The most prestigious schools to the sight of top professionals schools:

<p>

I’m almost 100% sure that law school or med school adcoms don’t weigh a 3.8 from Harvard or Princeton more than a 3.8 from Brown or Duke except maybe at HLS for Harvard College grads. Do you have proof or is this another one of your crazy theories? I’m not even sure law school or med school adcoms differentiate between Michigan State and Harvard.</p>

<p>

I’m sure Princetonians would like to believe this but its simply not true. Law school and med school adcoms don’t have time to nitpick between differences in grading scales at every university. Once you hit a certain level of academic excellence and prestige, you’re not going to get a bump over a peer university.</p>

<p>Princeton’s grading policy partially explains its relatively poor showing compared to its private peers at professional school placement as shown in this thread. Princeton seems about as represented as Dartmouth and Brown rather than Harvard and Yale.</p>

<p>RML;</p>

<p>what part of the link for 2008-2010 data don’t you understand. A Cal study clearly shows that 63% of all grades in the humanities are an ‘A’. I’m not sure where you took Stats, but those numbers tell me that well over half of the students in those subjects graduate with at least a 3.7 (which is an A- at Cal). Now that doesn’t say one doesn’t have to work hard, but still the facts are the facts. And a 3.7 + high LSAT is about all one needs to be competitive for Harvard Law.</p>

<p>I don’t have any opinion on your main opinion (HYPMSC viewed more highly), I’m just trying to correct the facts for others to see. But if your opinion is true, doesn’t that indicate that Cal’s hume grades are not viewed as rigorous?</p>

<p>And do you really believe that a 3.3 from HYP will get you into YLS or SLS, unhooked?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How much more weight? For applicants with equally high GPAs and equally high scores, exactly how much higher is the admit rate for the HPCM applicants than it is for the BDDMCU applicants? Where is the data?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Umm, according to the stats published by Haas, the mean gpa of those accepted into the program is a 3.7. 20% have a 3.95+! (That A- in Subject A can be gpa killer.) Yes, those grades are mostly earned in L&S, but still, Haas undergrads have an A- average halfway through college.</p>

<p>[Class</a> Profile, Undergraduate Program - Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley](<a href=“Class Profile - Undergraduate Program - Berkeley Haas”>Class Profile - Undergraduate Program - Berkeley Haas)</p>

<p>blue, please clarify your statement. </p>

<p>Did you actually say that 63% of L&S students graduate from Cal with a GPA of “A”???</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Then how come the top law, med and business schools do not rank students based solely on GPA and/or standardized test scores??? </p>

<p>If you honestly think a 3.8 from Duke is better than a 3.79 from Harvard then why are there so many more Harvard grads than there are Duke grads at Yale Law?</p>

<p>^ The average Harvard student enters college with somewhat higher test scores and leaves with much less debt than the average Duke student. So the average Harvard student may be better able to afford law school, and be more likely to get high LSAT scores, than the average Duke student. I’m just speculating. I’d want to see comparative data on applications, acceptances, GPA and LSAT scores before suggesting that any professional school strongly favors applicants from one college over equally qualified students from another.</p>

<p>RML:</p>

<p>This is what I posted earlier. What needs clarification?</p>

<p>“A Cal study clearly shows that 63% of all grades in the humanities are an ‘A’.”</p>

<p>And no, I did not even mean to infer that 63% of humanities majors graduate with an A average. Cal requires distributives, so there is plenty of opportunity to take classes in less grade-inflated departments.</p>

<p>btw: that 63% is probably a LOT higher in those majors that end in ‘Studies.’ :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And that’s precisely the sort of thing that needs to change immediately. I’ve always been far more interested in intra-school, as opposed to inter-school grade inflation. Exactly why do different majors in the same school use such different grading scales? I don’t think anybody seriously believes that arts/humanities students are far smarter and harder working than the math/physical-science/engineering students and hence deserve far higher grades; if anything, the opposite is true. Hence, if nearly 2/3 of all grades in the arts and humanities sans philosophy are A’s, then 2/3 of all grades in math/physical-sciences/engineering courses should also be A’s. Otherwise, the humanities/arts should be prohibited from giving out so many A’s. What’s fair is fair.</p>

<p>sakky (or anyone else):</p>

<p>Ever seen similar data for other top colleges? For example, is the grade distribution at Cornell a lot different, or does the Big Red also limit the number of A’s in the physical sciences to ~35%, while the prelaw types in hume or IR can cruise with a ~70% A average? </p>

<p>Since Brown has a mean gpa of 3.6+, followed closely by Yale at 3.55, they obviously award a bunch of A’s in the physical sciences. But what about others?</p>

<p>I agree that intraschool grade inflation is a nationwide - indeed perhaps global problem. I think it would be rare to find any school in the nation, and perhaps the world, where engineering/math/physical-sciences are considered the ‘creampuff’ majors that serve as refuge shelters for students who aren’t talented or diligent enough to complete another major.</p>

<p>Regarding other schools, Princeton certainly experienced intraschool grade inflation before they implemented their deflation policy in 2004. Interestingly enough, intraschool inflation still persists even post-policy, just at a reduced level. </p>

<p>Historically, students in the natural sciences were graded far more rigorously, for example, than their classmates in the humanities, a gap that has narrowed but that still exists.</p>

<p>[At</a> Princeton University, Grumbling About Grade Deflation - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/education/31princeton.html]At”>At Princeton University, Grumbling About Grade Deflation - The New York Times)</p>

<p>Here’s a discussion of Harvard:</p>

<p>*The findings of a report released last week by Harvard University stating that grade inflation is a problem at the institution are similar to the findings of a report released by UNC professors last year stating that the problem exists at UNC.</p>

<p>According to the report, half of all grades awarded to Harvard undergraduates are A’s or A-'s.</p>

<p>The report adds that the humanities have the biggest problem with grade inflation, with A’s and A-'s making up almost two-thirds of grades awarded in small humanities classes.*</p>

<p>[The</a> Daily Tar Heel :: Grade Inflation Makes Marks at Harvard](<a href=“http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2001/11/grade_inflation_makes_marks_at_harvard]The”>http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2001/11/grade_inflation_makes_marks_at_harvard)</p>

<p>Yale:</p>

<p>*One of the problems is the fact that grade inflation occurs more frequently in some distributional groups than others, thus giving an advantage to students in certain majors. Amy Ng, CC '96, one of the panelists, said, “There is a big division between humanities and social science courses.”</p>

<p>Jeffrey Powell, director of undergraduate studies in biology, agreed that grade inflation is disproportional in some majors. Powell said that he has not observed grade inflation in his department, saying, “I think we’ve been pretty stable in grading for the past few years.” He added that it is fairly difficult to get very high grades in biology, saying that it “tends to be one of the tougher majors.”</p>

<p>However, Powell said he found problems with grade inflation’s prevalence in other areas of study. In a number of instances, biology students have told him that they were going to switch majors because they thought that they could obtain better grades in a non-science field, he said. There should be more “uniformity among the departments” in terms of grading, according to Powell. *</p>

<p>[Panel</a> discusses implications of grade inflation for Yalies](<a href=“yaleherald.com”>yaleherald.com)</p>

<p>In fall 2004, the University’s Science Council engaged in an informal review of grading across different courses in the sciences, which found that grades tend to be lower in the sciences than they are in the humanities and social sciences.</p>

<p>[Poll</a> suggests grade inflation | Yale Daily News](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2006/oct/04/poll-suggests-grade-inflation/]Poll”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2006/oct/04/poll-suggests-grade-inflation/)</p>

<p>*…Science students get worse grades than non-science students. </p>

<p>No comprehensive data for the distribution of grades around the nation by discipline exists, but in 1998 the
College Board surveyed a representative sample of 21 selective institutions to find out how students who
took Advanced Placement courses in high school were performing in college. The data show that, when
students who got AP credit and were taking second-level college courses (as opposed to intro classes)
were compared, non-science students got much better grades.</p>

<p>In English courses surveyed, 85 percent of those high-achieving students that were surveyed received
A’s or B’s. That’s compared to 54 percent of those students in math courses.</p>

<p>Paul Romer, an economics professor at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, who has
studied the issue, wrote in an article for Stanford Business that “the grades assigned in science courses
are systematically lower than grades in other disciplines
, and students rely heavily on grades as signals about the fields for which they are best suited.” Thus, he concluded, students usher themselves out of the
science track
.</p>

<p>Data from the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles show
that, in 2004, about 9 percent of freshman students nationally planned to major in engineering, and 2
percent planned to major in physical sciences. Those numbers are pretty typical for the last two decades,
and what is also typical, according to National Science Foundation data, is that it is not uncommon for fewer than half of those intended majors to stay the course.</p>

<p>It seems that the attrition rate in the physical sciences and engineering is chronically higher than in
social and behavioral sciences. According to the NSF, only about 4.5 percent of bachelor’s degrees were
awarded in engineering in 2004, and only about 1 percent in the physical sciences. Conversely,
depending on the demographic, generally between 8 and 15 percent of freshmen intend to major in
social and behavioral sciences, for which degrees made up 16 percent of the 2004 total.</p>

<p>Romer isn’t the only one that thinks unequal grading practices drive students from science. Ronald G.
Ehrenberg, director of Cornell University’s Higher Education Research Institute and an economics
professor there, recalled a student who got an 85 on a test, which was above the mean, coming up to him
and saying, “I’m dropping your class, because the best I can do is an A-, and I’m going to Stanford Law
School.” Part of the problem Ehrenberg said, is that students who want to keep law school as an option
will tend away from quantitative courses because it’s clear to them that disproportionate grade inflation
in the humanities and less quantitative social sciences will give them a boost
.</p>

<p>With Web sites like ratemyprofessors.com, students can instantly find out how “easy” other students
think a certain professor is. A 2002 Cornell Higher Education Research Institute study showed that
grades in Cornell’s science courses are generally several tenths lower than other courses, and a 2005
institute study found that, presented with information on the grading, students will flock to the easier
courses, driving grade inflation even more.</p>

<p>In 1996, worried that they were giving lower grades than professors at competitor institutions, faculty members decided that Cornell should publish the median course grades for every course, every semester,
so that faculty members could see the distribution of grades, and, presumably, adjust if a particular
course’s median grade is too low. Not surprisingly, students started turning to the list, and according to
the 2005 institute study, the list started looking different in a hurry, as students migrated en masse to
easier courses. By spring 2005, the list shows that, of over 1,300 courses, fewer than 20 had median
grades of B- or lower.</p>

<p>Weeding Out: Several experts suggested that the culture of scientists has kept science grades down,
while science students at many institutions have watched longingly as humanities grades have drifted up
and away like a helium balloon.
</p>

<p>“There’s a difficult culture here,” said Daryl Chubin, director of the American Association for the
Advancement of Sciences’ Center for Advancing Science & Engineering Capacity. “The culture of
science says, ‘not everybody is good enough to cut it, and we’re going to make it hard for them, and the
cream will rise to the top.’ ”</p>

<p>Ehrenberg said that some scientists are starting to drop the “weed out” mentality, but Chubin still sees
decade old themes. “I took a Ph.D. in 1973,” Chubin said, “and people were saying the same thing then.
‘Look to your left, look to your right, some of you will be gone.’ </p>

<p>There’s a joy of attrition;
demonstrating your manliness, back then it was all manliness, by failing students.”*</p>

<p><a href=“http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/Resources/Articles/Why_Leaving.pdf[/url]”>http://opas.ous.edu/Committees/Resources/Articles/Why_Leaving.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>*A new study from Wake Forest University suggests that a huge reason why so many students abandon their pursuit of science and engineering majors is this: Their professors are grading too hard.</p>

<p>Students, who hope to be science and engineering majors, get discouraged by their grades, which are significantly lower than students in other disciplines. Consequently, they flee for easier “A’s”. Male students are more likely to bail because of grades than would-be women STEM majors.</p>

<p>…science geeks earned grades that were consistently below other students. Brainy STEM graduates left their school with four out of the five lowest grade point averages:</p>

<p>5 Lowest Grade Point Averages</p>

<pre><code>Chemistry 2.78 GPA
Math 2.90 GPA
Economics 2.95 GPA
Psychology 2.98 GPA
Biology 3.02 GPA
</code></pre>

<p>5 Highest Grade Point Averages</p>

<pre><code>Education 3.36 GPA
Language 3.34 GPA
English 3.33 GPA
Music 3.30 GPA
Religion 3.22 GPA
</code></pre>

<p>At a recent conference at Cornell, Rask talked about his STEM major findings:</p>

<p>“The importance of grades can’t be understated,” the economist said. “The differential in grade inflation inside and outside STEM majors is consistent and an important factor in the attrition.”</p>

<p>It seems to me that the best way to produce more scientists and engineers might be to get the professors in those fields to lighten up on their grades. Do the students, who are brave enough to wrestle with organic chemistry and multivariable calculus, need to be crushed at exam time?</p>

<p>The alternative is to get the professors in departments like education and English to grade harder, but I just don’t see that ever happening…*</p>

<p>[5</a> Hardest and Easiest College Majors by GPA’s - CBS MoneyWatch.com](<a href=“MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News”>MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News)</p>

<p>I wonder just how significant this attrition in the sciences actually is. They complain that there’s an exodus to the humanities, while the humanities complain that there’s an exodus to the sciences! Which is it? Or is everyone moving to the social sciences, a nice happy medium?</p>

<p>[Stanford</a> launches effort to increase study of humanities | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/04/19/stanford-launches-effort-to-increase-study-of-humanities/]Stanford”>Stanford launches effort to increase study of humanities)</p>

<p>Hitting closer to home, one of my daughter’s acquaintances double majored in mathematics and a social science at an LAC. This was a top math student in HS with humongous math SATs.The student’s GPA in math subjects wound up being one full GPA point lower than the rest. Which is now a problem re: future options, with overall GPA looking relatively unimpressive for law school. The student was warned about this, but the school is one of those “learning for learning’s sake” places. Many other students, particularly elsewhere, would have dropped the math major well before this result came to pass, and who could say they would be wrong to do so?</p>

<p>The feds have doled out $$ millions in research to study why the US lags in STEM graduates. Perhaps the answer is just that simple: “intraschool grade inflation”.</p>

<p>On a cc thread a couple of years ago, a prof/dad was complaining about the lack of STEM students – he was a Chem prof, I believe. In response to his post I asked point-blank what his ‘curve’ was, what his college’s curve was and why his department made students work much, much harder for lower grades relative to lit/hume courses. (A one-unit Chem lab can easily require more work for an A than many three-unit Lit courses.) He got the point, but unfortunately failed to respond.</p>

<p>While many facts stated in the last 10-20 posts are true, there is an issue that is obscured by the raw statistics. That issue is that students select classes, not only because they could obtain a higher grade, but also because they are BETTER suited to the material in the curriculum. </p>

<p>There is no denying that most Americans are barely able to pass a class in Organic Chemistry or MV Calculus, but do we really believe that the foreigners, or local students who navigated through HS without writing a single paper and happen to excel in such classes would earn a better grade in creative writing or even … basic English Lit or Rhetoric? Who is there to say that the same student would get a higher GPA in classes that APPEAR easier to … different students? How many students are there who prefer taking “hard classes” that require only weekly assignments and a couple of exams over classes that require a large number of essays and no final exam? For some techies, having to write a 2,000 word essay is nothing short of torture; earning a reasonable grade an accomplishment! Of course, there are always exceptions, and plenty of students who would ace every class they’d take. </p>

<p>While students who have little interest in a STEM career would fear to HAVE to take more math and sciences classes, the same could be said for techies having to take advanced “fuzzy” classes. Since someone quoted Stanford’s GSB, it might be worth noting that Stanford is currently reevaluating its course selection and discussing how classes such as IHUM are grade-killers for techies. </p>

<p>Fwiw, there is a reason why students are attracted to universities that have dropped core requirements. One of the reason goes directly at the lacking preparation given to students during their K-12 years. The STEM “problem” starts way earlier than in the college years.</p>