@mathmomvt Thank you for your insight! It makes total sense how professors are structuring the classes and the expectations. My concern is going forward. A few low grades are not the end, but if one is consistently the “average” in class with an average GPA how will she compete once it is time to interview for internships and jobs. Her friends who went to an “easier ( I realize this is an over-generalization)” state school will look much better on paper than she does… even though her knowledge and problem solving skills will indeed be stretched. Will people appreciate the difficulty of the program? She loves her school, and I am sure she will adapt to the new expectations; but sometimes I wonder if it would have been better to be at a school where she would probably graduate closer to the top.
@NASA2014 : No…that is ridiculous. That is an easy test not building upon skills that “great test takers” already have. They were great at taking extremely predictable and gameable tests. If the average is near 80 or 80+, it was likely too easy and is just them applying skills from standardized and HS level tests. They need to move beyond that if they are to become leaders in whatever (especially science where it simply just doesn’t work MOST of the time).
@mathmomvt : Glad someone like you agrees with my idea. Also I don’t think it isn’t about what “STEM college courses” are like. I think it is more about mimicking the reality of STEM itself. Often there isn’t one answer, often your guess will be wrong. In addition, being a scientists is not about regurgitating facts to friends and publication reviewers, it is about thinking on one’s feet and throwing out a plausible proposal. Good exams and problem sets would find some way to emphasize this aspect of learning and communicating STEM and yes, since most are not used to doing more than just “exercises”(I agree with this term), raw grades may be low. It seems that folks so desperate to preserve this concept that: “Well they were great at taking low level exams, why shouldn’t they see high raw scores in a selective college?” don’t get that a selective college ideally wants to train the cream of the crop to remain that way. You don’t do that by giving them work where they can just use HS level strengths (talking average or somewhat above average HSs here) to do extremely well. That would defeat the purpose of the “top” school as a student could perhaps get that at a state flagship that may be cheaper. I am convinced that people making these arguments are more concerned about the self-esteem and ego of the child and I kind of get that, but so does the professor who will just recenter the grades on a curve. To give simplified stuff to students with high potential is to shield them from the reality of STEM or really research in any field just to ensure that students continue to feel like perfect snowflakes. I can’t get with that logic, especially having done research and continuing to do it pursuing my PhD. Taking the courses that challenged me in the ways described have helped make me more adaptable, willing to learn other fields not in my areas of strength and expertise, and do lower the barrier for me thinking on my feet to figure out something and running the risk of being incorrect or even not having the best model the first time.
Another thing I was grateful for was having an organic chemistry and cell biology teacher who wrote hard exams and problem sets but put problems and scenarios sort of “on the frontier” such that you can approach them from several angles (you just took some reading/scenario or data and developed a model to explain it/solve the prompt) or proposals that were laudable and you would get credit accordingly. I think this aspect is kind of rare even in university, but I wish more professors would have it because it definitely reflects real science. Often there are multiple models that are published based upon evidence available at the time, and evidence can be messy and open to interpretation. Some may argue that exposing undergrads to “messiness” is too much, but should it be for the so called “best and brightest”. I would think that this crowd is deserving of the “truth”. If hard exams have low averages, put them on a curve or develop some bonus point system. That organic professor did that. You basically earn bonus points on the raw score of recent exams for solving other hard problems posed in p-sets or even during lecture sessions. He would have these competitions to solve problems. A very dynamic instructor this guy is! Point is, he knew he gave very challenging exams, but wanted students to “earn their curves” and also wanted to provide incentive to study frequently such that they can get good practice from higher level problems that ultimately prepare students for the exams. Those getting the bonus points of course did better on exams in terms of raw score. The man knew what he was during. )I’ve seen curves kind of “cheated” because the middle knew they would get some sort of B or no lower than a C+ just as long as they did what most did. So if an exam is split between 50-65% standard level problems and then 35%-50 that are high level, they knew that simply doing okay on the 65% got them somewhere between C+ and B depending on how instructor wants to curve. It means that a huge chunk may just refuse to or give minimal time to prepping for the high level items because they may view it as a tradeoff between getting B+ and higher or having fun or dedicating more time to other courses. Point is, a chun students will just write that portion off as “impossible” and then the system becomes game able) If the middle is in the 50s or 60s in my organic instructors’, then they have to demonstrate competence outside of a 2-3 hour exam or get between an F and C+. Period. So that is another idea. Allow students to demonstrate competence outside of the exam.
Either way, I think there are ways to instill good habits and introduce students to reality, while having them learn at a high level, and not get completely screwed on the transcript. But I guess some believe that since they all had As before, then they should all graduate with As because “they are just so smart”…I am so tired of seeing this argument.
@cheetahgirl121 : I wouldn’t think like that. Not all courses are the same and any given one person may have strengths (perhaps ones they don’t know about. I did not anticipate becoming strong in organic chemistry or something like computational chemistry of all things) in some things and not others. In addition, some strengths may develop after they finish not getting an A in the associated course. Either way, just anecdotally. The business school at my alma mater has a grading distribution in core courses leading to about a 3.15 average (and electives 3.3), yet the average graduate of the program has around a 3.5 and are very successful in entry level job placement. This means students are less likely to be average in literally all of their classes. In addition, in STEM upper division courses provide opportunity for folks to redeem themselves if they didn’t do as well in the exam based intro. courses because often the grade is distributed across a larger amount of items that are not high stakes exams, so a student can show high levels of competency outside of sitting an exam. Hell, if they do a good project/come up with a good idea, that may get the attention of the instructor more so than a person who pre-dominantly aces exams, but maybe doesn’t get as creative with other assignments they are given more time for. Remember, getting internships or whatever also requires references and faculty like to give great ones to those who known for more than just getting an A in their courses. Sometimes an A grade is not even a pre-req. In college, there may be so many ways to demonstrate your abilities and passions beyond earning perfect or top grades that leave an impression on faculty and future reference letter writers, so keep this in mind. No need to be a robot to succeed. Most/Many challenging faculty will recognize that a bigger range of grades are worth paying attention to/viewing as potential talent and will look out for the “imperfect” students as long as they demonstrate lots of effort/passion, and do decently in the course.
Indeed. Just bcos a college grading scale is different than elementary school doesn’t mean the college scale is incorrect. Perhaps its the other way around?
@Dolemite : Many of Princeton’s courses are more integrated than others. The intro. bio sequence apparently now seriously integrates math and physics. lt has a bio version of organic chem as well as a standard (like Harvard and Stanford)…Princeton I would expect is more than alright for keeping up with the times in its regular courses (such that they prep for MCAT and grad school) and other honors courses. Most elites below 12 or so are not, though the concept of a life sciences physics series is beginning to spread. ISC is actually meant to specifically train those going to graduate school in some capacity, and from my vantage point, they are very right as the life sciences have shifted to become much more interdisciplinary. I would have benefited from such a formal program considering my areas of research and research interests. Life Sciences are no longer really studied a like a vacuum of pure molecular bio and genetics, especially with the rise of fields like chemical biology and with fields like structural biology along with computational life sciences being on fire (and reinforcing each other).
- I know what ISC is.....and still basically view it as honors because one would generally have a pretty strong background in STEM to pursue it. I am using a loose definition of honors. It is significantly more integrated and accelerated than other Princeton courses at the intro/intermediate level and would not be as accessible (intellectually) to most students with a typical background and ambition in STEM. To me that counts as effectively an honors track even if that is not "technically" what it is. Having experience in "that type of thinking" counts in my opinion, especially if it came through research, olympiads, whatever. The point is, in some way, students on that track are more ambitious or well equipped than others.
https://lsi.princeton.edu/integratedscience/about/enroll
It comes with recommended pre-reqs see. The others who pursue it are more ambitious. In addition, on top of AP Calculus BC, I bet a majority or huge number of students in it have other high passes on AP/IB/A-level STEM exams. Not for an “average joe” STEM student at Princeton by any means.
The main difference there is that usually you don’t really have to be able to work under such intense time pressure in real STEM careers. This is why I generally prefer take-home exams where possible for this time of exam. However, I do believe that having to sometimes do that kind of thinking under pressure does train the brain in some beneficial ways, so I do think it’s worth suffering/struggling through sometimes.
The main issue is that people have to get away from the notion that getting a 40% raw grade on an exam means you “only know 40% of the material” – that only applies when exams are about regurgitating facts, or stepping through problems you’ve already seen, but with different inputs.
The other cool thing about an exam where you can only solve about half the problems is that it helps you learn the genuine value of teamwork, and learn where your unique strengths lie. If I can solve 40% of the problems (or parts of problems), and my friend can solve a different (or only partially overlapping) 40%, then together we can see that we would make a really strong team. We were allowed to do challenging problem sets (but not exams) with friends as long as we listed who we worked with, and it was then that I learned that with the right group, teamwork isn’t that stupid thing from HS where you have to carry the rest of the group because they don’t care about the grade as much as you do. It can be a genuine team effort where you each contribute different skills and the whole is more than the sum of the parts. That was another real eye-opener for me in college.
They just released a senior survey at Harvard. The average GPA is 3,.8. It is virtually impossible to get a GPA of less than 3.0. Does everyone know what a Harvard graduate with a 3.0 is called?? A Harvard graduate.
My organic chem prelims at Cornell had means in the 30s and 40s, often out of tests worth 120 or 140 points. @mathmomvt’s explanation is spot on.
@momofsenior1 no Ivy League fan boys will ever believe that stat. I believe student that wat to go to ivy schools just want an easy way of getting their degree. Since statistics show that Ivy League colleges have a high grade inflation.
Also,
What @momofsenior1 said is accurate. Just because the mean on a test is 40 per cent at an Ivy doesnt mean it is not an A
Back in the day (30 years ago), the mean was usually a C+ or B- depending on the class but I do recall getting a 57 out of 120 on my first inorganic prelim and being in tears until I realized that was actually an A- because of the mean/curve.
I don’t think anyone smart enough to go to an Ivy League school thinks it will be “easy”.
Not just in the Ivies, but in any Top-25 school where pre-med is a focus, 40% on a midterm doesn’t mean it’s not an A, especially in Organic Chemistry.
@mathmomvt : Yes, however, these types of pressured exams could remind me of the capstone exam oral component here in Utah Biosciences. You write up a 2 year NIH mockgrant, and put together 5 slides (you were expected to use a marker and the board “chalk talk” style to adequately answer questions not addressed in the slides) to defend the whole thing while a committee sits there with the written portion and this is BEFORE pre-lims in my first year of the program. You have an hour in this oral exam and it is just you presenting your logic and experiments and them shredding or questioning the hell out of your experimentation and rationale. It was “fun” but not easy prepping for that. Often they tried to take you off course (and you have to find some way to answer that will reign them back in). For an exam, this is kind of like how many challenging STEM professors put long passages of information with figures associated with problems, some of it relevant, some not. And you have to decipher what may be useful to address a prompt that may be asked in a “not so straight-forward way”.
I keep in touch with my old organic chemistry professor and he is teaching courses in the revamped chem. curriculum at Emory and even though he now teaches freshmen, he uses his challenge problems, the same rendition he would use for his sophomore organic courses on the old curriculum. A classic example of what I mention above is him giving 3 pages of introductory material and figures on a DNA alkylating pro-drug and then the actual prompt saying something as innocent sounding as “why is the compound in its pro-drug state ineffective versus actual drug?”. Turns out it is a loaded question. From the figures and the question itself, the students must figure out the ACTUAL arrow pushing mechanism of DNA alkylation (which involves neighboring group participation, something they were not taught explicitly, but they were taught substitution reactions) and then kind of go back and figure out how the structure of each will dictate the ability for each molecule to undergo specific steps in the mechanism (the difference is in the neighboring group participation step. Participating atom in prodrug is resonance stabilized, so first substitution is inhibited. Needless to say, you are messed up if you miss the first substitution as part of the arrow pushing). That was just ONE (higher levels were like 70% of the exam) of the many challenging problems he puts on a single exam. It takes some in depth knowledge, interpretation skills, “aha!” moments, and ability to draw out and clearly present logic based upon several pieces of evidence/figures to successfully crack that type of problem. It isn’t straight-forward at all and making too many simplifying assumptions or ignoring key figures when setting it up will sink you. Interestingly, he is such a good teacher that apparently students (yes the freshmen) really like him and even look forward to those types of problems, especially since many of them are biology and neuroscience majors. I think it is a confidence booster (and is generally exciting) to eventually be able to push your mind to think in such ways successfully.
Given my current and past experiences, I would not go back in a time machine and dodge that instructor (who I took for frosh ochem. Thank goodness he was teaching it and not one of the softer instructors teaching it today) and those similar to him in other departments. I would do it all over again in a heartbeat. It teaches key competencies and even life skills that have clearly benefited me. It isn’t all about whether I always felt great about myself and the course after each exam or problem given to me in class. And even though most struggled at times (usually even the student at the top of the course would get a low"ish" score on at least one exam. No one was “safe” so to speak. Top performers may not always feel confident). He also has experimented with and likely still does take home or group components. He likes to ask really challenging synthesis problems so gives students a toolbox (because he wants them to think mechanistically and not just string together a strategy they were taught already) and lets them do that in a group sometimes, and then will make them take the rest of the exam with the mechanisms and challenge problems separately alone over a 2-2.5 hour period (3-4 for the final).
Most Common GPA: 3.8
Median GPA: 3.79
Average GPA: 3.70
67% of students reported GPA of >= 3.7
86% of students reported GPA of >= 3.5
99.3% of students reported GPA of >= 3.0
47% chose a STEM related concentration (sciences or SEAS)
55% reported that their concentration courses were “very” or “somewhat” difficult.
I feel as if every STEM student (especially at elites) pre-med or not, should take at least 1-2 courses at that caliber as almost a rite of passage (this is of course no issue for engineering majors, but some in things like biology and neuro…eh. Sadly many instructors in those are old school. And even in cases where a course could be refocused upon analytical thinking, they still choose to train students to do memorization and some kind of low level applications/applied memorization. If students know who these instructors are, and there are often more than they would like to admit, you could create a path whereby one sticks to what they were trained for, and take primarily the regurgitation/memory focused bio and neuro courses. But most top schools are kind of aggressive in moving faculty away from that fortunately), but most importantly, just to force themselves to develop high level problem solving skills in something. The world will not end if they come up somewhat short grade wise in such a course as things like B grades in them actually mean a lot in terms of learning outcomes. It is a non-A grade or non-B+ worth some pride because to get B grades, you actually did have to be successful on sever high caliber problems.
@Data10 thank you for post 335. I stand corrected 
@Data10 : That is interesting. I guess Harvard could choose not to use relatively soft curves or adopt different norms in certain courses/depts, but it is kind of accurate to say that STEM and even lots of say economics courses are often tougher/more accelerated than those at “regular” schools and even most elites. I can’t say I am comfortable with such high medians, but it would be nice if more elite schools would try to adopt the actual “pitch” of many of Harvard’s courses (I am mainly talking about those courses designed for concentrators). It is weird, because I know some, say pre-healths at lower ranked elites (out of tier) will point to Harvard and say: “But look it is so much easier because they benefit from all the grade inflation”, but the picture is more complicated. If Harvard students’ are taking core courses in their majors that are quite a bit more advanced (content wise as well as complexity of demands in assessments) than renditions at your school, who is to say it would be “cushier” at Harvard. In addition, I think a lot of their introductory STEM courses, for example, have low averages and then curve to maybe a solid B which is a common practice among elites (but some still do more like B- or somewhere between C+ and B, depends on school, department, and year). I also know that traditionally, lots of Harvard courses, STEM or otherwise, even at intro. levels usually have more than exams and quizzes as graded components so that could contribute. One’s whole grade may not rest on a few high stakes, time-crunched items. At the end of the day, if an “average” Harvard student is serious, they are probably learning at higher levels or at least being demanded more of than are students elsewhere regardless of the grades awarded. I cannot necessarily say the same with schools more stingy with grades. In addition, as I said, I suspect more Harvard students are choosing special options and honors tracks for themselves than lots of other places or are at least interested in them:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/9/4/College-introduces-LS50-course/
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/ls50/home
You’ve probably seen me post this a million times, but it is very telling and there are probably no schools outside of Harvard’s tier that could get that level of interest in an analogous option. Can they even get 25 to express interest? People love to bash Harvard undergraduate education, but I guess any very top school like that makes for an ideal target. For all of its problems, I would say that it is still an archetype in many ways and is still light-years ahead of many other places in training the most talented students. Lots of those top 10 ranked schools in USNWR actually have different curricula and academic cultures from the other elites. They didn’t get there and nor do they seem to stay there by just using magic and keeping high incoming stats.
In terms of grade inflation or not, I think it’s a shame that many med schools (for example) take grades at face value rather than in context, which leads to schools like Harvard feeling it’s only fair to grade inflate given what a high caliber all their students are to begin with.
From the student’s point of view, it’s a fallacy to assume that the student is better off at a school that curves to a median 3.79 than one that curves to a 3.0 or even a 2.5, since it depends very much where you are going to fall on that curve. The assumption is that an average student at Harvard would be a tippy top student elsewhere.