<p>I've got a question directed mostly to Chicago students. I consider myself much more of an intellectual than an academic--meaning there are a few subjects that really get my blood pumping and which I've submerged myself into for years now and which I will undoubtably major in....but I am not necessarily the most dilligent or hardest-working student, especially when it comes to ancillary subjects (aka Math). </p>
<p>So, in order to succeed at Chicago (and maintain an above-average GPA), will my affinity for courderoy jackets over derivatives cause me much trouble?</p>
<p>The vast majority of students, I think, fall under the well-rounded and driven academic scope. These are, by and large, students who had top grades and top scores, and they didn't get there simply by smoking clove cigarettes and reading Tolstoy for fun. (Not to knock the clove cigarette-smokes and Tolstoy-for-fun readers out there, I love you guys). A lot of Chicago students are quite motivated to do schoolwork, even when nobody's around to tell them to do it. However, everybody has academic weak spots, even at Chicago, and some are devoted slackers, even at Chicago, so while I may not think you sound like the ideal Chicago candidate, I won't tell you that you wouldn't find a place for yourself here.</p>
<p>If you want an above average GPA here (3.25 or better), it's going to take some work. Grades here are earned rather than given.</p>
<p>You sound like my roommate. He's kind of an ecentric guy, and hates math, and doesn't even work that hard. He still got a GPA higher than 3.25. It wasn't 4.00, but he did fine. Granted he is a brilliant guy, and I would imagine an unusual case, my point stands. </p>
<p>The core for math and science isn't as large as the core for the humanities and social sciences, so that should be ok. Besides, you might find you enjoy the way math is taught here. You'll be exposed to it no matter what. If you like it, then awesome. If not, you need less than a year of math. I would say math/ science people tend to like the more humanities/social science core more than the reverse, but again, its not all that much to cover. This is all based on my admitedly narrow scope of authority.</p>
<p>A 4.0 requires both an ungodly amount of work and an ungodly amount of luck. If you move your standards down to a downright pathetic 3.7 or so, I could give you a handful of people I know off the top of my head who are above it. (I've reviewed resumes of Chicago students in a few different contexts... it's not like we go around the house table and all take a turn to announce our GPA). The 3.7+ kids are both brilliant and devoted students, but not as rare as you might think. </p>
<p>You don't exactly come to the U of C to get good grades :-)</p>
<p>Oracle, it depends, and it largely depends on factors that are out of your control, like how naturally smart you are and what particular classes you end up with and who is doing the grading. </p>
<p>If I were to work myself as hard as I possibly could, I probably could not get a 3.7. For me, a 3.4 or a 3.5 would be absolutely magical and would probably result from me working at my hardest in my field, so no, I don't think that it's attainable for everybody. You might be smarter than me, though, and you might be more inclined to get good grades. (I'm not particularly inclined to get good grades, though I am inclined to do the readings carefully and spend a lot of time on the assignments, and my GPA is probably around a 3.2 or so). Your story might be different.</p>
<p>If I've learned anything from grading at the U of C, it is that grades are horribly inconsistent from class to class and from professor to professor, and it seems that every professor I have interprets the meaning of the grades he or she gives differently. For example, I have had professors that will set a C+ or a B- as an indication to you that you have completed the assignment satisfactorily-- getting above that means that you have included some thought-provoking ideas and have explained them clearly. Some professors set that C+ level to more like a B+/A-. Some will even tell their students that they don't give A's and that one should be exceptionally happy with a B+. Depends depends depends.</p>
<p>With regard to 4.0s, it's anywhere from 0-3 a year (yes, 0). The vast majority of students are in the 3.0-3.5 range with GPA. 3.8+ is less than 10%. </p>
<p>Being above 3.9 is pretty ridiculous, and requires a lot of luck (if you take 4 classes a quarter, you need 3 of them to be A's basically every quarter -- and getting an A, without the minus, is not always in the control of the student [some professors will give them only for incredible work, others give them out relatively liberally {relatively being a key word}]).
Getting below a B-, except in classes with hard-core graders, is generally avoidable by just putting in a respectable amount of effort. </p>
<p>I've never had a professor tell the class that they flat-out didn't give As. I have had one set the mean to a C+, and imply that if you were concerned with GPA, it would be a good idea to drop the class.</p>
<p>Phuriku, I haven't myself had a professor who said they did not give A's, but according to my friend, one of her professors announced to the class that she does not give A's. My friend might have been exaggerating.</p>
<p>What's probably more significant, though, and what Maroon8 brought up, is that the B-/C+ acts as a sort of cushion-- I don't think profs usually grade below that unless there are serious, serious problems.</p>
<p>I agree with all of the posts so far. As without the minus tend to be very hard to get. Unalove has mentioned some profs who give flat As relatively easily, but I've never had a professor like that. I also agree that if you do the work and put in some effort, you probably won't get below a B-/C+. I also agree with Unalove's point that there's a huge difference between the GPA you'll probably have at Chicago and the highest GPA you could get at Chicago. Most people don't work as hard as they can. I'll say that very few people are really putting in the kind of work that results in their actual GPA being the same as their highest potential GPA--these tend to be the hardcore econ students, pre-med students, and Singaporean students (who need to keep high GPAs). I also agree on the luck factor. It may not be very difficult to get a 3.7 one quarter, but even if you take similar classes the next quarter you could end up with a 3.2 just due to different professors, grading standards, and circumstances.</p>
<p>I don't know what you mean that the "benchmark" for things after graduation is a 3.7, but let me assure you that students are doing great things that they love after graduation with 3.9s, 3.5s, 3.3s, and <em>gasp</em> even 2.9s.</p>
<p>My resident heads love to tell us that a few years ago, the only graduating housemate with a full-time job lined up after graduation had been on academic probation for two years and was technically not supposed to be enrolled in the school at that point. That's of course an extreme example, but it's a reminder that academic success, career success, and life success are three different things.</p>
<p>Lots of people go in different directions after college, and only a few of those directions necessitate high GPAs. My understanding is that most admissions committees and employers who care about the prestige of the undergraduate degree also know that Chicago is a challenging school academically, so that GPA is given more allowance.</p>
<p>blindkite: almost every graduate school in the humanities places importance on GPAs as a method of paring down the field of applicants. Also, scholarships.</p>
<p>As do graduate schools in the sciences. However, a super-high GPA is hardly necessary: a 3.5 GPA is about equivalent to a 4.0 GPA. Research is the distinguishing factor.</p>
<p>From my own experience, I have to disagree with some of the posts in this thread. Although only a few students a year get a 4.0, it is attainable by many at the University, imho. I personally have a 3.85 (as a third year econ major with core & electives completed, and only 3 econ electives left to graduate), and will graduate with a ~3.9 flat. Had I worked hard in Sosc (a class which I hated because of the blatant sophistry of the teachers), I have no doubt that I would be able to graduate with a ~4. All through first year, in fact, I maintained a 4.0 flat. Of course, I, unlike phuriku and a few others, did not take Honors Analysis.</p>
<p>This said, I had two (math) classes (with the same teacher), in which the mean was a C-, and no curve was applied. Also, just last quarter, ~25% of my econometrics class had failing grades going into the final. However, hard work made flat A grades possible in all 3 classes.</p>
<p>Please note that for law school, GPA is of the utmost importance. GPA is also very important for getting the most competitive post-undergrad jobs. Sure you can get a job, even one that pays ~$50-70,000 with an avg. GPA from UChicago, but to get a $100-150k (including bonus) job you will almost surely need a stellar GPA as a minimum, but not sufficient condition.</p>
<p>Cesare: Maybe you personally have not gotten low grades, but you obviously know students who have and that your case is rather unusual. And if 4.0's were that easily attainable, why don't more students have them?</p>
<p>I'm assuming that the only (legal) jobs that pay six figures immediately after graduation are Wall Street jobs, which are, indeed, extremely competitive and rely heavily on GPA. However, some work their way up to that bracket range over time, and their working their way up to that bracket range is not contingent on the prestige of the undergraduate degree or their college GPA.</p>