<p>Harvard's grades have not risen as fast as at some other institutions, but they have also been consistently somewhat higher (synchronic). Chicago may have had a higher rate of grade inflation (diachronic) but they remain lower than at Harvard. I did not see Cornell on the list provided on the site."</p>
<p>Cornell's were on the paper that I cited and linked earlier, with a 2004 GPA median grade of 3.34. Chicago's for 1999 were 3.26 (and at the average rate of grade inflation, would now be higher than Cornell's, as they were in 1999.)</p>
<p>Okay, I missed the Cornell data then. But it bears out my point that Harvard's grades have been fairly consistently higher than Chicago's or Cornell.
I wonder, however, if Cornell's median GPAs reflect a larger proportion of students in engineering than Harvards, in which case, Cornell and Harvard's GPAs would probably be on a par, with Chicago substantially lower.</p>
<p>Sorry I'm rather late to the discussion but on first reading the OP my thoughts were: "must be Cornell."</p>
<p>I wouldn't be too upset with your son because his experience is rather commonplace at Cornell. In our part of the world Cornell's reputation among the Ivies is "the easiest to get in and the hardest to stay in." I might add that most Cornellians wear this as a badge of honor. There have been numerous posts on CC over the last two years about the shock that most first year students at Cornell go through when they see grades that they have never before seen in their lives. Unfortunately this also has a sad side because it correlates to a darker topic, the on campus bridge known as Suicide Bridge. </p>
<p>Offer much encouragement and support and have him understand that most grad and professional schools are fully aware of Cornell's grading policies.</p>
<p>Mini </p>
<p>We have always heard that Cornell, like Wake Forest (Work Forest) has little to no grade inflation in the hard sciences and engineering areas and very strict grading curves. I am wondering if the grade inflation you mention includes data from the land grant side of the school as well?</p>
<p>More urban myths - over the past decade, Cornell has had the LOWEST rate of suicides among the Ivies. </p>
<p>Engineering - in the median grades at Cornell posted above, median grades for Spring '05 in engineering courses ranged from a B to an A! </p>
<p>I'm not contending that these myths were never true - many of them had some basis in reality, from 10 to 40 years ago. Nor do median grades tell us anything about the work necessary to attain them, across colleges. And I know little about Caltech or MIT or engineering programs generally. But the idea that Chicago, Swarthmore, Cornell, etc., being more "difficult", have that difficulty reflected in significantly lower GPAs just isn't borne out by the data.</p>
<p>bball - skimming that link, the median grades looked pretty darn high to me. Only saw one C and one C+ (and those not in Engineering or hard science); not even sure I saw a B-. Tons of A, A-,B+. So, as an outside observer, I'm wondering (along with mini, above) where the "Cornell is so grade-deflated" rep is coming from. Is it that the grades below the median are WAY below the median? IE, either you do well or you bomb?</p>
<p>well u have to remmeber, in a class like intro chem or intro bio where there can be a 1000 students in both courses, it is curved to a B-. That means that 500 kids in both courses get C or lower, and therefore, they can walk out with a first semester gpa of 2. something</p>
<p>Oooh, this brings back memories. I went into science at a near Ivy w/ top scores and got blown out my freshman year. It was ugly, I lost my scholarship and dad was PO'd at me. But I didn't truly get back on track until after I took a semester off from school. Dad nearly had a heart attack when I did that. But the "real world" gave me a new perspective and I never got less than a 3.5 after that. At that point, I knew what I wanted and needed from college. I even got straight A's in grad school. So my advice is relax and be supportive. He'll find himself on his own terms and in his own time.</p>
<p>This is going back aways but I remember when I was an undergrad at University of Chicago--the kids that did poorly and left did not fail because they couldn't do the work, they failed because they freaked out and lost confidence in their ability.That's what I remember thinking then (in the 70's), and I guess I still believe the same thing. So, encourage and support your kid if he is doing poorly--you know he has the ability! </p>
<p>Also, my perception of grades of University of Chicago, even back then, (pre-grade inflation?) was that B's were not that difficult to get but A's were. Not every professor followed the only 10% will get an A in a class rule, but many did. They had something called "student marshalls", I think, at graduation--those were the kids that graduated with a 3.75 or above (4.0 was the maximum). There weren't very many of those in a graduating class. I wonder if the numbers have grown? (If they still have them, I don't know).</p>
<p>This is neither here nor there, but back then, Chicago was pretty generous with giving incompletes in some classes--a mixed blessing. You could find yourself taking way too long to finish up a paper for a class this way, could have it hanging over your head way too long. A friend of mine had numerous incompletes, and she did finally finish them and graduate, but it took a long time. I'm curious as to whether Chicago and other schools still do this.</p>
<p>I had a roommate at Brown who would take incompletes in most classes ROUTINELY, every semester. Then she'd use whatever vacation followed end of semester to finish up all the work. I don't know WHY she did this, it seemed like self-torture to me. She wound up in grad school at U Chicago so it worked for her!</p>
<p>I could not believe how easy it was for her to get the incompletes; I would never have dared ask.</p>