Want a higher GPA? Go to a private university.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by baci

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

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! 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.

[thetygerlily]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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 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.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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! 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

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by thetygerlily

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 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

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]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

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]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Common misconception.

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

Originally Posted by Kappamd

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

I do too. If you can get through a intro to philosophy course without being made to learn to differentiate between Plato and Aristotle, for instance, that is your professor's fault.

Similarly, if you can get through an Early British Lit course without being able to demonstrate that you can discuss and differentiate between Marlow and Shakespeare, then your teacher is not doing his/her job.

The ability to BS through any course is not a reflection of the rigor of the discipline or the objective/subjective criteria on which students are evaluated across disciplines. It is a reflection of poor instruction, and that does a disservice to the students.

To be clear, I am not talking about sliding by with a C (it's pretty easy to slide by with a "passing" grade in most courses), I am talking about excelling.

[1stSoon2BePhD]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

Weeeeeell, I have personally written BS answers in biology classes when I was unsure of exactly what the question was asking and I earned generous partial credit. However, I teach General Chemistry now and I agree that USUALLY they either know a concept and get straight to the point or they don't know it and they make things up. However, you can show that you know the definition of a concept without knowing how to apply that knowledge and get partial credit.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 1stSoon2BePhD

However, I teach General Chemistry now and I agree that USUALLY they either know a concept and get straight to the point or they don't know it and they make things up.

Sounds like the humanities to me.

Originally Posted by 1stSoon2BePhD

However, you can show that you know the definition of a concept without knowing how to apply that knowledge and get partial credit.

Yep and this is mostly based on the teachers/professors.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Sounds like the humanities to me.

Yep. To me, too.