of any equivalent example of Ted Kennedy at Berkeley, despite the fact that Berkeley has nearly 4x the number of undergrads,

[/quote]
</p>