<p><a href=“1”>quote</a> There’s nothing “arguable” about the grade deflation policy and practice. You obviously haven’t attended there, and you more obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You clearly obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Simple question: how many people actually fail at Princeton? Right, that’s what I thought. So can you still claim with a straight face that Princeton is not grade inflated? Any school at which it’s practically impossible to actually fail is a school that is grade inflated. </p>
<p>Princeton’s grade inflation policy only applies to the high end of the grading spectrum, yet inflation/deflation is far more salient at the lowend of the spectrum. The difference between obtaining a 4.0 vs. a 3.0 is miniscule compared to the difference between obtaining a 3.0 and flunking out completely.</p>
<p><a href=“2”>quote</a> If you actually think that there are lots and lots of students at Princeton & similar Ivies that are “struggling students,” then you are even more naive. Because of admissions policies, the only students who might flunk unless an Ivy supported their not flunking, are those very, very hooked students who are slackers or not very bright. And there are only a handful of those. Even most recruited athletes to Ivies are excellent students both before and after admission.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So why do schools such as Caltech and MIT have struggling and failing students? Their admissions policies are just as stringent as any of the ivies, arguably more so. </p>
<p>I’ll put it to you this way. I know quite a few former Princeton students who then became grad students at MIT or Caltech, and they all freely admit that the grading schemes are not comparable. One even joked that he was glad he didn’t go to MIT for undergrad, as he suspects he may not have even been able to graduate at all.</p>
<p>We can hold that factor constant: I suspect that even most Princeton science and engineering students would concede that their grading is not as harsh as the science/engineering classes at MIT or Caltech. The former Princeton undergrads that I know who became grad students at Caltech or MIT have certainly freely conceded as much. </p>
<p>That grading inflation seems to be particularly true at the low end: somebody who fails an engineering course at MIT/Caltech probably would have passed at Princeton. Granted, he wouldn’t have obtained a top grade. But he still probably would have passed. Like I said, it’s practically impossible to actually receive a failing grade at Princeton.</p>
<p><a href=“3”>quote</a> Most people who ask about grade inflation or deflation are concerned about grad school admission.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure that the concern is regarding grad school admissions, but even if it was, the fact remains that to even be eligible for grad school at all, you have to actually graduate from undergrad. What if you can’t (and there are a lot of students at Caltech and MIT who can’t)?</p>
<p><a href=“1”>quote</a> There’s nothing “arguable” about the grade deflation policy and practice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A policy that aims for a 35% cap of A’s (and a true cap of ~40% A’s, including engineering courses ) is quite weak and certainly highly arguable evidence of grade deflation. Trust me, there are plenty of college students around the country, especially in engineering majors, who would love to be in courses where 35-40% of the grades were A’s. I have strong memories of certain courses where 35-40% of the grades were *failing<a href=“i.e.%20D’s%20or%20F’s”>/i</a>. </p>
<p>The bottom line is, many students at, say, Caltech would surely love to trade grading schemes with Princeton, but I suspect very few Princeton students would want to trade grading schemes with Caltech. As I’ve said before, you’re not going to fail at Princeton. You might obtain mediocre grades, but that means that you’ll still graduate and receive a degree. No such assurance is available at those other schools.</p>
<p>A general comment on grade inflation/deflation in general:</p>
<p>I’m curious as to why top students that go to Ivy League, Top 30, etc schools suffer from some forms of grade deflation opposed to state and lower-tier schools. For grad school and such, the student that gets a 3.1 at Yale is compared against a 3.9 from State U, so who’s smarter? Arguably its easier to get straight As at a State U versus a top caliber school, and while there are some exceptions, don’t you generally think the person from Yale is a smarter individual than the one from state u?</p>
<p>Except for the teeny, tiny reality that the cap is so often not even in play because of the quality of student to begin in (see post 26), which builds in an accidental (variable) curve.</p>
<p>I just love how people who think they know what they’re talking about with regard to the Ivies and their amazing student bodies (overall) so often know zero. The competitive quality of any individual lecture or discussion class does not begin to compare with the majority of colleges in the country, most of which have a far wider range of promise & ability within them – some brilliant, many not.</p>
<p>It depends on what you’re comparing. It can be “grade-deflated” relative to other majors in the same university. If the average GPA is lower in engineering than the average in other departments, then you can say that engineering is grade-deflated.</p>
<p>Not true. I know of two students who failed out at Princeton – and one was a professor’s son. The difference may be that Princeton makes it easy for those students to return, if they want, when they have shown increased maturity after a period of time away. It may take several years, but those initial fail-outs can still earn a Princeton degree.</p>
<p>The problem with comparing Princeton to CalTech is that the two schools attract a very different type of student and have a different focus. A Princeton undergrad who discovers that he struggles in college-level math might switch to his secondary interest, art history. A Caltech student would have transfer to another university or decide to muddle through as best as he could. </p>
<p>Since you brought up the comparison, I’ll bring up another can of worms: the state of secondary school education in CA. If the top 12.5 percent of all public high school students are guaranteed admission into one of the UC schools (assuming that the fact still holds true) and if a significant portion fail out, it’s possible that inadequate preparation for college may be at fault. While inadequately prepared but intelligent students usually recover by the beginning of their second year and meet/exceed the level of their better prepared peers, it may already be too late, especially in a technical major. California is known as having one of the weakest public school systems and one of the strongest public university systems. There must be casualties due to the gap between the two. Although I doubt such statistics exist, a more telling comparison might be between Princeton students and out-of-state Caltech students.</p>
<p>Except that you’ve forgotten the teeny tiny reality that MIT and Caltech students are just as academically qualified as Princeton students (see post #22), yet surely many of their students would love to trade their grading schemes for one in which 40% of the engineering students receive A’s. </p>
<p>I just love how people think that Princeton boosters continue to believe that they know what they’re talking about when they assert that the school is grade deflated, when the undeniable truth is that it’s practically impossible to actually flunk out of Princeton, yet the same cannot be said for schools such as MIT or Caltech that have equally impressive student bodies.</p>
<p>Uh, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Caltech is not a member of the UC system and therefore offers no admission guarantees whatsoever to California public high school students. Indeed, the vast majority of Caltech students are not from California.</p>
<p>So, for example, what you are saying is Chem engineering at Princeton and Caltech is equally hard, have equally stringent grading scales, and have equally qualified students. The only difference is that Caltech kids can’t switch to art history.</p>
<p>Well, ‘failing out’ only to be allowed to return later to graduate is not really failing out. Failing out means truly not being able to graduate at all, whether because you the school won’t readmit you at all, or even if you did, you simply cannot pass the required courses. I would submit that far more students at Princeton, even if restricted to only the science/engineering students, would not be able to pass the Institute Requirements required of all students at either Caltech or MIT than vice versa. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree - but that doesn’t change the final analysis, which is that Princeton allows for more ways for an undergrad to slide through towards graduation and a degree than does Caltech or MIT. Granted, the degree may not be in a major that you really want, but it’s still a degree. And, as you said, even if you do ‘fail out’ of Princeton, you haven’t truly failed out, as the school will offer you another opportunity with which you will probably choose a different (easier) major and muddle through to graduation. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that, at the end of the day, practically everybody at Princeton who wants a degree will eventually get one. The degree may not be in your preferred major, it may take longer than you hoped, and your final GPA may be mediocre, but you’ll still obtain a degree. The only students who won’t graduate are those who drop out to do other things. No such assurance is available at schools such as MIT or Caltech - a significant number of their students who hope to graduate will never do so.</p>
<p>Since ChemEng is the example that has been advanced, I am quite certain that the Caltech ChemEng students would love to trade their grading scheme with the Princeton ChemEng students any day of the week. I highly doubt that the latter students would take that trade.</p>
<p>As I was typing Caltech, I was thinking Berkeley. Some heresy, huh? I have to look out my window right now to make sure I’m not under attack. :)</p>
<p>I remember hearing from my friend at Harvard that it’s hard getting an A and it’s even harder to get a C. If you were good in high school, you’ll probably end up with Bs.</p>
<p>Grade inflation at the ivies are definitely no secret.</p>
<p>Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The number of students who “slide through” is miniscule compared to the percentage of students who slide through so many other academic institutions. Not being an administrator at Princeton, you have no concept of the talent that makes up either the application pool or the admitted pool. It’s just that you mistakenly believe that Caltech and MIT students are “smarter” than students elsewhere. Nonsense.</p>
<p>You have no idea what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>First off, I never said that the number of students sliding through at Princeton was large. In fact, I’m sure it’s quite small. But that’s not the point. The point is that you could slide through, and some (small number of) students surely do. </p>
<p>But you can’t do that at MIT or Caltech. Like it or not, everybody has to pass the Institute Requirements, and if you can’t, you don’t graduate. There’s no sliding through, for there’s nowhere to run. There’s nowhere to hide. </p>
<p>Nor did I ever once say that Caltech and MIT are ‘smarter’ than other students at other schools. Please point to the quote where I specifically said that. Oh, wait, you can’t? That’s because I never said it. Allright then.</p>
<p>What I said is that Caltech and MIT have comparable admissions standards as Princeton. But students still nevertheless earn terrible grades and never graduate from those schools. So why can’t the same happen at Princeton? </p>
<p>And you continue to assert that Princeton isn’t grade inflated? Now that truly is nonsense. Again, how many Princeton students would like to trade grading schemes with Caltech? I’m going to go with ‘zero’, and I’m quite certain that I won’t be far off.</p>