<p>Bucknell - 3.4
Miami - 3.3
Boston College - 3.55 Fall, 3.4 Spring</p>
<p>Thats what i got off the top of my head...</p>
<p>how is this true</p>
<p>there has to be a different in course loads, someone taking a hard science course will prob have a lower gpa than someone not taking any</p>
<p>school differences</p>
<p>a community college kid may have a 4.0 whereas another kid may have much lower b/c the competition is so much greater</p>
<p>These are the averages from their websites. Its only mean to be a guideline of sorts that reveals competitiveness. If you are taking a real challenging workload and you have a 3.3 or 3.2, you obviously stand a solid chance at a place like Bucknell.</p>
<p>and ive noticed grade deflation is a concern of yours, its mine as well. The truth of the matter, however, is that its always better to see A's than C+'s etc no matter what the course loud. If a CC kid has a 4.0, he/she did they best they could do....you cant discount that fact. But yeah its hurting my app too...im not exaggerating when i say my class averages hover in the 63-71 range. Many courses like Psych and Soc are like the 50s. Of course, we have a different grading standard in Canada so its all relative.</p>
<p>i go to Cornell, and grade deflation while a concern of mine, isn't that really big of deal, it is a big deal in intro science courses, but hey that's life, i have accepted to</p>
<p>if i can't get into Penn with a 3.6 with a phenomenal high school record and a 1450 SAT than I wasn't meant to go there</p>
<p>yeah good luck on the apps</p>
<p>Keep in mind that if you have a lower GPA because you have taken harder courses, that may mean zilch if the program you're applying to is impacted. </p>
<p>Example: CCCs to UCs</p>
<p>Those who take harder (hard sciences, calculus, etc.) courses and would be expected therefore to have lower GPAS actually are held to higher standards. This is because they are applying to highly impacted programs.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, students applying to humanities majors, for instance, are held to lower standards, even though humanities classes are considered easier to get As in.</p>
<p>Never assume that the Sciences and Humanities are Hard or Easy. I've had some very difficult teachers in BOTH areas when it comes to grade distribution. </p>
<p>It's not the classes that are always hard, it's how the teachers present the material. Some teachers don't like to give A's. I was sometimes frustrated that I would do a "A" quality work and got a "B" instead. It boils down to the professors grading policies. Can't always escape that.</p>
<p>You made a bit of a logical error. We aren't comparing individual classes here. You can't really depend on the fact "humanities classes are generally easy" when it comes to deciding whether or not one particular class will be hard. The professor element comes into play much more when we are looking at that specific framework. So yes, the point that you shouldn't assume sciences or humanities are hard or easy WHEN APPROACHING an INDIVIDUAL class decision is valid.</p>
<p>But I was discussing these groups. You can account for differences in professors and still come to conclusions about the difficulty of groups of courses; this is because the professor difference can be averaged out.</p>