<p>When I was writing that I meant it as more of a question than as a proposition. Just trying to find the truth. A quick google search revealed that it was 3.3 in 2006 and a few other sources said the same thing.</p>
<p>Neogop - you do realize that a 3.6 gpa is still well below what you’d need to be competitive at Yale Law, even from Chicago, right? From what I know, Yale Law is a complete crapshoot - even with great grades and a great LSAT score. Indeed, a sky-high GPA and LSAT would be just the first step for admittance to Yale. </p>
<p>Realistically, even from Chicago, I think you’d need to at least have a 3.8 (and then like a 173+ LSAT) to be a very competitive applicant at YLS. </p>
<p>Also, as an aside, I think it’s a little unreasonable to be dead set on going to a top law school before even starting undergrad. Especially for the very tippy top schools, it can very well be a crapshoot. It’s reasonable to take classes and make adjustments to ones schedule with med/law/b-school in mind, but being very set on HLS or YLS seems unadvisable for a kid that hasn’t even started college yet.</p>
<p>Yeah, I know I’m WAY ahead of myself haha (though my interest may be a little magnified by the fact that I don’t have a job yet so I have too much free time to surf the internet about Law School). But it’s always been my dream, ever since I visited Yale a while back. Some kids wanted to hit the game-winning home-run in game 7 of the world series, some kids wanted to be Superman – I wanted to go to YLS and clerk for Scalia (crack all the jokes you want, I still love that man). That’s just me. I know that GPA is a lot low, but I’m not expecting my highest grades to come in the first quarter of my college career. And I’m not deadset on Yale. It’s just where I want to be (and where everyone else does, too!). I’m not going to go cry for weeks if I don’t get in, but in my hazy, idealistic future plan, I’ll be at Yale. I can dream, right?</p>
<p>That’s also not saying that I don’t give two flips about my undergrad education, because I am mind-bogglingly excited for UChicago in September and I feel so lucky to be able to spend four years there. And though I may get some flack for saying this, I’ll head over to CCIL sooner rather than later to acquire that data about law school admissions from the UofC.</p>
<p>Going to Yale and clerking for Scalia aren’t totally inconsistent, but it’s not a common path. Early in his judicial career, Scalia hired a number of clerks from Yale, mainly from the cohort of students who founded the Federalist Society there (and were mentored by people like Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, and Guido Calabresi). In the past 15 years, however, he has only hired three clerks from Yale. He has hired, during that period, many more clerks from Harvard (22), Chicago (11), and Stanford (6), and just as many from Virginia, Notre Dame, and Columbia.</p>
<p>Haven’t been on this board for a while, but this thread caught my eye.</p>
<p>I’m going to have to go with the OP here. But I want to articulate what I think he/she is trying to say in a slightly different manner.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I transferred here, did well enough to get offers from the most competitive Wall St. firms for my internships->full time, love the school for its education, faculty, and students.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing, the OP is clearly bright. Got into UofC, killed the LSAT, had essays that got him/her in Mich and Cornell. Now that 3.3 GPA…why is it that the average GPA at an institution that has some of the brightest minds out there is so low? To who’s advantage is it when professor’s REFUSE to give out A’s in classes such as those one might encounter in classics? Why is it that pre-med’s that take O-Chem are curved at a B-? </p>
<p>It doesn’t help anybody. No one benefits from U of C’s idiotic pride in it’s “grade-deflation” policies. It doesn’t help aspiring PhD, definitely doesn’t help pre-LS/MDs, and is of no use to those aspiring for work. In fact, all it does is force students/alums/admins to work to make sure everyone KNOWS that UofC, for some unknown reason, is very rigorous academically and therefore has low GPAs, hence everyone else in the world should compensate us. What exactly is the point of that? </p>
<p>Why can’t O-Chem just be curved to a B+ and still maintain the same curriculum? Why is it that the Math Department (which, quite honestly, is the worst administered department I have ever encountered) has THREE tracks for analysis but then has everyone sharing the same electives? Why is it that aging faculty in the humanities/classics refuse to give A’s to students and tell them they should be elated about that B they got on their final paper they spent 20 hours pouring over?</p>
<p>There seems to be this unrelenting naivety that the administration/certain faculty have over how the world works. Just game the system - help your students do better by giving them factual information rather than hiding the data on LS or MD placements. If U of C had some grade inflation, say where the average GPA moved to a 3.5 or so, aspiring PhDs in the classics can still get their great letters of recommendation from their brilliant professors and get into the grad program of their choice, but everyone else could FINALLY be on equal footing with their peer institutions.</p>
<p>On another note:</p>
<p>Really, all these people posting and bashing the OP, give me a break. If you notice how the students/alums are reacting, you see a discrepancy between responses.</p>
<p>To all you parents, no offense, but please, stop trying to enforce your romanticized notions of U of C’s perfection on the readers here. It is simply not true. The administration at this school, at so many levels, is arguably the worst amongst schools in the top tier. No other school has this much complaining from its students, no other school has to engage the world with this attitude of victimhood and defend its alma matter for its grading policies.</p>
<p>Go sit in the Reg on any given hectic night and just listen to people complain. Sure, there are quirky and anti-social students here who are at fault themselves for not being able to secure a future, but the school fundamentally makes it more difficult for its students to go through college enjoyable and take advantage of all the possibilities out there. Arguably, 8 out 10 kids complain about things such as this. Sure the Fundamentals major who is looking to study literature at the graduate level might relish the policies in place, but really, they’re just being irrational. Physics majors who want to become lawyers are forced to drop their subject and pursue Poli Sci, aspiring doctors are forced to change career paths or enroll in a 2 year Masters of Public Health program. Business minded people are forced to drop their Math major. Etc, etc.</p>
<p>By pretending these things aren’t issues and that the data is apparently just lying to us, your just avoiding the problem and it will never change/get fixed. People, parents, alums, faculty, admins, and anyone else who cares need to be cognizant of the many problems with this school and the undergraduate experience here so that it can get better as the years go on. That’s what good alums do: they care, they get involved, and try to improve the school based on their experiences.</p>
<p>I know U of C grad who are MD/PhDs at top 10 schools, kids working at Goldman Sachs, law students at top 5 law schools, PhDs at top Econ programs, professionals in private equity, residents at top hospitals, prestigious scholarship winners, even a student Marshall - and all of them, in some capacity complain about this place, its policies, and the way things are run.</p>
<p>I rest my case.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A 3.3 GPA is below average at UChicago. OP got into T14 law schools. Not sure how this is evidence of Chicago hurting once’s chances for law school.</p></li>
<li><p>The average GPA at Chicago, at least 2 years ago, according to the LSDAS info was 3.35. That’s a B+. It’s not Ivy-inflated high, but it’s still pretty high. The biggest deflation at Chicago is at the very top. Very few (8%ish) get above 3.8. But not that many get below 3.0, either. </p></li>
<li><p>I think the GPA issue, with resepct to law school, is a wash. You need to get above 3.5 anywhere to be seriously considered at a T14, unless your LSAT is amazing. And the OP is evidence that even with a BELOW AVERAGE GPA at Chicago, you can get in to some T14 law schools.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>akx06, from where did you transfer?</p>
<p>I agree with akx06, although I understand the criticism heading in OP’s direction. The administration here is ridiculously inept. I believe that Chicago’s professors and overall educational quality are among the top 5 in the nation, but at the same time, administration-wise the Tier 4 university I attended in high school was run significantly better than this university, and there is simply no excuse.</p>
<p>It is widely known that Hutchins, one of the great presidents of the University, told a reporter that “the University of Chicago is about the life of the mind, not about the life of the body,” upon being asked why the University was the only one in Illinois to not close due to one of the most severe blizzards ever. Likewise, the University nowadays continues to use the life of the mind mantra to defend itself against biting criticism against its sillier policies. For example, it has been noted that at most peer universities, students are given a significant amount of time off the week before the final exam period, usually about a week. Chicago students are given 2 days, and professors don’t even respect this policy. This year, I had a problem set due on Thursday, and almost all of my friends had at least one paper due on Thursday or Friday. Some professors even blatantly have required class on Thursday or Friday. Professors cover this up by saying ‘technically your paper is due on Wednesday, but I will allow you to turn it in during Reading Period’, but some don’t even attempt to hide it. But instead of the administration jumping in and doing something about it, they just let the professors keep stressing out their students and pretend like nothing is happening. This is just a side-rant, but it serves as an example of how detached the administration is from the lives of the students.</p>
<p>I kind of agree with the administration issues argument, especially in the math department. A lot of math students here are brilliant, but they end up with abysmal GPAs just because of ridiculous classes that assign 25 hours of homework per week or set the curve to a C. Also, a lot more students are interested in taking math or physics courses just for fun, but they don’t because of how difficult they are. As a social science major, I would like to take the calculus-based intro physics sequence, but after seeing so many people fail out of it, I don’t think I’m going to put myself through it. </p>
<p>I’m sure other top schools have similar issues. I also understand that intro classes need to prepare students and select for upper-level courses. But it’s a bit absurd when putting substantial effort into a class still isn’t enough to do well in it. Even the core HUMA and SOSC classes are plagued somewhat by this UChicago phenomenon. I love the readings, and even some of the discussions. But when it comes to writing the papers, I’ve found that there’s really no correlation between good effort and good performance. The life of the mind culture is great, but the grading policies in some departments at the U of C actually hinder it by forcing out students who would be interested in taking harder classes if they could survive them.</p>
<p>^ Uh oh. At the risk of derailing this thread, could you elaborate a bit on the physics at the U of C? I was planning on being a social science major and taking the intro physics course. Is that the easiest physics course offered? There isn’t one for nonmajors (not asking for “Rocks for Jocks” here, just something that would not tank my GPA)?</p>
<p>Anyone have a clue as to what the average GPA for a math major really is? Just curious…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t really mean to discourage anyone from taking the class, since it’s probably doable. I’d recommend at least starting it, since you can drop it without consequence during the first three weeks of the quarter. It might also be a good idea to wait until after your first year to do it. I meant that more as an example of how I specifically was turned off by the harsh grading. I’m sure there are plenty of other social science majors who are really good at physics and would do well in the class.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of interesting content here, and I’ll throw my hat into the ring in a later post. For now, to the parents defending Chicago here, the Original Poster had a LSAT like 5 points above Michigan’s median, and a GPA that’s only .3 below Michigan’s mean. So, why does everyone think it’s Chicago’s greatness that got the OP into Michigan? </p>
<p>Don’t discount the 174 LSAT - that’s really the OP’s key selling point. I don’t think Chicago’s rep really helped the OP out much at all here. </p>
<p>Again, OP probably could’ve been more diligent in scouring the web for info on law school admissions earlier on in his Chicago career, but the school certainly didn’t do much on the OP’s behalf, either.</p>
<p>What are the stats on UC students getting into top law and med schools? I know that engineering students have trouble as a rule in getting into schools that look at the gpa, and it doesn’t matter where they go to school. That is the risk of taking that subject as a major. I know a number of UC grads who went there as undergrads who did end up going to top law schools. A surprisingly large number as compared to those who went to state schools or less known schools, considering that that comprises the majority of folks, whereas a UC graduate is a rare bird in terms of numbers.</p>
<p>Most folks who apply to the top law firms are denied even with that LSAT and even with a 3.5+ LSAT. MY friend’s daughter was also waitlisted at the same schools you were and denied at the very top schools. She graduated from BC Law summa cum laude and is now working at a top law firm earning a big salary, after two years of prestigious clerkships with judges. She beat out any number of Harvard and other such law schools in all of the positions. Again grades make a big difference in placement. The awards, law review, etc are what determine the hierarchy of getting the top jobs, along with the school.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse - that’s the problem, Chicago, unlike many of its peers, does not release its law school placement stats. Cornell, UPenn, Yale, Hopkins, etc. all make this data publicly available. Chicago, for some reason, does not. This is a point of frustration for many alums and current students.</p>
<p>Maroon8:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We’re not talking about a direct impact here. It is a very complicated issue and I’m unsure why people are missing the nuances involved. A 3.35 average GPA at U of C includes the following: students on foreign scholarships that have absurd mandates of maintaining 3.7s or 3.8s (dragging it up), students who are planning on pursuing graduate study in a particular field and have the propensity to do not so well in disconnected courses but very well in their specified course of study, amongst others. These are of course replicated situations at every school, but the issue that is being pointed out is that certain majors/departments will always yield lower GPAs. Psych majors might be nailing a 3.7 or 3.8 no problem while getting a 3.3 in classics is a fairly difficult endeavor. That’s the issue: that one cannot legitimately pursue the course of study that they find most intellectually interesting because it will crush their GPA. It’s a sad fact that is easily remedied should administrators choose to acknowledge that they’ve been acting in a childish and moronic manner for a number of years. </p></li>
<li><p>That biggest deflation at the very top is a problem. It’s not good for anyone if EVERYONE is getting right around a 3.3 or a 3.4. Those GPAs don’t get you into top law schools, into any med school, and block you out of most jobs on Wall St.</p></li>
<li><p>A 174 LSAT is why the OP got into those 2 schools. Not because he/she went to U of C. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>The students that tend to do well here are the ones who are adequately prepared and plan early for this post college plans, and therefore plot their course of academic study as such. It is a sad fact to see when aspiring doctors or lawyers are almost forced to take Math 130s, Media Aesthetics, and Mind as their math, hum, and sosc requirements because they afford the easiest As. What’s the point of going to U of C then, you ask? Why come here if your just going to take the easy way out? Well, my response to that attitude is: Why are those courses even offered? It’s because the admin realizes these issues but just doesn’t know how to deal with them. It’s a sad fact that an institution like U of C cannot adapt to continue to provide arguably (and in my opinion) the best undergraduate education out there AND not be an obstacle for its own graduates who are moving outside of the world of academia (which, mind you, translates into more money for the school usually, which would only improve things).</p>
<p>akx06 - I’m not really sure what the remedy is for the grading problems you identify. You suggest that the school could readjust the curve in certain classes - so that most students would fall in the B range, rather than the C which is the standard in certain courses. </p>
<p>I think this argument falters for a couple reasons. First, the key difference now between the U of C and a school that grade inflates is the number of students with higher overall gpas. I’m pretty sure at Brown or Harvard, maybe 15%+ of the student body have a 3.8+. At Chicago, maybe what, 7-8% of the student body boast a similar gpa? Adjusting the curve may bring more kids toward a roughly 3.3 gpa, but for those students who really want to challenge themselves, they probably still won’t be able to gain the gpa necessary to get into great law/med schools. I’d agree that readjusting the curve may help somewhat, but it wouldn’t drastically level the playing field.</p>
<p>My greater problem with your argument is that by readjusting the curve and calling what was before mediocre (C-level) work good (B-level) work, you detract from a very key element of the Chicago approach: defining academic excellence quite severely. As I recall, for dedicated students, raising the bar high usually resulted in students raising their level of engagement accordingly. The more you raise the bar, the more students push themselves and, generally, the more good work flows and students gain rewarding experiences. </p>
<p>For right now, Chicago and its standards aren’t the problem - US News and its over-emphasis on grades and test scores is. I don’t know if there is a happy balance where Chicago can cater to US News and the law school admissions game while also providing its students with the punishing but rewarding experiences that lead to growth during college. </p>
<p>Rather, I think the best strategy would be for Chicago to be very transparent with all of its info, and let students make informed choices. I believe Brown, Princeton, etc. release breakdowns of average grades by discipline, along with grad school placement stats. Chicago could then do the same. </p>
<p>What you may very well see would be two “tracks” of students. The life of the mind students, intent on academic grad school where recommendations from Chicago’s all-star professors matter more than a certain GPA, may take the lions share of the difficult but rewarding classes. On the other hand, the pre-professional types may take more of the psych, sociology, and math 130s classes.</p>
<p>Given the rampant spread of grade inflation and the rise of US News, however, the above strategy seems like a concession Chicago should make. Again, providing students with all the information possible, and then letting students decide the type of educational opportunities they want to pursue seems like a sensible strategy. From the start, Chicago should release law school placement gpas, breakdowns of GPA by subject area, etc. Calling for professors to suddenly re-adjust curves and alter their grading schemas does not seem as pragmatic.</p>
<p>As a quick addendum, unlike most of the ivies, it’s very important for Chicago students to realize that Chicago - much more than its peers - sees its faculty as the absolute crown jewel of the school. At many of Chicago’s peers (Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, etc.), the students and college alums are oftentimes the focal point and biggest point of pride for the school. It’s with this doctrine in mind that Yale, Brown, etc. form many of their student-friendly policies. </p>
<p>More Chicago students need to realize that, at the end of the day, Chicago’s set up primarily to expand the success of the faculty. The Administration certainly wouldn’t take an action that could raise the ire of the faculty (such as mandating changes in grading policies), and the school simply does not have the view that the undergraduate students (and alums of the college) are the key constiuent group of the institution. Of late, policies are changing and views are changing, but all of this change is quite gradual.</p>
<p>akx06 and cue7 thanks for the dialogue. As I have posted above your input about pre-law and UChicago has already helped my son. I also think that the administration of uChicago is poor relative to its academics. I know that there are exceptions as one parent noted above but I was referring specifically to transparency and pre-professional aspirations. Even in the area of student services like the health service I have found the quality of the administration subpar. As a parent paying all of my S’s tuition it really makes me wonder about value sometimes.</p>