Bear_Territory;842496951 said:

---

Berkeley might have a reputation but its grade deflation does hurt grads applying to say law school. I landed exactly where my GPA and LSAT should have landed me and did not get a bump for having gone to a school like Berkeley with grade deflation.

---

A friend of mine a professor at Harvard inHistory said that when reviewing allocation for grad school they take into account Cal's reputation for hard grading when reviewing applications.

Golden One;842497074 said:

---

Not really.

---

Everyone else seems to get it.

socaliganbear;842497106 said:

---

Everyone else seems to get it.

---

Obviously, you don't.

ColoradoBear1;842496665 said:

---

---

Those rapidly raising Berkeley averages in 1962-1973 correspond to the years my excellent scholarship was dragging the averages up.
Or something.

Quote:

---

A friend of mine a professor at Harvard inHistory said that when reviewing allocation for grad school they take into account Cal's reputation for hard grading when reviewing applications.

---

Grad schools, yes, professional schools, no. And that is particularly true for Law schools. For LS, a 3.9 in basketweaving from southwest podunk state will beat a 3.6 from Cal every time (assumes unhooked applicant).

Big Dog;842497181 said:

---

Grad schools, yes, professional schools, no. And that is particularly true for Law schools. For LS, a 3.9 in basketweaving from southwest podunk state will beat a 3.6 from Cal every time (assumes unhooked applicant).

---

I am not so sure about that. One of my sons had just average grades (3.0?) at Cal and was admitted in 2005 to Georgetown Law and to Penn Law on the strength of a Cal BA.

He must have totally aced the LSAT and had a very solid profile.

Man I feel ripped off. I was right in the middle of that mid-80s dip. I'm going to put an * on my CV. I blame the deans and provosts.

OTOH, Cal alums from that era are better, brighter, bitchener.

Would like to see the same chart for the college of engineering. I suspect it's not dissimilar (perhaps a tad lower) but interested nonetheless.

how grad schools, employers see grads depends highly on institution
I've seen it all over the board, from employers screening on a strict cutoff, universities handing out merit financial add based on a strict combo of GPA and Test scores, etc
Harvard might have a list of 'top schools' that they consider with admissions, but not all Universities have the resources or the philosophy to do so

There is also a good WSJ article about how admissions people evaluate applications. Interesting read....google it

I generally think that you're going to get a pretty good answer if you are within the range of other organizations that are like you
In the case of grading policy, that graph shows Universities are like us, yet we are way outside the mean/median

GivemTheAxe;842497217 said:

---

I am not so sure about that. One of my sons had just average grades (3.0?) at Cal and was admitted in 2005 to Georgetown Law and to Penn Law on the strength of a Cal BA.

---

He must have had an amazing LSAT. I had a 3.6 double major from Cal and even though I had a good LSAT (165) I was only waitlisted at GT

I had a friend, OTOH, with a poli sci degree from SDSU (3.7gpa and a 163 LSAT) admitted to Boalt. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but if I were giving advice to my younger self I'd tell him to go to a state school or a private school where they hand out A's (My sister went to Mills and they would hand back papers after the due date and let you "fix" them for a higher grade) and then go get into a better ranked law school.

...If anyone is wondering I'm actually going to Notre Dame this fall with good money (Still a respectable law school), I'm just hoping I can bank on my Cal degree to get me back to California one day. (Though I'll probably try to transfer to Boalt if my grades are good)

Cal has become no less selective than any of the other schools - which is simply a function of population and the numbers of kids applying to top colleges. But the end of the day, Cal professors expect more from their students. Which is a good thing.

If you look at SAT scores and grades in the 80's - the SAT scores are lower, the grades are lower - the intelligence of the people and the work produced is the same. Does that mean anything in the scheme of things? Those are all the guys who started the internet revolution, etc. Having a 4.0 at a high school now is ridiculous - so easy. In the 60s, 70s and 80s it was a lot tougher. No AP classes, etc. This is all a function of helping out the kids and their self esteem issues - with teachers getting sued for poor grades and schools trying to get their kids into better colleges. It is a crock.

If you get out of College Prep School with a 3.3, you can get into Cal. If you get out of Oakland Tech with a 4.0 - you may not be able to. If you apply to some tech firm from Cal - you can get hired with a 2.8. Won't happen from SF state.