<p>Just an observation regarding comments about equalizing GPAs between social science/humanities majors vs. STEM majors. </p>
<p>Forcing redistribution of grades seems arbitrary. The marketplace will already reward the “tougher” majors that have lower mean GPAs with jobs at the end of 4 years because of an emphasis on the tech skills and the specialization that those degrees reflect. The “softer” majors historically earned the “higher” GPAs, but students knew at the end of 4 years they would earn starting salaries well below the average STEM majors. It is a self-selected trade-off known to all in the education and employment worlds.</p>
<p>So it seems silly for an institution to “average” out performance across majors when it has no control over hiring decisions of outside institutions that will NOT average out starting salaries across majors. The slightly better GPAs in non-STEM depts made it possible for a resume to have consideration in the marketplace and a glance for other skill sets that the applicant might possess. </p>
<p>Do employers care what your GPA is at Princeton vs. Yale vs. Brown or anywhere else? Who really knows? But, I’d posit they’d take the 3.1 in a STEM field over a 3.1 in a humanities or Social Science field because they KNOW that it had to be a greater challenge and those are the skills rewarded by the marketplace today with higher starting salaries. Evidence probably would show that a 2.9 in a STEM major would have a better shot at a job than a 3.4 in anthropology regardless of the institution at which it was earned.</p>
<p>To address the OP, entering a university like Princeton, your mind should be directed on the learning process and the personal development that comes from challenging yourself at the highest possible level. Don’t focus on grades, focus on the actual reason you are attending a university like Princeton. If you’re concerned solely about GPA, many other choices in the marketplace may have been better suited for that focus.</p>