<p>Well, according to Andrew Abbott the difference between earning a 2.8 and a 3.8 at Chicago has an almost negligible effect in predicting future earnings. Looks like Starbucks doesn't put too much weight on GPA. (Almost all who attend U of C end up in the top 5% income bracket, though how much actually attending U of C contributes to that is not really known)</p>
<p>My<em>Watch</em>Sick,</p>
<p>I was chill. You may be more knowledgeable than many but some people need concrete examples to get the misconception and urban legend out of their heads. The truth is at Northwestern, some schools do have ridiculous grade inflation. Music school had an average GPA of 3.7. Education was pretty grade-inflated too. The WCAS (arts and sciences) and engineering are diffrent stories. So, depending on whom you talk to and which school you are looking at, you can get very different views.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UChicago is just as likely as schools of its caliber to have grade inflation, according to a Princeton study (I don't know how sound this study is though).</p>
<p>
[quote]
"A 2003 Princeton study found that marks of A and A-minus accounted for 44 to 55 percent of grades at the Ivy League colleges, MIT, Stanford and the University of Chicago."
[/quote]
<p>This is what Princeton actually said:
[quote]
According to data provided by seven other Ivy League institutions, Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago, the more recent percentages of A grades given in undergraduate courses at these institutions range from about 44 to 55 percent A's. Between those two poles, two institutions fell around 45 to 46 percent, four (including Princeton) between 47 and 48 percent, and three in the 49 to 51 percent range. There is no systematic way of comparing independent work grades.
[/quote]
Another report from Princeton adds to this by saying " The data are not absolutely precise;...and it is not entirely clear that everyone is counting in exactly the same way." </p>
<p>Draw your own conclusions from this information. I hesitate to call it data. I point out that there is a huge difference between 44% and 55%, and that even the study author (Princeton) has its doubts about the quality of the data. I would also venture to say that the two institutions at the lower end of the range ("around 45 to 46 percent") are MIT and Chicago. I'm puzzled, though, over how, at the lower pole, "two institutions fell around 45 to 46 percent" yet the "range from about 44 to 55 percent"? 45 is the new 44?</p>
<p>FWIW, as a prosepective UofC student, get used to digging out primary sources. Newsweek won't cut it. :). Even then, be suspicious of sources from outside an institution.</p>
<p>And when you get to the primary sources, you may find that the real story is a bit more qualified and confusing. We still don't know much about UofC grading.</p>
<p>Actually, I already stated that I wasn't sure how sound the study really is. It amazes me how complicated people make it seem to count up the number of As and divide that by the total number of grades given though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, don't be puzzled. 45 might've been rounded up from 44.51 or something so the range started from 44.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No data is absolutely precise, but patterns are still patterns. Everyone might not have counted in the exact same way, but an A is an A and an A- is an A-. Surely, there were probably no cases when a B or a B+ was intentionally counted as an A or A-.</p>
<p>BP,</p>
<p>You kinda miss the point. These are fuzzy numbers. </p>
<p>FYI, parsing a difference between "about" and "around", claiming one implies rounding up while the other implies rounding down will get you eaten alive at UofC. :) You are forwarned...</p>
<p>Parsing a difference? You misinterpreted the quote you put up.</p>
<p>It's basically saying the percentage of As awarded at the institutions ranged from 44 to 55 percent As. Two institutions had about 45-46%, four had 47-48% As, and three had 49 to 51%. You were questioning how the range could start from 44 when the lowest is 45. First of all, does the range represent only the institutions selectively mentioned or all of the ones studied? Second, if a school had 44.51% As and you're interested in stating the range, the low end has to be 44% not 45%. I was saying that maybe, this was the case. I did not parse a difference between "around" and "about." They mean the same to me for purposes of explaining this data.</p>
<p>If you truly wanted to question the data, you'd ask why the high end of the range is 55% when the highest stated here is 51%. Are there other schools studied but not mentioned?</p>
<p>I'm already in college btw. Oh, you misspelled "forewarned."</p>
<p>
Shame on those Princeton researchers! To get the % of As, they only need to count the number of As and divide that by the total number of grades given. What these researchers are suggesting, though, when they say that figures might not have been counted exactly the same way is that different researches might've treated grades in non-traditional courses like independent study projects differently (some counting them, some not). If we hypothetically not count grades for such courses, how much do you think the %s would change?</p>
<p>Pro:
Sending out congratulatory cards signed and individualized by your regional adcom.
Nice touch, made me feel special. :)</p>
<p>newmass and bp: keep it chill...</p>
<p>i don't even think that the interpretation of the data is most important. Taken abstractly approximately under half of the grades awarded at As. That will make a a 1/10 of a point difference on your GPA either way. Or something like that. </p>
<p>The key here is that GPA doesn't always make the important difference for grad schools. Internships and other things done outside of the classroom will go so much further in making you an attractive candidate. </p>
<p>I don't care about average GPA or anything. I want to know the percentage in top law schools or med schools or something like that.</p>
<p>Fastfood - even studies on placement of top grad schools is problematic, but here's a rough list from the wall street journal:</p>
<p>Chicago finished at #10 for the research universities, and #14 overall (with the liberal arts colleges included). In terms of a comparison between immediate peers, Chicago finished ahead of Northwestern, Penn, and Cornell, and just a shade behind Brown. As the rankings indicate though, separation between the school is TIGHT. It doesn't really make a difference outside the top 3 or 4 on the list. </p>
<p>Note, the study doesn't include a comprehensive list of grad schools (only roughly the top 5 or 6 schools in each major profession), but it's probably a very rough barometer of where the schools fall out. </p>
<p>Please note, getting into a top grad school is HARD. To be viable, even at the best schools, you still have to do well and finish in maybe the top 25% or so of your class overall. </p>
<p>As the study shows, outside of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, a lot of schools are very bunched together. It seems like going to a school you like, rather than one with just good grad placement, would be your best bet. Your chances won't differ greatly if you choose to go to Brown or Chicago or Amherst. Your performance, however, might vary based on how happy you are at the college of your choice.</p>
<p>cue7,</p>
<p>This "study" is even worse than you suggest. Take a look at its methodology and you would see what I mean. They did not even start with anything remotely resembling a decent selection of "grad" schools. And even their choice of the word "grad" school is misleading. The proper term is "professional school" . Grad school is more properly used for academically oriented PhD programs, although I'll grant you that many folks (like the WSJ writers) confuse the two.</p>
<p>It is sad that there is so much bad information out there. Please, you must understand the limitations of these surveys (heck, any survey) before you draw conclusions. </p>
<p>FF15, I agree debating the fine points of 44 or 45 is best left for elsewhere.</p>
<p>Newmass: I definitely agree, it's a poor study, and I perhaps should have emphasized how poor it is more clearly in my own post.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, while there is no firm data to support this, when choosing between elite schools, I think it makes more sense to go based on preference rather than supposed placement in professional or grad school. You'll probably do better where you are happier anyway. </p>
<p>Also, one thing that study does show is - even in the limited schools tracked - the differences between most of the top schools is VERY slight. For example, Chicago sends 6.22% of its grads to these prof schools, and Penn sends, say, 5.5%. This just goes back to support my contention that, as an incoming freshman, you shouldn't worry too much about grad school placement. All of the elite schools do well in this regard.</p>
<p>The best people to have this conversation with is the pre-____ advisors at Chicago. It's THEIR job to have the "Naviance" for Chicago kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, Chicago sends 6.22% of its grads to these prof schools, and Penn sends, say, 5.5%. This just goes back to support my contention that, as an incoming freshman, you shouldn't worry too much about grad school placement. All of the elite schools do well in this regard.
[/quote]
Cue7, very good point! I can't emphasize enough how important "fit" is as a condition for doing well as an undergrad. And "doing well" is not just about grades, it is about making connections with faculty, fellow students and prospective employers, whether for internships or a career.</p>
<p>UofC is not for everyone. As I've said before, if you fear getting lower grades because of the work load, you really should think twice. Put another way, you come to UofC because you love the work, love the challenge, not in spite of the work and challenge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UofC is not for everyone. As I've said before, if you fear getting lower grades because of the work load, you really should think twice. Put another way, you come to UofC because you love the work, love the challenge, not in spite of the work and challenge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very true.</p>