<p>What I am basically afraid of in top schools is getting a bad GPA because of the quality of students there. For example, in high school at very top of curve, but in top college, at the bottom of the curve, which means I'd get bs and cs, and thus not be able to get into grad school, med school, or law school. Is this just a myth, or is it true. And what top top schools(wondering about top 20 or 30 colleges) will I still be able to get an awesome education without sacrificing a decent GPA?</p>
<p>Truth be told, if you're dediated to your studies, you can do well anywhere. </p>
<p>But if you're really concerned, look at schools with grade inflation. Harvard and Yale, for example, are historically known for giving out good grades (even when the students don't necessarily work that hard). You should be fine at any of the Ivies, or similar schools. </p>
<p>Avoid grade deflation. It can usually be found at the more tech-oriented schools (MIT, Rochester), the UChicago types, and probably top publics (which tend to be more...blunt?..than their private school counterparts). </p>
<p>Like I said though, that's just a trend. You can do well anywhere you'll be happy. And grad schools do take into consideration the curriculum at your undergraduate institution.</p>
<p>Cornell is the only ivy really known for grade deflation.</p>
<p>I hear Princeton is starting to deflate grades as well.</p>
<p>I would advise anyone targeting graduate school to think very carefully about attending a school with grade deflation, or to put it another way, who adhere to some sort of curve that centers an anything under 3.3 or so. </p>
<p>I have spoken to quite a few Cornell alumni who felt their graduate school opportunities were lessened by, for example, a 3.3 at Cornell (which let's say is .4 above their ave gpa), vs. their perception of a 3.5 or so at Harvard/Stanford, etc (which is .2 above their average gpa). The Cornell students felt their performance was relatively superior to those with higher gpa from some of these other schools. Rightly or wrongly, they feel/felt like the graduate school adcoms do not sufficiently normalize the GPA between high ave. GPA schools and lower average GPA schools. This perception came from friends who transferred from Cornell to other top 30 schools, or friends who tracked similarly through prep or high school, scored similarly on tests, SATs, etc, and then showed very different GPAs at different colleges.</p>
<p>I can only comment my GPA at Stanford was higher than my GPA at UCLA with similar effort put forth at both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can only comment my GPA at Stanford was higher than my GPA at UCLA with similar effort put forth at both.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Same major?<br>
Undergrad/Grad? Graduate classes tend to be more grad inflated.
Same level of courses? Introductory courses, such as the science ones for premeds, are more grade-deflated than upper level/core courses. Are you sure you are having apple vs apple comparison?</p>
<p>Cornell's median grade report:
<a href="http://registrar.sas.cornell.edu/Grades/MedianGradeSP07.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://registrar.sas.cornell.edu/Grades/MedianGradeSP07.pdf</a></p>
<p>Maybe it's not as inflated as say, Princeton, but to me, it's not bad at all. Note how organic chemistry has a median grade of B; at Northwestern, which isn't known for grade deflation, the median is B- for orgo.</p>
<p>Most reputations for grade inflation are more myth than fact. </p>
<p>Cornell and Chicago are often mentioned, but, like other elite colleges, their median GPA's are between a B+ and and A-. Same for Caltech.</p>
<p>What are some other colleges with the grade deflation/inflation? Would W&M be considered as one for deflation? </p>
<p>Also wouldn't the graduate school look at which college you attend to "check" for grade deflation/inflation? Cause it's kind of like that with highschool where some highschools it's easy to get good grades but the colleges know about that or something?</p>
<p>Graduate schools know about grade deflation. I know for a fact that some have comparison charts to figure out how to compare GPAs from different schools that are updated annually.</p>
<p>I mean, if you're REALLY that concerned, you can go somewhere with grade inflation. But it's not as though graduate schools are blind to this issue. They know exactly where grade deflation is being practiced.</p>
<p>Look at where you fall ability-wise in relation with the student body. If you are in the top ten percent, your grades should be better than if you are in the top thirty percent, for example. Also, plan to use strategy. Spend some time planning your schedule and researching which professors are better and easier, which are incomprehensible and unfair. Don't just sign up for classes blindly. Be ready to challenge the advisors if they try to push you into certain classes that will not work for you. If a class doesn't feel right at the very beginning, get out and switch to something else. Many students will not be using strategy at all, and if you do, it is an advantage. Oh, and do your work, too.</p>
<p>Sam Lee -</p>
<p>that was in 1975! My first 60 units undergrad were at Stanford, then I transferred to UCLA. Same major (Linguistics/Econ). The classes I can remember from that year at Stanford were not unusual:</p>
<ul>
<li>Advanced Spanish</li>
<li>Intro Greek </li>
<li>Intro Econ</li>
<li>World Food Economy</li>
<li>Brain/Mind seminar</li>
<li>Human Sexuality</li>
<li>Intro to Programming (Algol - W I believe was the language)</li>
<li>Calculus for idiots (actually, Calculus for Humanities majors)</li>
<li>Intro to Geology</li>
</ul>
<p>honestly I cannot remember other courses. I had no AP at my high school so I started with zero units. I did not work that year so I took the max allowable course load.</p>
<p>I recall at the time the average GPA was about 3.3 or 3.4. At UCLA at that time it was around 3.1 or 3.2. At Berkeley at that time, 33% of each premed class (intro bio, intro chem, etc.) was required by the curve to fail. I assume ave. gpa at Berkeley at that time was about 2.9 or 3.0. Those seem clos in absolute number, but they separate applicants to graduate school (if unadjusted) by as much as 50 percentile places.</p>
<p>Sam Lee: that is an astonishing Cornell report. </p>
<p>It is clear to me then that alumni in the mid seventies through eighties must have made their displeasure clear to the administrators (especially the gifts office!) about working their Arses of for a B.</p>
<p>I can assure you Cornell's median grades did not look like your posted list at that time.</p>
<p>none of the top 15 schools (besides MIT/Caltech) have significant grade deflation that I am aware of. all of them have an average GPA that hovers around a 3.25 (though take into account that in many cases this includes music schools, education schools, etc.)</p>
<p>what you may want to consider though is that while the average GPA at harvard might be the same as at cornell, the SAT scores of students at harvard are much higher, meaning competition among classmates to attain that GPA might be more strenuous at harvard than at cornell</p>
<p>See previous post. </p>
<p>The median GPA for Caltechs Class of 2006 was 3.5.</p>
<p>so there we go, now caltech is included in the list of top 15 schools not having low GPA averages</p>
<p>just to take not again, though, read my last comment about SAT differences</p>
<p>Great advice Onemom, but it does assume a lot of choice about what courses to take. Places, or majors, with lots of required courses will confront students with lots of mandatory courses.</p>
<p>Caltech may indeed be a great deal of work, but the people who do that work get good grades.</p>