What do you think about grade deflation and grading on a curve at colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1990s, I went to a school where a C was still the average. I only knew a few people who had a 3.5 or 3.6. Now these kids all have 3.8 or 3.9s, at least a 3.7. I once looked at the average gpas at a few middle tier medical schools and even there the average gpas of accepted students were like 3.7, which means that half if the students have over this!!! Do professors give out As like gumballs now or what is going on?

Yes. Exactly. No one can handle the fact that they're a C student. Your average, run of the mill student is a C student. These days, average has been scaled up to a B/B-. Students at the university level lose their minds when they don't get an A for the first time in their lives when they take a course with zero grade inflation.

Yes, how in the F are thousands of students pulling 3.8s when they have to take Organic Chemistry, physics, and biochem in addition to math and humanities courses? Do we really have this many well-rounded geniuses in our midst?

3.8 gpa among engineers is rare, maybe top 5%!or even top 2-3%

[Anonymous]

Why would anyone get their panties in a bunch about the grading practices at a college neither they nor their kids attend?

Sorry to resort to a cliche, but “get a life, people”.

[Anonymous]

One of my nieces/nephews went to Middlebury where the average GPA is a little over 3.5 and one went to Colorado the average GPA is a little over 3.1. So there is a big difference among schools. If you want to go to go to a good graduate school and especially medical school, if may be necessary to go to a school with grade inflation. Besides Reed, I don't know any privates that don't give B+/A- to every decent student. Public schools tend to have lower average grades, maybe because they feel less pressure to get students (who are customers in a way) good grades. http://www.gradeinflation.com/ has some slightly outdated info on the GPA trends at schools.

[Anonymous]

All grading is on a curve.

The professors write the exams to produce the distribution of scores they want.

Then they draw the cutoffs to produce as many of each grade as they want.

Y'all seem to think that there's something magic about a bell curve. Write enough exams and you know how to write an exam to produce a bell with a mean at any number you choose.

[Anonymous]

Big state schools grade on a curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big state schools grade on a curve.

all schools grade on a curve.

[Anonymous]

I was in the engineering honors program at a top 25 school and the curve killed my GPA and passion for engineering.

Professors would make exams impossibly hard and the averages were typically in the 30's (yes, 30% out of a possible 100%). The average grade was then set as a 2.7 and everybody was curved based on that. Being on the lower end of the honors cohort meant that my GPA sucked, when in any other situation I'd be top 1%.

My GPA is not at all indicative of my level of knowledge. It just shows that I did worse than the other super talented students. I should've gone somewhere with dumber students and easier curves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big state schools grade on a curve.

all schools grade on a curve.

Not in the humanities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in the engineering honors program at a top 25 school and the curve killed my GPA and passion for engineering.

Professors would make exams impossibly hard and the averages were typically in the 30's (yes, 30% out of a possible 100%). The average grade was then set as a 2.7 and everybody was curved based on that. Being on the lower end of the honors cohort meant that my GPA sucked, when in any other situation I'd be top 1%.

My GPA is not at all indicative of my level of knowledge. It just shows that I did worse than the other super talented students. I should've gone somewhere with dumber students and easier curves.

That sounds unfair - but is it possible you are a better engineer as a result?

I am really asking, not passively suggesting you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big state schools grade on a curve.

all schools grade on a curve.

Not in the humanities

Yes they do. A professor knows what the school's requirements are regarding As, B's and Cs etc and calibrates. The professors assign the topics. After a while, there are very few surprises. Sure, occasionally there might be a particularly good group, bot not too often. A humanities class with a ton of kids is no different from any other class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in the engineering honors program at a top 25 school and the curve killed my GPA and passion for engineering.

Professors would make exams impossibly hard and the averages were typically in the 30's (yes, 30% out of a possible 100%). The average grade was then set as a 2.7 and everybody was curved based on that. Being on the lower end of the honors cohort meant that my GPA sucked, when in any other situation I'd be top 1%.

My GPA is not at all indicative of my level of knowledge. It just shows that I did worse than the other super talented students. I should've gone somewhere with dumber students and easier curves.

I hear ya! My kid might still be an engineering student if in an easier program. Sure, he isn't MIT material, but he is no slouch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the engineering honors program at a top 25 school and the curve killed my GPA and passion for engineering.

Professors would make exams impossibly hard and the averages were typically in the 30's (yes, 30% out of a possible 100%). The average grade was then set as a 2.7 and everybody was curved based on that. Being on the lower end of the honors cohort meant that my GPA sucked, when in any other situation I'd be top 1%.

My GPA is not at all indicative of my level of knowledge. It just shows that I did worse than the other super talented students. I should've gone somewhere with dumber students and easier curves.

That sounds unfair - but is it possible you are a better engineer as a result?

I am really asking, not passively suggesting you are.

I actually abandoned traditional engineering completely after graduating. Or maybe it abandoned me? My passion was a very specific field of engineering that was very hot and competitive. I couldn't make it past a lot of GPA filters once I graduated. This was in the early 2000's before LinkedIn, so it was difficult reach out to anybody on the inside and network to plead my case. I actually had one job offer pulled back once they realized my GPA was below their arbitrary cutoff. I ultimately ended up in consulting/project management. My engineering degree gives me credibility in my current field, but it's not really necessary.

1. I think these grading tactics would make you a better engineer if you don't let it break you. It's shocking to go from a 4.0 in high school to C's. After awhile it becomes super frustrating to work your ass off and still get a C+. This eventually leads to some apathy and loss of drive. What's the point, I'm never going to get an A. It's a bad cycle and my GPA slowly slid downward each semester.

2. It creates a very hostile environment with your classmates. There isn't much collaboration when you are rewarded with a higher grade when everybody else performs poorly. You end up with 2-4 person groups that share resources and study within themselves to try to beat the curve. You would never cross the battle lines and go assist somebody not on your "team".

3. It permanently impacts mental health, even for those people that survive and get the 3.5 GPA. You are constantly stressed trying to maintain your position at the top of the mountain. Even the smartest students occasionally dropped out or transferred for mental health reasons.

4. I learned how to prioritize and devote my efforts to the areas where I could see the biggest return. I would assess the competition in relation to my skills and focus on classes where I thought I had the best chance to beat the curve. Now in the real world, I'm a master of the 80/20 principle and maximizing my return on time invested.

5. The real world seems super easy and relaxing now. At my company, we're all working toward a common goal and any work stress pales in comparison to my college environment. When a problem arises, I find that I am able maintain my composure and deal with curve balls much better than my coworkers. In the unlikely event that I get fired, I can just get a job with thousands other companies. The fear of failing out of college was crippling, knowing that I would never get into an equally prestigious program at another University. If I didn't get out with a degree, I was screwed.


When looking at prestigious colleges known for tough grading, I recommend having honest conversations with alums of the program. Ask about the employment outcomes for the people on the bottom of the curve. Make sure you go in with your eyes wide open. Sometimes it is better to be the big fish in a smaller pond.

[Anonymous]

Which schools are still known for extremely tough grading?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which schools are still known for extremely tough grading?

Washington University in St. Louis
Princeton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which schools are still known for extremely tough grading?

Washington University in St. Louis
Princeton

Georgia Tech

The posted who said HYP had top 1%-2% HS kids and that is why grades are high - that is so untrue, most of the kids who got in to HYP from our HS were athletes and big donors, not the smartest kids.