How is Chicago's grade inflation.

<p>How much does Chicago grade inflate compared to other schools, like the ivies, MIT, WashU, Duke, adn the big state schools.</p>

<p>its one of the most grade deflated school in the United States... it is a very well known fact. But, to counteract that, IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT, so when it comes to graduate admissions I doubt it will hinder your chances - I'm assuming you're asking because of that purpose...</p>

<p>It also varies by concentration. A good way to judge is to look at the GPA requirements for honors designation. My S is in a concentration whereby a 3.0 is required for honors, there are others where it is a 3.5. Honors for the college is 3.25. Chicago has seen grade inflation over the years as has everyone, it is the rate of increase that differs. My S spoke with an individual on a top ranked Med School admissions committee who said a 3.5 from Chicago was generally viewed as equivalent to a 3.7 at a top Ivy and 3.8 or above at a flagship state U. But, that is one guy from one school, so take it for what it is worth. Though it kind of squares with the fact that 75% of applicants to med school with a 3.3 have, in the past, been accepted into med school. Grad school is a different matter. Here many factors other than GPA are considered, and are possibly more important.</p>

<p>Opinions people give on this subject, including mine, should be taken with a large grain of salt.</p>

<p>Chicago is generally seen as having minor grade inflation that is less than that found at top schools that don't end in "institue of technology" or "ornell." The economics department and some of the sciences, especially physics, have deflation. Or so I've been told by the students who went there last year from my school.</p>

<p>I have gathered, but do not in any way present as fact, the following:</p>

<p>No inflation/Deflation:
MIT, Caltech, Reed</p>

<p>Minor:
Chicago, Cornell, Swarthmore, Johns Hopkins</p>

<p>Low moderate:
Duke*, Columbia, Dartmouth, Berkeley</p>

<p>High Moderate:
Penn, HYP, Brown, Michigan</p>

<p>Major:
WashU**, Stanford</p>

<p>A=Capable of Breathing:
Big state schools***</p>

<p><em>Large range of opinions on Duke
</em>This could well be part of the heavy anti-WashU prejudice on college discussion forums like CC
*
*I love big state schools, but with few exceptions they're very easy</p>

<p>Hopefully Diocletian will show up. He would be the best source for this, I'd think.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But, to counteract that, IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT, so when it comes to graduate admissions I doubt it will hinder your chances

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know much about PhD programs, medical schools, or business schools. But for law schools, the difficulty of your school's grading is not given much weight. Sure, admissions committees for LS know that UChicago has tough grading, but for reporting purposes, a 3.0 GPA is a 3.0 GPA, regardless of whether it's from Joe Blow College or UChicago. So, UChicago applicants are at a slight disadvantage because law schools want to flaunt impressive GPAs for their school. I bet UChicago students do amazingly well on the LSAT, though.</p>

<p>That's always been my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

<p>You summoned?</p>

<p>I think idad is mostly right. The level of "inflation" varies from degree program to degree program and a good way to measure that is the honors GPA requirement. The mean GPA for the whole College is somewhere around 3.25, I think, which, as idad said, the the GPA cutoff for general honors in the College. I couldn't find data for the median GPA, which is probably the more relevant statistic.</p>

<p>But frankly I never really worried about my GPA too much. It used to be that you were only given your GPA on your mailed grade reports, so I didn't even know my GPA until my third year. Now they give it to you online. <em>shrug</em> You know when you're doing well and when you're not. Most places that care about GPA factor Chicago's reputation into the calculation. Presumably if you're intelligent enough to be doing well at Chicago you're intelligent enough to impress whoever it is you're trying to impress.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Low moderate:
Duke*, Columbia, Dartmouth, Berkeley

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd think Berkeley really depends on the major. Letters & Science, sure moderate grade inflation. Engineering - not so much. In all actuality, probably some of the hardest grading aside from CalTech & MIT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A=Capable of Breathing:
Big state schools***

[/quote]

Maybe generally, but it's quite a broad brush you are using. I'd probably put Stanford in this category as well.</p>

<p>How is UT?</p>

<p>I wonder if the professors at Uchicago are just that tough, or are students actively forgetting to do assignments, failing test etc? </p>

<p>On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that students able to get into Chicago would miss assignments, fail numerous test etc. </p>

<p>I can't find a compromise-</p>

<p>As I mentioned in another thread, my S is taking a summer course at an Ivy whereby one completes an academic year (3 qtrs) in 8.5 weeks. He is about 5 weeks into the program with 4 tests behind him. I will repost what I wrote earlier. It may shed some light on why Chicago is Chicago. He said the difference wasn't so much in the texts used, the problem sets assigned, or other material, but what one was supposed to do with it. First he said the lectures at Chicago were much more precise, and the terms better defined. Lectures at Chicago challenge students to go beyond what is said, or to analyze and discuss what might be presented as an aside; students want to know how it impacts the understanding of what they are studying. The level of detail and understanding required is far greater at Chicago. He finds he has to "work in" the rationale for his statements into discussions, whereas at Chicago one is expected to explicitly state the rationale and the evidence for one's assertions, even if those to whom one is speaking are in agreement with what is being said. Finally, exploration of the why of say chemistry or physics is expected at Chicago not just the how. Students at Chicago, for the most part, are not simply figuring out how to do the minimum to get the best grade in order to move toward a career goal, but tend to be consumed with the subject matter and the joy of learning it. He said there was a noticeable difference in intensity and intellectual demand, resulting in much less mental stress in the summer course, but less overall satisfaction with they way it is being taught. The requirements just are not the same, hence the better grades.</p>

<p>Great post-</p>

<p>But, then the confusion deepens. If the students are so into and love what they are doing, then why aren't they getting top honors in classes? Is it possible that the requirements are continuously rising, thus perfection is nearly impossible to obtain? Or are the requirements really high and due to "mental stress" students aren't producing higher grades?</p>

<p>The requirements placed on students for almost all classes are greater and the criteria for evaluating that work is thereby different. Work that might get one an A or A- elsewhere, would likely earn a B+ or B in many of the same classes at Chicago. This is why there are departments where honors consideration is a 3.0 GPA. These extra or perhaps different requirements are, however, what makes the inquiry model so engaging, and at times, stressful as well.</p>

<p>
[quote]
f the students are so into and love what they are doing, then why aren't they getting top honors in classes?

[/quote]
Because the honors classes are proprotionately more difficult.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Is it possible that the requirements are continuously rising, thus perfection is nearly impossible to obtain?

[/quote]
Yep, more or less. If "perfection" is defined as a 4.0 I know of no person who has ever gotten one. Your work load fluctuates, but the difficulty and intensity of classes increases steadily.</p>

<p>The last person to graduate with a 4.0 did so in 2002, I believe, and from what I understand, it had been years since the last time it was done.</p>

<p>edit: "the criteria for evaluating that work is thereby different." should read "the criteria for evaluating that work are thereby different."</p>

<p>"If the students are so into and love what they are doing, then why aren't they getting top honors in classes?"</p>

<p>I can't figure out how to quote things like you guys do.</p>

<p>If everyone got honors, what would honors mean any more? Our students are very driven and very intelligent, but among them there have to be people who are the most driven and most intelligent. Those deserve to get honors, and the rest deserve a degree from the University of Chicago.</p>

<p>That's why when someone asks me during an info session if we have an honors college, I laugh a little on the inside.</p>

<p>It's like Garrison Keillor and Lake Woebegone, "where all the children are above-average."</p>

<p>And I can say that students here are not slacking. Can you think of times when you got an A on a paper when you know you really didn't put effort into it? Or you got a great grade on a test you didn't study for? That doesn't happen at the Unviersity of Chicago. An A requires a serious amount of effort. But once it is earned, it is that much sweeter. I found that professors are looking for serious, academic-quality work, that could be published in a journal after a little reworking. They are looking for truly original but substantiated ideas. They're incredibly supportive of students, but very demanding of them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A=Capable of Breathing:
Big state schools***

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ridiculous and ignorant.</p>

<p>that makes perfect sense-</p>

<p>above-average becomes average
average becomes poor etc</p>

<p>Long gone are the days when I opened a book once and managed to pass the test-</p>

<p><em>bitter-sweet</em></p>

<p>"Ridiculous and ignorant."</p>

<p>I agree. Sorry about that, it was too late to edit after I realized how much I exaggerated.</p>

<p>^ Eh, it's not <em>that</em> far from the truth.</p>