Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Ivies cheaper than some state schools

This is one of my themes.

Granted, I got a 3.2 in chemical engineering, but that had more to do with a complete disinterest in engineering than than the school per se.

The average GPA at Harvard in 2005 was 3.45 http://www.gradeinflation.com/Harvard.html . Princeton has taken measures against grade inflation, so for the class of 2009 the average GPA was only 3.39. Gifted students who are admitted based on academic potential rather than legacy status, a sports scholarship, or minority status likely have slightly higher GPAs on average. Maybe it's harder to have a 4.0 at Harvard than State U, but a 3.5 is attainable for many of the students admitted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/education/31princeton.html
January 31, 2010
Type-A-Plus Students Chafe at Grade Deflation

By LISA W. FODERARO
When Princeton University set out six years ago to corral galloping grade inflation by putting a lid on A�s, many in academia lauded it for taking a stand on a national problem and predicted that others would follow.

But the idea never took hold beyond Princeton�s walls, and so its bold vision is now running into fierce resistance from the school�s Type-A-plus student body.

With the job market not what it once was, even for Ivy Leaguers, Princetonians are complaining that the campaign against bulked-up G.P.A.�s may be coming at their expense.

�The nightmare scenario, if you will, is that you apply with a 3.5 from Princeton and someone just as smart as you applies with a 3.8 from Yale,� said Daniel E. Rauch, a senior from Millburn, N.J.

The percentage of Princeton grades in the A range dipped below 40 percent last year, down from nearly 50 percent when the policy was adopted in 2004. The class of 2009 had a mean grade-point average of 3.39, compared with 3.46 for the class of 2003. In a survey last year by the undergraduate student government, 32 percent of students cited the grading policy as the top source of unhappiness (compared with 25 percent for lack of sleep).

In September, the student government sent a letter to the faculty questioning whether professors were being overzealous in applying the policy. And last month, The Daily Princetonian denounced the policy in an editorial, saying it had �too many harmful consequences that outweigh the good intentions behind the system.�

The issue isn't 3.5 at Yale vs. 3.7 at Princeton.

It's 4.0 at State U being a good bet for admission opportunity for grad school.

I'll use Duke law as an example. They have a hard cap of about 10% of the student being permitted to attend from Duke undergrad.

So, if you have your heart set on Duke Law and you go to Duke undergrad, you had better do better than those other 20 people who also are from Duke who want to go to Duke Law.

Whereas if you are me from State U with a 3.2 in engineering, they let you in because you had the highest LSAT score from State U who wanted to go to Duke so that they can establish "geographic diversity". About 50% of the class came from Harvard/Stanford/Dartmouth, etc, whereas about 50% of the class came from State U.

What we really need is a statistical analysis here, but we don't have enough data. We just have a few data points and conventional wisdom.

(I performed a wholesale Excel spreadsheet analysis on law school admission to determine where I needed to apply based on LSAT/GPA - using spreadsheets for calculation was one of the things I actually learned in engineering.)

LOL at the spam analysis!

This reflects exactly my husband's and my experience with medical school. He went to a top Ivy undergrad, I went to an Ivy-equivalent top engineering school. We both did well but not the "top" in our major. Ended up at the same good medical school, but both had the experience where we didn't get interviews/admission to any of the top medical schools. We both also noted that others from our high school who had underperformed us in HS, and went to State U, DID get into top Ivy medical schools.

Needless to say, undergrad ended up being far more challenging of both of us than medical school, largely due to the peer group being a more "competitive" and level playing field compared to us.

This all being said - even in retrospect I wouldn't trade my experience at my undergrad - it was an amazing and life-changing experience to be in a place like that with so many like-minded, gifted individuals. So even though it was harder to "stand out" I gained so much from the kinship/friendships I developed, that I value those 4 years above all others during my educational journey. And - my family and my husband's got significant financial aid from both of our expensive institutions, such that our families (middle class incomes) could pay.

The ideal is to do really well at an Ivy league or very competitive school. I think it's harder to get really good grades at a State U. than at a Stanford/Ivy (having been either a student or on the faculty at both types).

Huh. Really? Why do you think so? My husband, who went to a small, prestigious liberal arts school (not an Ivy) and then later attended grad school and taught at a large state school, would totally disagree with this, I think.

Perhaps a large survey class in a hard science or math is more demanding at a state school? I could see that. Less student support.

Are employers really looking at GPAs?

Law firms demand law school transcripts (several years out). But that's only for associate/of counsel positions.

No, they're pretty easy, relatively speaking. It wasn't the weed out large survey classes that gave me my trouble.