Nyu

<p>nyusternman, Berkeley is known for grade deflation. This is not even remotely controversial. The rigor of the curriculum is obviously going to vary by major, but over all, there are more people getting A's in any subject at most other schools. It's not the amount of homework a school gives that makes it tough, its the way the curves work. A major like EE is probably always going to be tougher than a major like English, but if there is an curved EE exam at Stanford with median at B and an uncurved EE exam at Berkeley with median at a C- (note: since i havn't been to either school, and I'm not an electrical engineering major, I have no idea if it works like this) , guess which schools average GPA will be lower?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/swarthmore.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gradeinflation.com/swarthmore.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>swathmore looks like it has a higher average gpa, although I think the swat figures are mean and berkeley median</p>

<p>Sorry, I did transfer from a community college in southern CA.</p>

<p>I don't buy it. There's no way Berkeley is as hard as Stern or wharton or mit or caltech.</p>

<p><a href="http://gradeinflation.com/penn.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://gradeinflation.com/penn.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>There is no data on that site for NYU, and I am too lazy to look it up. I don't know anything about the business program at berkeley other than it's good. I do know that anyone that says a good business program (including Wharton) is tougher than a similarily ranked hard sci or ee program is a moron. This goes both for Berkeley and schools with insane grade inflation like Brown.</p>

<p>MIT and Cal Tech are harder schools. I never said Berkeley was the toughest.</p>

<p>The obsequious banter regarding NYU continues...</p>

<p>"I do know that anyone that says a good business program (including Wharton) is tougher than a similarily ranked hard sci or ee program is a moron. This goes both for Berkeley and schools with insane grade inflation like Brown."</p>

<p>I did both, and can assure you that biology/chemistry are no more difficult, in fact more of my As were my pre-meds than my finance and accounting courses. But cool</p>

<p>
[quote]
I did both, and can assure you that biology/chemistry are no more difficult, in fact more of my As were my pre-meds than my finance and accounting courses. But cool

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your argument is fallacious. However, overlooking that rather salient flaw, science majors undergo much more rigor than the typical finance/business major. Though you may have excelled at lower-level science courses, I am surprised you have the hardihood to conflate science to these introductions. If you have excelled at higher level physics or chemestry courses, then perhaps you may possess the authority to render such a claim. Nevertheless, even if you have, the questionable reasoning of your posts suggests that the courses in which you enrolled were not rigorous enough...</p>

<p>imho, pure science majors (w/ exception of math, physics) aren't that much more difficult than tough, elite business schools like stern and / or Wharton.</p>

<p>However, engineering and applied sciences and some pure sciences (math and physics) are significantly more difficult than business majors - even if they're at elite schools.</p>

<p>note that I said similarily ranked. A hard-sci program ranked near Wharton WOULD BE Cal Tech or MIT! Are you trying to tell me Wharton is tougher than Cal Tech?</p>

<p>depends on the major. the finance courses aren't that much easier, whereas management/marketing courses are much easier than hard science ones.</p>

<p>simplified equation that is probably sort of true:
GPA = (ability x time spent) / difficulty of material</p>

<p>The average Wharton finance major probably has an IQ of like 125-135 or so. The average Cal Tech physics major probably has an IQ 140-150. The average Cal Tech physics also studies 23 hours per day and has a social life that largely consists of doing problem sets with friends. The average Wharton finance major studies hard during the week but also has a social life that takes up a lot of study time. If complexity and grading were comparable between the schools, Cal Tech physics majors would have GPAs that would be MUCH MUCH HIGHER than Wharton finance majors. However, the reverse is true.</p>

<p>Thank you dm3. In addition to Cal-tech, many pure and applied science majors at places like Berkeley, Cornell, Michigan, MIT, and many other top schools are much more challenging than majors offered at Wharton and / or Stern.</p>

<p>Studying at Wharton or Stern would be quite fun though. Especially since you can have an awesome social life and at the same time, do well in school and upon graduation, get a kickass investment banking job.</p>

<p>By all means, I think it would be awesome to go to Stern or Wharton. But don't say that their (stern and wharton) difficulty is almost the same as the pure sciences or applied sciences (physics, math, engineering, etc...) at elite schools like Berkeley, Cornell, Michigan, etc...</p>

<p>Engineering and phsyics may be tougher but bio/chem aren't, and I have taken them all so I am not talking out of my asss like you are.</p>

<p>"The average Wharton finance major probably has an IQ of like 125-135 or so. The average Cal Tech physics major probably has an IQ 140-150."</p>

<p>What a stupid statement. Just because they choose these majors doesn't make them smarter. Plenty 1600 scorers don't go to Caltech or MI, because they aren't interested in science/engineering. Majoring in it doesn't make you smart.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What a stupid statement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>None of your propositions are any better.</p>

<p>You know how idiotic your statment was? I could have easily majored in physics or math or engineering but I wasn't interested in it. Stern or Wharton students could have easily taken those classes and done just as well as the caltech or mit students. just because they chose to study something with no practical applications doesn't make them smarter.</p>

<p>For cal-tech or MIT, their pure science majors in math / physics are extremely intelligent - possibly some of the smartest students in the world.</p>

<p>To say that cal-tech majors in some of these pure sciences are going to be - in general - smarter than students at Stern / Wharton isn't an 'idiotic statement'.</p>

<p>
[quote]
just because they chose to study something with no practical applications doesn't make them smarter.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I did not say that; evidently, Stern has not taught you how to read...</p>

<p>I could have easily cured cancer, but I chose not to...</p>

<p>not you, but some other poster said it.</p>