<p>
[quote]
Since Berkeley enrolls, on average, at the median, and at the lower percentiles, weaker students, the overall grades should be lower if the grading standards are comparable. </p>
<p>If you oversimply qualifications, and look only at SAT, the gap is huge. The average Stanford student would be in the top quartile of enrolled students at Berkeley. The average Berkeley student would be deep into the bottom quartile at Stanford. </p>
<p>Given the magnitude of the difference, it is remarkable that the grade distributions are as close as they turn out to be. They suggest easier standards at Berkeley than at Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Afan, you and I are talking about very different things. You're arguing about things on a macro level, I am talking about what happens on a micro level.</p>
<p>Let me explain. I agree with you that the average undergrad at Berkeley is not as good as the average undergrad at Stanford, and in particular, that the bad students at Berkeley tend to be the ones that get the really bad grades. Consequently, there are very very few bad students at Stanford that are comparable to the bad students at Berkeley. This I agree with.</p>
<p>However, I am talking about what happens to students on a more micro level. For example, an individual bad student at Stanford is treated far better than an individual bad student at Berkeley. I agree with you that it is obviously easier to get into Stanford than to get into Berkeley and that very few bad students get into Stanford. But what if you happen to be one of those (few) bad students who gets into Stanford - i.e. by legacy admissions, or through AA, or because of sports recruiting, or because your daddy donated a huge pot of money, or because you're the son of European royalty, or whatever it is? </p>
<p>I would argue that if that is you, then you should probably prefer Stanford to Berkeley. Why? Because the Stanford grading will be easier. Why is that? Because, like I said, practically nobody at Stanford ever actually flunks out. If you're a bad student at Stanford, you're probably going to get C's. Those aren't good grades, but at least they're passing, and you're going to be able to get your degree. However, if you're a bad student at Berkeley, then you're going to flunk out. </p>
<p>So in that sense, the grading at Stanford is actually EASIER. It is true that on a macro level, the grading at Stanford may not be easier because, as you said, there are far more bad students getting into Berkeley than into Stanford. However, on a micro level, if you happen to be one of those few bad students who happens to get into Stanford, then it is easier. </p>
<p>And that ties into my discussion of risk aversion. The fact is, nobody ever wants to believe that they are going to be a bad student. Nobody believes that they are going to get the worst grade of anybody in a particular class. Yet the fact is, somebody has to be the worst student in any class. However, if you're the worst student in any class at Stanford, you're probably unlikely to get anything worse than a C, and that's good enough to pass. Get straight C's at Stanford and you will graduate. But at Berkeley, if you take a class, and you're the worst student, you could very easily wind up with an F. Hence, the risk-averse move is to go to Stanford, because you never really know if you're going to end up in classes where you're the worst.</p>