<p>
Yes…</p>
<p>
maybe a year ahead? 20 will be normally a junior in college. But if he had finished HS in 3 years, which is easy to do, then 20 will be senior. if he had finished middel school in 3 years, then 20 will be 1st yr in grad school. Anyway, it doesn’t matter how many years you have been in grad program, it is your research and CH requirements that some schoold allow undergrad to take grad credit courses.</p>
<p>
large size classes, lower level classes and junior level required classes are usually big sizes with upwards of 100 students and such large sizes are usually best graded on a curve. but it is yet up to the instructor as long as it is fair and the grading policy is clearly set up in syllabus so that students know from early in the semester/term. also what letter grade you put the mean at is up to the instructor. In the 80s, large size classes that i know of used to put it at C-. Now I see the mean at B- or even higher. Private colleges tend to give a higher grade than public schools – according to an article I read in chronicle of higher education. [probably understandable – because state universities are under less pressure about enrollment etc. by administration – as in early-mid 90s – than private universities. the enrollment pressure right now is very little in all colleges due to surge in demographics for college entering kids. But it is due to decrease in several years, and colleges will face enrollment problem again as in the 90s.] small size classes are harder to strictly apply a curve and also tend to be generous with grades.</p>
<p>of course from a practical matter, even those courses NOT officially on a curve are in essence curved. A syllabus may write everyone who scores a 90 will receive an A, but all the Prof has to do is crank up the difficulty of the tests such that the mean test score is a ~70…and only xx% score a 90+ to receive the A. So yes, officially no ‘curve’, but a scaled score instead. :)</p>
<p>With the possible exception of Brown, where the the mean grade in the sciences may be an A-, private colleges typically scale/curve the grades to a low B.</p>
<p>Hi mom2!</p>
<p>Since you seemed interested in my experience, here ya go:</p>
<p>As classmates, gunners are the kids I simply choose to ignore. They’re usually the ones who ask lots of unnecessary questions, rudely challenge profs, act like this class is a waste of their time/they already know everything, sit in the front row/loudly complain if they can’t, refuse to help other students, etc. I really can’t stand them! But I haven’t heard of them doing some of the underhanded things in above posts. Maybe it’s because I go to a run of the mill state school in the midwest–it doesn’t “feel” very competitive (it just, nonetheless, attracts some competitive kids).</p>
<p>And here’s the kicker: profs know who they are, and profs don’t like them either! I’m pretty tight with 3 of my professors–honors orgo, animal physiology, and a discussion group class about health care policy in the US. Honors orgo guy warns the gunners–he has his own term for them, I don’t remember it–that this isn’t the typical class, they can’t expect high grades, he doesn’t allow you to argue points, etc. Typically at least 3 get up and walk out right there (in a class of 30, that’s significant)–and most don’t last through the entire year (switch to regular orgo at semester). Physiology prof gets them back for being jerks in the classroom by refusing to write recommendation letters for them–and rec letters from him are highly coveted by premeds at my school (he’s a very well-respected prof around here). You get the idea–it’s interesting to me that the “good guy” (the non-gunners but good students) almost always “wins” (gets higher grades, great rec letter, etc) out over the gunners in these two hot topic premed classes because the profs are in tune with what these slimy characters do.</p>
<p>As far as the gunners go, I notice them a LOT more in lower level, premed prereq classes–their presence was felt much more during freshman year and sophomore year than in my later years. Perhaps that’s because the later years are full of electives, and I chose academically challenging courses since I decided that my worth as a student shouldn’t be defined by 4 numbers on a piece of paper (GPA) and who cares what grades I get as long as I’m enjoying myself and learning a ton.</p>
<p>In a premed prereq class of 600 students (not all premeds, but some), I’d say there were 30-40 gunners. In that honors orgo class (infamously known to be the most challenging undergraduate science course at my school), maybe 3-4 out of 25. Animal physiology, maybe 15 out of about 100. Upper level bio electives, 1-2 out of 30ish. The remainders are a variety of students–from those who love learning and want to be there and always participate to those who really just don’t care and want to get out of class ASAP because it’s time to tap the keg.</p>
<p>My best advice for dealing with the obnoxious premed gunners? Just ignore them, focus on learning and thriving, and it’s always worth your while to sincerely (read: not just for your own gain, or for a rec letter) get to know your professors!</p>
<p>I think very few schools have “gunners” (according to curms defination). JHU and WashU are the only schools where I have heard students that try to sabotage other students. Most of the schools that my friends attend (a couple of ivys, NU, Duke, Rice, and a couple of state schools in Texas) don’t have “gunners”. Everyone tries to work together, but EVERYONE works VERY hard. </p>
<p>In my experience, I have yet to meet a “gunner”.</p>
<p>I vaguely remember that there were almost 10 students (like 10 percents) who graduated with the same major as his were graduated with BS and MS in 4 years. They were working very hard in classes as well as in premed ECs. It is like high schoolers who take tons of APs in order to be “ahead.”</p>
<p>*any school where class grades are based on the “curve” *</p>
<p>Yes and no…</p>
<p>Yes, if you’re attending a school where your classmates are mostly super achievers. </p>
<p>No, if you’re attending a school where your classmates are smart, but not overwhelmingly ACT 32 - 36 range. If your classmates are more in the ACT 28 - 33 range (with a few ACT 34-36), then the curve can be far less harsh.</p>
<p>*The “Curve” would be interesting. It would be interesting to know, is it the school or the teacher that decides on using a curve.
*</p>
<p>In college (and probably most high schools), the teacher determines his/her own curve.</p>
<p>“which schools don’t have gunners”</p>
<p>-None, zero, zilch</p>
<p>Most of my science classes are graded on a pretty standard curve–find the average score, assign that a grade of C, determine the “cutoffs” of percent correct or total points for B and A (and D and F), post scores/percents and cutoffs. The +/- are used in the grey areas. </p>
<p>Big state school. Science classes range from 30 kids to 100, with some popular required classes (like intro bio) in the 300ish range, and intro chem topping the charts at 500ish.</p>
<p>Who knows if this is typical or not, but I’ve seen that my humanities classes and non-science classes tend NOT to use curves and instead assign grades as percent of points (ie, 95+=A, 90+=B, etc).</p>
<p>*“which schools don’t have gunners”</p>
<p>-None, zero, zilch *</p>
<p>I agree that no school is probably “gunner free” (by either definition), but I’m thinking that the schools that have low acceptance rates and where the the top quartile is like ACT 35-36, those schools are going to have a higher % of gunners. </p>
<p>However, at the schools - say like Purdue - where the top quartile is ACT 31-36, you’re going to have fewer. And, at other state schools where the top quartile is like ACT 29-36, probably much fewer.</p>
<p>You have to remember that gunners are always relative. A kid with a 36 ACT isn’t going to be a gunner if his class averages a 35. A kid with a 33 ACT will seem like a gunner if his class averages a 24. At least, he’ll “break the curve” more dramatically.</p>
<p>As for ultracompetitive, antisocial behavior, that’s going to be more likely where the situation overall is poor. For example, if there’s a school which only gets a few premeds into medical school each year, it’s very likely that the premeds will all be stressed out and highly antisocial. If there’s a school where 90% of the premeds get in somewhere anyway, there’s no sense being antisocial about it.</p>
<p>For that reason, I think #31 is precisely backwards.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with you, BDM, at least from my experience. I went to a competitive high school (my ACT was 32, my class’ average was 30.something) and have a really smart group of friends in college. Since I’m right in there with the average (of my class, my friends, etc) I’ve never felt the need to compete with them (since there’s nothing to prove, really) and have always enjoyed working together/collaborating more than acting like one of those obnoxious premeds/gunners. But maybe that’s just me.</p>
<p>Re: curves. My daughter took a class where each midterm and the final were graded on the curve. She got A’s on every test — and a B+ in the class! Apparently enough students got “higher” A’s along with a smattering of A- and B+'s on the midterms, etc. to push the curve up to where A’s on every component of the grade weren’t good enough to ensure an A in the class. </p>
<p>I consider a rigid curve to be similar to a “zero tolerance” policy about anything - simply an example of taking the easy way out by avoiding the need to deal with difficult or challenging decisions by choosing to tolerate inane (or worse) results in individual instances. It’s sort of like the recurring debate about whether grade inflation at top colleges is warranted or not, given the likely aptitude and attitude of the majority of the students relative to the nature of students at less selective schools. Should an “A” always correspond to a certain percentage of the students in each class, regardless of the relative strength of the student body? All of the collegiate testing bodies, whether it be the SAT, PSAT, MCAT, ACT, etc. calibrate different tests with the goal that the same level of achievement results in the same score, regardless of the pool of test takers on any given date; logically a similar attempt at objectively equal measurement of performance would be the goal for class grades. It’s just that it’s much harder to attain that level of objective equivalency. Hence: rigid curves.</p>
<p>Hmmmm. From the responses, maybe my definition was too strict. Maybe there are three levels of “gunners” being discussed.</p>
<p>1) the “saboteurs”
2) the obnoxious argue about every point, answer every question, always thinking about the next step, “pests”
3) the “curve-busters” who are going beyond the norm every time while staying social, cooperative, and friendly but are still kicking your :eek: </p>
<p>My kid would have never been described as type 1, may have some folks who thought she drifted over to type 2 at times, and most certainly was type 3 at her school. (She’s the kid in class who always did the extra work even if she already had a solid A. That tends to tick people off. ;)) </p>
<p>I’d like to think all the other kids liked her, but …that would be a little hard to believe. lol. In high school I know for a fact that was certainly NOT the case.</p>
<p>^^^^ I have seen a ton of #2s and #3s, never a #1.</p>
<p>Ok I feel like I have to step in and defend my college’s honor here. Never in my classes have their ever been sabotagers. I think its a midwest thing but everyone cooperates. Old exams are shared that by the time of the test anyone who has a friend has the old exams. Notes are shared etc… I also don’t see how things can be sabotaged, since lectures, some old exams, notes are always posted online by the prof anyways. </p>
<p>We do have people that try to argue about every point but guess what? At least at WashU the profs don’t care. They’ll regrade your test if you want them to but then they’ll do it real thoroughly so that if a TA gave you any extra points you didn’t really deserve those’ll be taken away. Most who ask for regrades ask for them because there’s actually a huge mistake.</p>
<p>As for the #3’s. I’ve seen some but for the most part what I’ve noticed are the people that are scoring in the 90’s when the class mean is a 60 or something are the ones who have no life. WashU has some kids who just go to class and then hole up in their dorm and study. I know one of them personally. She has a 4.0. Her one and only EC so far is TAing for intro bio for one semester. She reads and rereads and memorizes her notes word for word. All her other friends are like that too. If thats what it takes to kill the curve, then I think most people don’t want that.</p>
<p>ChemFreak–LOL re: the midwest thing.</p>
<p>As a native Missourian, I’ll proudly attribute some of our (as in, me and you) nice academic environments to the people who populate them!</p>
<p>Makes me think twice about considering the move to other areas for medical school…</p>
<p>Kluge’s scenario is similar to my D’s, she did well on the tests they did have but final grade wasn’t that great. She also said many that had low grades really started to drop out of class. Ivy school, finds most are nice and competitive. Haven’t heard much about sharing old tests or notes like another poster mentioned. She does know it is competitive when a large percentage of the class are Val. from HS. She left campus before seeing the grades, I would go see the Prof. to make sure it is correct, but she doesn’t think it is necessary.</p>
<p>Re #34: It seems like a straightforward enough system for a central clearinghouse like AMCAS or LSDAS to calibrate, actually – as long as students are applying from schools with lots of applicants.</p>
<p>Step 1: Convert hypothetical LSAT scores into hypothetical GPAs – e.g. assign a 175+ to be a 4.0.</p>
<p>Step 2: Count up the number of each LSAT score from each school. For example, you could say that School #1 gets ten 175s, while school #2 only has 1.</p>
<p>Step 3: In that case, School #1 is allowed to give out ten 4.0 GPAs, while school #2 is only allowed to give out 1.</p>
<p>Step 4: Assign those 4.0s to the top ten GPAs from School #1, regardless of the particular LSAT scores of those specific candidates.</p>
<p>In other words, a candidate who does very well on a standardized test does two things – (1) he “earns” a higher GPA allowed to his school, and (2) of course he also gets his high LSAT score.</p>
<hr>
<p>This works a lot clearer in my head.</p>
<p>Anyway, there are two obvious problems. (1) Calibrating across major, and (2) what to do for schools with very few applicants. Not sure about these.</p>