GreekChat.com Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Want a higher GPA? Go to a private university. (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=113007)

AOII Angel 04-20-2010 04:19 PM
Want a higher GPA? Go to a private university.
 
http://finance.yahoo.com/college-edu...du-collegeprep

hmmmm...so that's why there were so many private school grads in my med school class!:rolleyes:

starang21 04-20-2010 04:57 PM
LOL, this doesn't surprise me.

thetygerlily 04-20-2010 05:38 PM
I can see that, but here's another hypothesis...

Students at private schools may have more financial pressure due to the extra tuition, so they need to have better grades to keep scholarships and graduate on time. Staying an extra semester or year at a school that charges $40k/year is more of a financial burden than one that charges $10k.

Of course I could also see the argument that stereotypically rich kids are more likely to go to private schools and thus don't have the financial burden, and those with less liquid assets go public because that's what they can afford. But that's the Libra in me :D The data nerd in me, however, thinks we need more factors than just GPA vs. public/private.

PeppyGPhiB 04-21-2010 01:29 AM
I suspect it may vary from college to college. For instance, I hear that if you can get into Harvard or Stanford, the rest is cake. On the other hand, I can tell you that I worked my tail off for a B in several of my (private school) classes.

BrandNewAdvisor 04-21-2010 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetygerlily (Post 1918786)
Students at private schools may have more financial pressure due to the extra tuition, so they need to have better grades to keep scholarships and graduate on time.
I agree. Private schools can have more money to give in terms of financial aid, that can be more attractive to high achievers. I was a poor kid at a private school and went there because it was cheaper and I wasn't alone in that. Achievement is a habit.

" Admissions officers are fooled by private school students' especially inflated grades."

Really? A bunch of professors are so simple that they can't take differences between grading between college? The same argument can be made for undergraduate admissions since all high schools aren't created equal.

"Relatively lower grades in the sciences discourage American students from studying such disciplines, the authors argue."

Differences in GPA is a pretty big leap to make for Americans not wanting to study the sciences.

ETA: NY Times Article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...college&st=cse

The study http://www.gradeinflation.com/tcr2010grading.pdf

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 09:49 AM
One of the things that no one has noticed in the article, however, is that they took into account SAT scores. They compared equivalent students from public and private schools by SAT scores. These students had statistically significant differences in their GPAs between public and private universities. Individual students may vary, but when you compare cohorts, this adds a lot of weight to this evidence.

Little32 04-21-2010 10:37 AM
Grade inflation is real and it doesn't start in college. Also there is pressure at private institutions to give certain grades, whether the pressure comes in the subtle form of making sure your grade distribution aligns with that of your colleagues or the overt form of being told to change your grades because they are too low (both from personal experience).

Of course, the students love it. Either they don't recognize or they don't care that it does this does them the greatest disservice, because they are the ones that ultimately do not have the knowledge that their grades indicate that they should possess.

When I was in college, I always appreciated most those professors that made me feel like I was working and pushing myself to new heights to earn the grades I received--whatever those grades ended up being. There was no satisfaction for me in getting an A that I didn't feel like I earned.

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little32 (Post 1919064)
Grade inflation is real and it doesn't start in college. Also there is pressure at private institutions to give certain grades, whether the pressure comes in the subtle form of making sure your grade distribution aligns with that of your colleagues or the overt form of being told to change your grades because they are too low (both from personal experience).

Of course, the students love it. Either they don't recognize or they don't care that it does this does them the greatest disservice, because they are the ones that ultimately do not have the knowledge that their grades indicate that they should possess.

When I was in college, I always appreciated most those professors that made me feel like I was working and pushing myself to new heights to earn the grades I received--whatever those grades ended up being. There was no satisfaction for me in getting an A that I didn't feel like I earned.
That's why I always appreciated my science coarses more than my humanities coarses.

SydneyK 04-21-2010 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919069)
That's why I always appreciated my science coarses more than my humanities coarses.
Why's that? Are you claiming that humanities courses suffer from grade-inflation more than science courses do?

agzg 04-21-2010 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919050)
One of the things that no one has noticed in the article, however, is that they took into account SAT scores. They compared equivalent students from public and private schools by SAT scores. These students had statistically significant differences in their GPAs between public and private universities. Individual students may vary, but when you compare cohorts, this adds a lot of weight to this evidence.
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.

baci 04-21-2010 11:01 AM
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)

SydneyK 04-21-2010 11:06 AM
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.

Little32 04-21-2010 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919069)
That's why I always appreciated my science coarses more than my humanities coarses.
And for me, those were my humanities courses. Math and science always came easy to me, I was generally setting the curve in those courses. It was the method of humanistic inquiry that really challenged me to think in ways that were different from what was familiar.

And, to be fair, my evidence is anecdotal too. However, grade inflation has long been a topic of discussion in the academy and conventional wisdom says that some of the elite institutions are the worst offenders (spawning a subsequent trickle down effect). Having taught at an insititution that is in that group, I can say that my experiences provide more anecdotal evidence that the problem does exist.

baci 04-21-2010 11:16 AM
Quote:
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.
This is so very true!

agzg 04-21-2010 11:21 AM
This is just a statistical weakness - basically, you would need students that got the exact same range of scores on the SAT, from the exact same socioeconomic background, half at a private school, half at a public school, taking the exact same courses, taught exactly the same way, and only graded differently.

Studies are nice and can offer some insight, but there are too many variables and not enough constants for anything like this to be a definitive answer as to whether or not private schools inflate grades more than public schools.

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.

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SydneyK (Post 1919070)
Why's that? Are you claiming that humanities courses suffer from grade-inflation more than science courses do?
Did you read the article? That's exactly what they said.

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 11:35 AM
Quote:
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.
That's why anecdotal stories don't mean much. If you look at a cohort of students with the same SAT scores who go to different private or public universities, they tend to have statistically similar GPAs across the public universities and higher across the private universities. That is why they use the SAT scores as a control. It equalizes the students. With a large group of students, these outliers (ie. the slacker with a great SAT score, the obsessive studier who didn't do so well on the SAT) equal out. That's why they don't look at individual students.

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 11:40 AM
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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.
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.

AGDee 04-21-2010 12:11 PM
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.

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 12:33 PM
Quote:
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.
I think that is a very valid criticism.

MysticCat 04-21-2010 12:53 PM
Quote:
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.
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.

SydneyK 04-21-2010 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919082)
Did you read the article? That's exactly what they said.
:o uh...
Now I've read the article. Sorry 'bout that. Carry on.

Quote:
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.
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.

agzg 04-21-2010 01:18 PM
Quote:
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.
Good point. Maybe that was just my bitter coming out about having to work full-time during grad school and thinking I could do so much better if I had more time... hehe.:o

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 01:23 PM
Quote:
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.
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.

thetygerlily 04-21-2010 01:46 PM
Quote:
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.
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.


Quote:
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.
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

DrPhil 04-21-2010 01:50 PM
Quote:
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.
Common misconception.

I don't care what this thread is about, but want to say that private universities rock.

bluejay 04-21-2010 02:00 PM
I would agree that GPAs at most private schools would be higher on average for a variety of reasons... However, my Hopkins classmates would be chuckling all the way to the library after they read this article. :p

Kappamd 04-21-2010 02:07 PM
Quote:
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

In my opinion, school size does play a part. I started out at a large state school (50000+ students) and transferred after my freshman year to another large state school, but only about half as big as the first. School A has a better academic reputation, but I found classes at school B to be SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult just because more was expected from me. There's a big difference between sitting in a class of 600 with one prof and 10 TAs who don't know your name and a class of 75 (or smaller) where the professor will call you out by name mid-lecture.

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 definitely not in upper-levels.

DrPhil 04-21-2010 02:11 PM
Quote:
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.
And I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every student who said that or something similar.

agzg 04-21-2010 02:23 PM
Quote:
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.
I always found introductory courses to have more concrete right or wrong answers than upper-level courses. Each challenging in their own way.

ETA: I meant across all disciplines.

DrPhil 04-21-2010 02:32 PM
:)

Btw, I was agreeing with KappaMD and referring to Angel's post.

agzg, I agree. Intro level courses across disciplines** are designed to reach a range of students. Therefore, the textbooks are more cut and dry. Professors sometimes try to challenge intro students to think beyond the cut and dry, but that's only successful for the "good students" who know how to do more than memorize information. Upper level courses across disciplines are still concrete to a great extent (we'd be debating students' grades all day if there was never a clear right or wrong), but go beyond the "concrete" and therefore have more leniency (both good and bad) on the part of the professors.

**social sciences, math, and science

thetygerlily 04-21-2010 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1919199)
Intro level courses across disciplines** are designed to reach a range of students. Therefore, the textbooks are more cut and dry. Professors sometimes try to challenge intro students to think beyond the cut and dry, but that's only successful for the "good students" who know how to do more than memorize information. Upper level courses across disciplines are still concrete to a great extent (we'd be debating students' grades all day if there was never a clear right or wrong), but go beyond the "concrete" and therefore have more leniency (both good and bad) on the part of the professors.
Ha, that's probably why I hated many of the intro classes- I can't stand rote memorization! Give me something to do with the info and I'm happy, but I will never be the one to recite names and dates and places and whatever.

DrPhil 04-21-2010 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetygerlily (Post 1919211)
Ha, that's probably why I hated many of the intro classes- I can't stand rote memorization! Give me something to do with the info and I'm happy, but I will never be the one to recite names and dates and places and whatever.
It's all about balance. :)

It's bad to just memorize and expect exams to basically be recitation. College students should be beyond high school level.

It's also bad to not know things like names and dates (basic info that the professor has probably stressed the importance of) and think that you can apply the information. Students will sometimes not do course readings and come to exams expecting to guess based on what seems familiar or answer essays based on their ability to convincingly bullshit. That happens across disciplines.

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1919171)
Common misconception.

I don't care what this thread is about, but want to say that private universities rock.
Quote:
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 definitely not in upper-levels.
On a general basis, the sciences are much more concrete. I'm not discussing theoretical physics here. Chemistry, Biochem, Anatomy, Botany, Physics, etc. are fairly concrete and have "right" answers. If you don't know the material, you can't BS your way through it. Sure...you can get fairly out there with string theory and other concepts, but for the most part science courses are concept driven. You understand the concept, you can work the problem. You can pass the class. After BSing my way through humanities classes in HS and college, unless they are asking for specific multiple choice rote memorization type questions, these classes are more based on subjective not objective evaluation criteria. That does not make them not difficult (especially if your mind is more analytical), but it may leave them open to grade padding.

1stSoon2BePhD 04-21-2010 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1919138)
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.
I know that this is true from personal experience.

Also, I am feeling the lack of inflation in science grades right about now and I don't like it ooooonnnneee bit! (I'm in grad school for my PhD in biochem)

I went to a public college and the young woman from my college who received the highest honor bestowed upon a student in the State University of New York system was a journalism major. I remember how much my fellow science major friends and I hated on her perfect gpa because we felt our gpa's could have been inflated had we chosen a different major... I'm shocked to know that we were RIGHT! (and not just hating on her)

thetygerlily 04-21-2010 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1919222)
It's all about balance. :)

It's bad to just memorize and expect exams to basically be recitation. College students should be beyond high school level.

It's also bad to not know things like names and dates (basic info that the professor has probably stressed the importance of) and think that you can apply the information. Students will sometimes not do course readings and come to exams expecting to guess based on what seems familiar or answer essays based on their ability to convincingly bullshit. That happens across disciplines.
Totally. And college is a lot about context, too. They should be providing the background information and then asking you to think about it in some way- thus you need to know a lot of the details, but you have something to apply them to. I'm a contextual classroom learner... I can never do the online stuff because I constantly ask "but why does it happen this way?" or "what if this happened in a different setting?" Just telling me to memorize it because I should doesn't work.

Great example: I know the dates of the civil war because I can put it in context to when Kappa was founded. But until I made that connection, I always drew a blank. Doesn't have to be GLO related of course :p but putting a personal, theoretical, or interesting spin on things helps.

DrPhil 04-21-2010 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919230)
On a general basis, the sciences are much more concrete. I'm not discussing theoretical physics here. Chemistry, Biochem, Anatomy, Botany, Physics, etc. are fairly concrete and have "right" answers. If you don't know the material, you can't BS your way through it.
Common misconception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919230)
After BSing my way through humanities classes in HS and college....
That is your teacher's fault and does not translate to what you think it does.

Munchkin03 04-21-2010 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1919171)
I don't care what this thread is about, but want to say that private universities rock.
What what! I love my private university edjumacations.

The most selective private universities tend to have students who are at the top of their game. If you have a class of perfectionist overachievers, unless you grade on a curve, there is going to be a higher percentage of kids who are going to get As and Bs because that's the quality of work they're putting out. Also, most of the kids going to selective private universities worked their asses off to get there. Taking four college classes, none of which meet every day, is a walk in the park compared to taking 7-8 AP/IB/advanced/college level courses/whatever on top of sports and extracurriculars, most of which meet every day too. That's what happened to me. I was like, I don't have to be at the high school from 7 AM to 6 PM, with homework afterwards and on the weekends? Score! It was very easy, then, to focus on those four classes and do well in them, and still take advantage of the smorgasbord of awesome my college provided.

AOII Angel 04-21-2010 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1919236)
Common misconception.



That is your teacher's fault and does not translate to what you think it does.

That's your opinion, but I've taken enough higher level science courses to back up my assertation.

DrPhil 04-21-2010 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 1919242)
That's your opinion, but I've taken enough higher level science courses to back up my assertation.
Ummm.....

Anyway, that's your opinion. Yeah.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.