4 ms·

On the topic of grade inflation: In 1966, 22% of Harvard undergraduate students earned A's. By 1996, that figure rose to 46%. That same year, 82% of Harvard se

by grinich 17y ago

On the topic of grade inflation: In 1966, 22% of Harvard undergraduate students earned A's. By 1996, that figure rose to 46%. That same year, 82% of Harvard seniors graduated with honors. In 1973, 31% of all grades at Princeton were A's. By 1997 that rose to 43%. In 1997, only 12% of all grades given at Princeton were below the B range. (source: Source: American Academy of Arts & Sciences) One of the best things about MIT is that they have not succumbed to the this trend. There is no such thing as "honors"— An MIT degree is an honor by itself. That attitude is a fundamental basis of the student culture.

sp332 17y ago
My college didn't do grade inflation either. If you do an average job, you get a C. At the beginning of each year, they call the parents of incoming students and tell them not to be worried if the students get Cs - most people in the college get Cs. The on-campus bookstore sold t-shirts with "C+ Better than average!" on them.
hga 17y ago
Well, I'd say it's an aspect of one of the best things, that MIT is firmly dedicated to meritocracy. If you belong in your department (and there is at least one for you) and put in the work, you'll get As and Bs and the degree at the end. A reflection of this is that you are allowed a "saving throw" in your final semester: you can petition to graduate if you are lacking just one required course that you earned an F in that last semester. It must be "well earned", you have to have really tried, and I don't know how often the petition is granted but it is upon occasion.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Do they have legacy admissions?
  - tedunangst 17y ago
    The internet says yes and no, and I'd guess (without further information) the correct situation is closest to the "no bonus points for legacy, but you get a second look before rejection" policy one source claimed.
    - hga 17y ago
      Yes, from the inside what I've heard is that it's no more than a "second look". Everyone who attends MIT must pass 1 year each (and at a fast pace) of the calculus (first term equals the AP Calculus BC curriculum) and classical mechanics and E&M (one term each). Plus one term of serious chemistry and nowadays I think one of biology. MIT doesn't accept anyone who they don't think can make it. This works in part because of the self selection in applicants, although nowadays they're getting 13,000 per year, 1/3 of which the Admissions Office judges can do the work.
      - rflrob 17y ago
        "MIT doesn't accept anyone who they don't think can make it. This works in part because of the self selection in applicants, although nowadays they're getting 13,000 per year, 1/3 of which the Admissions Office judges can do the work." If you think about it though, for an incoming class size of about 1000, they're still rejecting 3/4ths of the qualified applicants. Assuming a legacy applicant is qualified (and I'd suspect for a number of reasons that they're more likely to be qualified than the median applicant), that second look can be a big benefit.
        hga 17y ago
        Arrgh ... it's not 1/3, it's around 3,000. But your point still stands, they're rejecting 2/3rds of the qualified applicants.
jbeda 17y ago
The data from http://gradeinflation.com/ http://gradeinflation.com/ (posted in another response) suggests that MIT is worse than average for grade inflation.
- hga 17y ago
  A thought: In the period from 1980 or earlier to the dot.com crash, ~ 400 students in each MIT class were majors in the EECS department ("Course 6"). With a class size of ~ 1050, that's 38% of the students. In the early '80s EECS drastically changed it's core curriculum (or at least the CS part of it, SICP/6.001 was the start), and it definitely got better at teaching it. If that also gave the students a better foundation for higher level courses, then we'd expect significant grade inflation based on MIT's policy of grading on mastery instead of the curve. Also during that period the EE to CS ratio was 3:1 and flipped to a mirror 1:3. If CS is better or markedly better taught ... and be sure to factor in higher availability of computers, before MIT and at MIT ... that probably also is a factor. Assume also during this period that only half the majors had a "calling" to EECS; therefore the quality of teaching would make the most difference to the other half to whom it doesn't come so naturally.
  - jbeda 17y ago
    The source doesn't break out EECS from the rest of MIT. To be fair, though, this looks to be really long term data. If you dig into the numbers (http://gradeinflation.com/MIT.html http://gradeinflation.com/MIT.html) things look a lot more steady over the last 30 years. It looks like there was significant inflation through the 1960s but it flattened out since then.
    - hga 17y ago
      It's very important to look at the time series, for the '60s were a special case of giving (male) students high enough grades so that they wouldn't flunk out and become eligible for the draft and service in Vietnam. I don't know about MIT's history of grading in that period, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened.
- 17y ago

by grinich 17y ago

sp332 17y ago

My college didn't do grade inflation either. If you do an average job, you get a C. At the beginning of each year, they call the parents of incoming students and tell them not to be worried if the students get Cs - most people in the college get Cs. The on-campus bookstore sold t-shirts with "C+ Better than average!" on them.

hga 17y ago

Well, I'd say it's an aspect of one of the best things, that MIT is firmly dedicated to meritocracy. If you belong in your department (and there is at least one for you) and put in the work, you'll get As and Bs and the degree at the end. A reflection of this is that you are allowed a "saving throw" in your final semester: you can petition to graduate if you are lacking just one required course that you earned an F in that last semester. It must be "well earned", you have to have really tried, and I don't know how often the petition is granted but it is upon occasion.

chrischen 17y ago
Do they have legacy admissions?
- tedunangst 17y ago
  The internet says yes and no, and I'd guess (without further information) the correct situation is closest to the "no bonus points for legacy, but you get a second look before rejection" policy one source claimed.
  - hga 17y ago
    Yes, from the inside what I've heard is that it's no more than a "second look". Everyone who attends MIT must pass 1 year each (and at a fast pace) of the calculus (first term equals the AP Calculus BC curriculum) and classical mechanics and E&M (one term each). Plus one term of serious chemistry and nowadays I think one of biology. MIT doesn't accept anyone who they don't think can make it. This works in part because of the self selection in applicants, although nowadays they're getting 13,000 per year, 1/3 of which the Admissions Office judges can do the work.
    - rflrob 17y ago
      "MIT doesn't accept anyone who they don't think can make it. This works in part because of the self selection in applicants, although nowadays they're getting 13,000 per year, 1/3 of which the Admissions Office judges can do the work." If you think about it though, for an incoming class size of about 1000, they're still rejecting 3/4ths of the qualified applicants. Assuming a legacy applicant is qualified (and I'd suspect for a number of reasons that they're more likely to be qualified than the median applicant), that second look can be a big benefit.
      - hga 17y ago
        Arrgh ... it's not 1/3, it's around 3,000. But your point still stands, they're rejecting 2/3rds of the qualified applicants.

jbeda 17y ago

The data from http://gradeinflation.com/ http://gradeinflation.com/ (posted in another response) suggests that MIT is worse than average for grade inflation.

hga 17y ago
A thought: In the period from 1980 or earlier to the dot.com crash, ~ 400 students in each MIT class were majors in the EECS department ("Course 6"). With a class size of ~ 1050, that's 38% of the students. In the early '80s EECS drastically changed it's core curriculum (or at least the CS part of it, SICP/6.001 was the start), and it definitely got better at teaching it. If that also gave the students a better foundation for higher level courses, then we'd expect significant grade inflation based on MIT's policy of grading on mastery instead of the curve. Also during that period the EE to CS ratio was 3:1 and flipped to a mirror 1:3. If CS is better or markedly better taught ... and be sure to factor in higher availability of computers, before MIT and at MIT ... that probably also is a factor. Assume also during this period that only half the majors had a "calling" to EECS; therefore the quality of teaching would make the most difference to the other half to whom it doesn't come so naturally.
- jbeda 17y ago
  The source doesn't break out EECS from the rest of MIT. To be fair, though, this looks to be really long term data. If you dig into the numbers (http://gradeinflation.com/MIT.html http://gradeinflation.com/MIT.html) things look a lot more steady over the last 30 years. It looks like there was significant inflation through the 1960s but it flattened out since then.
  - hga 17y ago
    It's very important to look at the time series, for the '60s were a special case of giving (male) students high enough grades so that they wouldn't flunk out and become eligible for the draft and service in Vietnam. I don't know about MIT's history of grading in that period, but I wouldn't be surprised if that happened.
17y ago