<p>Anyone have a sense about grade inflation/deflation and how cut-throat the student body is or isn't in the Engineering Dep't?</p>
<p>@yakker: Seems collaborative to me (given that many classes involve group work, and many buildings’ designs incorporate this idea). Also, understand that selective schools are generally kind of inflated, but that the technology schools are less inflated. Here’s how grading works. Some courses will be unusually challenging to students at certain institutions (at Tech, this is often the physics and math sequence for first years) such that the average is low on exams. The instructors with the lowest course GPA’s curve to like 2.0-2.3 (their exam averages are typically a D or failing, just as it is at most selective colleges with a difficult instructor). However, when you look at chemistry and biology, those means usually end up being curved to the standard 2.7-3.0 (just as many selective private school instructors do). It just depends on instructor (unfortunately some of the higher quality ones are the ones with the least generous curves), but regardless, if you are in a hard class and aren’t completely floundering, you’ll likely end up with a higher transcript grade than you anticipated. You’ll of course run into some instructors who simply won’t curve (and in some cases it isn’t needed, because their mean is already near 2.7-3.0 if you graded exams and assignments on a normal scale). I wouldn’t worry about this. Science grading at Tech is very stereotypical from what I’ve seen. There is no need for students to be cut-throat (seriously, in a hard class, if you get a 90, you are getting an A, no matter how many people have 90+). Just do the best you can. Also, it’s an engineering school. Tech isn’t chock full of pre-meds or something where every student is desperate to look perfect for all 4 years (sure people want to, but there isn’t as much desperation). </p>
<p>Tech does not have a cut throat environment at all. It’s the exact opposite. There is a lot of group work at tech so you better be a team player or your in trouble. As for grades, may the curve ever be in your favor</p>
<p>^ DS says the same thing. Lots of study groups with students willing to help each other. </p>
<p>Glad I asked,and thanks to all for the information. Son felt certain - based on assumptions I suppose - that the environment was, as he put it, so cut-throat or competitive as to be an unreasonably stressful four years. Wish we had visited before now so as to put those concerns to rest. </p>
<p>@yakker: Really?! An engineering school cut-throat? I think the Ivies and selective schools with the smaller engineering presence on campus have much more “competitive” atmospheres because the people in the sciences are mostly pre-health. At these schools, students really are trying to best each other and actually view it as a competition. These environments are much more stressful. Tech is just hard. There is a difference. High difficulty plus a majority of students believing (perhaps rightfully so) that they have to be perfect to get to their goal makes for a much worse science education environment (even when content is taught well and at a high level). At Tech schools, students of course want to do really well (because they were high achievers), but most know that they don’t have to be perfect to land a job or grad. school opp. so much as be “good”. Also, the coursework in engineering essentially requires collaboration. Compare this to pre-med courses where most are just exams and quizzes. Of course, a difficult course with hardly no HW assignments (or HW assignments that contribute very little to the grade) will pit students against each other (mentally) or at least stifle high levels of collaborations.</p>
<p>In some courses at Emory, for example, it’s really clear when a pre-med class or instructor is very difficult and grades on a curve because, in such classes, most people study alone, or only with best friends or significant others that signed up with them. There is hardly no spontaneous formation of study groups or interaction with others outside of certain cliques that were formed before the class started (this is often more likely in classes where the instructor explicitly tells students that they will curve at the end. It doesn’t matter if the instructor reassures them that an A/B/C grade will be given to all those who meet the standard cutoffs for those, people only view their performance relative to the mean/median). At Tech, there is more academic diversity in the sciences (people pursuing med. school, grad. school, and jobs) such that that sort of social construct of competition would be less prevalent. Don’t mistake tough with cut-throat or any sort of competition. I’ve seen the result of both together and it isn’t pretty unfortunately. It makes good students wish that others did worse, literally. A friend (he is a top student) caught me by surprise when he “slipped” on ochem exam and scored 81. He freaked out and wished that the mean was really low and then freaked out again when it was “too high” at 68. In addition, when a difficult exam is given, pre-meds (especially when class is full of them) tend to automatically assume that the mean will be really low because they often believe that if they struggled badly, everyone else must have done as bad or worse, so the whole mentality breeds unwarranted egotism as well. Yeah, Tech doesn’t really have that as much (I’ve had many friends over there and others who have gone over there to finish their dual degree program and they always comment about how they don’t miss the relatively neurotic atmosphere of a place like Emory and how Tech had more of a “get to work and do your best” as opposed to " always make an A and beat everyone else" feel). I also feel that it’s partially because, even with difficult instructors who do curve, the grading standards are more clear (perhaps this is something about public schools). Many private school instructors for science tell the students of their pre-set averages which is normally B- in difficult courses (courses where exam means are typically below what actually constitutes B-, an 80), so everyone, not wanting a B- simply calibrates what is good vs. whatever the mean is (it tells you, “stay away from the average even if it’s high!”). </p>
<p>@bernie12 Thanks for the explanation. It’s helpful. I think son viewed Tech as competitive and cutthroat because he assumed that most who go there – no offense to anyone intended – either were accepted at the Ivies or other, smaller selective schools like you mention and chose for whatever reason not to go there, or else were rejected at such schools. In other words, I think he believed - and probably still does to some extent - that Ga Tech is filled with the Ivy and other elite school perfectionist types. That’s all, and he has heard it is very difficult, which, standing alone, does not bother him. Bear in mind he’s a senior who has not personally experienced the Ivies, elites, or Tech, and only knows that he and at least one of his most competitive peers in high school were accepted there – that peer ultimately being interested in medicine, though, which makes an obvious difference if I am reading your post right. I am glad I asked the question, as I really was not convinced his fears were warranted and hoped to encourage him to reconsider Tech before the final decision is made. </p>
<p>@yakker: I really wouldn’t worry about who was admitted. Of course a person with good stats was admitted, but that doesn’t mean every pre-med is going (your son will likely not see that classmate there). Pre-meds fear the Technology oriented schools because of the tougher grading. However, I find that it is often a mistake (unless you’re talking Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, and MIT) to use that judgment lol. For example, if I am pre-med and was good at high school (mostly memorizing and doing things in a very prescribed, clearly drawn out way. Loves multiple choice, canned short answer, plug and chug, matching, fill-in-blank, that sort of thing) and expect it to continue that way, I would choose Tech over a place like Harvard or Emory especially when it comes to natural sciences. It appears that many selective Tech schools teach biology and chemistry differently than liberal arts centered selective schools. And, ironically, it’s often the instructors at the selective private schools that tick the pre-meds off for chemistry and biology (I enjoyed the teaching methods because I wanted to do science, but if I was a pre-med and I love certainty and security, it’s a nightmare!). I’ve compared several of the courses between Tech and Emory (and even Harvard) and I can say for sure that, for pre-med purposes (getting a grade and having a predictable regiment of study and exam styles), Tech is better. It seems the liberal art schools are more aware of their audience and are actively trying to specifically weedout pre-healths in the natural sciences (whereas Technological schools will do it in physics, engineering, math, and computational things. They are creating a barrier for engineers using the engineering disciplines). </p>
<p>How do you do this? You give exams and assignments full of curveball/application problems that often stress material far ahead of what has been covered (several organic 1 instructors here will place problems that get students to derive difficult ideas that are typically covered in the second semester or even advanced/graduate courses. Upwards 1/2 or more of the exams will be that way. Several biology instructors do the same and tests aren’t multiple choice, so you can’t just “eliminate” your way out. This is just Emory. Let’s not talk about very top schools, where this is almost ALL instructors) or requires students to “see” or “derive” things that are not remotely recognizable upon first glance (in other words, diligently studying your notes, book, and even old exams and p-sets will not save you if you cannot really think and improvise in a pressured situation. They are attempting to destroy the hoards of students who have become great at memorizing or being “obedient”. A freshman, for example is not used to having to apply their knowledge or do derivations in chemistry and biology courses, but might only expect it from physics and math). It’s very much like math and physics at Tech. However, a pre-med at Tech would just need to survive the 1 math and 1 physics sequence, whereas a pre-med at say, Harvard would have to get past that (however difficult. At HYPSMCt, etc, it’s very difficult, at Emory and some other selective schools not so much, I can say that chemistry and biology courses here are a bit more difficult on the whole, and the same can be said for many top privates) AND then all of the insane chemistry and biology coursework usually associated with the pre-med track. Whoever his classmate is, is in for a rude awakening if he chooses some selective private for pre-med. There will be tons of students just as competitive, and the coursework will be much tougher than anticipated (and the grading not all that great to compensate). </p>