<p>they'ver done that for a long time, maybe they should cut down on the inflation of the prof's salaries</p>
<p>Since you have to be a good student to get into Princeton, do you ever wonder who are the people getting Bs and Cs in college, and how did they do in high school?</p>
<p>Assuming that I'm getting into and going to a top college, I hope what that girl said about grad schools/ employers not caring about which college you attend isn't true. I know someone who is pretty smart but decided to only apply to and go to SUNY Stony Brook (good, but not that great) because he knew he would get really good grades and have a high rank there, which would be important for med school. Whereas if he went to a better school, he might not do as well.</p>
<p>This probably won't affect me personally, but I was wondering what you guys make of it. Good thing/bad thing, long term effects?</p>
<p>i think thats bull...if everyone in a class gets 90%+ on a test, are u gonna give em Bs and Cs just cause they're smart? the reason they're all getting As is cause they're all freaking brilliant....argh!!! that article made me mad :mad:</p>
<p>This applies to high schools too. Should just about everyone taking AP classes get As, and have both harder course load and high GPA, or should they just settle for one or the other? Granted, college admission doesn't exactly work the same way as employers, but there's a certain similarity to it.</p>
<p>I think it's a terrible idea. I'm sure it's very upsetting for the unlucky ones who have never failed at anything before but now find themselves with a C or worse.</p>
<p>and ITS RIDICULOUS....if u do the work to deserve an "A" then you should get an A......</p>
<p>I think it's excellent and refreshing to see Princeton stopping grade inflation. Think of it this way: a B at Princeton is just as good as an A at a second tier school. I'm a 4.0 student now, but I'm not expecting that in college at all. And of my friends in college now, the ones at "good" schools, who happen to be 4.0's in high school, are happy with their 3.5's, while my friends at not so good schools got a 4.0 with no problem. It says something about the QUALITY of the education, in my opinion.</p>
<p>And the point is that not everyone in the class /will/ be doing A work. They are making the classes hard enough that you will still get what you earn, you just have to <em>gasp</em> work harder, or maybe accept the fact that grades actually /aren't/ the most important thing in the world.</p>
<p>I've said it before and I'll say it again - the thing I am looking forward to the most in college is working my butt off to get an A, and only getting a B - and being HAPPY with that grade. I can not wait to be CHALLENGED.</p>
<p>I agree with you, prettyfish, to an extent. Curbing grade inflation within a school is fine, but it puts you at a disadvantage when competing against the brightest kids from around the nation (whose schools don't follow the same policies) for places in medical, legal, and grad schools. I mean, if you were an adcom looking at a 3.3 from Princeton (because of the 35% policy) and a 3.9 from Yale... who would you choose for admission?</p>
<p>If I were an adcom, I would know that Princeton grades harder, and thus, probably view them equally, or at least look at more than GPAs.</p>
<p>Hopefully other schools, especially HYSM will follow suit, because grade inflation is seriously dumb.</p>
<p>"Hopefully other schools, especially HYSM will follow suit, because grade inflation is seriously dumb."</p>
<p>The grade inflation at MIT is probably -50% :D</p>
<p>if there is grade inflation going on anywhere, of course that should stop. but is putting a limit on the number of As effective? it seems so arbitrary.</p>
<p>Ok, you got me there ;) MIT really does reign supreme - I still wonder if I would have gotten in there...</p>
<p>I think that the putting a number on it thing isn't going to be like, "Oh look, you all got A's, but I don't like you so you get the B", I think it's more a scale for the grading curve of the teacher - just to prevent them from curving it up really high. I.E. Only curve it so that 35% end up with A's. Now, if more than 35% got A's with absolutely no curving, then that poses a problem - but really that means that the class should be harder, or the grading of papers, etc. is just too easy.</p>
<p>All it's doing is saying "look, we know these kids are smart. That's why they're here. But they can't all be equally good at EVERYTHING, thus, compared to one another, some have to be better. They can't all be as good as the best person in the class, and so, while the best person deserves the A, the 36th best person doesn't. So let's set the standard higher." And honestly, I think it's fairer to the students paying the school for a "world class" education to be held to that high of a standard.</p>
<p>i think that "capping grade inflation" is dumb. if you make an A you deserve an A...</p>
<p>...then again i think arguing about it is pretty dumb too :p</p>
<p>I didn't see prettyfish's comment til after I posted but....I agree completely....especially with the idea that if without curving that many people are making A's, maybe someone (the teacher) is just being too easy/not holding the students to a high enough standard</p>
<p>The point is that that many people /shouldn't/ be making A's. The class should be hard enough that naturally only 35% are ;)</p>
<p>I agree with jssballet. I am somewhat biased since my school does the same thing. The student with the 89.5-rounded-up-average is no different from the 98-average student on paper.</p>