Anonymous wrote:
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.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}