<p>The focus on GPA also tends to discourage students from STEM majors, where I believe that grading is tougher. We need more American scientists! We are losing a lot of talented people to other fields. On the one hand, I do not object at all when people find other interests, that they did not encounter in high school. While I am not enthusiastic about it, I understand why people would choose fields that are more remunerative. However, I think that people are shifting out of science when they would be excellent scientists, and would enjoy it–and again, we really need those people.</p>
<p>No particular special significance attached to med school applications–just that I have much more experience with undergrads applying to med school than with law school applicants, or people wanting to work on Wall Street.</p>
<p>So the problem is a cultural one, then. The focus on the best GPA has nothing to do with how Yale or any other college distributes their grades. The problem is with people who are more focussed on their grades than on actually learning anything.</p>
<p>This is a shame. We raised our daughter to be a lifelong learner, not a GPA hound (although she did well in high school, obviously, or else she wouldn’t be at Yale). But the changes that I think you’d like need to come from the parents and the attitude towards learning, not the changing of a grading scale or grade distribution.</p>
<p>
There is a joke that the most significant thing that a student learns after he has been with some research lab (at say, NIH) for a year is that he knows he will never want to be a research scientist, after he has learned what career options those on this track may have.</p>
<p>With all the fiscal responsibility talk in the Congress, the situation could only become worse in the near future.</p>
<p>Regarding “American scientists”, define who are “American scientists.” Are the PhD candidates and postdocs who are VERY populated in many top ranked reseach labs American scientists? These future scientists may become citizens in this country in the future (after they truly become scientists, backed by their achievement there), even though their UGs were not in this country. They contribute to the advancement of the sciences in this country, but they were really not educated in US before graduate school.</p>
<p>
Well said. The grades should not be the center of students’ attention in their precious 4 years.</p>
<p>Actually, I am all for the evaluation of graduate/professional school applicants or job seekers using the criteria much more than just the grades. Even if we want to use a number to quantify the academic capability of an applicant in an unrealistically simplified way, use a standardized test score as appropriate for the situation rather than the GPA. All the concerns about grade inflation/deflation will disappear overnight.</p>
<p>Don’t most graduate schools use some other standardized test along with the GPA? Med school has the mcat, law school the lsat, business the gmat, and other graduate programs have the gre or the gre subject tests. I know when I went to grad school I had to take both the gre and the gre subject.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can throw the GPA out entirely for med/law/grad school any more than you could throw it out for going from high school to college. But, obviously, it doesn’t have to be the only way you measure somebody. GPA, along with the reputation of the undergraduate program, possible standardized tests, and research/volunteer/etc. experiences have to all be considered.</p>
<p>
This is true but with a GPA filter in place a MS applicant may have his application rejected before even evaluating the MCAT score.</p>
<p>But that is OK. If you took a bunch of mickey mouse classes and have a 4.0 GPA, you probably will not do well on the mcat, and so you lose out in the second round of cuts. If you do fine on the mcat then that shows that your GPA isn’t worthless.</p>
<p>But the thing is that you need both (and probably other factors like volunteering, interview, etc.) in order to get into a top med school. Just like you need both a good GPA and a good SAT/ACT score to get into Yale/etc.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean that someone with a 3.5 or 3.6 can’t get in somewhere, just maybe not at a top school. Isn’t that OK? </p>
<p>Or, more on topic, how does changing the grading policies help the Yale grad get into med school (or any other graduate school)? I don’t think it does.</p>
<p>Any student that gets into Yale (or any elite university) should have no problem with the MCAT. These students have scored in the top 1% on every standardized test they have taken since preschool.<br>
There is a risk of being weeded out by going to an elite university and being graded on a bell curve againt the smartest students in the world. Of course more than 35% of ivy students do A work.</p>
<p>I love this talk of GPA as though a 3.5 is easy to get. don’t know much about the actual situation at Yale, but at a peer school, the average MCAT for applicants is somewhere around 36 (which is quite high) while the average GPA is only about a 3.6. in other words, even with a high level of mastery over the material, because you’re judged in comparison to your peers, your actual grade may not be as high as it would’ve been had you chosen a different peer group. hence it’s tricky to label “grade inflation”.</p>
<p>I don’t support the proposed changes in the grading policy. However, I think this is a tricky issue. One might argue for easier grading in STEM courses at Yale, so that the grade distribution in those courses corresponds to the grade distributions in some of the other subjects. The main consideration that holds me back from arguing this is the thought that the consequences of a mistake by an engineer, physicist, or chemist can be quite drastic, in the real world.</p>
<p>Many years ago, I served on a committee at the National Science Foundation, to select young scientists as Presidential Young Investigators (PYI). I was surprised by the distribution of undergraduate institutions among the candidates for the award. There were very few students from the Ivy League. While the grading policies in STEM/non-STEM areas in the Ivy League may not be connected to this, perhaps they are in part. In fairness, there were not that many MIT nor Caltech undergrad degrees, either. The PYI program has been terminated, but it was replaced by PECASE and then by CAREER awards. I suspect that there is still a dearth of Ivy-educated scientists among the winners. This really does not stand to reason.</p>
<p>Mainly, I think that science really needs talented people of the type that Yale takes in. Yale and every other school tend to lose students from science majors disproportionately, as I understand it.</p>
<p>tamara6, I don’t think that the MCAT is that challenging. A student with the basic capability and test-taking savvy of most Yale students is likely to do fine, as long as the courses meet the AMCAS minimum. For the most part, I think the semi-Mickey-Mouse courses provide all of the background needed for the MCAT. Perhaps with the latest revisions, there is calculus-based physics on the MCAT. There has not been before, as far as I know. I’m glad to see anyone taking physics. But non-calc-based physics is really sub-university level, in my opinion. (All of the physics at Yale might be calc-based–not sure about that.)</p>
<p>HazelCapri–I think you make a good point. It’s very difficult to figure out how hard it is (or at least how common it is) to obtain X GPA with Y selection of courses.</p>
<p>This takes me back to my earlier suggestion that the transcript should give the distribution of grades in the course, and the levels (fr, so, jr, sr, grad) of the students in the class. At least then one would have some idea of the grading pattern in the particular classes. I have seen a Columbia transcript which, for one course, showed that 90% of the grades awarded were A’s. I have seen a Cornell transcript that showed that the median grade for a course was A+.</p>
<p>I suspect that in some fields at Yale, there is very little grade inflation. But I don’t have any way of knowing, from the outside, as a parent.</p>
<p>
I think there’s an issue of how you define “grade inflation.” Are there some fields at Yale that curve grades more than others? Probably. Are there fields at Yale handing out As to students who haven’t actually mastered the material? That’s what I doubt. Example: my D was in a poetry-writing seminar, with about a dozen students. They had to submit a portfolio to get in. What would be the sense of requiring that teacher to curve the grades in that class?</p>
<p>BTW, QM, your description of how first class honors work at Oxbridge isn’t entirely accurate.From wikipedia:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do remember that a first is a LOT more common than a summa. At Oxbridge, it’s usually about 15% of the class. </p>
<p>BTW, the Brits do have a way of recognizing outstanding work. Some people get “starred” firsts. The best and the brightest can get *** if they get a star on each part of a tripos or a ** if they are in one of the courses of study that just has two tests.</p>
<p>The actual diploma–the one you hang on your wall–does NOT say anything about honors on it.</p>
<p>Going back to your example of the student with mono…as I understand it he might, depending on course of study, end up with a 2:2 on the first part of his tripos. At that point, he would be ineligible for the best dorm rooms, since about 20-25% are handed out on the basis of grades. And for jobs that do ask about tripos results–many do–he would NOT be able to boost his overall gpa until he has his degree. So at the point where he is interviewing for jobs, he’d be someone with a 2:2. As a Yalie, he’d be someone with a 3.85 or 3.9 after 7 semesters. So at Yale, he’d be seen as someone in the top 10% of the class–and would probably have a Phi Beta Kappa key in hand–while at Oxbridge he’d be seen as someone in the middle of the class.</p>
<p>And pity the poor kid who gets sick on the day of the tripos.</p>
<p>In the common parlance in Oxford and Cambridge, a student “gets a first” if the student receives first class honours in Part II. Some of the fields have Part IA and Part IB, some have just Part I, some have Mods, some have probably have other names, but I have never heard anyone refer to the scores on the Part I exams, unless the student was sent down as a result, or the student did much better/worse than expected and the Part II outcome was really in doubt.</p>
<p>I’ve heard people talking about starred firsts. I’ve never heard anyone metion double or triple stars–don’t doubt that they exist, just that it seems to me that it’s the final year outcome that carries the weight.</p>
<p>Cambridge has the Senior Wrangler in mathematics. Students who receive a second-class honours degree are “Senior Optimes.” (Talk about grade inflation!)</p>
<p>I’m hardly an expert, but my understanding is that the first exam carries the weight during job hunting. As in the US, students don’t wait until graduation to begin job hunting. I agree with you that most people refer to the last result once they get the degree. Moreover, your results on the first do determine your accommodation. It used to be that some colleges let students choose their room based on results from highest to lowest. Now, my understanding that the best rooms go to the students with the best results, but the process is limited to the first 20-25%, depending on the college. </p>
<p>And, of course, there is the special category of h_ll for students who get “vivaed.” I don’t know if they still do that though. (Just checked. Cambridge, at least, does.)</p>
<p>What kind of college is that? Of course the best rooms go to those listed in Debrett’s!
:)</p>
<p>I think they still have vivas both places, and that students don’t know which line they are being vivaed across. Oxford still has congratulatory vivas for the top first in several fields, I believe. Not sure about the practice in Cambridge in that regard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure about this. I suspect that “the physics of cooking” probably does not really prepare anyone for the mcat, no matter how good they are at taking standardized tests.</p>
<p>And I am sure that most college physics or university physics students don’t think they are in a Mickey Mouse class. Mickey Mouse classes are taken because they are known (or supposed) to be an easy A - a way to pad your GPA without working very hard. </p>
<p>Can I ask if you have a child at Yale? And are they in a STEM major? Have you been satisfied with their education? Or do you find it lacking?</p>
<p>Yale graduate. Non-STEM. Excellent education.</p>
<p>From what I have seen, the MCAT requires some thinking, and some application of knowledge gained in classes, beyond simple recall. But I don’t think that it tests much that is learned in really hard pre-med courses. The easier versions of most classes will do (speaking about my university here, rather than Yale).</p>
<p>My concerns about the science majors are: Where will the U.S. get enough excellent scientists for the future? Going in, Yale students (and those at other Ivies and other good schools) are among the best prepared, and actually among the brightest, I think. The loss of students who would have enjoyed a career in science, and would have been good at it is a loss to all of us. I would like for a sizeable fraction of the scientists and technologists in the U.S. to have a deep commitment to freedom and equality (and other American values). No guarantee that you will get that with someone who has grown up in the U.S; and many immigrants do share those values–but on the whole, I think they are more prevalent among those who have attended grade school in the U.S.</p>
<p>@QuantMech, @Jonri</p>
<p>We do indeed score our Tripos on each part - you are awarded a new class each year, independently of other years.</p>
<p>e.g. you can graduate with a 2.1 in PIA Mathematics followed by a 1st in PIIA and PIIB Economics.</p>
<p>Policies regarding rewards for exam results vary hugely from college to college. At my own I know that they award prizes of ~£300 if you achieve a first each year. At other colleges, if you achieve a first you become a room scholar, and are awarded free accommodation over the holidays. At others, if you achieve a first you get ‘first dibs’ on which ‘band’ of accommodation you want (so you can request to have the highest level of luxury!).</p>
<p>Each has its own little perk!</p>
<p>Jonri is correct - the score you achieve in your first/second years will matter hugely in terms of job prospects, as you normally apply for jobs/internships in those years, and as you have a proper degree class at that point it will count for a lot.</p>
<p>Hence unlike some other universities, the first year at Oxbridge counts for a lot and works you hard.</p>
<p>The actual diploma you achieve just says “BA Cantab” I believe, with no reference to subject/major etc.</p>
<p>Hello, TSRPolymath, thanks for your commentary. I guess that the practice with regard to the rooms varies somewhat from college to college?</p>
<p>For those who want to be research students after completing the BA, I assume that the offers are still contingent on the final degree classification?</p>