<p>Once you're there, how hard is it to get A's, specifically in the school of Arts & Sciences (particularly as an Econ major but also in general)? I would love to attend UPenn because of the stellar reputation and amazing campus, but I am worried about how fierce the competition is. I think I'd rather go to a lower ranked school and get A's, rather than an Ivy and get B's or C's.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about this, but I think I remember reading that the average GPA at top colleges is higher than at lesser ones. Obviously they are harder too.</p>
<p>It’s often said that it’s far harder to get into Ivy League schools than it is to do well there (due to the curves). If you manage to get in normally (e.g. you aren’t a developmental admit or an AA admit) it shouldn’t be that hard to pull a 3.5+ assuming you take your work seriously and act responsibly.</p>
<p>Difficulty ends up being based on the standards you set for yourself, and in most cases people generally meet their expectations.</p>
<p>“If you manage to get in normally (e.g. you aren’t a developmental admit or an AA admit)”</p>
<p>wow, **** you. Seriously. How dare you something so absolutely ridiculous.</p>
<p>Difficulty depends on your major and the classes you take. Some people will do the bare minimum, but my friends and I really love our major and want to go to graduate school so we take many graduate courses beyond what is required. However, I would say graduate courses are actually less competitive, they just are more rigorous in the material presented.
I also find the comment about affirmative action to be highly offensive. Part of affirmative action is to realize potential that may not translate into things like test scores (there is research that suggests the SAT is racially biased), so many people who people would label “affirmative action admits” actually end up really thriving in college, going above and beyond. There are plenty of people admitted “normally” who do not live up to expectations and actually turn out to be quite mediocre. Admissions is not a perfect process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t it biased towards higher-incomes, which translates to racial differences? Just pointing that out because the way you wrote it seems to imply intrinsic differences between races.</p>
<p>I don’t want to muddy the waters too much but there are intrinsic differences between the races expressed in our physical make up. </p>
<p>The questions whether or not that extends to intellectual make up. There is no evidence of that.</p>
<p>The SAT may be more culturally biased than racially biased.</p>
<p>There is definitely no difference in intrinsic worth of the soul.</p>
<p>"(there is research that suggests the SAT is racially biased </p>
<p>Isn’t it biased towards higher-incomes, which translates to racial differences? Just pointing that out because the way you wrote it seems to imply intrinsic differences between races"</p>
<p>you actually are right; SAT scores correlate more with income than they do with race, which is why AA should be changed to be based on income instead.</p>
<p>^Whoops, I thought AA was shorthand for athletic admit not affirmative action (my bad, the lingo on this site is deep haha). Personally, I support affirmative action. On the other hand, I think the fact that people can get into Ivy Leagues by being able to throw around balls is kind of ridiculous.</p>
<p>Affirmative action solely based on income will not work because in general even at the same income level, minorities will have less opportunities because of institutionalized segregation/racism. That’s why I personally believe that we need to take into account both race and socioeconomic factors for affirmative action, not just one or the other.</p>
<p>How did this turn into an AA rant lol. I’m a URM but I don’t think that the SAT is ‘racially biased’. I also think that socioeconomic factors should be weighed heavier than race, by far. </p>
<p>People need to be less offended by one’s point of view imo</p>
<p>@firstgenn It’s CC…everything turns into an AA rant xD The sad truth.</p>
<p>You’re a moron if you think AA admits are equal to regular admits.</p>
<p>^^ Agreed</p>
<p>(noselfhate)</p>
<p>Guys, OP wasn’t even talking about affirmative action. Let’s please not go down that black hole. Nothing good ever comes of these debates.</p>
<p>You two are obviously not in college because the truth is, when you actually step foot on campus, it’s not so easy to tell who is qualified and who isn’t based on your measure of high school grades, test scores and ECs. Some people who appear to be incredibly “qualified” on paper based on their high school accomplishments are actually very mediocre students in college, and others who do not initially stand out actually thrive.</p>
<p>Depends on the course. Science classes and math courses will have curves, some more strict than others.
Otherwise, it is as hard as you want it to be for yourself, especially when you spend more time in your activities and taking on leadership roles in clubs/jobs.</p>
<p>^^Not questioning your judgment Poeme, but if what you said is the case, why do colleges (and especially Ivy Leagues) place so much emphasis on these factors?</p>
<p>OP: Here’s a basic rundown of what you will find at Penn:
Engineering, Math, and the three Sciences are generally the toughest courses you will find at Penn. Rest of courses tend to be, again, generally easier. But keep in mind that some of the courses will have curves that means that the course isn’t your enemy, but the performance of your peers is. </p>
<p>^I don’t mean to be rude, but your post made me laugh. Schools like UChicago, for example, are reputed to have an undergrad admission trend very focused on academics. Ivy Leagues, not really. As an adcom I knew once said, [Ivy League schools] picks students that make the school, not academic superstars. Otherwise, the school would be filled with Koreans, Indians, and Chinese students. It happens that when you have a pool of (mostly) brilliant students, most will also do well academically before college.</p>