Berkeley vs. Stanford (Computer Science)

[terenc]

<p>

Stanford has not released average GPA since 1992. If you read it, the description admits that Stanford’s figure is a guess based largely on comparison to its peers. This also says nothing about the School of Engineering or even the CS department. Everyone knows that some subjects tend to give out worse grades than others. While no official statistics have been released, it’s generally accepted that SOE and CS are well below Stanford’s average, whatever that may be.

Of course, this ignores the fact that even in 1992 Stanford had an average GPA of 3.4, a GPA 0.3 points higher than Berkeley’s average GPA in 1996, and a GPA 0.13 points higher than Berkeley’s average GPA in 2006 (!!!). Furthermore, the site notes that the Stanford Daily wrote in 2001 that GPAs are up 5% over the last decade, which means that average GPA was roughly 3.5 (and this number is rounding down) in 2001, which is 0.26 points higher than UC Berkeley’s average GPA in 2005.
And I have used later years for Berkeley because average GPA has seen an upward trend since 1986 at Berkeley.</p>

<p>Certainly the SOE has a lower GPA, but then again so does the CoE at Berkeley. And of course you ignore Berkeley’s own grading guidelines which set a C/C+ average for lower division EECS classes and a C+/B- average for upper division EECS classes. I have yet to hear of a Stanford class with a C/C+ (or even C+) average grade given out (I suspect there would be a student riot).</p>

<p>

Even if Stanford’s were provably higher, you can’t draw the conclusion that it’s due to “more lax grading.” Notice that the more selective a school is, the higher the average GPA is. Smaller classes are known to be better learning environments for students, and hence the grades from them tend to be higher. So between the smaller classes and the smarter/harder-working (on average) students, it’s not surprising that Stanford’s would be higher. In fact, it’s possible that Stanford profs hold students to a higher standard - and the grades given out are just a reflection of student response to it (i.e. they work harder to meet that higher standard).

Yes, I can. I agree that the caliber of students is higher. But the definition of “lax grading” = grading distribution weighted more towards As.
We are not defining “lax grading” = grades given out disproportionate to intellect of class, or that “strict grading” = grades given out proportionate to intellect of class. (Hint: if that definition doesn’t make sense, it’s not supposed to).</p>

<p>

If you think about it, this doesn’t support your point. Let’s say Stanford’s average GPA were a 3.5. It’s possible that part of that is because Stanford works on a 4.3 scale rather than a 4.0. If Stanford switched to the 4.0 scale, that 3.5 could be marginally lower. (Of course, it could stay the same or go up, depending on how many +s or -s there are.)

My point still stands. Stanford is on a 4.0 GPA scale.
Furthermore, it doesn’t even make sense that getting an A would be penalized (with non-perfect GPA) vs. getting an A+.
[Office</a> of the University Registrar - How the General University GPA is Determined | Student Affairs](<a href=“http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/registrar/students/gpa-how]Office”>http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/registrar/students/gpa-how)
[url=<a href=“http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/cdc/resumes/writing]Career”>http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/cdc/resumes/writing]Career</a> Development Center - Writing a Resume | Student Affairs<a href=“see%20the%20optional%20section”>/url</a></p>

<p>I’ll grant that courserank is not reliable. Nonetheless, that article is not integral to my point. I’ll also grant that anecdotal evidence, either yours or mine, is not reliable. It is up to anyone reading these posts to weigh competing anecdotes themselves.</p>