<p>newmassdad, some of the data may be faulty, but does that mean that we should discount all of it? I think we can trust the sources generally, but unfortunately I have a very basica understanding of statistics (without having taken any courses in it), and perhaps I miss some of the problems with it.</p>
<p>calkidd,</p>
<p>
[quote]
The MCAT and LSAT test how well you can prepare for a field-specific standardized test. Many people will devote an entire semester to studying for these exams, lightening their course load, which you can imagine is going to be difficult for an engineering student to do. So I'd expect engineers to do less well on these tests than other students. Where engineers have an advantage, as far as law school, is the option to do IP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, engineers tend to have more strict curricula, so I agree there. I would hesitate in calling either the LSAT or the MCAT "field-specific," and would point out that engineers (as far as I know) are required to take at least the pre-med sequence courses and beyond in many fields (physics and calculus). The LSAT stresses logical reasoning, a strong point of the sciences, especially mathematics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Overall, the GPA disadvantage of being in engineering in terms of admissions far outweighs the extra doors it opens. If one can get a high GPA than engineering is a great door into investment banking;
<p>This thread started with a discussion of grade deflation at BU. We have looked at this issue from every perspective and have added our comments, concerns and plenty of anecdotes. We beat this poor topic into the ground. In spite of all this analysis, I am not sure I know much about grade inflation/deflation at various colleges. There does not seem to be much real data. The data at gradeinflation.com is many years out of date. In addition it appears that the reliability and comparability of the original data was questionable. There seems little doubt that grade inflation has occurred at almost every college, but it appears difficult to compare grading practices for various colleges and between departments and programs. We have even less data to compare academic rigor and course difficulty between colleges. I also wonder if grade inflation/deflation has much effect on learning. It would seem logical that the challenge of tough grading would motivate students, but is it really so?</p>
<p>Nice summary. Personally, I do not believe that tough grades motivate students unless scholarships are attached to them. If not, some students will work hard no matter what and some students will slack off no matter what. And some will try to beat the system one way or another.</p>
<p>you both raise interesting questions. One of the serious problems with research in this area, and a problem with so many facets of research regarding higher ed practices, is the paucity of decent data. </p>
<p>This is no accident, I'm afraid, as we look at the degree to which unis have kept some data hidden from public view.</p>
<p>So, on this topic, as with so many others, the best we can do is speculate.</p>
<p>DRJ4, I was thinking mostly in the context of science graduate school admissions, since that is the postgrad admissions situation I know best. I was also thinking of basically all "Podunk U"-type schools in aggregate -- I think it's a lot fairer numerically than just selecting a similarly-sized population from a large state school, for instance.</p>
<p>For the program which I am attending next year, which is one of the top three programs in biology, there are 70 first-years. Ten of us graduated from MIT, while twelve of us graduated from state schools (not including UCLA, UMich, UC Berkeley for the purposes of this comparison). There's really no limit on the number of students who could have applied from those twelve schools -- many of them are very large and have a large number of biology majors. From MIT, the number of applicants is strictly capped around 100, because there are only 90 biology majors per year at MIT. Moreover, the majority of MIT biology majors (~75%) are pre-med and wouldn't be applying to a PhD program. </p>
<p>It's reasonable to assume that no more than 20 MIT students applied to this particular PhD program. Ten matriculated, and I know that several others got in but chose other programs.</p>
<p>There were around 600 applications to this program this year, and 20 of them came from MIT. I don't know how many came from large state schools, but my money is on a lot more than 20.</p>
<p>I agree with marite - in fact I'll go further - if anything, GPA focused admissions to professional schools encourage people to challenge themselves as little as possible. I don't think it's an accident that at some of the lesser known medical schools, there is a need for remedial sections on things like germ theory even for students with 3.5 and higher averages. </p>
<p>I think across the board grade deflation (at least to the point that a 3.5 is a high GPA, anything above 3.7 is incredibly rare, and 2.0 is a respectable pass) would be a great benefit - in this case, one really bad mark doesn't do as much to the overall average. As long as there isn't a push to fail people. But I don't see why the professional schools should have any motivation to change their system as long as folks (especially future employers) are so fixated on US News rankings / general prestige.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing your perspective and congratulations on your accomplishments. It sounds like you have excellent career prospects that I'm sure result from your hard work. I am still confused about your point, though. If the pool of graduate school applicants you are comparing is MIT vs. The World, MIT would clearly win that battle. To be fair, though, you need to look at MIT vs. College A, MIT vs. College B, MIT vs. College C, and so on. I suspect MIT would still come out on top in the sciences because it provides a superior education and graduate schools know this, but it's not a meaningful comparison unless you compare the success of applicants from College A with the success of applicants from College B. We can't do this because most colleges don't release these statistics and our discussions here at CC revolve around "inside information" contributed by students, parents, and a few college reps.</p>
<p>Part of the reason an MIT degree commands respect is that people believe they don't hand out A's there - you earn your A's. A good product plus accurate grading helps MIT graduates rather than hurts them. Over time, a good education and grade deflation may help Boston U graduates, too.</p>
<p>Educators have wrestled with the best way to teach during the past 40 years. It basically boils down to: Should students compete or cooperate? We've seen educators choose between (on the one hand) dodgeball, spelling bees, and competitive grading and (on the other hand) cooperative play, nurturing, and grade inflation so everyone wins. I'm sure different students respond to different incentives but overall I think we shifted from a competitive educational system that favors boys to a cooperative system that favors girls. As a result, more girls are succeeding in college while fewer boys even attend.</p>
<p>As I said in my earlier post, I'm sure different students respond to different incentives. I also agree that some girls can be competitive just as some boys can be cooperative. However, I also believe that girls are more cooperative by nature and thus will do better than boys in a system that favors cooperation. Also, I think that girls are more adaptable than boys.</p>
<p>assuming that at harvard its easy to get straight A grades is easy completely devalues the hours and hours of sweat and blood and lack of sleep that students put in to get them. its easy at harvard to get Bs and B+s, but in my experience, to get above that in all courses takes a hell of a lot work and depth of understanding of the material. </p>
<p>also, just becuase the students there are excellent, should the each be punished GPAwise for the acheivements and high level of their peers?</p>
<p>not that it matters to anyone, but working as hard as you can, and earning good grades, and then turning around and having people say ohhh you only got those grades cause your school has mad grade inflation just completely devalues the achievement. and it is one, no matter how much you think grade inflation is a problem.</p>
<p>I don't think it's easy to get straight As at Harvard, especially true As (not A-s). It's only happened a handful of times in history, twice over the past 30 years, I believe (to biological siblings, no less).</p>
<p>
[quote]
also, just becuase the students there are excellent, should the each be punished GPAwise for the acheivements and high level of their peers?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think this is one of the best justifications for modern day grade trends. It really does make sense. At the same time, however, is everyone so excellent that they deserve all but token B's for minimum work? Not that everyone gets B's by doing nothing- you have to do something, and some classes probably give out many Cs, and some students will get Ds and worse in some cases, but I bet in many classes, doing even mediocre jobs on the bare minimum (the major assignments and exams) results in C's at worst, and often a fairly respectable B result. </p>
<p>I can understand how it's frustrating. If others won't believe you, that's their problem, and you'll be greatly rewarded in general even if you graduate with a 2.0 GPA. Basically, you win at life. :)</p>
<p>Grading is a troubling issue. What if a particular classroom of students does above-average work while another classroom does mediocre work? Adhering to a strict grading structure unfairly penalizes the first class and rewards the second. On the other hand, it can also be a problem to permit professors to grade without guidelines. The varying results between different professors and classes are more likely to be arbitrary and unfair to the students.</p>
<p>My preference is for colleges to make their grading procedures and guidelines (whatever they may be) public so students, graduate schools, and potential employers can be informed and make better decisions.</p>
<p>I agree, DRJ4, that grading practices should be stated publicly and clearly, and most especially should be made known at the beginning of every course to every student.
BU's grade deflation is in keeping with its general nature: it is a research university of international caliber, populated with a wide variety of students, many of whom are significantly less academically qualified than the average student at other schools of comparable stature.
That policy is not necessarily fair to the students, but BU can hardly help it that the caliber of the applicant pool has yet to catch up with the vast increases in the quality of the school in the past 30 years. </p>
<p>I hope that doesn't sound snobby, but I think it's a logical explanation.</p>
<p>Just my humble opinion as a parent here. BU makes its grading practices VERY well known. Before my son's freshman year, we attended the parent orientation. It was VERY VERY clear that grades were not going to be easy to earn. In fact, the dean who spoke about grading stated clearly that students should not expect to get all A's...that a C was average and a B was above average and an A meant you excelled. My kid knew he would have to work hard for his grades, and he has no problem with that. The courses have been rigorous, but the expectations of the teachers and the grading policies were VERY up front.</p>
<p>thumper1, the student orientation should provide the same information. Many parents don't attend the parents' orientation, and regardless, that shouldn't be the only avenue.
Of course, BU's reputation for grade deflation is so wide-spread that they hardly need to announce it, but I disagree that the grading practices are sufficiently publicized by university officials.</p>
<p>I'm the higher education reporter for The Arizona Republic. I'm writing a story about grade distribution at Arizona's three public universities. I'm interested in talking to any of you who have views on the issues addressed in Freedman's story, including the validity of grading systems. Please feel free to call me at 602-444-4856 or e-mail me at <a href="mailto:mike.cronin@arizonarepublic.com">mike.cronin@arizonarepublic.com</a>.</p>
<p>"Educators have wrestled with the best way to teach during the past 40 years. It basically boils down to: Should students compete or cooperate?"</p>
<p>Why are those the only two choices? Those may be the only ways to "teach", but it isn't even close to describing the best ways students learn.</p>
<p>Due to the inconsistencies of grading policies throughout many Universities, Grade inflation/deflation is a major problem. Employers don't know the median grades for the class nor for individual courses taken. Many of them just look at the overrall GPA and decide not to call the individual for an interview. Coming from a person that goes to Cornell and who has to fight an uphill battle with the administration regarding grades...
I feel like grade inflation is as serious issue especiallly because i will potentially be competing with those students for a good-paying job. I mean why else would i spend a fortune on education... So i could get weeded out and be earning minimum wage/</p>
<p>If the school claims to be the best school in the country... harvard being my example... then it should also be the HARDEST school in the country.. i dont buy that the kids are sooooo good that they all deserve A's.... they should then make the material harder or rather more in depth in order to broaden the minds of their students... thats just how i see it.. im goin to bu by the way</p>