<p>Among research universities, I'd say Caltech, MIT, Chicago, Cornell, Cal and Michigan are probably the toughest in terms of grading. LACs are all pretty intense, but I hear that Swarthmore and Haverford are particularly tough.</p>
<p>interesteddad,</p>
<p>Not to dispute your numbers, I am just wondering if there can be alternative explanations to an institution's Phd production. I mean Phd's are very specialized programs and take a great amount of skill and motivation but isnt it plausible for a school to be rigorous but also produce alot of students that dont want to get Phds? maybe LACs by virtue of its liberal arts tradition appeal to students who are more likely to pursue Phds? I am just tossing ideas around but in my mind, Phd production and rigor of a school dont automatically go together, thats all.</p>
<p>GradStudent, I agree that there is probably more than just the atmosphere and attention at LACs that leads to success and good placement for certain people, but perhaps also the type of people attracted by LACs or many other factors might play large roles.</p>
<p>JHU is one of the most deflated schools in the nation too. It has an average GPA of like 2.75. Almost no pre-med from JHU ever gets into a good medical school. Even the best students at JHU only get into average medical schools.</p>
<p>GradStudent:</p>
<p>You may be reading more into what I wrote than intended. I didn't say that the colleges and universities with high PhD production are "better" than others. There are many truly incredible schools, both colleges and universities, that have a strong pre-professional orientation. Perhaps as clear as any example, look at the two excellent universities in the Chicago area, one that produces a lot of PhDs and the other that does not. Is UChicago "better" than Northwestern? Absolutely not. But, it is very different. Much less party scene. Much higher percentage of serious academic "types". And, a reputation for academic intensity that pushes students hard.</p>
<p>When you look at the top-20 PhD producers (with % of PhDs among grads over the most recent 10 year period), you see most of the schools that people generally regard as "hard" in the sense that we are discussing here, starting with Caltech at the top:</p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 36%
2 Harvey Mudd College 25%
3 Swarthmore College 21%
4 Reed College 20%
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 18%
6 Carleton College 17%
7 Bryn Mawr College 16%
8 Oberlin College 16%
9 University of Chicago 15%
10 Yale University 15%
11 Princeton University 14%
12 Harvard University 14%
13 Grinnell College 14%
14 Haverford College 14%
15 Pomona College 14%
16 Rice University 13%
17 Williams College 13%
18 Amherst College 12%
19 Stanford University 11%
20 Kalamazoo College 11%
21 Wesleyan University 11%
22 St John's College (both campus) 11%
23 Brown University 11%</p>
<p>This is not to say that a thousand other schools are not equally "hard" or equally "academic" for a sizeable proportion of their students. But, on a percentage basis, these are very large numbers, from 11% to 36% of ALL graduates getting a PhDs.</p>
<p>I find it very hard to believe that the top students from Hopkins go to average medical schools.</p>
<p>Me as well.</p>
<p>there are exceptions in interesteddad's list, most noticeably harvard, princeton, and stanford. all are known for grade inflation. princeton's been trying to cut back on it though.</p>
<p>From observing my kid, I think Columbia students tend to have a tough load, especially science majors. First, Columbia students usually take five academic classes a semester rather than the four typical at other Ivies. Second, they all must take the core which is a hefty amount of reading and writing and demands that students take courses in areas they might otherwise avoid. Third, there is a culture of loading on more units. There is grade inflation -- few Cs and many classes curved to Bs -- but to get those Bs or better you have to do a significant amount of work.
They still seem to enjoy NYC an awful lot though, which is why I have the sense that they sleep less than at other colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there are exceptions in interesteddad's list, most noticeably harvard, princeton, and stanford. all are known for grade inflation. princeton's been trying to cut back on it though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think all three of those schools have multiple personalities, among which is a sizeable cohort of very hardcore academic types who are very engaged in academic pursuits at a high level.</p>
<p>Those three schools are a bit like an elephant. It kinda depends which part the blind men are feeling. You could describe each school as pre-professional in focus and be right. Turn around and look at a different part and you'll see UChicago. That is true at any school to some degree, of course. But most schools don't have 14% of their total graduates getting PhDs like Princeton and Harvard.</p>
<p>of course every student has his/her own academic goal, and some are more hardcore or competitive than others. </p>
<p>but i'm wondering if the school itself (i.e. the professor's grading, expectations, workload, etc.) is difficult. are harvard, princeton, and stanford difficult? certainly, a lot of the other colleges on your list are known to be difficult. but are the few with grade inflation difficult as well?</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, Columbia students usually take five academic classes a semester rather than the four typical at other Ivies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most people at Penn take 5. 4 is considered a slacker or "taking it easy this semester" courseload. Some truly hardcore people take 6.</p>
<p>I'm taking 6, though 2 are language courses.</p>
<p>Of course I can't speak for the other 6 Ivies outside of Penn and Columbia...</p>
<p>I didn't mean to speak for all other Ivies. I know that at Harvard the typical semester is four academic courses as opposed to Columbia, where students take five. And, like you, some take more, which is part of the culture I mentioned of loading on units.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say Caltech, MIT, Chicago, Cornell, Cal and Michigan are probably the toughest in terms of grading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know that I can agree with that. Cal is tough, but it's not THAT tough. The average GPA at Cal was 3.10 in 1996.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html</a></p>
<p>I would argue that if you just want to talk about pure difficulty of grading, you would have to talk about places like Georgia Tech, Texas, North Carolina (surprisingly), Ohio State</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/gtech.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/gtech.html</a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/texas.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/texas.html</a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/ohiostate.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/ohiostate.html</a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/carolina.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/carolina.html</a></p>
<p>Now, you might reply that while these schools might have hard grading, they also have lower-quality student bodies which acts as a compensating factor. To that I would say that while that's true, I would argue that MIT and Caltech are then, frankly, on an entirely different plane than are Cal and Michigan. Let's face it. The average MIT or Caltech student is of significantly higher quality than is the average Cal or Michigan student.</p>
<p>Here is a list of what you might consider more "academic" works on grade inflation. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ericdigests.org/2005-1/grade.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.ericdigests.org/2005-1/grade.htm</a></p>
<p>I would argue that the cause of the low GPA at Texas and Ohio State is that the bottom part of the applicant pool is a completely different calibur than the top. I'm not knocking the school, I'm just saying that it's a lot easier to fill a class with 1400 equal students than 5000 equal students. I'm sure there are students there who coast like it's their job, don't do any work, and get C's. Not doing work and getting C's is completely different than working as hard as you can and still getting a C.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would argue that the cause of the low GPA at Texas and Ohio State is that the bottom part of the applicant pool is a completely different calibur than the top. I'm not knocking the school, I'm just saying that it's a lot easier to fill a class with 1400 equal students than 5000 equal students. I'm sure there are students there who coast like it's their job, don't do any work, and get C's. Not doing work and getting C's is completely different than working as hard as you can and still getting a C.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly right, which is why I pointed out that getting a 'C' at MIT or Caltech is not comparable to getting a 'C' at Michigan or Berkeley.</p>
<p>I have had a short discussion with sakky on this before in another thread. If one of you wants, I can probably try to find that thread.</p>
<p>In that thread, sakky posted links showing GPA and LSAT of law school admits from Stanford and Berkeley. If one examines GPAs vs LSAT scores for both groups and compare LSAT scores of those with the same GPAs, one actually finds the unexpected--the Stanford group usually has higher LSAT scores. For example, the students with 3.5 GPA at Stanford generally score higher on LSAT than those with 3.5 GPA at Berkeley. If GPA and LSAT are closely correlated, a Stanford student with a 3.5 GPA can expect to get >= 3.5 at Berkeley on average. I guess grade inflation is more complex than people think. The Harvard professors who defend their "generous" grading may have their point after all.</p>
<p>Fascinating -could you do this for some other institutions, like UChicago, Swarthmore, Harvard, Carleton, etc.?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In that thread, sakky posted links showing GPA and LSAT of law school admits from Stanford and Berkeley. If one examines GPAs vs LSAT scores for both groups and compare LSAT scores of those with the same GPAs, one actually finds the unexpected--the Stanford group usually has higher LSAT scores. For example, the students with 3.5 GPA at Stanford generally score higher on LSAT than those with 3.5 GPA at Berkeley. If GPA and LSAT are closely correlated, a Stanford student with a 3.5 GPA can expect to get >= 3.5 at Berkeley on average. I guess grade inflation is more complex than people think. The Harvard professors who defend their "generous" grading may have their point after all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but the analysis breaks down completely when you start talking about places like MIT and Caltech. I think that even Harvard and Stanford people will admit that their grades are inflated relative to MIT and Caltech students. Let's face it. From a quality standpoint, Harvard and Stanford students don't have anything over MIT and Caltech students, so why should the grading be any easier? Yet it is. Why?</p>
<p>That's why I don't buy the notion of Harvard professions being justified in their 'generous' grading. The MIT students have to put up with tough grading, so why can't the Harvard students do that? What gives them the right to have easier grading than the MIT students?</p>