Undergrad grades affected by program/classes

[boo]

I did my undergrad in a program that was curved, resulting in a department wide average/median of 2.8 (confirmed by a girlfriend who was doing data analytics work for the school and had access to these numbers). Is this something that I should be mentioning in a personal statement, as a way to explain why my grades are not 3.5+, or should I avoid it?

[Darth Vader]

22 minutes ago, boo said:

I did my undergrad in a program that was curved, resulting in a department wide average/median of 2.8 (confirmed by a girlfriend who was doing data analytics work for the school and had access to these numbers). Is this something that I should be mentioning in a personal statement, as a way to explain why my grades are not 3.5+, or should I avoid it?

2.8 is a B- average. That is pretty standard average/median for most university programs. In fact, I would say many programs have even lower averages than that in the C to C+ range. It would just come across as being disingenuous and making excuses for yourself. Your department average may be a 2.8 but I can guarantee you that there will be people that attained 3.5+ GPAs from that same department applying to law school and other graduate and professional programs.

[Diplock]

1 hour ago, boo said:

I did my undergrad in a program that was curved, resulting in a department wide average/median of 2.8 (confirmed by a girlfriend who was doing data analytics work for the school and had access to these numbers). Is this something that I should be mentioning in a personal statement, as a way to explain why my grades are not 3.5+, or should I avoid it?

I think you should include an affidavit from your girlfriend. Seriously. That would be a baller move.

[Psychometronic]

1 hour ago, boo said:

I did my undergrad in a program that was curved, resulting in a department wide average/median of 2.8 (confirmed by a girlfriend who was doing data analytics work for the school and had access to these numbers). Is this something that I should be mentioning in a personal statement, as a way to explain why my grades are not 3.5+, or should I avoid it?

My department curved to a C+ (68% or thereabouts). There is no point in justifying it, even though this seems unfair, since this a well-known fact of undergrad programs.

[CleanHands]

Not to dogpile the OP, but this is one big reason why the LSAT exists.

[boo]

2 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

2.8 is a B- average. That is pretty standard average/median for most university programs. In fact, I would say many programs have even lower averages than that in the C to C+ range. It would just come across as being disingenuous and making excuses for yourself. Your department average may be a 2.8 but I can guarantee you that there will be people that attained 3.5+ GPAs from that same department applying to law school and other graduate and professional programs.

Fair enough. I didn't know it was that commonplace as most people I know who did arts & sciences had a much easier time achieving 3.6+ averages, where as long as they got a good score on an exam, they'd get a grade that corresponds. 

2 hours ago, Diplock said:

I think you should include an affidavit from your girlfriend. Seriously. That would be a baller move.

Ex*

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

Not to dogpile the OP, but this is one big reason why the LSAT exists.

Agreed. I always wished LSAT counted for more to equalize for things like this. Engineering major with 3.2 > Education major with 3.9

[Avatar Aang]

2 hours ago, boo said:

Fair enough. I didn't know it was that commonplace as most people I know who did arts & sciences had a much easier time achieving 3.6+ averages, where as long as they got a good score on an exam, they'd get a grade that corresponds. 

Ex*

Agreed. I always wished LSAT counted for more to equalize for things like this. Engineering major with 3.2 > Education major with 3.9

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/about/jd-first-year-class-profile 

U of T has 15-20% engineering/math/science grads in their class. The expectation is that a student will choose a program that aligns with their strengths and interests and perform well in it. This is why most law schools drop your lowest grades or look at your best 2/final 2 years GPA. If you completed an entire degree without figuring out that it wasn't working out for you, then honestly you have no one to blame but your own complacency. By 3rd and 4th year, class averages are higher and many students figure out their interests and strengths and prepare for future careers, graduate school, professional school, etc.

It is understandable why someone may have a sub 3.5 cGPA if they struggled in their first two years, switched programs, took longer to figure out how to do university, etc., but if you were a mediocre student all throughout your program and now want to place the blame on your institution and program difficulty, then it's just not going to win you any favours. The simple truth is that there are people are still graduating from MIT physics and U of T engineering science with 3.9+ GPAs. I have seen the latter in Canadian law schools. There were quite a few Waterloo engineering grads in my class. Law is a competitive field to get into that attracts high caliber students from all fields and degree types. Look at class profiles online and you will see many STEM and business grads in law school. 

[CheeseToast]

2 hours ago, boo said:

Engineering major with 3.2 > Education major with 3.9

Is this the part where we all bow to the almighty engineer? 

[Whist]

3 hours ago, boo said:

Fair enough. I didn't know it was that commonplace as most people I know who did arts & sciences had a much easier time achieving 3.6+ averages, where as long as they got a good score on an exam, they'd get a grade that corresponds. 

Ex*

Agreed. I always wished LSAT counted for more to equalize for things like this. Engineering major with 3.2 > Education major with 3.9

Applying to law school with a 3.9 > applying to law school with a 3.2.

I came from a BA program also curved to a 68%. Moreover, there are plenty of people in STEM who have 3.6+, so it's no get-out-of-jail-free card.

[angelica97]

3 hours ago, boo said:

most people I know who did arts & sciences had a much easier time achieving 3.6+ averages

This is interesting. I always thought it was the other way around because papers are subjective (i.e., more room for TAs to deflate grades/nearly impossible to get 90+ in an arts course). I was in humanities and most of my course averages were a B -

6 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

Your department average may be a 2.8 but I can guarantee you that there will be people that attained 3.5+ GPAs from that same department applying to law school and other graduate and professional programs.

x2

[WiseGhost]

I think people are being a little rough on you because its a twat thing (not to mention wrong) to say that a 3.2 gpa in engineering is better than a 3.9 gpa in education. 

However, it is true that most arts and science programs in Canada don't have an average of 2.8. It is also true that programs which impose a curve have a tendency to make grades cluster around the median, making it harder to achieve exceptional marks. 

I would avoid making excuses for your gpa based off of the difficulty of your program, but I do think that you could emphasize the difficulty of your program and how that made you grow as a student in your PS. If your gpa is 3.2 I can see you getting in somewhere if you do well on the lsat, but I think you should apply widely. 

[Electricity]

20 minutes ago, bringclubpenguinback said:

(i.e., more room for TAs to deflate grades/nearly impossible to get 90+ in an arts course). I was in humanities and most of my course averages were a B -

My experience with arts courses was that they got much easier in the upper years. Getting a 3.6+ average in a low-level survey courses is tricky - you're competing against hundreds of students and there's usually a stiff curve. Getting a 3.6+ average in upper year classes (for history, at least) required doing a few of the readings, showing up to weekly seminar, and smiling at the professor. 

[Darth Vader]

Since this has turned into an arts vs. sciences debate, I thought I'd share a relevant post I came across recently. 

Science/humanities double major here. My views are that in STEM, it's easy to fail but if you know what you're doing, you can do well and 90-100% averages are not impossible (I have friends every year who've gotten 99-100% in their MAT/CHM courses, for example). In the humanities, failing is unlikely if you try, but it is near impossible to do well. I've had professors who cap marks at an 80, and there's no rubric for 85+ essays because they're THAT rare. Last semester, I had the highest mark in 4 of the humanities courses I took (I know this because I was in small, seminar courses and we all shared our marks) and my highest score was a 92—and this was after months of editing my final essay, talking to my professor every week, and writing 5-6 final essay drafts. I've gotten 95+ in STEM courses with half as much effort.

To people that say 'real STEM is much more difficult than any humanities course'—I can tell you've never taken upper-year humanities courses before. Both are monsters in their own right. Advanced humanities courses aren't just about writing a final essay and hoping for the best. If you really want to do well in the humanities like you do in STEM courses, it requires you to think in totally abstract ways. Good essays can synthesize real-life biases, readings, and the themes of that course. Great essays know how to challenge these biases, readings, and themes. To be honest, I actually don't find the arts and sciences to be that different from each other. They require different ways of thinking, that's true, but I personally use the same formula to conduct research in STEM with essay-writing/research in the humanities.

I will also acknowledge, however, that some people are just more inclined to the arts and the sciences. I think I'm more naturally comfortable in the humanities, but I loved the sciences more, hence my decision to stay in both. On the other hand, my friends seem to tear up at the thought of writing an essay. Both have their ups and downs, but you're comparing apples to oranges. If you suck at reading comprehension/writing essays, you're going to like the sciences more. If the thought of reading graphs and numbers scares you, you're probably going to do better in the humanities.

[boo]

18 hours ago, Avatar Aang said:

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/about/jd-first-year-class-profile 

U of T has 15-20% engineering/math/science grads in their class. The expectation is that a student will choose a program that aligns with their strengths and interests and perform well in it. This is why most law schools drop your lowest grades or look at your best 2/final 2 years GPA. If you completed an entire degree without figuring out that it wasn't working out for you, then honestly you have no one to blame but your own complacency. By 3rd and 4th year, class averages are higher and many students figure out their interests and strengths and prepare for future careers, graduate school, professional school, etc.

It is understandable why someone may have a sub 3.5 cGPA if they struggled in their first two years, switched programs, took longer to figure out how to do university, etc., but if you were a mediocre student all throughout your program and now want to place the blame on your institution and program difficulty, then it's just not going to win you any favours. The simple truth is that there are people are still graduating from MIT physics and U of T engineering science with 3.9+ GPAs. I have seen the latter in Canadian law schools. There were quite a few Waterloo engineering grads in my class. Law is a competitive field to get into that attracts high caliber students from all fields and degree types. Look at class profiles online and you will see many STEM and business grads in law school. 

Completely fair. Some points:

1. UoT is the best law school in the country and has some international standing/reputation. I am not a candidate for UoT.

2. Not everyone has the flexibility to change what they are studying

3. MIT physics is arguably one of the toughest / most prestigious programs in the world to get into (nevermind do well in). If you had a 3.0 GPA from that school, I find it hard to believe people wouldn't take your program difficulty into account. I doubt there are many who excel in that program who would leave one of the best places in the world for math / physics / engineering / compsci to pursue a Canadian legal education (trading MIT for Manitoba seems a little sus). A good friend of mine fits into that category of 4.0+ GPA from Dalhousie engineering who will be applying for law school next year. I have no doubt he will get accepted into a number of schools. The original point of my question stems from the fact that my application does not feel as strong as many posters on here (a weak form of imposter syndrome if you will). Just trying to see if I can pull another lever to improve my application...the consensus seems no.

17 hours ago, CheeseToast said:

Is this the part where we all bow to the almighty engineer? 

Lol. All Hail! 

...I am also not an engineer

17 hours ago, Whist said:

Applying to law school with a 3.9 > applying to law school with a 3.2.

I came from a BA program also curved to a 68%. Moreover, there are plenty of people in STEM who have 3.6+, so it's no get-out-of-jail-free card.

True. Interesting on your program, I didn't know it was as prevalent as other posters have mentioned.

---

Thread wasn't intended to be a science vs humanities debate. I was just looking if there was another way to improve my application. Truthfully, I have competitive LSAT and GMAT scores and am considering both law school and business school. Hopefully my 5 years of work experience will do something for my application (ha)

[WiseGhost]

Boo, if you have 5 years of work experience after your undergrad, that definitely should improve your application. Schools might be leery of accepting you and dragging down their gpa medians, but from lurking here and the now defunct forum, I've seen that many of the applicants accepted with lower undergrad gpas are mature candidates who did well on their LSAT. Adcoms know that candidates can change a lot in five years. 

The majority of people posting on here are undergrads like me who are applying directly out of school. If you have other strong aspects of your application, your gpa doesn't have to match those of the keeners posting on this forum. 

[Yogurt Baron]

56 minutes ago, villiuski said:

Boo, if you have 5 years of work experience...

I thought this was a kind of familiar greeting, until I went back and looked at the OP's username.

[123]

11 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

I thought this was a kind of familiar greeting, until I went back and looked at the OP's username.

No worries babe. 

[boo]

18 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

No worries babe. 

LOL

[Lycidas]

On 10/4/2021 at 6:09 PM, boo said:

Engineering major with 3.2 > Education major with 3.9

People making fun of you for this are fools. It's completely true.

[Pendragon]

1 hour ago, Lycidas said:

People making fun of you for this are fools. It's completely true.

Huh, why? A 3.9 GPA would put someone in the top of their program, and it's quite difficult to achieve in subjective majors that have a lot of essay-writing. Meanwhile, a 3.2 is an average GPA. Even if one can agree that an engineering degree is more difficult than an education degree, how would a 3.2 GPA in an engineering program be worth more than a near perfect GPA in a social science program? This is asinine and something people tell themselves to feel better about their own mediocrity. Plenty of people are great at math and sciences and do well in STEM programs. People who do not perform well in STEM programs need to stop blaming their mediocrity on their major and/or school. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

38 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

People who do not perform well in [law school] need to stop blaming their mediocrity on their major and/or school. 

Gunna steal this for the next time someone says everyone gets Bs in law school. 

[Rashabon]

IMO a 3.2 in a STEM program isn't particularly impressive. A 3.2 in any program isn't particularly impressive. That's the point of it being a 3.2.

[GGrievous]

42 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Huh, why? A 3.9 GPA would put someone in the top of their program, and it's quite difficult to achieve in subjective majors that have a lot of essay-writing. Meanwhile, a 3.2 is an average GPA. Even if one can agree that an engineering degree is more difficult than an education degree, how would a 3.2 GPA in an engineering program be worth more than a near perfect GPA in a social science program? This is asinine and something people tell themselves to feel better about their own mediocrity. Plenty of people are great at math and sciences and do well in STEM programs. People who do not perform well in STEM programs need to stop blaming their mediocrity on their major and/or school. 

Can this post be automatically posted whenever this argument comes up? 

[Lycidas]

8 hours ago, Pendragon said:

People who do not perform well in STEM programs need to stop blaming their mediocrity on their major and/or school. 

I literally did almost nothing in university, I studied humanities and social sciences and walked away with a very respectable GPA after never doing any readings and barely studying - it was a joke. I invested almost no effort and now I'm doing very well for myself. 

One of my best friends was an engineering major, absolutely killing himself day in and day out (routine 12-15 hour study rips in the library) studying massively complicated and intricate things, ended up with literally a 3.3. 

Anyone who claims a 3.9 education/social sciences/humanities major is anything close to the equivalent in a hard science/engineering is out of their mind. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by Lycidas

[Ben]

18 minutes ago, Lycidas said:

I literally did almost nothing in university, I studied humanities and social sciences and walked away with a very respectable GPA after never doing any readings and barely studying - it was a joke. I invested almost no effort and now I'm doing very well for myself. 

One of my best friends was an engineering major, absolutely killing himself day in and day out (routine 12-15 hour study rips in the library) studying massively complicated and intricate things, ended up with literally a 3.3. 

Anyone who claims a 3.9 education/social sciences/humanities major is anything close to the equivalent in a hard science/engineering is out of their mind. 

Bad news for your pal if he was routinely studying for 15 straight hours and pulled a 3.3 lmao