<p>I know that GA Tech is notoriously grade deflated, but it’s tough to pass up an opportunity to study BME at a school that’s ranked #3 in the nation for it. I know I’ll have to work extremely hard, but is it possible to get a 4.0 or at least a 3.5+ at the end of senior year at tech? Or is it almost impossible?</p>
<p>Tech is not grade deflated (Tech has actually had a slight inflation over the past 10 years). It is simply much less inflated than peers. With that said, one poster just had a 4.0 semester at Tech while taking the notorious Physics 2 and Calc. 2 courses together. Also, engineering courses apparently grade a tad easier than courses in the natural or hard sciences (probably because they are more project based). Public engineering schools will be tough, period, but many will succeed, and there will be people with a 3.5 in all of the depts. By the way, Tech’s average graduating GPA is like a 3.07-3.1 which really isn’t terrible for a public engineering school. I mean most of the classes are in the sciences, so one would think that it should be in the mid-2.?s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Math and the hard sciences at GT (and most schools) are primarily freshman and sophomore level. Engineering classes are primarily junior and senior level. Junior and Senior classes have higher grades than Freshman and Sophomore classes. That’s not necessarily because the professors grade easier, but because the students are better (they’ve acclimated to college).</p>
<p>That is also true, but I think I read somewhere that natural/physical science courses are graded lower (I should say lower, not harder). I wish I could get the source, and if I find it, I will post it. I’d imagine some freshmen in engineering programs actually take engineering courses and the grades do end up being higher. You’re right though. It could be because of a lot of reasons such as engineering course sections being much smaller than other courses (such as intro. physics, chem, bio, etc.), but I’m not sure if this is the case at Tech. You would have to tell me. Normally smaller classes have higher grades. Probably because the professor is more accessible (which could lead to people getting more sufficient assistance, or a more generous grading curve). I’d imagine the engineering courses to be more rigorous (as in time doing projects and work out of class), but how much of the grade is dependent upon exam scores in a typical engineering course? </p>
<p>What I should have said, is that grades are normally higher, not particularly easier. However, I imagine that it would be easier for many engineering oriented students to use their hands and put together a project than to take an extremely difficult exam (on facts or concepts which they find irrelevant to their goals), which is the bulk of the grade in normal science courses.<br>
I guess I’m wrong in the sense that I am comparing apples to oranges. I’m going to guess that engineering courses are structured much differently than say some biology or chemistry course. I keep forgetting that grades don’t necessarily indicate difficulty. Lots of things go into how grades turn out. My bad.</p>
<p>^i think the raise in the average GPA for a tech student to a 3.1 has something to do with the addition of more liberal arts majors and the increased management rankings attracting more students interested in business.</p>
<p>I think that could be right, but places like Purdue have been like a 2.8 for a while, and it has always had many options outside of engineering and science. But the rise at Tech started in like 1990 (it was like 2.86 then, and moved to the 2.9s and fluctuated and then got to about 3.1). Some of it has to do with the added strength of the student body, and you’re probably right.I don’t know how many people are liberal arts majors, but I wonder if it’s enough to justify a .1 rise over the last decade. This ties our grade inflation (.1 also, but ours was already higher), yet we did not add any programs to get it (then again, our SAT scores and GPA are similar and probably saw similar increases so…). But either way, I would say that Tech’s grades are simply less/not inflated. The 2.?s are common for those that take most science courses. I would never consider a school truly deflated unless grades consistently go down for several years even though the qualifications of the student body gets better. The label of grade deflated is reserved for places like Princeton with an active deflation policy/dept. wide grade distributions (as in every dept. in the school is to abide by this) in place. Tech is just hard. I think there’s a difference and students who don’t perform well and received a less than stellar grade(<B) in a tougher class that was probably curved up, probably still got a more than generous grade as grades were not on the 90=A, 80=B, etc. scale despite the average being in the 50s or 60s. It’s not like grades were either put on that scale or curved down. Unfortunately, most students only think about deflation/inflation in terms of the number of As given. However, what if many people truly don’t deserve an A? Like for example, if the class average was like a 62, and only 9% got above 80, and I am regarded as an at least decent prof., why should I give some in the 70s an A grade? I wouldn’t lower standards just to make sure my class has “sufficient” A grades. It simply isn’t fair to those who did do far better than average. Technically, I am being generous, if I design a distribution that expands the amount of B and C grades being given. </p>
<p>I honestly think Tech has the right approach to grading. Tech simply “keeps it real”. Any difficult school that does not liberally hand out As and Bs should not be deemed as grade deflated. Instead it should be more like “fair-grading”. Either way, the point is that, even though Tech is tough, getting good gpa is possible. I’m sure students here can tell him how to do it.</p>
<p>^actually, i know teachers who would rather give everyone with a B an A then give people with Ds and Fs passing scores. I think this reasoning is much better because you have to work hard and do a lot of work to get a B in some classes, while you have to put in no/minimal effort to receive a D or F.</p>
<p>I just looked it up, The Ivan Allen College formed in 1989. Im pretty sure this would explain it, seeing the most liberal arts/management majors have no trouble keeping above a 3.5.</p>
<p>Yeah, but I always wonder when it’s crossing the line. Because many tougher courses, like those at Tech here have averages in the 60s. If the average is say 67, and you curve, do you think it is cool to give the average people a B-. I mean, it is technically (actually, it would be between C+ and B-, so a 2.5) at the middle of the plus/minus grading scale, so perhaps that’s the logic. But at a place like Tech, people who are average get Cs. It just seems that it would be more reasonable to give those around the 67 a C+. And then B- is too close to those who got like a 78 (getting B+/A-/A is a lot harder and more arbitrary in classes that curve like this), but will only receive a B in the course. It’s making a 3-level difference a 1 level difference. We need not talk about those in the 50s and even 40s who will get a C grade. So what you say is indeed reasonable. I was essentially defining my B as an 80%. It does make sense to consider giving these people an A grade. And those that did not get close to the average should get D/F grades. </p>
<p>I was gonna say something about how our B-School is also inflated (we make fun of them all of the time), but I looked at the grade distribution being applied and realized that most core classes will probably be held to a 3.15(and this is provided no D-grade/Fs are given) give or take some hundredths or something (and this is probably best case scenario, one in which maximum A grades are given). The electives I imagine would be higher (like close to 3.3). In this case, the plus/minus system functions to hold down grades. Perhaps I underestimate the b-school. It’s not as low as the sciences, but is low. I do wish, however, that something similar could be applied to depts. in the social sciences and humanities. However, the b-school curve is kind of a front. Even though the overall average is curved to 3.15 and 3.3 respectively, most grades will be B- and higher (perhaps up to 50% being lower than B depending on how tough the prof. is). As in 80% for cores and 90% for electives. It’s basically the 20% (the grade distribution is kinda vague here. I can’t tell if this is a minimum amount or if it is an exact amount, b/c As and Bs, say “not to exceed”) with C+ lower that drag down the average. However, I can admit that there are probably classes in the college that don’t give C-grades, so they grade fairer than some of those.<br>
Given the curve here, I suppose Tech students in management are better off than students in the b-school here. Not as many people will have 3.5+ unless they are really consistent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you look at the grade distributions, GT’s College of Sciences’ grades in the upper levels (3000 and 4000) are almost identical to the College of Engineering’s grades at the same level. What throws off the overall numbers are very large lower level classes, like Chem I, Bio I, Physics I and II, O-Chem I and II, etc. In those classes, you have many non-science freshman and sophomores earning low grades (freshman naturally have lower grades than seniors because the freshman are less efficient at studying and are still adapting to college life).</p>
<p>So in Chemistry, for example, 70% of the undergraduate grades come from 1000 and 2000 level courses. Whereas in Chemical Engineering, 80% of the grades come from 3000 and 4000 level courses. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Georgia Tech of the 1980’s was VERY different than the Georgia Tech of the late 1990’s through today. In response to claims that Tech was elitist and because of political pressure, in the 1980’s GT had a very liberal admissions policy in-state and admitted virtually everyone. The philosophy was that anyone could get in, but only some could get out. That way people wouldn’t complain that their child couldn’t get into Tech - when the child failed out of school it was the child’s fault.</p>
<p>As a result of this policy, many people that shouldn’t have gone to Tech did, the average SAT score dropped, the Freshman retention rate dropped (as people failed out), the average GPA at Tech dropped, and Tech was known nationally as the ultimate “weed out school” and for “grade deflation”.</p>
<p>In the 1990’s (really in 1994), GT ramped up admissions standards and average SAT scores. As a result, but 1999 the freshman retention rate went up, as did the average GPA at Tecj. In the 2000’s, Tech was no longer a “weed out” school and no longer had grade deflation, but was instead consistent with it’s peers’ GPAs.</p>
<p>The Above is also why Tech is often not held in the same esteem as schools like Caltech and MIT in some discussions, or even as publics like UVA and UNC. Tech’s major academic and research breakthroughs, as well as it’s tradition for excellence is relatively new compared to other schools. That’s why Tech wasn’t admitted to the AAU until this year.</p>
<p>Give it 10-20 years and GT will be the first name mentioned as a “public ivy”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>4.0? Nearly impossible. 3.5+? Absolutely possible, if you are smart and manage your time well.</p>
<p>USNW rankings are kind of crap. Tech has about the highest quartile range scores for SATs when comparing to public schools. As in higher than places like UVA. It is even starting to rival us. But I guess USNW is so focused on admit rate, which shouldn’t matter when schools with higher admit rates are enrolling better students than those with low admit rates. However, UChicago is an exception, but it’s private. Seems that the rankings discriminate against public schools with exception of UVA, the UCs, and Chapel Hill. Again, it seems that these schools are simply rewarded for admitting a lower percentage of students (though one can admit that they do have great academics, so does Tech). As for not being held in high esteem, that’s pretty much where Emory is. I was actually shocked to find out that Tech wasn’t in the AAU before because I thought that both of us are essentially growing/improving at about the same pace. However, I think Emory had an advantage in getting more research funds since it runs a huge healthcare system.<br>
With grading, I always wonder how much class size does contribute to them and whether or not it is responsible for some of the difference between private and public schools. I mean some of it is straight up inflation. I hate to hear students at like Harvard or even here claim that they “worked hard and earned all of their grades”. One could easily ask them, “how come the equally qualified students at places like MIT, Chicago, Hopkins, or Berkeley, (insert non-Ivy peers), don’t get the same grades? Perhaps your courses are just easier” If most of the most selective public schools have a 3.2 (again I think 3.1-3.2 is reasonable for a top engineering school) average, it doesn’t make sense for places like Stanford, Brown, and Harvard to have like 3.5-3.6 if they are so hard. I think difference in class sizes could perhaps create a .1-.15 difference (simply because intros. are not as large, and not as many people will fall through the cracks), but anymore is kind of ridiculous for supposedly rigorous schools. I can tell something is wrong here because how can we have like a 3.35-38 when 30-40% of the student body is pre-health at any given time? And intros. here don’t curve (my friend told me how his mid-80 grade in intro. bio was curved to 100 because it was in the top 5th percentile and I think his section was similar difficulty to one of the moderate difficulty profs here. I don’t think chem. there curves). Obviously something went dramatically wrong outside of sciences where many profs. are afraid to even give B-s. As for the sciences and harder depts at some of these really inflated (3.45 higher) places, they must truly believe that they have the hardest courses and that their students deserve higher grades, so overcompensate through inflation. In reality, one would find that many course counterparts at the peers would be similar in difficulty if not harder. Or the courses are simply not as hard compared to the ability of the student body. I, for some reason, doubt the latter. And then there are also many liberal profs. that believe in liberal grading (or no grades) so inflate based upon their social/political believes. I’m sure there is a lot of this, especially in social science/humanities.</p>
<p>@Bernie</p>
<p>My teacher would only give everyone with Bs an A so he can fail more people and make the GPA a 2.0. And in my physics class, when an 80 was 20-25 points above average, a B is considered very good, and I would see meet the requirements for an A is it was way above average.</p>
<p>USNWR undergraduate rankings “the best colleges to attend”, not “the best colleges”. So as a result, USNWR rankings consider factors that really have no impact on the quality of school and the quality of students, such as alumni giving rate, admission rate, and average class size. These heavily, heavily favor private schools.</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with those rankings if you consider them as intended. The problem is when people try to make the comparison that X is better than Y because X has a higher USNWR ranking.</p>
<p>Ilyssa: I agree. I’m essentially saying that the average should probably be like a C/C+ in such a class, and that some people should be allowed to get D/F. Ours is normally a B- (perhaps my biochem class was an exception, it might have been a C+. I’m not sure, it was wierd). If you move the people with 65 to say 73 to a B-. That leaves like 30 more points in the range ton assign. And the curve will be much less generous to them. And some of the people who got in the 80s (even mid-80) may not got an A grade. They may instead get like a B+ despite the fact that hardly no one (maybe like 10 people out of 170-180ish) got above 90 in the course. All this, so as to keep the average at 2.6-2.7. There should be another way to do it. Perhaps do what your physics profs. do and award more A grades to those in the 80s (even low), but give people near the average a C+. Because people scoring that high probably do deserve an A given that the class is graded on a curve as curving from D to B- is a huge jump!</p>
<p>Banjo: Yeah, that’s essentially why I say they are kinda crap. Because too many people do make such a comparison. For example, many people come to Emory uninformed. They simply know, that it is perhaps the highest ranked school they got into, and then they matriculate. However, said students wanted to do engineering and then find out that Emory doesn’t have it lol. That happens quite a bit. Most are northerners with who are spoiled and have no concept of Tech, and when they hear it is public, discredit it after I tell them to consider taking classes there or transferring to it. I have to quickly inform them of their ignorance. The elitism based ignorance here is somewhat hilarious.</p>
<p>And you’re right. USNW basically chooses which schools keep students the happiest Admittedly, most students are but so impressed by the idea of getting a great education, especially one that is rigorous. They’d rather prioritize using the resources of the school to make attaining their career goals easier (as opposed to having to work hard in order to be prepped for it). The education is somewhat secondary. And normally, schools with easier grading and great resources will be very popular. So I guess the rankings are moreso a reflection of our values when it comes to higher education.
While such schools are relatively rigorous. It is easy to dodge rigorous courses even if you are a science major. Like here, we have a thing via our communication client (Firstclass/learnlink) called class comments, where many of the pre-meds just go on there and ask who the easiest prof. for say gen. bio, gen. chem, gen. phys, orgo., etc. is even though they know that the more challenging profs. are the best lecturers (normally a million times better than one in an easier section). This makes it clear that most of those students care less about the better teaching quality that they could experience here, and go for ease instead. Of course these sections (there’s always 1 or 2 like this per major science course) fill up the quickest. Unfortunate for them, the grades in the easier profs. section are lower than the harder section b/c the curve is smaller or the prof. can’t teach. Joke’s on them.</p>
<p>Also, to address the original question, it’s hard, yes. But I do know at least 5 people who are graduating this spring in BME with 4.0s (assuming they keep it through their last semester). It takes a little luck, a lot of skill, but it’s doable. And one of them manages to do it while being involved in research and TAing, and being one of the most likeable people I know (in addition to a beast at ultimate frisbee).</p>
<p>Yes a 4.0 is doable, but very unlikely. I had a 4.0 up until my junior year (ME Major).</p>
<p>However, you need to realize that you can be the brightest and most dedicated student and still make a B. There is a major luck factor that goes hand in hand with maintaining a 4.0.</p>
<p>With that said, don’t worry about your grade as much as learning the material.</p>