<p>
</p>
<p>Then all I can say is, welcome to the grading policies in the technical majors at most schools (although apparently less so at Harvard). Grading is in fact very much a competition in those majors, where it doesn’t matter how much you know, but rather how much you know relative to what the other students know. </p>
<p>For example, consider the grading curve set forth *as a matter of policy * within the EECS program at Berkeley. Keep in mind that not only does the Berkeley College of Engineering impose significantly higher stringent admissions requirements than do Berkeley’s other colleges, but the EECS major is arguably the most selective of all of the majors (probably bested only by the “Engineering-Undeclared” option). </p>
<p>*
A typical GPA for courses in the lower division is 2.7. This GPA would result, for example, from 17% A’s, 50% B’s, 20% C’s, 10% D’s, and 3% F’s. A class whose GPA falls outside the range 2.5 - 2.9 should be considered atypical. (A Typical GPA for basic prerequisite lower division CS courses (CS 40, CS 41) is 2.5, with GPA’s outside the range 2.3 - 2.7 considered atypical.)</p>
<p>A typical GPA for courses in the upper division is 2.9. (This GPA would result, for example, from 23% A’s, 50% B’s, 20% C’s, 5% D’s, and 2% F’s.) A class whose GPA falls outside the range 2.7 - 3.1 should be considered atypical. A typical GPA for basic prerequisite upper division courses (EECS 104A, EECS 105, CS 150, CS 153) is 2.7 with GPA’s outside the range 2.5 - 2.9 considered atypical.</p>
<p>These guidelines do not represent a major shift down from current GPA levels, but rather they are intended to prevent inflation.
*</p>
<p>[Grading</a> Guidelines for Undergraduate Courses | EECS at UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml]Grading”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml)</p>
<p>Nor do I think Berkeley EECS to be particularly unusual. Engineering programs in general are noted for high stress, endless workloads… and shockingly low grade curves. I think other than the small fraction of superstar students who sat on the top of the curve, all engineers throughout the country have painful memories of working harder than most of their classmates in other majors, while being stuck with far worse grades because of the harsh curves. </p>
<p>Heck, even Harvard isn’t immune, if you include the graduate programs. For example, Harvard Business School MBA courses set a strict grading policy where, by rule, only 25% of the class can receive a “I” grade (which is probably equivalent to an ‘A’). Furthermore the bottom 10% of the class must receive no better than a “III” grade, which is a terrible grade. </p>
<p>*At the conclusion of each course, the instructor assigns one of four grades designated as Category I, II, III, and IV.</p>
<pre><code>* Category I - given to the top 15-25% of students
- Category II - given to the next 65-75% in a section. The actual number of Category II grades is subject to the number of Category I grades assigned.
- Category III - given to the lowest-performing 10% of students in an elective curriculum course section.
- Category IV - seldom assigned; designates failure of achievement and/or commitment and, therefore, failure to meet minimum standards of the course. If Category IV is used in a course, the combined number of students who receive Categories III and IV must equal the lowest 10% of the elective course section.*
</code></pre>
<p>[Registrar</a> Services - MBA - Harvard Business School](<a href=“Cross-Registration Policies and FAQ - MBA - Harvard Business School”>Cross-Registration Policies and FAQ - MBA - Harvard Business School)</p>
<p>So if you find such grading policies to be absurd, just keep in mind that you’re broadly characterizing entire swathes of the educational establishment as absurd. Like it or not, your grades at many programs are going to be determined by where you stand relative to your classmates, and so students are in direct competition with each other.</p>