<p>This is something I have a little bit of a trouble with. Intuitively, it makes sense to assume that at schools with varying degrees of selectivity, the courseloads are more challenging or less so. However, doesnt it become pointless to judge the level of the courses and the difficulty of the material, simply by pointing out the 'nature' of the school in general? Is a 3.7 at a CC never equivalent to a 3.7 at say for instance Cornell? My impression from admissions officers and those that I have talked to say that the general coursework and the breadth of courses taken is more important then the school itself. This is all just normative speculation, but I have a difficult time believing that a 4.0 at any top 25 is any less of an achievement then a 4.0 at a lower tier school, and on face, it says nothing about the applicant.</p>