<p>
</p>
<p>I think what people mean is that school grade inflation/deflation is inherently intertwined with “course” grade inflation/deflation. Leaving aside Chicago, when people say that Berkeley or Cornell is grade deflated, what they usually mean is that Berkeley/Cornell * technical courses * is grade deflated. I completely agree that Berkeley creampuff majors are not grade deflated, but rather are almost certainly grade inflated. It’s just that Berkeley and Cornell have a lot of students in technical majors. Similarly, when people say that MIT and Caltech are grade deflated, what they really mean is that MIT and Caltech * technical courses * are grade deflated, but of course the overwhelming majority of the students are majoring in technical subjects. </p>
<p>But in many cases, the distinction is a distinction without a difference. Again, take the example of the guy I know who had an outside scholarship that required him to maintain a 3.0. It wouldn’t have mattered if he had gone to Caltech and majored in physics. The rules were crystal clear - he had to maintain a 3.0 cum GPA in college. The scholarship committee didn’t care that certain majors or certain schools might be easier than others. All that mattered is that he had a 3.0 if he wanted to maintain the scholarship. So that’s why you end up seeing people shirking away from tough majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nevertheless I would still argue that there is such a thing as grade inflation, even controlling for the major. For example, BigGreenJen has stated that the median grade in upper-division bio and chem classes at Dartmouth is around an A-. I defy you to find upper-division bio/chem classes at MIT or Caltech that have median grades that high. Yet I don’t think there is much dispute that the students at MIT/Caltech are at least as qualified as those at Dartmouth.</p>