<p>D was at Reed where the rumoured averag GPA has been 2.8 for sometime</p>
<p>so
we will see if this grad schools are all aware of Reeds reputation is true.</p>
<p>No I do not believe the SAT's do very well at predicting academic performance. My point is simply that the bottom 25% percentile at HYPS includes many very bright accomplished students who do have SAT's of about 1400. They are also likely to have HS class rankings in the top 10% and grades close to 4.0. If HYPS implemented BU grade deflation, many of these kids would struggle to get C's and B's. Almost all of them could go to an average State U and do very well. Provided they could stand the boredom.</p>
<p>"Do any posters have an idea if schools known to be either inflating or deflating grades are taken into consideration during admission to some grad schools - i.e. if it's known that school A inflates and school B deflates, will the grad school accept a lower GPA from school B (similar to difficulty rankings colleges use for the various high schools)? I'm talking about inflation/deflation within the same tier of schools."</p>
<p>Unfortunately, grad schools (esp. professional schools) are going to admit the applicant with the higher grades. You can blame this on the rankings. The average GPA of enrolled students is heavily weighted in the rankings methodology (esp. for law and business), so admitting students with lower GPAs is not in the graduate schools interest.</p>
<p>edad,</p>
<p>Interestingly, from what I've observed at U Chi, there is little correlation between who stuggles and who had stellar scores and grades upon entry. I confess, though, that my data is anecdotal. </p>
<p>If your point is that the bottom 25%, under a tough grading program, would struggle, isn't it rather circular? You posit that they'd do better at a state U, but I suspect the bottom kids do as they do mostly for motivational reasons. I've heard firsthand from H faculty about the student work ethic there. For a good percentage (and they end up at the bottom, high though it is) that ethic is really lacking.</p>
<p>Maybe that's because they are tired from all that stress and pressure and endless juggling in high school????</p>
<p>Marite and others, I was not using the 75% A's as a university wide figure but for a particular class section and then as only a hypothetical example. However if you look at the Cornell University grade reports, many classes have a median grade of A, so it is quite possible that in some small classes 75% of students receive grades of A or A+. This is at a university reputed to have a more rigorous grading policy than many of its peer institutions.</p>
<p>iv4me: The problem is that USNews rankings are so omnipresent and go only by numbers, and slipping is a HUGE problem. Too many 3.2s could make a t14 law not be t14 anymore - BIG problem.</p>
<p>Originaloog:</p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying.<br>
A study conducted by Harvard showed that smaller classes have higher grades than larger classes where grades are more likely to fall along a curve either as a result of a deliberate decision on the part of the instructor or as a result of the wide range of the students taking the class.</p>
<p>Reasons suggested for the higher grades included: 1. closer relationship between instructor and student making instructor more reluctant to assign lower grade; 2 better support from instructor allowing student to achieve higher; 3. more self selectivity among students leading to better prepared students; more commitment on the part of students leading to their putting more effort into the class. </p>
<p>Harvard does not give out A+s. As are relatively uncommon, though A-s are given rather liberally. The same study suggested that the large gap between an A- and a B+ made the faculty more willing to give out A-s. The numerical gap has been reduced. I have no idea whether it has reduced the number of A-s. While it is possible to have clear cut numerical grades in math/sciences classes, it is more difficult to set objective standards in social sciences and in the humanities. Is an essay worh 89 or 90? If the class is uniformly excellent, should some still get a C or B-?<br>
Even in the sciences, grading practices can be unclear, as you well know. Much depends on the level of difficulty. S's prof announced that the median grade on a test was "a very respectable 66/100" and that the top grade was 85. Would a grade that would normally convert to a D+ be considered "very respectable? Only if the prof knew that the students were not expected to answer all questions.</p>
<p>The correlation with grades and class size makes perfect sense. Larger introductory courses are likely to have lower grades. Once students get past the weed-out courses, class sizes are small, students are more specialized and grades are higher. </p>
<p>"If the class is uniformly excellent, should some still get a C or B-?" That is what grade deflation means. Grade deflation sounds like a good thing when we consider giving a few more B's to the top students. It sounds a lot harsher when we consider the bottom half or bottom quarter of the class. These students will get C's (or below) and hopefully some B's. And remember, they just do not work harder and do better. The curve stays the same and on the average the grades cannot improve.</p>
<p>It really is the dilemma between norm-referencing and criterion referencing. The 66/100 as a very respectable median score sounds rather like a score of 5 on an AP test: students are not expected to get 100% of the questions correct or answered.</p>
<p>marite, edad,</p>
<p>Yes the class size - grade effect makes even more sense when you realize that many of the larger classes are lectures for science courses. As marite mentioned, grading does vary by discipline. It seems as you go from engineering to math to physical science to biological science to social science to humanities, the average grades rise right along with the progression. And this has been going on for decades. I suspect it is due to the nature of the material - there is little subjectivity in grading in engineering, math or hard sciences. Conversely, in the humanities...</p>
<p>Regarding low exam averages, again, this has been happening for decades. I remember well the 50% averages in my p chem courses as an undergrad, so it brought back memories when my D told me the average grades for her exams in advanced o-chem this spring. Given the range and depth of material in these advanced science courses, we should not be surprised.</p>
<p>Subjectivity is a loaded word. Let us say that in the social sciences and humanities, several factors are taken into account.</p>
<p>In social sciences and the humanities, style and content both count. The amount of research, the correctness of citations, the originality of the topic, all these are factors that go into a grade. An essay may make some good points but be rather badly written, with misspellings, awkward phrasing or colloquial expressions. Another may be tightly organized, perfectly grammatical and yet utterly lacking in insightful observations. A grader must take all this into account.</p>
<p>Am I missing something here. When I was in college, they used a bell curve in many courses. They gave 10% As, 20% B's, 40% C's, 20% D's and theoretically 10% F's, although profs were not inclined to give F's if the student worked hard and attended all classes.</p>
<p>When I taught at Maryland about 18 years ago, I gave the same curve.</p>
<p>Has this changed everywhere?</p>
<p>well in Ochem for example- failing the final, spring semester resulted in my daughter failing the entire course at Reed- despite good rapport with prof and what she thought was at least a basic understanding of the class-
Tough school- tough course
( since she got an A I believe in the community college course- I suspect that one contributing factor was the height of the bar at Reed- hard to go from failing to an A- even considering retaking otherwise IMO)</p>
<p>taxguy--I don't see how you can impose a bell curve on a class of students that knows the material. If students got the problem sets correct or the lab right or the verses translated--on what basis would you arbitrarily mark them down? </p>
<p>Maybe a bell curve is what naturally happens in a group of students when the material is not well taught. Sociologists probably love its delightful symmetry but that doesn't mean this curve should be enshrined as industry practice.</p>
<p>And one anecdote (not re bell curves but grades in general): I remember one upper level music analysis class I took. It was well-known what a tough grader this prof was, but also a caring & thorough teacher. I was more proud of the B in that course than of all my previous As.</p>
<br>
<p>Maybe a bell curve is what naturally happens in a group of students when the material is not well taught<<</p>
<br>
<p>A bell curve naturally happens when a class is very large and drawn at random from the total population. It is a statistical error to try to force fit a normal distribution (a bell curve) to a small sample size. It would be nonsense insist on giving one A, two Bs, four Cs, two Ds, and one F to a class of ten students. For a class of 500 students a bell curve would more likely be appropriate, assuming again that the class is randomly drawn from the larger population - which is tends not to be true at high-end schools.</p>
<p>wow all of you have made very good points.....very solid thread...</p>
<p>..this is from a student going to BU in the fall by the way...</p>
<p>When teaching in a past life I hated curves or pseudo-curves. I established the criteria that represented A work (etc.), and those criteria were demanding, and if everyone met it fine, if no one met it, fine as well. Though I never experienced the former, I did the latter. My job was to teach and do everything possible to ensure that the students learned the material to a high standard of excellence, not to sort. I would often compare my exams to those used by others who did curve, and who often, but not always, gave fewer A's & B's. I never found an instance where their exams were more difficult, often it was the reverse. The problem may be the lack of consistency and of having a standard against which to cross compare. This may be possible within departments, difficult within colleges, but very unlikely between colleges. This is why test scores, recommendations, research and other experience also play a prominent role grad school decisions. As for earning power after graduation, the research indicates that there is little difference in income between students earning a 2.8 and 3.8 four years after graduation.</p>
<p>I don't think that grading hard is necessarily a bad thing. It really does motivate you to work, and although your GPA might be a bit lower, you're better prepared for enterance exams to grad/professional schools, and any admissions officer or informed employer is going to know that your school was difficult.</p>
<p>I think at most schools the professor gets some way to raise the mean grade if he feels the class exceeded expectations...I don't think they'd let someone who really knew their stuff do extremely poorly. In the words of my computer science professor at Cornell..."The class is uncurved, but we reserve the right to curve, if necessary. We don't want to give everyone Cs".</p>
<p>Harvard has become a running joke on campus. When anyone gets a bad grade, we just laugh and say "Well, should have gone to Harvard." I don't think the quality of the student body is much higher at Harvard than at other elite institutions. In comparison to Cornell they seem to hand out As...an A no longer identifies the people that really know their stuff, but becomes the expectation.</p>
<p>Sorry, but over the past decade, Cornell has had the highest growth of grade inflation of any "prestige" college in the country:</p>
<p>Can't see what the problem is, though. Don't people like A's? Didn't they pay good money for 'em?</p>