<p>3.5 seems like a fairly typical scholarship requirement. At a lot of schools 3.0 is below average, so it’s not much of a standard. 3.7 seems unnecessarily strict though, and might discourage people with the scholarship from challenging themselves.</p>
<p>The average GPA here is closer to 2.0 than 3.0. 2.0 is supposed to be average. It’s definitely not hard to get by any means (I’ve kept a 3.6 despite struggling hard in chem engineering before switching into chemistry) but it’s certainly above average here. If a 3.0 GPA is below average at your school then it’s probably a sign of some serious grade inflation. In most classes I’ve taken at least half of the class gets a C or below, so I don’t see how the average GPA could be more than 3.0.</p>
<p>Edit: Actually, just looked it up and the average GPA at my school was 2.95 in 2008, 2.96 in 2007. Couldn’t find any more recent data, but yeah. 3.0 is above average, albeit only slightly.</p>
<p>If 2.0 is average, what’s the minimum GPA needed to graduate?</p>
<p>The average student may not graduate. My school has a 48% 6-year graduation rate. But I think you’re still right that 2.0 is below average. I just also think 3.0 is above average, even if only slightly. The data I found was likely for GPA at graduation so I’d imagine the average GPA across all students including ones who later dropped out to be lower.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which material are you referring to? If I teach course X at Directional U College Y, it is NOT going to be the same calibre of course I teach and test at an top 10 school J. It simply is not. I could teach an entirely dumbed down version or an extremely challenging and advanced version of the same subject. The reality is you are learning and being compared, implicitly, to those around you whether you are aware of it or not. </p>
<p>Curving aside, most of us design our courses and our exams so that they challenge students (at the level the class is prepared and able for). That challenges pushes students to learn the most with what they are able to acquire. If everyone was getting an A, I would be doing a disservice to a good portion of students because it would be obvious that I was not offering material at a high enough level to make it worth their while. They could have learned so much more! Likewise, if everyone was failing, it was obviously over their heads and that is not useful to anyone either. </p>
<p>Most of us are able to design exams so there is inherently a pretty normal distribution. Curving is simply accomplishing the same thing when the design doesn’t work as planned.</p>