tomwatts wrote:dm21998 wrote:Maybe I had misstated. Alums to whom I spoke seemed to suggest that clearing a 4.0 was not going to cut it, so something comfortably above a 4.0 was required. Of course they couldn't know everyone's GPAs. Maybe all the magnas they knew had GPAs well into the 4.0s even though several other magnas had even 4.0s (or less).
Also, not trying to ruffle any tail feathers, but I had thought that it was not that difficult to pull of an equal number of DS and P grades? Maybe the population off of which I'm basing this opinion is biased. Not suggesting that 4.0 is a cake walk by any stretch. Was just my impression that a fairly large number of people pulled that off. Especially given how easy 2L and 3L year can be.
I think what's going on is this. There's a whole bunch of people who get between a 3.9 and a 4.0. But a relatively small number with above a 4.0 or 4.1. I would bet that there's a big clumping around like 3.95. So a substantial chunk would fall just above (magna) and a pretty substantial chunk just below (cum laude). Makes sense given how sparingly DS grades are handed out relative to H grades.
Man if that's the case, it has to really suck to be the 3.96 or whatever that falls just short of magna. But who cares about grades right.
Basically everything you're saying is wrong or unlikely. The cutoff for magna is roughly 3.9-4.0. The cutoff for cum laude is roughly 3.5-3.6. This means that 30% of the class gets between 3.5-3.6 and 3.9-4.0, and about 10% of the class gets above 3.9-4.0. This is pretty firmly established at this point (professors have said so, etc.).
Your hypothesis of clumping around 3.95 is implausible. If there were all that much clumping, the cum laude cutoff would be higher than it is.
2L and 3L are usually less work than 1L year (you're taking fewer credits) and less stress (you understand how classes work, you already have a job), but people's grades don't actually go up all that much. The grade distribution still applies to most of your classes, unless somehow you manage to take a majority of your classes as clinics and seminars (which most don't).
Not sure I see how what you said makes my guess wrong or unlikely. I think there's probably some sort of bulge (could be large, could be small) near the magna cutoff. You say the 60th %ile is 3.5-3.6 and the 90th %ile is 3.9-4.0. Okay, no arguments. But I'm making a guess about the shape of the distribution near the 90th %ile. Your two data points don't really make that much more or less likely. Unless what you're really saying is that the distribution between those two data points is like completely uniform. Or something like that. But that would completely separate from just saying that 60th %ile is at 3.5-3.6 and 90th %ile is at 3.9-4.0.
I mean, if 60th %ile were like, I don't know, 3.0 or something, then yeah. Maybe we'd have a live issue here. Cause then for there to be anything more than small bulge near the 90th you might end up with a pretty funny looking distribution curve. But then the curve would look funny anyway cause 60% of the class would have below a 3.0. Which would be weird. But that's just not the case.