<p>^If they actually put half the class into the non-passing range (50% at C- or lower) then that curve makes sense. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to fail that many people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pinkstrawberry, I can't see how this occurs. 10% As, 20% Bs, 10% Fs leaves 60% in the C and D ranges? That curve doesn't make sense.
[/quote]
Oh my bad I did a bad job explaining it in my last post - the post I wrote before that explains it correctly. I didn't mean only 20% gets in the B range, but that 20% will get a B, not including B+/B-</p>
<p>It goes like this: the average is a B- or C+, so 50% get a C+ and lower, 50% get a B- and higher
Then naturally 10% would get in the A range, whereas most people score in the B and C range, and a minority in the D/F range (including D+)
[quote]
The lowest was a 72? Isn't this a sign that the exam was ridiculously easy
[/quote]
No, not for an exam, the grade for the overall class, which includes HW Problem Sets, online-assignments, Quizzes, as well as exams.</p>
<p>^I've had classes where the average was a B- or C+ and still more than 10% got A-range (more like 20%). If you're inferring alone from fact that the average is a B-/C+ that only 10% get A-range, it's likely higher than that.</p>
<p>^ No, I'm inferring from the fact that at the end of the semester, the Professor posts the final distributions on Blackboard, with Raw Score and what letter grade it corresponds to, and then what percentage fell into each category. </p>
<p>I like that they post the cut-offs, but I hate when you missed it just by 2 points or something, and then it bothers me :/ If B- or C+ is going to be average, then naturally most people are going to get B's and C's. 20% A's seems pretty generous to me.
[quote]
You guys should be disappointed that all your classes are curved so generously.
[/quote]
Speak for yourself bro! :P</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you expect the average to be a C in every class? If so then you'd see an absurdly low (I would doubt higher than 5%) graduation rate. At that point the average person doesn't pass any given class, very very few will pass all the classes they need (especially since they've already done insane weeding to get to the upper levels).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you just need to reduce the standards for graduation. A 2.0 would obviously not be grounds for probation/discipline because a 2.0 would be the average.</p>
<p>It wouldn't change your prospects, because employers wouldn't expect a 3.0+ anymore. They'd expect a minimum of say 1.2+. Anyone who had 3.5+ would be a stellar candidate, essentially giving students the chance to reap the rewards of working hard--because a 3.5 gpa would be exceptional/unusual. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Since when is GPA not important anymore? lol...
No, an idiot would not achieve a high GPA. In HS yes, in college, nope.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's subjective so it's not like one of us can be "more right." But I do think that enough people get high GPA's that it's reached the point where a high GPA doesn't help as much as a low GPA hurts.</p>
<p>You just wouldn't have people complaining that high GPA students just work hard and have no life and don't actually know anything.</p>
<p>Because if 5-10% get A's and a majority get C, then you could design tests that are hard enough where people who just memorize/suck up won't get past a B or BC.</p>
<p>What's the point of having 4 points if you really only use 2 of them? The difference between 1.5 and 0.0 is plenty to distinguish weak students from complete idiots or slackers.</p>
<p>^Fair enough, but it's not really feasible to make a change to a system like that.</p>
<p>Yeah, I was just trying to point out that it is our loss =(. There's no benefit to having a 3.0 GPA when the average is a 3.0 GPA instead of having a 2.0 GPA if the average nationwide GPA is a 2.0. While the average student wouldn't be affected, top students would have a big leg up without all the internships, etc., that they must complete nowadays--because a GPA would differentiate them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
After high school and getting into something like Cal, why do people still shoot for Rank 1? For grad school? How come I never hear of the anticipation of applying for grad, and only undergrad (high school to college)?</p>
<p>Do you get better salaries if you have good grades? I thought employers only look at your degree. Why not just pass with C's?</p>
<p>I'm very clueless
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I need a good GPA to stay in my honors program at my school. I also reckon that a good GPA will help me if I end up working immediately out of college, and even moreso if I go to law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You guys should be disappointed that all your classes are curved so generously.</p>
<p>It's the reason why our GPA's are meaningless and that you can't get a good job without internships anymore. We don't have any proof anymore that we're intelligent and can learn on the job, because any idiot can get a high GPA now. So, instead, we need to gain the skills before we take the job.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sometimes you need a good GPA to get that internship.</p>
<p>Yes, and you need that internship because your GPA no longer proves you can learn quickly on the job.</p>
<p>Your GPA never proved that. A GPA shows employers that you are dedicated, and perhaps intelligent. It means that you worked harder and produced better results than the majority of your peers. Nothing more.</p>
<p>Internships have always been important. Why? It allows employers to "demo" you and find out if you are a good fit for them. It lets them know more about you than a name, an institution, and a number.</p>
<p>I think the military has a great "grading" or performance review system. Except for special situations, mostly involving promotion, an individual's performance is rated according to how the individual applies their training and the results that individual obtains. Basically, if you manage to save the military serious money by correcting errors, you are a great military member. Commanders don't care as much about how much knowledge you have but how you apply whatever knowledge you may have and the results you get.</p>
<p>It's not how much you know but how you utilize whatever you may know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you get better salaries if you have good grades? I thought employers only look at your degree. Why not just pass with C's?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. In fact, if you are a very able salesman, there is nothing wrong with passing with C's. My freshman year roommate, for example, has not broken the 3.0 threshold yet, but he secured a co-op at Georgia Tech at a firm that normally does not hire business majors. How'd he do it? He is very well connected in his fraternity. A few words here and there, and boom, he got the position. Do I encourage everyone to just pass with C's? No, of course not. Having a higher GPA never hurts, all else equal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A good grade doesn't prove you know the information, it just proves you are able to know it. I work with several students who have gotten A's in a class like Electricity and Magnetism, but fail to recall any of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm reminded of a quote from one of my friends, a current chemistry PhD student, on the relationship between grades and performance as a teaching assistant: "If you got an A in a class, that doesn't mean you'll be a good TA for it, but if you got a C in a class, then you definitely won't be a good TA for it."</p>
<p>
[quote]
possibly, but not everyone work hard enough to show his/her potential.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed. Some of my friends often told me that I wasn't smart because I studied all the time whereas they did not. They are right: I am not that smart, which is why I chose to study more often. I smiled and shook it off every time because a) they're my friends and b) their GPAs have monotonically decreased since freshman year whereas I graduated with a 4.0/4.0.</p>
<p>My bf told me something that is really sad: "It doesn't matter how well you do, it matters how well you do in comparison to your peers." Meaning, it doesn't matter if you got a low grade, it matters if you beat the person next to you.</p>
<p>In my university, however, curves typically happen for the advantage of all students...in a class size of over 400 students, having a curve upwards was a great thing, particularly for the higher achieving students.</p>
<p>There is only one class that I know of where practically everyone got A's, and that was a 100-level theatre course. It was a joke. But then I have taken classes that I thought were easy A's, but many of the students got C's. </p>
<p>But then again, I am only talking about introductory courses, not upper-level ones.</p>
<p>Well, I suppose there isn't anything wrong with passing with Cs at Cal, but why wouldn't you try to do your best?</p>
<p>If you're trading A's for job experience, or research, then you have to make the decision, but I see no reason to try to just pass with Cs.</p>