http://www.dailycal.org/2015/05/15/grade-deflation/

I'm not reading it. It'll give me more bad school dreams.

Grade deflation = grading on a honest and real curve

tl;dr Research suggests that employers are influenced by high GPAs and grade deflation can negatively affect your prospects, BUT the Berkeley rep outweighs whatever prejudices there may exist.

But everyone who goes to stanford is so smart to start with, they should just get A's for breathing in class.

Afraid to compete.

Each week Garrison Keillor shares with listeners of The Prairie Home Companion the latest news and views from Lake Wobegon, where “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”

I was right!!! I always told my parents that I was a victim grade deflation. My sisters went to Cal in the late 60s, early 70s. I attended in the late 70s, early 80s. CHECK THE GRAPH, GOD DAMIT!!!! I coulda been a doctor!!!!

if that chart is right, I think Cal should adjust to be closer to the mean of those schools
it's clear that most Cal students are from the top of their class...most are A students
it's a little like grad school...most of the best grad schools give out mostly As and Bs
the premise is only A students are accepted to the elite grad school programs

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.

82gradDLSdad;842496902 said:

---

I was right!!! I always told my parents that I was a victim grade deflation. My sisters went to Cal in the late 60s, early 70s. I attended in the late 70s, early 80s. CHECK THE GRAPH, GOD DAMIT!!!! I coulda been a doctor!!!!

---

lol

If the average GPA is going to be 3.5 may as well just go pas fail. Furd's average will hit 3.7 in the next decade, why even bother differentiating among students at that point?

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.

---

This is why i advised my brother to go to any Ivy over Cal. He's now at Harvard Law. Looks like the right choice was made.

I can see how it might be an issue for grad programs. Then again Cal is a major feeder to Ivy and Furd grad programs (myself included) so....

socaliganbear;842496983 said:

---

I can see how it might be an issue for grad programs. Then again Cal is a major feeder to Ivy and Furd grad programs (myself included) so....

---

I would say all this is in spite of the grade deflation. Just imagine how much bigger of a feeder we'd be if our GPAs were more in line with the competition.

Graduated in 1998. I went from all A's in high school to B's and C's. I even flunked O-Chem.
My world crashed in on me.
But I'm sure this happened to many of you, right?.............right?

pingpong2;842496985 said:

---

I would say all this is in spite of the grade deflation. Just imagine how much bigger of a feeder we'd be if our GPAs were more in line with the competition.

---

Would we though? I'm not convinced grad programs with limited space would take on even more Cal kids. Now, I'm not saying grade deflation helps, but it seems those that are meant to get in, are getting in. Both to top firms and grad programs.

I think one potentially positive outcome of grade inflation for Cal might be happier students aka happier alumni. Maybe.

ColoradoBear1;842496665 said:

---

But everyone who goes to stanford is so smart to start with, they should just get A's for breathing in class.

---

I think Bernie got a furd degree after his memorable weekend ... just a rumor because dead men tell no tales.

Unit2Sucks;842496960 said:

---

If the average GPA is going to be 3.5 may as well just go pas fail. Furd's average will hit 3.7 in the next decade, why even bother differentiating among students at that point?

---

Exactly! By definition, the average grade should be a "C" or 2.0. Grade inflation has now taken the "average" to an A-/B+ at the Furd and the Ivies. Ridiculous.

socaliganbear;842496630 said:

---

http://www.dailycal.org/2015/05/15/grade-deflation/

---

The graph hardly displays grade deflation at any of the schools, including Cal. It just shows that grade inflation at Cal has been less than at Furd, Harvard, and Yale. Cal still showed inflation from an average of 2.5 to 3.25 over the period indicated.

Golden One;842497001 said:

---

The graph hardly displays grade deflation at any of the schools, including Cal. It just shows that grade inflation at Cal has been less than at Furd, Harvard, and Yale. Cal still showed inflation from an average of 2.5 to 3.25 over the period indicated.

---

Cal has also become increasingly selective over that period.

NYCGOBEARS;842497003 said:

---

Cal has also become increasingly selective over that period.

---

The Stanford argument, no?

NYCGOBEARS;842497003 said:

---

Cal has also become increasingly selective over that period.

---

Makes no difference. By definition, the average grade should be a "C". Obviously, all the schools have changed the definition of "average".

GB54;842497006 said:

---

The Stanford argument, no?

---

For sure, but they're lying circle jerking whores so who can believe them?

Golden One;842497007 said:

---

Makes no difference. By definition, the average grade should be a "C". Obviously, all the schools have changed the definition of "average".

---

I blame "Participation Trophies."

Golden One;842497007 said:

---

Makes no difference. By definition, the average grade should be a "C". Obviously, all the schools have changed the definition of "average".

---

Keeps the Palo Alto train tracks free of flying bodies.

Golden One;842497007 said:

---

Makes no difference. By definition, the average grade should be a "C". Obviously, all the schools have changed the definition of "average".

---

That's ridiculous, if the avg grade is a C, it would mean that nearly half the class would flunk out. Too tight a grading curve promotes an unhealthy competitive environment, more cutthroat than stimulating. It also doesn't make sense on two counts, first because it puts Cal grads at a severe disadvantage vs other top schools on the job and grad school market (and no, employers don't always adjust, and because today's acceptance rates are much lower than in previous decades.

One thing that was unexpected from the graph is the tightening of grading through the mid-80s, old genXers like me really got screwed!

GB54;842497017 said:

---

Keeps the Palo Alto train tracks free of flying bodies.

---

The increase in suicides in Palo Alto is no laughing matter.

Quote:

---

if that chart is right, I think Cal should adjust to be closer to the mean of those schools
it's clear that most Cal students are from the top of their class...

---

Many are, but probably not most. Holistic admissions is designed to admit those not at the top of their class, and that is why Cal should not have a 3.5 GPA. While Cal (and Southern Branch) have plenty of outstanding students (at the top quartile of the class that are just as accomplished as those in the Ivy/'furd), Cal's the bottom quartile that is clearly not as strong as top 10 Unis. For example, Cal's bottom quartile has test scores <80% nationally, with a 590CR.

And, of course, that ignores the juco transfers, the vast majority of which, were clearly not in the top echelon of the HS class.

btw: I believe that Pomona is ~3.6, as is Brown.

Golden One;842497001 said:

---

The graph hardly displays grade deflation at any of the schools, including Cal. It just shows that grade inflation at Cal has been less than at Furd, Harvard, and Yale. Cal still showed inflation from an average of 2.5 to 3.25 over the period indicated.

---

Well, the article is about Cal in relation to those peers so it makes sense.

Cal88;842497021 said:

---

That's ridiculous, if the avg grade is a C, it would mean that nearly half the class would flunk out. Too tight a grading curve promotes an unhealthy competitive environment, more cutthroat than stimulating. It also doesn't make sense on two counts, first because it puts Cal grads at a severe disadvantage vs other top schools on the job and grad school market (and no, employers don't always adjust, and because today's acceptance rates are much lower than in previous decades.

One thing that was unexpected from the graph is the tightening of grading through the mid-80s, old genXers like me really got screwed!

---

Not at all ridiculous. When I went to Cal, the definition of a "C" was "average". That was before the massive grade inflation that has occurred since.

socaliganbear;842497047 said:

---

Well, the article is about Cal in relation to those peers so it makes sense.

---

Not really.

Golden One;842497071 said:

---

Not at all ridiculous. When I went to Cal, the definition of a "C" was "average". That was before the massive grade inflation that has occurred since.

---

By definition, a C grade is pretty much a failing grade, as a 2,0 gets you on academic probation and 1.99 is a failing GPA, so it can't be "average". If that were the case, you'd have a university where a third to a half of the student body flunks out, which would be a horrendous system.

Cal88;842497080 said:

---

By definition, a C grade is pretty much a failing grade, as a 2,0 gets you on academic probation and 1.99 is a failing GPA, so it can't be "average". If that were the case, you'd have a university where a third to a half of the student body flunks out, which would be a horrendous system.

---

Agreed. From my experience/recollection, the "average grade = C" principle indeed applied to the large frosh weeder classes (Chem 1A, Econ 1, etc.). But not to most others.

rocketsBLUEglare;842497093 said:

---

Agreed. From my experience/recollection, the "average grade = C" principle indeed applied to the large frosh weeder classes (Chem 1A, Econ 1, etc.). But not to most others.

---

Grading on a mythical curve among a population that is in the upper-sigmas is nutz.
Profs are generally lazy (being polite) when it comes to deriving tests of subject knowledge and grading criteria.
Theoretically, an entire class should be able to get an A or flunk, if the testing is rigorous.