vanwinkle wrote:daesonesb wrote:vanwinkle wrote:whuts4lunch wrote:there are schools that do not give A-. they give As for 90s and Bplus for 89. And we're competing against the absurd inflated gpas these schools create
This to me seems much, much more unfair than schools that don't award A+s. Or, at least, it's much, much more likely to realistically impact most people's GPAs than the availability of an A+ does.
You just ranted about the unimportance of a .33 difference in a grade, yet you say that? After that whole thing where you went through, and claimed that if I got .33 higher on a class a semester it would make no real difference on my T-14 chances?
A random person might be more likely to bump from an A- to an A, but we were talking about me, and in my specific situation there have been about 8 A+'s. As you pointed out, they haven't boosted my GPA too much (From about a high 3.7 to mid 3.8's). But... it seems just as unfair in my situation that I have access to those .33 extra points as it would be if I'd gotten the bump from A-'s turning to A's.
I don't dispute that having the no A- policy will bump more people's GPA's, but you were just saying to me that the magnitude wasn't significant in my particular case. Just seems a bit hypocritical after you were just acting like a dick about it...
I don't see it as hypocritical at all. I wasn't talking about your particular case with that comment, I was talking about the big picture, where when you're looking at the numbers of people with a lot of A-s that'd be affected it makes a much bigger difference than when you're looking at the very few people with the huge lot of As that might turn into A+s
Understood. I guess the whole "you" thing confused me. I was probably just mad because I am borderline admit/reject at about half the T-14's.
I agree with your basic point. Most people aren't greatly affected by the absence of an A+. I think OP was likely just mad on General Principle.