Grading on a curve

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>Several posts have mentioned the grading curve for engineering classes. I’ve even read that you can flunk with a 90% if everyone else is making 95%, or get an A with a 40% if everyone else is making 35%.</p>

<p>So is this the outlook for engineering students?</p>

<p>Attend a reach school = get D’s and F’s
Attend a match school = get C’s
Attend a safety school = get A’s and B’s</p>

<p>If so, does it make any sense for an engineering student to pursue a reach school at all? Given the similarity of the ABET-accredited curricula, would it be better to pick a lower-ranked school where the student will be on top of the heap?</p>

<p>Is the grading curve a standard feature of all engineering programs, or does it depend on the school?</p>

<p>And would an engineering prof <em>really</em> fail a student with a 90% if the rest of the class was scoring 95%?</p>

2

<p>If a 90% is a failing grade, something was <em>horribly</em> broken about that test. I never, ever saw something like that happen. Typically, class average for tests that I took was somewhere in the range of 50-70%.</p>

<p>With most implementations of “the curve” that I’ve seen (it is not the same in every class), the issue is standard deviation, not straight-up points. For instance, a stddev below class average might be the dividing line between a C and a D.</p>

<p>There are tradeoffs in both directions for harder vs. easier schools. I can tell you, though, that ABET notwithstanding, your educational experience between schools is not going to be identical.</p>

<p>In my experience, there were classes that curved, and classes that didn’t, and the curve that was used differed from class to class (in one class, there might be a grade cutoff a stddev below average, in another, the same cutoff might be half a stddev below average, in another, the prof might determine the curve based on what the grade distribution curve looked like, and make adjustments if it was bimodal or something wonky like that).</p>

3

<p>I don’t think professors grade strictly on a curve. I doubt anyone will ever give 90% an F. Curves are usually a good thing especially when the average is a 30% and you got a 10% and that makes it a C-.</p>

4

<p>I’m a senior at uiuc and i’ve never been in or heard of classes with those types of flucuations. Some classes in ECE will have really low test averages so the teachers can distinguish top students but everything gets curved in the end. If you’re at the average in the class, you should have a mid-low b. Most classes i’ve taken teachers shoot for a 78-85 average after the curve. I would say go to the any of the top schools you can get into. Going to an easier school is not going to result in you getting A’s instead of D’s. If you can do good at one school you can do good at another.</p>

5

<p>It is the lower portion of the upper division courses that are hard to get grades in, at least in UCs. A comfortable average to the students and the instructor is about 60-65%. </p>

<p>The point of difficult tests is, as brad97z said, is to distinguish the top students from the rest. A portion of the test (probably 70%) may be closely related to the homework, so if you understand the homework, you will ace that. The rest of the tests your aptitude and your ability to synthesize outside what you have been practicing in your homework. You need to think more, twist your brain, and this section separates the students who have mastered the material.</p>

<p>I would say challenge yourself. At my school, the average grade is C+/B-. If you receive one a grade that is one standard deviation above average, it is one grade above the mean. Same for one standard devitation below. 3SD below is an F, and usually ~ 1.5SD is a solid A.</p>

6

<p>You will never find an engineering class where the average grade is a 95%…you’d be lucky to find one where the average is above 80%.</p>

<p>Again, curves are merely a means to separate the best from the rest.</p>

7

<p>My physics professors intentionally made the tests so hard that the average grade would be in the 30s-40s. While the bulk of the students were in that area, some managed to score 70+ and some managed single digits. Professors do this to spread everybody out to see where each person stands. If the average grade is 90, too many people would have the same grade and they wouldn’t be able to tell the good students from the outstanding students.</p>

8

<p>I got a dynamics test back once and I’d received a 14. As soon as I looked at it I started trying to figure out how I possibly could have read “14” wrong. Maybe it was a 74…? Nope, first numeral was a 7. Maybe it was on a different point scale? No, the points I got plus the points I missed added up to 100. I started quietly freaking out until I saw that the guy in front of me had gotten a three (3) (III) (!!!), and that the class average was something like an 11.</p>

<p>On the other hand, all of us flunked our first mechanics of materials midterm, so we studied our rears off for the second midterm… The prof was one of those really excellent profs that you run into once in your college career… The kind of guy who really cared, and was really difficult, but his courses were really, really worth it… He was Indian, and spoke with a moderately thick accent. Never laughed. Occasionally cracked a smile if something was inordinately amusing. NEVER told jokes.</p>

<p>Second midterm rolls around, we take it, we all think we did okay… Prof walks in about a week after the midterm with a stack of papers. We ask, “Are those our exams?” He says, in his quiet, lilting accent, “Yes, and I am very disappointed in you all.”</p>

<p>Collective “oof” from the class, as though we’d been socked in the gut.</p>

<p>He lets it sink in for a good five, ten seconds, surveying our faces. He then says, without raising his voice or changing his tone, “I am only kidding. You all got A’s.”</p>

<p>That was the only fast one he ever pulled on us. And we ended up doing pretty well in his class for the rest of the semester, too. =)</p>

<p>So, it varies from prof to prof… Some curve, some don’t, some just let the chips fall where they fall. It’s a matter of their personal preference, but the department’s going to start wondering what’s going on if <em>everyone</em> starts failing a particular professor’s classes.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>So is it better to be “best” at safety or “rest” at reach?</p>

10

<p>It depends what you want to do. I’d imagine a 3.0 from a top engineering school would be better than a 3.5 at some Podunk university.</p>

<p>Also, referring to your original post, reach != D’s and F’s, match != C’s, and safety != A’s and B’s. I know a fair share of engineers here at Cal (by no means a “safety” for anyone) who have above a 3.7. Similarly, I have very bright friends at “safety” schools that are struggling to maintain a 3.0.</p>

<p>Once you get to college, your work ethic matters a lot more than your innate intelligence. Almost everyone who attends a decent university is smart - the difference maker is how hard you try once you’re there. Also, from personal experience how well you did in high school is by no means a decent indicator of how well you’ll do in college (I was a mediocre student in HS and am doing quite well now).</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s better to be “rest” at the reach, since there’s always a chance you can become one of the “best.”</p>

<p>I’m in classes now with some of the smartest people I’ve ever met, and I can’t say how much more satisfying it was to get a 56/60 on this thermodynamics final I worked on for around 36 hours getting the same grade as the genius kids than getting 98%s in undergrad against my classmates who (while all superb students) weren’t nearly the competition I see here.</p>

12

<p>

It depends which part of the “rest” you are. It’s highly inadvisable to come in at the 10th percentile of ability. That’s a good way to get rocked and end up hating life.</p>

13

<p>Heh, I think UCLA & Cal have a very similar grade structure to Cal Poly. For Mechanical engineering the average GPA at Cal is like 3.25, at Poly it’s like 2.7. That seems to indicate that UCLA/Cal/Cal Poly are very similar in grading standards. Interesting.</p>

14

<p>

Are these numbers accurate? Is the average ME GPA at Cal that high?</p>

15

<p>I don’t think that’s accurate…most courses here are curved to a B-/B (and upper divisions may be slightly higher, but surely not an A-).</p>

<p>Then again, bioengineering has a GPA somewhere around 3.3 so I could be wrong.</p>

16

<p>

I’ll post up the exact numbers. :)</p>

17

<p>For Mechanical Engineering (and I was wrong on the Cal GPA being 3.25):</p>

<p>Poly:
Average GPA: 2.68
Percentage of students receiving greater than or equal to B: 56%
Percentage of students receiving non-passing grades (C- or lower): 20%
Total Grades: 7,641
Total Classes Analyzed: 239</p>

<p>Cal:
Average GPA: 3.14
Percentage of students receiving greater than or equal to B: 70%
Percentage of students receiving non-passing grades (C- or lower): 5%
Total Grades: 3,517
Total Classes Analyzed: 65</p>

<p>UCLA:
Average GPA: 3.11
Percentage of students receiving greater than or equal to B: 68%
Percentage of students receiving non-passing grades (C- or lower): 9%
Total Grades: 2,402
Total Classes Analyzed: 62</p>

<p>UCSB:
Average GPA: 3
Percentage of students receiving greater than or equal to B: 66%
Percentage of students receiving non-passing grades (C- or lower): 11%
Total Grades: 11,356
Total Classes Analyzed: 196</p>

<p>UCSD:
Average GPA: 3.04
Percentage of students receiving greater than or equal to B: 68%
Percentage of students receiving non-passing grades (C- or lower): 9%
Total Grades: 9,553
Total Classes Analyzed:107</p>

<p>From this data I think Cal Poly is significantly harder than UCSB for the same GPA. It might be around ~UCLA level of difficulty for the same GPA. And Poly fails a lot of people, obviously. I believe that this data is from <em>anyone</em> who takes an ME class, it appears that entire classes of grades are entered in here. So, people who eventually drop out of ME are included. Also notice the far superior class size for Poly (something which is absolutely true when compared to UCs). :)</p>

18

<p>Hey Mr. Payne,</p>

<p>Where did you get this data from? Was looking for similar data for my own school.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, a certain elite engineering school in Palo Alto that is a ‘reach school’ for everybody comes to mind that doesn’t clearly doesn’t conform to the above grading scheme at all, and in fact, is widely noted for its relatively relaxed environment. At that school, it’s practically impossible to get a truly bad grade. Granted, it’s still difficult to get A’s. But as long as you do the work, you’re going to pass.</p>

<p>That illustrates the key point that grading standards are mostly dependent on the culture of your school. Some schools are harsher than others.</p>

20

<p>sakky, I agree with that sentiment having gone to UCDavis and having grad students as TAs who got their BS’ from Stanford, and seemed rather dense and unaware of what they were suppose to be teaching. Some of the more sensible grad students admitted how difficult the program at UCD was compared to their’s. Granted, a lot can be said about the psychology of saying something like that but I really don’t think they could.</p>

<p>Anyway, those who get admitted to reach schools are usually top notch students, and despite having their grades for the student will get out of the education only what they put in. This is true at any school. The tougher grading scheme at non-reach schools, and lack of ‘gentleman Cs’, is not so much reflective of the reach schools wanting to keep their cash cows, but more of a challenge to even the playing field after graduation. If the “talented” kids are neglecting their education at the reach school while the “not so talented” kids are being challenged at the safe school than when they come out they should be about even.</p>

<p>I got my BS 8 years ago and have been hiding my gpa from employers the whole time. Regadless, I have landed jobs as an engineer with Genentech and Johnson&Johnson since then and now work for a mid-size biotech company and am very comfortable. I am of the opinion that a stellar gpa means that they weren’t challenged enough and a poor gpa means they were very challenged, no matter what school they went to. What does this say about the student/potential employee? That spin can be decided by the student/employee; I worked my butt off and I did it or ‘yeah it was easy’. Which person do you want to hire?</p>