<p>Hi, I currently attend UC Davis (freshman), I am planning on applying to top 20’s after this summer (so transfer as a Junior). However, I am wondering, how difficult is the coursework at a top 20 compared to middle-level 4-year colleges (like UCD)?</p>
<p>I have a 3.83 GPA after 35.5 quarter units, (transferred some from CC classes taken during HS). 3.91 Fall quarter</p>
<p>If I can get that at UCD, would I be ok academically if I transferred or would I be struggling to maintain a similar GPA (at top 20’s where there is little grade inflation)?</p>
<p>People have told me not to transfer to a top school because with the bell curve my grades would actually go down. Now, I know some schools are extremely harsh with grades (ie Cornell), but is that generally true for the top 30?</p>
<p>I’m not sure if the average GPA at those schools are higher because there is so much grade inflation, or if the students just work very hard… ? Maybe both?</p>
<p>i transfered from syracuse to cornell - a 3.8 at SU was a breeze, i worked 24 hours a week, also took classes at another community college so i averaged almost 30 credit hours per semester. This past semester at Cornell, i worked my ass off day in and day out to get a 3.6 taking only 13 credit hours. Big big difference.</p>
<p>The higher you go, the more your GPA will drop. While the top schools (HYPS) are roundly criticized for grade inflation, you have to realize that the vast, vast majority of the students there are extremely hardworking and extremely intelligent, moreso than the average state school student. You cannot compare average grades between different populations (state school v. top school).</p>
<p>gomestar, compare the classes you took at each institution. Did you go to Syracuse, for example, and take all your general ed classes and then transfer to Cornell to take upper division courses? Or, did you start all over at Cornell, taking identical level courses as you took at Syracuse, and comparing them straight across, Cornell is that much harder? My assumption is that you had basic general freshman/sophomore courses at SU, and then upper division coursework at Cornell… please compare.</p>
<p>i have yet to take above a 200 level course at Cornell. At Syracuse, i was a triple major (english, econ, history). I took a mix of intro and upper level courses, it all was mixed due to AP credit (jumped into ENGL223 and 224 at SU). I could only transfer so many courses to Cornell so in the end i was able to fulfill only half of the intro courses required for my major. It would be tough for me to compare identical courses (since i havn’t taken any identical ones), and I only spent two semesters at SU. One thing that jumps out is the amount of detail the Cornell profs require that the SU ones did not. At SU, i could get away with knowing the “main ideas” of a concept (reminds me of one of the psychology classes) while the tests at Cornell often focus on minute details of a lecture slide. At SU, we were given study guides - at Cornell this has happened rarely. I’m sure the average grade for a test or class between the two schools is about the same or similar, but the amount of work required to get an average grade at Cornell is significantly more. This is due to the fact that the student body at Cornell is much more driven - it’s sometimes tough to compete with 30 other kids in the class who were also academic superstars in high school. When comparing my Cornell classes vs. my Syracuse classes, yeah, it is that much harder. But, I wouldn’t trade it for anything :)</p>
<p>Sam Lee - talk to some students about that, i dont think that little graph is an accurate representation of the coursework required to do well here.</p>
<p>right now, i’m at the school of industrial and labor relations. This is technically my major, but within the major we can pick certain areas of concentration to study and I picked Organizational Behavior. I hope to earn a masters at Cornell in the same subject. </p>
<p>I was able to pull off the triple major, but I had to pull alot of strings. If it was up to me, i would have been undeclared, but I had to be in a major to take some of the upper level classes. I agree, it was nuts … wasn’t a very fun year, but I was able to transfer almost 60 credits to Cornell, which is enough for junior status. This is a year ahead of my high school graduating class, but i plan to take an extra semester of undergrad at Cornell to take some sweet electives (like wine tasting) and then graduate in January of 2008, one semster ahead of my HS class. After this, i’m hoping to go into the masters program in industrial and labor relations. This will only take one year to get since i’ll already have a BSILR, so i’ll have a B.S. and an M.S. after a total of only 9 semsters. Not a bad deal! I just have to survive next semster, it will be brutal…</p>
<p>aca, grad schools KNOW that. Trust me. Even between Smith and UChicago, you’d need a .3-.4 higher GPA at Smith to get into the same grad school. Law schools as professional schools are more by the numbers, I’ll admit. But Harvard law looks far more favorably on a 3.8 from Cornell than a 3.8 from the University of Illinois.</p>
<p>thats not true. law school is a pure numbers game. Maybe theyll pick a UChicago grad over like an LSU grad IF they have the same gpa, but theres no way theyre going to pick someone from UChicago over Smith with a .3-.4 LOWER gpa…that would bring all their numbers down. Its a 3.2 vs 3.6…the 3.6 wins almost every time.</p>
<p>If you’re talking like Stanford Law, for instance, I meant that a 3.5-3.6 might be okay from UChicago, but you’d likely need a 3.8-3.9 from Smith. I never said anything about a 3.2 from anywhere doing the trick.</p>
<p>u said its a .3-.4 difference. 3.6 minus .4 is 3.2. 3.6 is a very competitive gpa at most law schools excluding HYS (and even then, its in their ranges). I just dont believe a 3.5 from UChicago will be as competitive as a 3.9 from Smith…like i said, its a pure numbers game and it doesnt matter much where u go to undergrad. But I guess we agree to disagree.</p>
<p>The graph was never meant to say anything about coursework required to get certain grades. When I said it wasn’t harsh, I didn’t mean it was easy. I meant they weren’t deflated because the average isn’t like 3.0 or below. Whether one school has grade inflation doesn’t depend on the caliber of students. Otherwise, Harvard/Stanford can say they don’t have grade inflation either because their students are of even higher caliber than Cornell’s. But they do because the average GPA over there is like 3.4 or so (slightly more than a B+) despite the fact they have the brightest students.</p>
<p>You’re right aca, I don’t know for sure. It’s just that Smith only sends about 1 person to Harvard law a year/550 students in a class, whereas UChicago sends 16/1100 students in a class. I don’t believe for a minute that there are 16 people at UChicago with a GPA of 3.9 who were interested in law school. I sort of assumed the lower-range GPA at places like HYS law was explainable as people from places like UChicago or Swarthmore and people from disadvantaged backgrounds. But perhaps I’m wrong…</p>