<p>I'm a Civil Engineering undergraduate student and I am considering taking graduate courses for my technical elective credits. Specifically, I am considering taking structural analysis and advanced mechanics of materials (both "500 level" courses). I have a few questions before I reach a final decision.</p>
<p>--Would taking grad courses as an undergrad make me considerably more appealing to grad schools? I'm sure it is a bonus but how does it compare to other areas of merit such has GPA and research?</p>
<p>--Are grad courses far more difficult than undergrad courses or are they simply more in-depth? In other words, are graduate courses more intellectually challenging and abstract or do they simply further explore the subject without much more of a challenge?</p>
<p>--Is it irresponsible for me to take 2 grad courses (6 total credits) when I have never even take a gradute level class before? If it is any help, I have a 3.5 GPA and recieved an A and B+ in the respective undergrad courses</p>
<p>-Would taking these courses even be worth it when I can cruise to an A in a business management course as a tech elective? Keep in mind I have ambitions of attending graduate school.</p>
<p>Any insight and/or experience would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!!</p>
<p>Sometimes they are the same course. At my son’s school, many courses are both 400 and 500 level courses though grading in the grad level courses may be graded a little harder.</p>
<p>Taking grad courses successfully would demonstrate to grad programs that you can handle them.</p>
<p>Sometimes 400-level classes are both graduate and undergraduate as BCEagle1 stated, but they may be graded differently or involve extra work for grad students.</p>
<p>Usually, a dedicated graduate course is significantly different than most undergraduate courses. They often involve a lot more math which is then use to revisit (and explain) old topics and then delve deeper into the subjects. I have found sone to be on par with undergraduate courses and some to be significantly more difficult.</p>
<p>As for how grad schools would react, it certainly couldn’t hurt to take those classes and to well, but research is still king.</p>
<p>The other difference in graduate courses is the quality of students. At least at Texas, I was surprised how much brighter the grad students were! I had to work a lot harder to keep up with those people! I thought of myself as pretty smart until I got to grad school, where I quickly learned I was nothing special.</p>
<p>Something that you might see in 600-level courses is the type of class where there is the topic of discussion that the Professor leads along with related research topics that are picked by the students and presented to the rest of the class. The latter can consumer quite a bit of the course time.</p>
<p>Most grad classes involve reading tons of research papers too. Infact most would be focussed on research papers and how this lead to classical theories of a particular field</p>
<p>“The other difference in graduate courses is the quality of students. At least at Texas, I was surprised how much brighter the grad students were! I had to work a lot harder to keep up with those people! I thought of myself as pretty smart until I got to grad school, where I quickly learned I was nothing special.”</p>
<p>Aren’t grad classes curved much higher though? Where I go the minimum passing grade for engineering undergrads is a C-, and for graduates is a B-. Stands to reason that the average grade is probably a letter grade higher.</p>
<p>Just because the average grade is higher doesn’t mean it is curved to a greater degree. The level of talent in grad school is, on average, MUCH higher than in undergrad.</p>
<p>sefago, can can honestly say that I have only taken one gradute class that had academic papers for us to read as part of the course. Graduate school is filled with reading journal articles, but I wouldn’t say that, in general, most classes require it. More often than not you do it in support of your research.</p>
<p>“Just because the average grade is higher doesn’t mean it is curved to a greater degree. The level of talent in grad school is, on average, MUCH higher than in undergrad.”</p>
<p>Okay, I don’t have any personal experience, but I’m going to argue anyway based on how my school runs.</p>
<p>At my school, you are guaranteed admission into the grad school if you have a 3.5 or higher as an undergrad (EECS is a 3.4, and BME is a 3.2, but the others are a 3.5). As such, I will guess that the average undergrad GPA of those in the grad school for schools of equivalent caliber, is a 3.4, since many will get in though the normal admissions with lower GPAs.</p>
<p>The average undergraduate GPA for engineering here is a 2.9, with most of the undergraduate engineering classes themselves being curved to a B- (2.7). If the average grade for graduate classes is 1 letter grade higher, an A- (3.7), then the average person would have had a 3.4 as an undergrad, and now should have a 3.7 as a graduate. Even if these numbers are off some, it can easily be said that one should be able to expect about the same grade in a graduate class as an undergraduate class, provided they have all necessary prerequisite knowledge.</p>
<p>That is false logic though. There aren’t many people who get in with lower GPA’s than 3.4, especially at Michigan. 3.3 to 3.4 is usually the lowest. The average undergraduate GPA of graduate students is probably somewhere closer to 3.6 or 3.7 at a top 15 or so school, if not a little higher. That makes your later point even more valid, though. The average graduate GPA is not that much higher than the average undergraduate GPA of current graduate students.</p>
<p>I am somewhat of an anomaly. I had an unusually low GPA as an undergrad and have quite a bit higher as a grad student. Chalk that one up to a greatly increased effort, though, not to easier classes or curves.</p>
<p>My son took a grad course this past Spring (he also took an undergrad/grad course) that is a core course for the MS and Phd programs. Those in the MS program have to get at least a B in the course. Those in the Phd program have to get at least an A. It can sometimes take Phd candidates several tries to get an A in the course.</p>
<p>So you might have Phd candidates in your grad courses too.</p>
<p>I had 3 of my 10 graduate courses that were dual undergrad/grad enrollment. The grad students always has an extra problem on the exams (done within the same time limit) and had to turn in a report at the end of the semester.</p>
<p>Now I did a whole letter grade better in grad school than I did in undergrad, but I deliberately picked courses that I had a good chance of getting an ‘A’:
Applied Statistics
Design of Experiments
Linear Algebra
Advanced Design of Experiments (Taguchi Methods)</p>
<p>…were all a breeze since I was a math major as an undergrad. Then I took courses in data warehousing and project management when I already had I.T. experience in databases and project management. Then again, my goals for my M.S. were more to “check the box on my file” than research, etc.</p>
<p>My undergrad GPA was nowhere near acceptable for a funded graduate program but like I have posted before, it’s amazing who a graduate school will admit when they can ace courses pre-admittance and bring in employer tuition reimbursement checks.</p>