<p>Dress up like a gangster type thing. Here’s a relevant Chicago Maroon article.</p>
<p><a href=“http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2005/10/25/ghettothemed_dorm_pa.php[/url]”>http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2005/10/25/ghettothemed_dorm_pa.php</a></p>
<p>Sadly, clueless wonders attend every school. My son was pretty disgusted by it.</p>
<p>mstee – Congrats to your son too. It sounds like he’s doing very well. I just see so many posters (last year and this year) who are concerned about grade deflation. I can’t imagine that it’s as bad as it’s purported to be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>idad,</p>
<p>That’s in line with what <a href=“http://www.gradeinflation.com/chicago.html[/url]”>http://www.gradeinflation.com/chicago.html</a> shows. I’d love your opinion on this again since you seemed not to believe in it when I posted the link on another thread and suspected the grade deflation might have been over-exaggerated. You were telling people how tough Chicago was and how your son’s class had an average score of 90% but the average was a C. Perhaps your son’s class just happens to be one of the few extreme ones.</p>
<p>As one moves through the curriculum, the grading tends to become a little easier. The Core, especially that first year tends to be graded a little tougher than is typical in one’s major. It also, as everywhere, depends on what one chooses to study. General Chemistry, for example, is notorious. (Some students have taken to doing the full year of Gen Chem over the summer at Harvard in order to avoid Chicago’s Gen Chem, and to get the year out of the way in 8 weeks.) </p>
<p>As a former TA, I would say the grades are not typically given on a pure curve, as was done in one of my S’s courses, where he scored 95% and did not receive an A. The “curve” was skewed toward a B; A’s on the other hand were harder to come by, and not many were given. At Chicago, the grading system allows faculty to give plus and minus grades, which makes not giving a student an A much easier, as well. An A=4, A-=3.7, B=+3.3, B=3, and so on. If a faculty member is looking to differentiate between a B student and one who did better, there are two options rather than a B or an A. </p>
<p>Here is another link that shows that there has been grade inflation at Chicago over the years as well: <a href=“http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2005/01/18/gpas_get_a_76_boost_.php[/url]”>http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2005/01/18/gpas_get_a_76_boost_.php</a></p>
<p>However, the average GPA is below that of Harvard (at nearly 3.5), and many other top tier schools. Also, notice the quote by the economics professor: Derek Neal, professor and chair of the economics department, grades classes composed of at least 35 students on a curve, so that the median grade falls in the C+ or B- range. Only 10 to 15 percent of the grades he hands out are in the A range, tending towards A-. Neal said that whatever the national trend might be, his grading system has remained unchanged. </p>
<p>My S ran into one of those…</p>
<p>I was for a short period (1 year) on the admissions committee at Yale Univ. Med School. I can tell you for a fact gpa is only one of the elements taken into consideration. The committee really tried to look not only at the whole individual, but to find ones that would make a difference. The year I served in the committee we accepted many kids with gpa’s in the low 3.0’s, be they from state schools, ivies, disadvantaged backgrounds (minority or white), “easy majors” such as literature, even athletes. They all had something special to differentiate them from the crowd, as did those with high gpa’s. As for the argument of “easy state school” vs ivies (or other rigorous schools), it seemed the latter always seemed to have an application “with all the right things in it”. Specifically, evidence of consistent volunteer work in health care settings, extended work in a lab (with the ability to discuss the research knowledgeably at interview), and very importantly for somebody in the “caring profession”, great character recommendations. GPA and MCAT “jockeys” with evidence of below average social skills had very low chance of admission. Doct0r-- Jefferson, Einstein- nobody heard of? Please be more respectful of these institutions.</p>
<p>Ricardo, I am very respectful of pretty much any med school as getting in is not an easy task, they’re just not popular on this board, that’s all I’m saying. Additionally Ricardo I wouldn’ reject your claim, but such cases are few compared to your typical case, what you said was very typical of even undergraduate institutions where the majority of the applicants are well qualified; there’s always an exception to every case. All I’m saying is learn from me, and don’t hastily go into any college without thought, think it through, take your time and weigh your PRIORITIES
Good luck and goodbye</p>
<p>DoctOr - Please continue to post on the Chicago (and possibly other) CC forums as you have provided valuable perspectives as a recent alum that are helpful to high school students and undergraduates contemplating transfer to U of C. Kids need advice and perspective from several quarters to make informed decisions. (Regarding valuable perspectives, I also enjoy idad’s posts very much because of both his personal experience at Chicago as a TA, his son’s ongoing education at UC, and the helpful links he often attaches to his posts.) So continue to join the sometimes bruising fray on the Chicago forum. Please don’t make it “goodbye”, but more “until next time”.</p>
<p>I’m sorry you’re right lonsterdad, I took some offence to the fact some people thought I was “fake.” I have no bad intention other than to inform seniors in high school that medical school/grad school acceptance, no matter how gifted you may be, is not easy and simply trusting that a university has a 90% acceptance to medical school is not usually true. I hope I didn’t “trick/fake out” anyone, but don’t say I didn’t warn you either.
Fare well for now</p>
<p>I am curious what job placement is like for the average UC grad. Of course, the top dogs in econ are going to get jobs at some sort of consulting or IB firm, just like the top bio/chem people will be snatched by research groups and corps, but what about the average grad? Does anybody have statistics on % who find a job in x months, average starting salary, or anything at all? It would be interesting to hear as there seems to be a lot of conflicting info at this point.</p>
<p>I think this about sums it up:</p>
<p>From a speech by U of C professor ANDREW ABBOTT
(<a href=“http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/zen.shtml[/url]”>http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/zen.shtml</a>)</p>
<p>There is a strong case to be made that, given who you are and where you are, there is no particular necessity for you to study anything for the next four years. First, as far as worldly success is concerned, youve already got it. That your future income will be huge and your future work prestigious can be predicted from the simple fact that you got into an elite college. About 2.8 million people graduate from high school every year; 1.8 million start college; 40,000 to 60,000 go to elite schools like Chicago. So you and your peers represent the top 2 percent of an 18-year-old cohort. Obviously youre going to do very well indeed. </p>
<p>The real work of predicting your future success is done not by prestige of college but by other factorsmainly the things for which you were admitted in the first placepersonal talents, past work, and parental resources both social and intellectual. Moreover, admission sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy; since you got in here, people in the future will assume youre good, no matter what or how you do while you are here. And, pretty certainly, having gotten in you will graduate. Colleges compete in part by having high retention rates, and so it is in the Colleges very strong interest to make sure you graduate, whether you learn anything or not. All of this tells me that nearly everyone in this room will end up, 20 years from now, in the top quarter of the American income distribution. I have surveyed those who graduated from Chicago in 1975a group considerably less privileged by ancestry than yourselvesand can tell you that their median personal income is about five times the national median, and their median household income is at about the 93rd percentile of the nations income distribution. Thats where you are headed. As far as the nationwide success game is concerned, theres no reason for you to study here. The game is over. Youve already won. Surely, you tell me, my studies at Chicago will determine whether Im in the 94th or the 99th percentile of income. Getting a fine higher education may not affect my gross chances of worldly success but surely they affect my detailed ones. </p>
<p>On the contrary. Theres no real evidence in favor of this second reason to get an education and a good deal of evidence against it. All serious studies show that while college-level factors like prestige and selectivity have some independent effect on later income, most variation in income happens within collegesthat is, between the graduates of a given college. That internal variation is produced by individual factors like talent, resources, performance, and major. But even those factors do not determine much about your future income. For example, the best nationwide figures I have seen suggest that a one-full-point increment in college GPAfrom 2.8 to 3.8, for exampleis worth about an additional 9 percent in income four years after college. Thats not much result for a huge amount of work. </p>
<p>The one college experience variable that does have some connection with later worldly success is major. But most of that effect comes through the connection between major and occupation. The real variable driving worldly success, the one that shapes income more than anything else, is occupation. Within the narrow range of occupation and achievement that we have at the University, there is no strong relation between what you study and your occupation. Here is some data on a 10 percent random sample of Chicago alumni from the last 20 years. Take the mathematics concentrators: 20 percent software development and support, 14 percent college professors, 10 percent in banking and finance, 7 percent secondary or elementary teachers, and 7 percent in nonacademic research; the rest are scattered. All the science concentrations lead to professorships and nonacademic research. And biology and chemistry often lead to medicine. But there are many diversions from those pathways. A biology concentrator is now a writer, another is now a musician. Two mathematicians are lawyers, and a physics concentrator is a psychotherapist. </p>
<p>Take the social sciences. Economics concentratorsthis is today identified as the most careerist majorare 24 percent in banking and finance, 15 percent in business consulting, 14 percent lawyers, 10 percent in business administration or sales, 7 percent in computers, and the other 30 percent scattered. Historians are often lawyers (24 percent) and secondary teachers (15 percent), but the other 60 percent are all over the map. Psychologists, surprisingly, are also about 20 percent in the various business occupations, 11 percent lawyers, and 10 percent professors; the rest are scattered. And there are the usual unusuals: the sociology major who is an actuary, the two psychologists in government administration, the political science concentrator now in computers. </p>
<p>As for the humanities, the English majors have scattered to the four winds: 11 percent to elementary and secondary teaching, 10 percent to business occupations, 9 percent to communications, 9 percent to lawyering, 5 percent to advertising. Of the philosophers, 30 percent are lawyers and 18 percent software people. Two English majors are artists and one is an architect. A philosophy major is a farmer and two are doctors. </p>
<p>With the exception of those planning to become professors in the natural sciences, there is no career that is ruled out for any undergraduate major. You are free to make whatever worldly or otherworldly occupational choice you want once you leave, and you do not sacrifice any possibilities because you majored in something that seems irrelevant to that choice. There is no national evidence that level of performance in college has more than a minor effect on later things like income. And in my alumni data, there is no correlation between GPA at Chicago and current income.</p>
<p>Fascinating. It does appear, however, that your choice of majors does constrain your career options, even if it doesn’t totally determine them. Or perhaps the choice of majors is the first “sorting” of interests, which leads to certain occupational tendencies with known probabilities but does not preclude changes and resorting over time.</p>
<p>Left out of this kind of analysis is the effects of random shocks – illness and disability, accidents, serendipity and chance opportunity. The effects of the first two could in principle be measured.</p>
<p>Doct0r,
I have spent one spring and one fall semester at University of Wisconsin - Madison. I have considered transferring to UofChicago because I decided to abandon the pre-med thing and get a PhD in math. I believe that Chicago can prepare me better for a PhD. However, my GPA is 4.0 and I took a lot of the pre-med classes during the first year. My last semester I took Calc II, O Chem (H), Physics with calc (H), and Bio and it was still relatively easy to get a 4.0. I was also ranked #1 in Math and Phys and #4 in Ochem (the only freshman taking it) out of ~400 people classes.
Do you think that it would be beneficial for me to go to Chicago and be challenged? Will I know more as a result? Will I be better? It is really nice getting a 4.0 with ease but I am afraid that I might be in stagnation.
Should I stay at Wisconsin and foster my GPA and then think about challenge and prestige?
Thanks!
P.S. do med schools and grad schools consider all GPAs or just the one from the last institution you attended (in case of transfer).</p>
<p>I can answer part of that - ALL GPAs and transcripts must be submitted.</p>
<p>If one has a 4.0 from Wisconsin (and good MCAT scores, recs, etc), a Chicago degree, as far as Med School is concerned, adds little value in terms of getting in. Few ever care where one went to undergrad school if one has a terminal graduate degree. I bet I have not been asked where I went to undergrad school in over 30 years. As I have mentioned in other posts, I have a relative who is a relatively recent graduate of a top Ivy who feels that his Ivy education gave him no special preparation for Med School. His roommate at the same med school came from a state university -their medial degrees say the same thing.</p>
<p>Whether or not one wants to experience an admittedly unique U of C experience, that is a different issue.</p>