Originally Posted by SydneyK (Post 1919070)

Why's that? Are you claiming that humanities courses suffer from grade-inflation more than science courses do?

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 1919072)

I don't think so. Anecdotally, I think everyone knows that slacker who had really great SAT scores but just didn't care enough to do the work required for good grades in college. Or that student that didn't do so great on the SAT but aced the ACT, or didn't do great on either but worked their tail off for the grades they recieved.

I'm not saying grade inflation doesn't occur at both, but I had similar grades at both my private college undergraduate and public college grad school, and I busted my butt for all of them. There was a mixed bag between people that had undergrad from private and public schools and we all seemed to be pretty equal among us. Of course, I don't know what their grades were in undergrad.

Also, if you don't do well on the entrance testing for many grad and post-grad schools, you're still not going to get in, especially in highly specialized professional situations like Law School or Med School. The GRE and MCAT and LSAT aren't just there to look pretty.

Originally Posted by baci (Post 1919073)

Adding my 2 cents here -

FWIW, I attended both a public and private university back in the day. ( I majored in the sciences. ) What I can share is the workload was less at the public university and not nearly as challenging. I do not feel I received a solid education while at the public university. At the private university you had to hustle.

With less people in your courses you had much more of a demand on your performance on all levels. The professor was literally on top of you each and every time you were in his/her class. You definitely had to work harder to receive that A in comparison to the A at the public universiversity. It was quite intense.

I found that people studied harder and spent more time on their work at the private university for numerous reasons. (keeping scholarships, juggling part time jobs, intensity of the subject at hand)

Originally Posted by SydneyK (Post 1919075)

I think there's way more involved than a simple public vs private debate. Some public schools are extremely intense and require significant work from its students. Some public universities are just high schools relocated onto a college campus. Some private schools are extremely intense and require significant work from its students. Some private universities are just high schools relocated onto a college campus.

It totally depends on the specific schools, not just whether they're private or public.

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1919109)

The underlying assumption in making their conclusion is not valid, in my opinion. That underlying assumption is that since the students at the private school have higher GPAs, it has to be due to grade inflation. Is it possible that they have significantly smaller class sizes, higher caliber professors and more stringent GPA admission requirements in the first place? While the SAT score is supposed to be the equalizing factor, is it possible that a lot of kids who had good SAT scores but lousy GPAs could only get into the public school?

I hate when research makes causal statements based on correlations alone. There are correlations that students at private schools get better grades than students at public schools. How can the assumption be that it's due to grade inflation?

ETA: Maybe a better test would be how they do on the GRE or GMAT after they've completed four years of education. Perhaps they do better.

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 1919080)

I would also like to see data on how many students "work their way" through college at both private and public universities, contrasted with with number of students that did it back in the fifties. Logically, it would seem that if a student did not have a job during school, their grades would be higher, because they had one less commitment pulling them away from others.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919082)

Did you read the article? That's exactly what they said.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1919138)

On the other hand, I think it could just as logically seem that students who have to work their way through school could be more motivated because they feel more personally invested -- it's their own hard-earned money on the line, not mom and dad's. Kind of a corrollary to your thought that kids at private schools may feel pressured to get a good GPA to go with the expensive education.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1919138)

On the other hand, I think it could just as logically seem that students who have to work their way through school could be more motivated because they feel more personally invested -- it's their own hard-earned money on the line, not mom and dad's. Kind of a corrollary to your thought that kids at private schools may feel pressured to get a good GPA to go with the expensive education.

Originally Posted by SydneyK (Post 1919145)

:o uh...
Now I've read the article. Sorry 'bout that. Carry on.


Good point. Also, students who work their way through college generally cannot do both without having good time management skills. And I'd say, generally speaking, good time-managers have a higher GPA than poor time-managers.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919157)

That's alright...plus science and math have concrete answers whereas for a lot of humanities courses, the grading is more subjective which can allow for more grade padding.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919086)

Warning!! Triple post! I agree with SydneyK...intensity can even vary according to class. I went to a very small public university with some very intense science courses. Of course, I also had some very not intense classes. I made an A in Trig only because everyone else had an F and that wouldn't do! :rolleyes: I think the point that is being missed is not that private schools are not rigorous, but that they may feel pressured to provide a good GPA with that expensive education.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919157)

...plus science and math have concrete answers whereas for a lot of humanities courses, the grading is more subjective which can allow for more grade padding.

Originally Posted by thetygerlily (Post 1919169)

I can see this- but again I think it depends on the circumstances. I got very high marks in some math & science courses because the material just made sense- and not so much for others. In humanities & social sciences... I was an anthropology & psychology major, so most of what I took fell in there. In my programs, at least, the entry level courses were hard, the mid-level courses were intense, and the upper-level courses were easy as pie as long as you had a brain, knew how to argue, and could write well. For me at least :D I'm sure other things played a factor, but my junior & senior years were way easier because I was taking mostly upper level (500s) courses. 300s and below, though, were especially challenging and they did NOT hand grades away. Especially in psychology- it was known for rivaling biology as one of the toughest majors to have.




I think school size matters as well- it would be interesting to see a breakdown there. Most private schools are smaller resulting in more one-on-one time, fewer TAs, etc. However, class sizes are also smaller which means you really do need to do your homework and you can't fudge it. My smallest non-independent study was 4 people, my largest was... 30? But the average was around 10-15. Most public schools are larger, resulting in less one-on-one time, more TAs, and more opportunities to hide in the shadows and just turn in assignments/papers when due. Not saying everyone does that, I'm just saying it's easier to have happen. However- when a public school is smaller, or a private school is larger... I wonder how that throws things off.

Yes, I'd be quite interested in seeing the difference between school sizes as well :D

Originally Posted by Kappamd (Post 1919181)

Also, I completely agree with DrPhil's point about the misconception that answers in math and science tend to be more "concrete." Maybe in introductory courses, but definietly not in upper-levels.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1919182)

And I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every student who said that or something similar.