<p>whoa. I'd like to see the statistics that place the average GPA of course 6 majors above course 15 majors.</p>
<p>that would be fascinating</p>
<p>
[quote]
What would be considered a "safe" school at which to study pre-medicine?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know, the 'other' school in town, perhaps?</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I am not arguing that that school is perfectly safe either. I agree that no school is.</p>
<p>On the other hand, MIT's 76% premed admit rate is rather hard to dismiss. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If a prospective student is interested in scientific research, engineering, economics, or any of the other fields available at MIT, he or she can switch to an area of study that will still lead to an interesting career. And MIT offers one benefit over Stanford, Princeton, or Harvard that hasn't really been addressed in this thread: the opportunity to study science among a critical mass of others interested in science/mathematics/engineering. Yes, the courses are hard, and yes, maybe you'll suffer. But you'll all suffer together, and in some ways, I think that actually helps students persist and learn to succeed in science and engineering. IHTFP/IHTFP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is disputing that MIT has unique benefits that other schools do not offer. I have always agreed that if you want a highly intense and research-oriented science, technical management, or especially engineering experience, MIT is arguably the best school in the world for that.</p>
<p>But that's not the question on the table. The question on the table is whether MIT really is the best school for people who intend to be premeds? The truth of the matter is, you don't really need, and in fact, probably don't even want, a highly intensely technical undergrad experience in order to be a successful premed or a successful doctor. I think it is the general consensus here - a point even cellardwellard concedes - that MIT's culture is not geared towards premeds. Hence, being a premed at MIT will require more work on your part than it would at other peer schools, which begs the follow-up question of do you really want to put in that extra work if you don't have to? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, based on statistics compiled by the Career Office, virtually all MIT medical school applicants eventually get in. If you are good enough to get into MIT, there are much harder challenges than being accepted to med school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that right? Again, the 76% admit rate is hard to explain away. Hence, it seems to me that 24% of MIT's premed applicants were somehow unable to surmount this challenge of being a successful premed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
whoa. I'd like to see the statistics that place the average GPA of course 6 majors above course 15 majors.</p>
<p>that would be fascinating
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So would I. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, curving at MIT is supposed to be done in such a way that it only helps students, not hurts them -- that is to say, if the class average is high, you're supposed to straight-scale, but if class average is low (as is typical for tests at MIT) you're supposed to curve.</p>
<p>I believe that is a formal MIT guideline. I never had a test with a class average above 80 that was curved. (And I took vanishingly few tests with a class average above 80.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So then we all agree that curving does in fact occur, which directly contradicts what cellardwellard claims. Apparently, some people didn't get the memo that said that curved grading was eliminated in 2002.</p>
<p>Secondly, I believe you implied the problem with curved courses. You said yourself that you had vanishingly few courses in which the test average was actually high. What that means is that, while in principle, everybody can get an A, in practical terms, since the vast majority of test are in fact curved, the percentage of A's is quite limited. Hence, students at MIT are in constant competition with each other for good grades, which is especially important if you are a premed, for whom top grades are (unfortunately) paramount. </p>
<p>The bottom line is this. I have never disputed that MIT is a great place for premeds who actually do well there. The real question is, what about those premeds who don't do well? What happens to them? Frankly, they probably would have been better off if they had gone to another (easier) school. But that introduces the ex-ante problem of how do you know that you're going to do well before you decide to matriculate? You don't know, which means that MIT represents extra risk, compared to its peer schools.</p>
<p>With so much disinformation it is really time for a serious factcheck:</p>
<p>*There are no curved classes at MIT. Period * </p>
<p>The official policy was established in 2002 applies to ALL courses and reads:
[quote]
2.62.1
The grades to be awarded to students who satisfactorily complete the work of a subject by the end of a term and the definitions of these grades are:
• A Exceptionally good performance, demonstrating a superior understanding of the subject matter, a foundation of extensive knowledge, and a skillful use of concepts and/or materials.
• B Good performance, demonstrating capacity to use the appropriate concepts, a good understanding of the subject matter, and an ability to handle the problems and materials encountered in the subject.
• C Adequate performance, demonstrating an adequate understanding of the subject matter, an ability to handle relatively simple problems, and adequate preparation for moving on to more advanced work in the field.
• D Minimally acceptable performance, demonstrating at least partial familiarity with the subject matter and some capacity to deal with relatively simple problems, but also demonstrating deficiencies serious enough to make it inadvisable to proceed further in the field without additional work.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most courses publish their grading policies in their course guides at the beginning of the semester. Many are actually available for review on OCW. Most read as the only below. </p>
<p>Here is a typical example of a Course 6 grading policy;
[quote]
6.034</p>
<p>We should not grade on a curve. Instead, we should establish performance thresholds. One reason is that curve-based grading is against MIT policy. Another is that students are counterproductively obsessed with class averages.</p>
<p>Accordingly, we decided, ante quiz on three thresholds: one separated thorough understanding (roughly, A level work) from adequate understanding (roughly, B level work); another separated adequate understanding from needs work (roughly, C level work); the third, fixed at fifteen points below the second, separated needs work from poor performance (roughly, D level work).</p>
<p>Occasionally, we adjusted the thresholds post quiz if we decided we had asked for performance beyond what was reasonable. We were proud to tell students, when asked what class average was, that we had no idea. One side effect of the principles working together is that many more students were able to demonstrate A level performance in the subject. Only a handful were unable to get themselves into the A or B level.
[/quote]
As the above example explains, the only time any post-test grade adjustments are made is when the median of a test falls below a defined level, typically a B. </p>
<p>** There no demonstrable grade deflation at MIT. Half of all sophomore, junior and senior grades are As, 40% of freshman grades are As**
Average GPA is is between 3.3 and 3.4 (B+) and median GPA is around 3.5 in nearly all departments. Not only are As not rare to come by, they are the modal grade in virtually every class. </p>
<p>There is no department with substantially lower average GPA than others.
Science departments do not give more out As than engineering departments. HASS classes give out As at the same rate as science classes. Whether a class requires more writing, research, gruntwork, memorization or theory has nothing to do with how the course is graded. </p>
<p>MIT premeds are not weeded out of certain departments because of bad grades.
Nearly all premeds are either majoring in Course 7 (biology), Course 9 (neuroscience) or Course 10B (chemical engineering) which is the closest MIT has to a biomedical engineering major. Chemical engineering majors do just as well as biology majors at getting admitted. The new Course 20 (Biological engineering) also has a substantial number of premeds. There is absolutely no evidence that majors in other departments are turned away or discouraged. About 16% double major between biology and some other department. </p>
<p>Virtually ALL MIT premed applicants eventually get into medical school.
The 76% admission rate applies to a combined MIT undergrad, grad and alumni applicants. Undergrads get in at an 84% rate, with or without advising. According to the Career Office, nearly all of the applicants who fail to get in on their first attempt get in on their second. Between 96% and 98% of MIT premed applicants get admitted after two attempts.</p>
<p>MIT has among the very highest premed productivity rates
On a per student basis, (or even adjusted on a per department basis), MIT produces just about as many premeds as Harvard and Stanford and substantially more than Yale or Princeton. MIT has the 6th highest premed productivity of any school. It is therefore extremely unlikely a student admitted to MIT who is interested in a career medicine would increase his chances by enrolling elsewhere (even up the river, where the premed drop out rate is notoriously high).</p>
<p>cellardweller: Funny you should pick 6.034. That class (which I am taking this semester) has a one of a kind grading policy. Every other course 6 class I have taken has been graded on a bell curve, and this has been explicitly explained by the professor to the class. Furthermore I believe this has been backed up by other current MIT students. </p>
<p>Furthermore that quote you gave is from Prof. Winston. That reflects his opinion, which not all other professors share. So your "factcheck" is not from an official MIT page of facts, but rather hand chosen from what I consider a very particular and non-common class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
With so much disinformation it is really time for a serious factcheck:</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree, there does seem to be quite a bit of disinformation around here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>There are no curved classes at MIT. Period</p>
<p>The official policy was established in 2002 applies to ALL courses and reads:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then somebody needs to tell the professors of current students who seem to be in curved courses. </p>
<p>*Test grades are generally curved... *</p>
<p>MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: "Tests @ MIT"</p>
<p>*P.S. How curved is the average course grade?</p>
<p>It varies. A lot.</p>
<p>For example, the average grade on my last 7.013 (introductory biology) exam was in the mid-eighties--probably a lot like what you remember from high school. 3.091 (solid state chemistry) tests were the same way; a significant fraction of the class would get perfect scores, or close to it.</p>
<p>In contrast, there was one VERY memorable exam last fall in 8.012 (the more difficult mechanics class) where the average was somewhere around 40%.</p>
<p>In general, the latter is much more meaningful--if you look at the grade distribution, you see a nice, symmetric bell curve. This is a good thing. In a class where the grades are bunched together at the top of the spectrum, it's really hard to tell who <em>really</em> understands what's going on.</p>
<p>(On that 8.012 test, it turned out that if you did better than one standard dev. below average, you got a C. On pass/no-record, that's all we cared about.) *</p>
<p>MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: "A Blog Entry About Transition"</p>
<p>
[quote]
As the above example explains, the only time any post-test grade adjustments are made is when the median of a test falls below a defined level, typically a B.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A curve is a curve. More importantly, for the purposes of this discussion, what matters is that not everybody will get an A, and that some people will indeed end up with C's or worse. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There no demonstrable grade deflation at MIT. Half of all sophomore, junior and senior grades are As, 40% of freshman grades are As
Average GPA is is between 3.3 and 3.4 (B+) and median GPA is around 3.5 in nearly all departments. Not only are As not rare to come by, they are the modal grade in virtually every class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet isn't it interesting that you seem to be having such a hard time convincing those who actually went (or are currently going) to MIT for undergrad of this notion? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Virtually ALL MIT premed applicants eventually get into medical school.
The 76% admission rate applies to a combined MIT undergrad, grad and alumni applicants. Undergrads get in at an 84% rate, with or without advising. According to the Career Office, nearly all of the applicants who fail to get in on their first attempt get in on their second. Between 96% and 98% of MIT premed applicants get admitted after two attempts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All that matters here is that MIT's overall admit rate is about 75-80% every year, which contrasts sharply with that at competing schools, i.e. the Princeton data I showed where the overall admit rate (alumni+ undergrads) is well over 90%. </p>
<p>Regarding what the chances after 2 or more attempts, I cannot say, for nobody has ever presented any actual evidence whatsoever to substantiate any figures. But, logically speaking, students at other schools who also apply multiple times would then enjoy an even higher rate of success after multiple attempts, simply because their first-chance rate of success is already so high. </p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT has among the very highest premed productivity rates
On a per student basis, (or even adjusted on a per department basis), MIT produces just about as many premeds as Harvard and Stanford and substantially more than Yale or Princeton. MIT has the 6th highest premed productivity of any school. It is therefore extremely unlikely a student admitted to MIT who is interested in a career medicine would increase his chances by enrolling elsewhere (even up the river, where the premed drop out rate is notoriously high)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, on a per-student ratio, MIT produces a substantially lower rate than does HYPS when you consider the quite obvious fact that HYPS clearly have more arts/humanities students than does MIT, and those students are significantly less likely to be interested in medicine in the first place, compared to, say, engineers, which still represent over half the students at MIT. </p>
<p>More importantly, as shown quite interestingly and ironically shown by cellardwellard on post #65, MIT has a substantially lower rate of 'productivity' than do schools like JHU or Duke. I was expecting somebody to make the counterargument that somebody who could get into MIT might not be able to get into Harvard or Princeton or whatnot and then, simply by process of elimination, MIT may well be the best school that is available to them, to which I would have agreed. But this counterpoint was never made, and instead, we have gone down this quite bizarre productivity road, which actually makes MIT worse off, in this sense: anybody who is good enough to get into MIT is almost certainly good enough to get into Duke or especially JHU (which are significantly less selective than is MIT). Hence, if you believe in 'MD productivity', then, once again, your best choice is not really MIT, as JHU would be better. </p>
<p>But look, the bottom line is this. I never said that MIT was a bad school for premeds. In fact, overall, I am a quite strong fan of MIT. I just don't think it's the very best place for premeds, and so if you know you want to be a premed, you may well be better off going somewhere else. Of course, that depends on how sure you are, and if you're not that sure, then MIT's combination of research resources, brand name, and recruiter access is an excellent means of hedging your bets. </p>
<p>But as a last note, I will ask the same, very simple question that I've asked before yet for which I have never gotten an answer: why can't MIT provide premed advisors for everybody who wants one? This seems to be such an easy problem to fix for a school with the resources that MIT has, so I simply do not understand why it is still an issue. </p>
<p>I guess one thing that can be noted is that you can take the risk of going to MIT without ruining your record. If you take a core class in your major freshman year, you will probably be able to tell whether you will be capable of getting high grades. If it was clear that you were not capable of the work, because of Pass/no record I think it would still be possible to transfer to another prestigious institution. It's always tough, though, to give up on a place after 1 semester (which is when you would have to apply.) Also, in some majors it's hard to take upper-level classes 1st term. Chem E is an example of this; its core classes are a lot tougher than the GIRs. I knew people who got straight A's in the GIRs and then got straight B's in their chemE classes.</p>
<p>As a side note, I suspect the uptick in avg. MIT undergrad GPA might have something to do with the new prevalence of enrollment in majors like management and cognitive science and the shrinking of enrollment in majors like course 6. Despite what cellardwellar said, it's hard for me to imagine that course 15 would have the same grade distribution as course 6 and 10.</p>
<p>Regarding curving, there seems to be some ambiguity in the University policies:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Grades</p>
<p>Grades at MIT are not rigidly related to any numerical scores or distribution functions, that is, grades are not awarded solely according to predetermined percentages. As can be seen from the following grade descriptions, a student's grade in a subject is related more directly to the student's mastery of the material than to the relative performance of his or her peers. In determining a student's grade, consideration is given for elegance of presentation, creativity, imagination, and originality where these may appropriately be called for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They don't literally state that no classes grade on curves. From looking around some of the course 6 class sites via [url=<a href="http://stellar.mit.edu/%5DStellar%5B/url">http://stellar.mit.edu/]Stellar[/url</a>], there are class averages and distributions posted. I've gotten the impression from other current and recent students that they are well aware of distributions.</p>
<p>Given that academic standing is a justified matter of concern for students (including premeds), I think @sakky's raises an important concern about the lack of premed advisors. It's unfortunate that we can't get someone in the MIT administration to comment on this issue. (Granted, there may be good reasons, such as a lack of available personnel.)</p>
<p>Finally, I would rather focus on means to improve the education of all students (regardless of grades), instead of rehashing arguments about why some majors or schools are more difficult than others. Some students manage to do extremely well wherever they are. It would be beneficial to learn what makes them successful.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suspect the uptick in avg. MIT undergrad GPA might have something to do with the new prevalence of enrollment in majors like management and cognitive science and the shrinking of enrollment in majors like course 6.
[/quote]
The number of management majors has been between 95 and 105 each year since 2000, and only about 10 more people graduate with course 9 degrees now than in 2000 (~50 vs. ~40). (Index</a> of /registrar/www/stats)</p>
<p>Without doing the full analysis, I'd suspect that the departments to gain in the past 8 years have been chemical engineering and biological engineering. EECS has lost about 100 majors per year (~250 vs. ~350), but they appear to be fairly evenly distributed -- nothing immediately jumps out at me as a much bigger department than it was in 2000.</p>
<p>The policy on curved garding at MIT is clear. It simply is against MIT policy. There are no exceptions. It was officially abolished in 2002. </p>
<p>The effect of curve grading is to it put a cap on the number of As in class. *This simply does not exist at MIT , for ANY class. * </p>
<p>Here is the policy for 8.012 which was quoted a being curved.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Final Letter Grades
First-year students will receive a pass/no record grade for 8.012. Passing requires a final letter grade of C or better. Here is a break down of previous years' letter scores that you might use to track your progress during the semester. Note that grades are not curved, scaled or otherwise renormalized.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>None of the freshman classes, 8.01, 8.02, 18.01, 18.02, 7.013 are curved. My D took all of them last year and the median grade was never adjusted against a curve. In most classes, the median was in the mid 80s (A/B breakpoint). </p>
<p>Upperclass courses are not curved either.</p>
<p>Here is the 5.12 policy for organic chemistry, obviously one of the key ones for premeds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As required by MIT policy, 5.12 will not be graded "on a curve". *In other words, the grade for each student will be determined independent of the performance of the other students in the class. * If appropriate, all of the students in the class will receive a grade of A, which of course is the hope of the teaching staff!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Grading policies are generally provided on Stellar, the internal course management system at MIT. While it is not accessible to non MIT students, in many cases the policy also shows up on OCW. A quick search on grading on OCW pops up dozens of similar worded policies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
14.03
Grading
The class is not graded on a curve per se. It's possible for everyone to do well, and I'd be happy to have a reason to assign straight A's. If you make minimal effort, you will probably receive a C.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Grade Distribution
According to Institute policies, each grade designation is earned based on the competence that you demonstrate during the course of the subject. In both 2.71/2.710 subjects, we use the Institute definitions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
ESD.10
Grading will be on an absolute scale and not "on a curve." That means that in principle, everyone in the class can earn an 'A' if they perform at an 'A' level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
2.007
The key to earning an A is not putting in long hours, the key to earning an A is to follow the schedule, come to class and lab, and to think creatively and deterministically. The students grade will thus be largely based by how well the student learns the design process taught in 2.007. There is NO grading curve in this class. You do not get partial credit for a planes landing gear that opens but breaks upon impact! We hope everyone earns an A.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
6.042
How to Succeed. We want everyone to get the best possible grade within the bounds of fairness. There is no curve; in principle, everyone could get an A.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope this will finally put to rest the misconception that MIT has curved grading. </p>
<p>I suggest for those with any remaining doubt to check the official grading policies of any class. </p>
<p>So, how does MIT grade:</p>
<p>Engineering departments generally issue the so-called Joe "B" student profile;</p>
<p>
[quote]
What do the grades actually mean in terms of your engineering capabilities?
An "A" is for a student you would be happy to lead the design of a major product (after they get more education and experience). These students are self-starters, love to learn for the fun of it, and can learn by finding and studying needed materials when they realize they are lacking in knowledge. These are also the students who create new ideas and identify tasks to be done in order to complete a project according to schedule. (Truly understands the fundamentals [analysis] and can use them to solve challenging engineering problems)
A "B" is for a good solid potential engineer that sometimes needs guidance, but overall can be given a task and will complete it effectively. They can usually pick things up from references as needed. (Mostly understands the fundamentals and needs some help to address challenging problems). They still do a little too much "shoot from the hip" selection of elements because they really are not that comfortable with using analysis in their design as much as they should.
A "C" is for the student who needs a lot of direction. Some just do not understanding the material, despite trying. Some just ask a lot of questions because they rarely study or come to class or read the notes. Some expect to be spoon fed because they do not have the time to put in the effort. On a project, they must be given a specific task and solution direction instructions.
(Need help to grasp the fundamentals and needs help to understand basic problems). These people may seem like they are good creative designers, but they are afraid of analysis and do not see how to use it to select design parameters, and rather than ask, they hide.
A "D" is for the student who is never around much but might manage to get a machine to work. They never justify any of their engineering decisions (they meet no milestones except the last one) and are not part of the team (lab section). (Have you really grasped the fundamentals? Are you really ready to move on?).
An "F" is for a no-show total loss that never accomplished anything, and barely even tried. They should have dropped the course, but were too out of it to do so. Why are they bothering staying at MIT? They should transfer somewhere else and make room for someone who really does care.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This in turn does not mean that As are easy to get. It simply means that:</p>
<ol>
<li>Only YOUR work affects your grade.<br></li>
<li>If you work hard and produce what is expected of an A student in that class, you get an A.<br></li>
<li>Many students DO work hard, and therefore many get As.</li>
</ol>
<p>Collegealum:</p>
<p>As a current parent of an MIT student, and spending a lot of time at MIT, there is clearly a perception by students that some majors, generally engineering, are considered tougher than others. There is absolutely no doubt that some courses like the 6.001, 6.002 sequence, the Unified sequence etc.. are extremely intense. But intensity and difficulty are very separate issues. </p>
<p>If difficulty is to be equated with hard it is to get an A, the most difficult courses have historically been:</p>
<p>18.03
8.012
8.022
8.033
5.112
5.60
18.100B</p>
<p>They are pretty much all science classes, not engineering classes. With few exceptions they are optional advanced classes and seldom part of core requirements. </p>
<p>6.001 is certainly a hard class for somebody without any programming experience, but it does not grade any harsher than 5.12 (organic chemistry) for instance or 14.01 (microeconomics). Some classes require more gruntwork, others huge amounts of memorization, others good analytical skills. </p>
<p>On the other hand some classes such as HASS classes or management classes are considered easy. It may very well be true that they require less work, have no psets or fewer exams. But it does NOT means that it is any easier to get an A in those classes. The Registrar's Office data clearly shows that there are no more As in HASS classes than in any other department. Anecdotal evidence from my Ds study group was that they got actually fewer As in HASS than in their other GIR classes freshman year. This is not surprising as MIT students are typically weaker in their writing skills as compared to their math/science skills. </p>
<p>It is also a myth that engineering majors have significantly lower GPAs on average than other majors. The chemical engineering department had an average GPA of 4.3 as far back as back in 2000, even before the elimination of curved grading. It has gone up to about 4.5 since. </p>
<p>According to the Registrar's Office the rise in average GPA is due to:
1. Elimination of curved grading
2. Widespread use of the Exploratory option
3. Discouraging freshmen from taking subjects for which they are not prepared
4. More women enrolling at MIT (Women typically have higher GPAs as a group in virtually all departments).</p>
<p>Your 18.03 quote is false. I took that class 1 year ago. The professor (toomre) very clearly put up a plot and said:</p>
<p>"The top 25% of you will get A's.
The next 25% of you will get B's.
The next 25% of you will get C's.
Sucks to be the bottom 25%."</p>
<p>I'll look for the plot sheet he gave out (it was first test scores on one axis, second test scores on other). </p>
<p>Also, since you cited your daughters courses, here are the courses I took, and their curving policies:</p>
<p>1st term:
6.01 - flat (no curve)
18.06 - curved explicitly
18.03 - curved explicitly
3.091 - flat (no curve)</p>
<p>2nd term
6.02 - curved explicitly
6.041 - curved explicitly
6.006 - curved explicitly (although nicely since it was first term offered)
HASS - curved explicitly</p>
<p>3rd term
6.339 - curved explicitly
6.004 - flat (no curve)
6.034 - flat (no curve)
6.046 - curved explicitly
HASS - not sure yet</p>
<p>Some how... it seems like more than one of my classes was curved!!! (and most if not all on a bell curve i believe) But you just said that no classes at MIT are curved!</p>
<p>I wouldn't trust OCW. If you want the hard sources, go directly to the current terms website and look up their course policies. Obviously MIT is going to be nice and friendly with its first few GIR courses. But as a senior last year put it to me, there's no getting around the fact: "this **** is hard. not everyone is going to make it through with flying colors. end of discussion."</p>
<p>"If difficulty is to be equated with hard it is to get an A, the most difficult courses have historically been:</p>
<p>18.03
8.012
8.022
8.033
5.112
5.60
18.100B"</p>
<p>Please back up the "historically" nature of that claim. I would argue that some upper level laboratory courses would be much harder to get an A in. </p>
<p>Also for many super hard upper level courses, the only people who take them are the people who know they are smart enough to get an A.</p>
<p>Note: Contrary to what many people seem to be implying here, in my experience a class being curved on a bell curve is a good idea. It allows the professor to give out really hard exams and as a consequence people who really study very hard and have totally internalized the concepts inside and out succeed accordingly. I don't want to take exams where everyone gets 100's. I want to be pushed to my limits and see where I start to fall apart so I can harden myself and do better next time.</p>
<p>Differential;</p>
<p>My D would certainly not disagree that MIT is tough and that she has to work hard to earn every grade she gets. </p>
<p>But that is a very different issue as to whether grade normalization (curved grading) occurs at MIT. I maintain there is no such thing and that it is against offical MIT policy. The no-curve policy is part of the Faculty Rules and there is simply no way an instructor can be exempted from them. </p>
<p>The main reason why grading on a curve was eliminated was to make sure that students at MIT would not end up competing against each other for grades. If you normalize grades, then what other students do affects your own grade. You could do everything that was expected and still not get an A. This is simply no longer possible. Every instructor is now obligated to specify what is required for an A at the beginning of the class. If you meet that requirement, you get an A. </p>
<p>I believe you confuse adjustments made to correct for inconsistencies or potentially hard tests. In some cases, instructors will raise the median grade if the test is seen as too harsh. These adjustments always help the student not the other way around. Here is an example of such an adjustment for 18.03 that you claim is curved. The way grading is done by section, it simply couldn't be curved. Some sections have large numbers of As, some have very few. There is no way the instructor could set a target number of As at the beginning of the year, without some general normalization across sections. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Please note that grades are assigned based on raw score but normalized within sections. This makes up for inconsistencies in problem set and exam grading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't take me wrong. 18.03 and 18.06 are both tough classes but that does NOT mean there is some arbitrary limit on As. </p>
<p>You also claim 6.041 is explicitly curved while I show you the policy for 6.042 that states that curves are not used. </p>
<p>You claim 6.02 is on a curve. Here is the Policy for 6.01
[quote]
How is it graded?
Each week there are pre-lab and post-lab assignments, as well as a 10-minute nano-quiz. In addition, there is a diagnostic mid-term homework assignment and an ex camera (take-home) final exam. Criteria for passing the class are posted at the beginning of the term. Grading is not done on a curve.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How could two co-requisites be graded differently?</p>
<p>Since you have access to the course management system for the Course 6 classes you mention are curved, post an example of such a curve, where they capped the number of As. If anything Course 6 is regularly discussed as having rampant grade inflation. EECS classes are among those with the most insane amount of work, but they also give out tons of As.</p>
<p>here is quote from a Course 6 major class of 11 on the Admission site.
[quote]
As for grade deflation, I can't speak for any majors except my own (Course 6), but we actually have quite a bad case of grade <em>inflation</em> going on, at least in the lower-level classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some of the low level classes 6.01/6.02 in course 6 are currently a bit easy on grading because its the first time they've been taught. 6.042 and 6.041 are not the same class and are taught by completely different faculty. </p>
<p>How can co-requisites be graded differently? Simple, the professor chooses however (s)he wants to grade the class. If the professor wants to fail 90% of the class, the professor gets to fail 90% of the class. The professor may not get to teach the class again, but the professor pretty much gets to do as they please (although they are usually nice people, not *******s out to get you). If your quotes about curving not allowed are right, and my experiences with many classes being curved are right, then clearly some rules are being broken (and this doesn't surprise me in the least).</p>
<p>18.06 with Johnson? Yeah, he specifically said that he was curving and you needed 1 std dev above the average to get an A. I already gave you my annecdote for Toomre's 18.03 class.</p>
<p>Think about it this way. If where you stand among your peers didn't matter, why would they hand out class grade distributions, with specific averages and standard distributions? In the classes that didn't have a curve, they simply told me my grade, and whether it was A/B/C/Fail performance.</p>
<p>Also the quote from the Admissions site (who is actually an unverified person claiming to be class of '10, not '11, and not the blogger) is one data point, and I can easily see this coming from someone who just only taken a few header courses in 6. Take a few senior / graduate level theory courses and tell me there is a bad case of inflation. </p>
<p>Anyway, I will look up the documentation on curving you want. First I have to see if its legal for me to post course information that is clearly not intended for the world audience on a public forum. </p>
<p>But to incoming / hopeful MIT students: the fact that many MIT students and alums are arguing that curving does occur in classes should raise flags for you. Curving does happen. Curving doesn't automatically imply you are screwed over, and it will usually help you. But if you are that concerned about grades that you're going to fret over whether a class is curved or not, then you should consider your options carefully. Part of the MIT spirit is pushing your abilities to the limit and seeing what happens.</p>
<p>BTW: It's not that hard to get a 5.0 in EECS. You just exempt many GIR's with AP's and Exemption exams, and then take 3 course 6 classes and a HASS each term, carefully balancing for difficulty, and study very very hard for each technical class. You will likely end up with a stellar GPA. Of course, there's far more interesting things to do with one's time at MIT than trying to get perfect GPA's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Curving doesn't automatically imply you are screwed over, and it will usually help you.
[/quote]
As I mentioned upthread, I strongly preferred curved classes to uncurved classes, because class averages in the classes I was in were generally around 70%. Straight-scaled classes tend to require perfection, while curved classes only require that you do as well as the average member of the class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW: It's not that hard to get a 5.0 in EECS. You just exempt many GIR's with AP's and Exemption exams, and then take 3 course 6 classes and a HASS each term, carefully balancing for difficulty, and study very very hard for each technical class. You will likely end up with a stellar GPA.
[/quote]
I think it's sort of interesting, given how much we all like to talk about MIT's difficulty, that it's not terribly uncommon to graduate from MIT with a 5.0 (I know of at least three people who did -- course 2, course 6, course 7 -- and of course I probably knew more who didn't like to talk about their grades), while Harvard has only graduated something like 6 4.0s in the past decade.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mollie: As I mentioned upthread, I strongly preferred curved classes to uncurved classes, because class averages in the classes I was in were generally around 70%. Straight-scaled classes tend to require perfection, while curved classes only require that you do as well as the average member of the class.
[\quote]</p>
<p>Exactly. You don't want the difference between an A and a B whether you can punch numbers into a calculator or remember every nit picky detail on how to do documentation for your project. You want the exams and class in general hard enough so that what seperates an A and a B is a level of mastery and understanding of the subject material.</p>
<p>I don't claim inside knowledge of MIT grading policies. I just note that grading is considered the responsibility and prerogative of the professor at virtually every college I have encountered. MIT can say whatever it likes about curving or not, it is hard to imagine how it could force professors not to do it.</p>
<p>As a physician who graduated from MIT can I just say that it is a shame if potential premeds do not choose MIT because of the issues being discussed here. Every step you take in your educational or career life after MIT will be profoundly influenced by your education at MIT in a positive way. Take the chance, believe in yourself, do the hard work, do the research, don't deprive yourself if you have the chance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's sort of interesting, given how much we all like to talk about MIT's difficulty, that it's not terribly uncommon to graduate from MIT with a 5.0 (I know of at least three people who did -- course 2, course 6, course 7 -- and of course I probably knew more who didn't like to talk about their grades), while Harvard has only graduated something like 6 4.0s in the past decade.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How many people in the last, say 10 years graduated with 5.0s? What were their majors? typical courseloads? prior experiences (e.g. did they build robots before entering MIT)? Just curious. These issues have a bearing on how well people do at MIT. (Of course if there are "too many" people with 5.0s, there will be complaints about grade inflation.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't claim inside knowledge of MIT grading policies. I just note that grading is considered the responsibility and prerogative of the professor at virtually every college I have encountered. MIT can say whatever it likes about curving or not, it is hard to imagine how it could force professors not to do it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since I graduated from MIT almost 25 years ago, my experiences may be out of date. However, given my general understanding of academia and the authority that (tenured) professors hold, they generally have the authority to assign grades in whatever manner they please. This means if they want to curve, they will. At worst, if a professor violates some grading policy, the professor won't be assigned to teach that class again. In my experience, some professors tended to avoid undergraduate classes for these reasons - too many students quibbling over grades, etc. They'd rather focus on their graduate students and their research, which is generally speaking what they are judged on.</p>