<p>Have you ever heard that graduate schools weight University of Chicago undergraduate GPAs differently than other schools? Chicago always claims that they do. Certainly they don't have an 'A+' grade and grade inflation has yet to reach them. Still. Thoughts?</p>
<p>I believe that Chicago's reputation for lack of grade inflation is largely a myth. According to <a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/chicago.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/chicago.html</a>, their average GPA was 3.26 in 1999 and probably even higher now. Therefore, I see no reason that their undergraduate GPAs should be weighted any differently from other schools. Also, many institutions don't give A+, and those that do often count it the same as an A anyway, e.g. A+ = A = 4.0.</p>
<p>So the new inflated Chicago G.P.A. will only help you get back into Chicago. And then only if the faculty on the committee happen to be old school themselves and judge everyone else accordingly? Terrific. </p>
<p>Also, I checked out the grade inflation link above and I have to say I'm a bit shocked that Chicago's average G.P.A. is only .10 points lower than Columbia's, for instance. Having attended both schools undergraduate and completed equivalent programs, Columbia was breezy in comparison to Chicago. What gives?</p>
<p>I don't have any quatitative data or anything, but in my experience creedence is given to the fact that chicago undergrad is more challenging than most schools during the grad school admission process. I was told at multple interviews (phd) that my gpa while on the low side for the programs in question because I was coming out of chicago it was treated differently that if I had graduation from another school.</p>
<p>Average GPA and average challenge of workload aren't the same things, basically... -maybe Chicago kids spend more time studying than Columbia kids</p>