I’ve got some friends at UChicago who tell me that they work quite hard to succeed in class (many are disciplined and average about 15 - 20 hours studying a week), but most of them have 3.6 - 3.7 GPA. They seem to get A or A- in most of their electives and core classes, but B/B+ in their major classes if quantitative. They are a combo of econ, applied math, comp sci, and polisci majors. I can’t imagine this is too different from say Columbia or UPenn.
Most of them were the types who took as many AP’s that they could handle with high GPA and got over 1500 on SAT and were able to find legitimate success in a number of extracurricular endeavors.
How much harder is it to succeed academically at UChicago than peer schools? Are all the old slogans about the school just hype or is there some basis in reality about them (i.e. “where fun comes to die”)?
One difference between UChicago and a whole lot of other top schools is the pace of a typical course or sequence. There are arguments for and against the quarter system but one thing it does is encourage a more rapid progression through the material. Whether profs compensate by giving out kinder gentler grades nowadays - not sure.
The Core is less detailed and more expansive than it used to be, and some of the “fun goes to die” image began to be retired along with the older, less flexible version. However, there are still plenty of tough core classes - in pretty much every subject - so a lot depends on how much your friends are challenging themselves in their choice of core or electives. On the other hand, they may just be great fits for UChicago and would find themselves bored elsewhere.
I second @JBStillFlying above. Not all courses are uniformly hard. But some honors courses are inherently difficult, and when combined with the quarter pace make for a very intense experience. And the constant p-sets from all courses (difficult or not) really puts the squeeze on.
@ResidentEvilPS Are you asking about course difficulty or grade inflation/deflation? If you are taking a class where exam scores are curved with a high number of high achieving students who have high stats, your grade will depend on factors other than course difficulty alone.
^ Second what @ccdad99 is saying. My D’s calc. sequence had a good number of curve-busters who were scoring easy A’s and probably could have been a bit more challenged with a higher sequence. Perhaps they had other demands on their time and needed a less-demanding class, or were pre-med/pre-law so needed a high GPA.
Another potentially distinguishing point is that UChicago’s Core has a pretty strict attendance component, at least for the non-math and science sequences (nb: while math and science may not take attendance during the lecture you obviously have to show up to lab or discussion sections. Core Bio seemed to do the lab during class so hard to skip out at all there). My D’s Civ. sequence requires that you show up even though it’s more of a lecture than a seminar, and the instructor cold-calls so you actually have to show up prepared. This attendance component might not be as strict at other schools, particularly if you are a D1 athlete and traveling. So not sure it’s “difficulty” so much as it is the environment of the place being more intensely focused on the academic side at the expense of other campus activities that might distinguish UChicago from some peers. For the most part, you are expected to show up to class.
Another theory is there are better students coming in today then in the past? I know, I know, there were always smart people, but the average SAT score continues to rise. Nondorf keeps saying “You are the best, most prepared class” to every class every year.
It is the same argument that says “do elite universities better prepare one for law school or is the material that the elites start with better and they would have performed better on the LSAT regardless of where they did their undergrad?”
My DS, who also had all A/A- in his first quarter said the classes were very, very tough and that he had to work very, very hard to achieve what he did. He has always been an all A student, but he rarely had to work for that in the past.
^ For context regarding the “better student” theory, UChicago’s admit rate is now close to 7% out of 32,000+ apps. In 1999, it was 50% out of a pool that was a fraction of the current size. So yes, they can be choosy about the quality of applicant admitted. No small feat, given that enrollment has also expanded significantly during the same time period.
I am not sure if OP is asking about this, but grade deflation at UChicago probably continues to be a question in the minds of many. Certainly, there are anecdotes and reports that average GPA is creeping up maybe due to more lenient grading practices or due to a changing student body that is either more GPA conscious or with better academic credentials or both. Does anyone know where Chicago’s current average GPA lies compared to peers? I found this article which shows it ranked toward the bottom of the pack, although maybe the differences are becoming less significant. I can’t confirm its accuracy.
@ccdad99 - noticed the same article and the data isn’t sourced. What’s interesting about it, however, (assuming it’s accurate) is a relatively large cluster of schools in the lower 2/3 of that graphic. Also, apparently UChicago grades easier than does Princeton, MIT, JHU or CalTech - either that or the graphic just isn’t complete in terms of relevant data.
[quote]
I had made it this far. If I was going to fail, I was going to fail with dignity. I decided to take the final./quote The risk for this person is that if he answered too many questions correctly, he would get a “C” (which most people don’t want). As you can see from https://www.brown.edu/about/administration/institutional-research/factbook/courses, only 3% of the grades are “C”. People who find they can’t do well in a particular course usually drop it. It is the grade friendly policy which induces the perception of grade inflation. If you look at any particular STEM course, there is no grade inflation at all. It is very hard to get an A. But those people who choose to be there feel much better even if they get a B/C. They could have dropped it. A lot of margin for errors, which is one of the key reasons people are happy at Brown. 30 courses needed for graduation.
It’s also why lots of the people at Brown are completely not focused on their courses and classroom experience. Which is a huge contrast to the University of Chicago, where the classes you are taking and what actually goes on in class are central to almost everyone’s life.
@ccdad99 : I only said there is no grade inflation at Brown. If someone were to sit in a core course with people who are very good at a particular subject, I think the person would feel there is graduation deflation even if it does not exit.
@nrtlax33 I see. I did not claim there is grade inflation at Brown. I only attached the link in an effort to find a comparison of Chicago’s GPA to its peer schools. As stated above, there are obviously problems with this article which I acknowledged.
Coming back to your question, I understand this is a matter of personal opinion but if Chicago did not record any grade below C, I would call that grade inflation. Not recording pluses or minuses could work in either direction.
How the heck did we get from discussing difficulty of classes at UChicago to grade inflation at Brown? OP didn’t ask about Brown and it’s not relevant to the discussion.
Interesting about that “grade friendly” policy at Brown. Just checked the graduation rates on College Navigator. Brown has a higher overall (ie 6 year) grad rate than does Uchicago; however, the four year rate is lower (both sets of stats are plus or minus a couple percentage points). Wondering if more kids stick it out at Brown but take longer to graduate due to, perhaps, frequent course drops. Interestingly, six-year grad rates for under-presented race/ethnicity groups are higher (sometimes significantly higher) at Brown.