LSDAS gpa seems unfair.. Forum

[kumba84]

I agree that LSDAS's system is a bit unfair, but I think schools probably realize this, too. If they see someone with a 4.20, hopefully they realize that is comparable to another person's 3.99 because the majority of schools do not have A+s.

[MC Southstar]

Science/math major difficulty is overhyped. I mean, ffs, the questions on their tests only have one correct answer! As a liberal arts student, I have not had this luxury. Just memorize your formulas or whatever and stfu. Studying for the physics exams I had took waaaay less time then researching for the papers I had to write for poli sci classes.

Holy God this just made my day.

I hope you poured more research into your papers than into this post. Where the hell did you come up with the idea that all science/math related courses have exams where there is only one correct answer. Have you ever taken a real math or science course before?

And honestly, "I had took"? Where the hell are you getting your liberal arts degree from anyway?

Just out of curiosity, how else would you suggest phrasing this? Since it's referring to the past tense of takes time... took time? Not I had took... read the post before you criticize them, mkay? Perhaps a more valid critique would be that he uses then instead of than, but even then...

Ever hear of the word "taken"?

[govern]

Science/math major difficulty is overhyped. I mean, ffs, the questions on their tests only have one correct answer! As a liberal arts student, I have not had this luxury. Just memorize your formulas or whatever and stfu. Studying for the physics exams I had took waaaay less time then researching for the papers I had to write for poli sci classes.

Holy God this just made my day.

I hope you poured more research into your papers than into this post. Where the hell did you come up with the idea that all science/math related courses have exams where there is only one correct answer. Have you ever taken a real math or science course before?

And honestly, "I had took"? Where the hell are you getting your liberal arts degree from anyway?

Just out of curiosity, how else would you suggest phrasing this? Since it's referring to the past tense of takes time... took time? Not I had took... read the post before you criticize them, mkay? Perhaps a more valid critique would be that he uses then instead of than, but even then...

As shadowfrost brought up, taken would be more fitting for this situation.

Perhaps phrasing it like "I took less time studying for the physics exams than researching for the papers yada yada" would be much more reasonable... Normally, I am not a member of the grammar police, but seeing a liberal arts major trying to rip on science majors while making such a silly phrasing gave me no choice

[klk]

Science/math major difficulty is overhyped. I mean, ffs, the questions on their tests only have one correct answer! As a liberal arts student, I have not had this luxury. Just memorize your formulas or whatever and stfu. Studying for the physics exams I had took waaaay less time then researching for the papers I had to write for poli sci classes.

Holy God this just made my day.

I hope you poured more research into your papers than into this post. Where the hell did you come up with the idea that all science/math related courses have exams where there is only one correct answer. Have you ever taken a real math or science course before?

And honestly, "I had took"? Where the hell are you getting your liberal arts degree from anyway?

Just out of curiosity, how else would you suggest phrasing this? Since it's referring to the past tense of takes time... took time? Not I had took... read the post before you criticize them, mkay? Perhaps a more valid critique would be that he uses then instead of than, but even then...

Ever hear of the word "taken"?

Again, that doesn't work in the context of the sentence. "I had taken way less time than researching?" No, taken doesn't work either. Essentially- you're criticizing someone's grammar on a forum where it doesn't matter. And you didn't even do it right. Sorry, correctly.

[whuts4lunch]

Realistically, though, B+s will help out a B student. Just as A+s help out A students.
So, you need to change your scenario above to account for B+s instead of A+s.

I think this is really a moot topic as A-s and B-s help to bring down the gpa as well.

A student who has an equal number of -s and +s will have the same gps as someone who didn't earn +s and -s.

This makes no sense. All schools give B+s and A-s so they're already factored in to any given scenario. Anyone who got B+s and A-s before would still get B+s and A-s presumably even if the school started offering A+s. The only way anyone's grade would change at all is that some people who got As might have gotten A+s instead.

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

[MC Southstar]

Again, that doesn't work in the context of the sentence. "I had taken way less time than researching?" No, taken doesn't work either. Essentially- you're criticizing someone's grammar on a forum where it doesn't matter. And you didn't even do it right. Sorry, correctly.

"I had TAKEN [strike]way[/strike] less time than I had (TAKEN) for researching?"

I didn't even criticize him. It was just your attempt at attacking someone else with obvious stupidity that annoyed me.

EDIT: Should probably just be "took" instead of either though.

[DoubleChecks]

Realistically, though, B+s will help out a B student. Just as A+s help out A students.
So, you need to change your scenario above to account for B+s instead of A+s.

I think this is really a moot topic as A-s and B-s help to bring down the gpa as well.

A student who has an equal number of -s and +s will have the same gps as someone who didn't earn +s and -s.

This makes no sense. All schools give B+s and A-s so they're already factored in to any given scenario. Anyone who got B+s and A-s before would still get B+s and A-s presumably even if the school started offering A+s. The only way anyone's grade would change at all is that some people who got As might have gotten A+s instead.

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

seriously? there are schools that offer +/- for C's and B's but NOT A's? like really, a 90 = A but 89 = B+? wow that sounds like crazy inflation

[DoubleChecks]

personally, i think LSAC is far from perfect w/ this +/- business...but there is some bright light at the end of the tunnel for all us non +/-'ers. If you have a 4.0, it looks prettier than the person w/ a 4.2...and getting a 4.33, i think we'll all agree, is next to impossible

one screams perfection and makes you wonder...what is that guy's real potential? the other answers that question

[whuts4lunch]

its the biggest school in my state and people think that the law school likes high gpas, but i hypothesize that it just receives a lot of apps from within that school and those students happen to have high gpas... i believe some of the other big state schools in my state also don't have A-

[Trifles]

Science/math major difficulty is overhyped. I mean, ffs, the questions on their tests only have one correct answer! As a liberal arts student, I have not had this luxury. Just memorize your formulas or whatever and stfu. Studying for the physics exams I had took waaaay less time then researching for the papers I had to write for poli sci classes.

If only it were as simple as just memorizing formulas like you claim. It appears as though you have a lot of experience with hard science courses considering your entry level Physics course. So please continue providing us with your speculations and incorrect assumptions. Liberal arts papers merely consist of being able to articulate a pointless thesis that has an infinite number of correct answers, that is a luxury. Not very challenging in my opinion.

I am majoring in a hard science and a liberal art, they aren't even comparable in difficulty. Liberal arts don't win.

This.

Computer science is a bit different in that it has a near infinite number of answers for any one problem, but they must be perfectly logical and yet are still open to subjective grading. Sucks.

Yep. Gotta love being graded on the elegance and efficiency of solutions during a timed exam. I thought there was already enough pressure. I hate CS tests.

Oh man, don't even get me started on how useless computer science degrees are. I can think of better ways to spend 60k and 4 years of my life then to learn Java and Scheme and maybe C. Like putting $100 and a few months towards learning php or something there is actually work for.

[rondemarino]

Oh man, don't even get me started on how useless computer science degrees are. I can think of better ways to spend 60k and 4 years of my life then to learn Java and Scheme and maybe C. Like putting $100 and a few months towards learning php or something there is actually work for.

As opposed to your Arts & Flowers degree?

[GTman11]

If a student consistently receives A+ grades in their college level courses their school is a joke or gpa boosts (like most Ivy's). Geniuses do exist, but they are few and far between. With that being said, I am not worried that A+ grades receive that boost because unless you are consistently an A+ student, that whole A-, A, A+ business hurts you overall.

[vanwinkle]

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.

[klk]

Again, that doesn't work in the context of the sentence. "I had taken way less time than researching?" No, taken doesn't work either. Essentially- you're criticizing someone's grammar on a forum where it doesn't matter. And you didn't even do it right. Sorry, correctly.

"I had TAKEN [strike]way[/strike] less time than I had (TAKEN) for researching?"

I didn't even criticize him. It was just your attempt at attacking someone else with obvious stupidity that annoyed me.

EDIT: Should probably just be "took" instead of either though.

This was pretty much the only point I was trying to make. And I'm sorry if my response came off as an attack, it wasn't meant to be. Nor was it meant to be obvious stupidity.

[Unitas]

If a student consistently receives A+ grades in their college level courses their school is a joke or gpa boosts (like most Ivy's). Geniuses do exist, but they are few and far between. With that being said, I am not worried that A+ grades receive that boost because unless you are consistently an A+ student, that whole A-, A, A+ business hurts you overall.

Since coming back to school I have had 1 class out of 40 or so classes below a 98. My school does NOT give A+'s, and it isn't fair. Then again it is also a non-issue. If you are capable of getting 97+ in most classes you should be capable of being in the 99th percentile on the LSAT. So should have no problems in the T14

My school's average for econ majors is a 2.2.

[Trifles]

Oh man, don't even get me started on how useless computer science degrees are. I can think of better ways to spend 60k and 4 years of my life then to learn Java and Scheme and maybe C. Like putting $100 and a few months towards learning php or something there is actually work for.

As opposed to your Arts & Flowers degree?

At least arts and flower degrees arn't generally pursued by students who think its their ticket to big bucks. You don't even need a high school degree to make money programming as long as you are skilled, but countless students line up for CS degrees because "Geez, I want to make lots of money and I sure do like video games and 4chan, I should take Computer Science!"

[asfasdagdsfawe]

Science/math major difficulty is overhyped. I mean, ffs, the questions on their tests only have one correct answer! As a liberal arts student, I have not had this luxury. Just memorize your formulas or whatever and stfu. Studying for the physics exams I had took waaaay less time then researching for the papers I had to write for poli sci classes.

ok this is so stupid I don't even know what to say. I hope you're being sarcastic and I missed the joke, but higher level math classes aren't about "formulas" and plugging in numbers to get that "one right answer." they're about putting together highly abstract concepts into coherent proofs. maybe in your physics 101 class all you had to do was plug in numbers, but us big boys in the higher level science and math courses had to apply our brains and solve complex theoretical problems. I majored in both math and english and my english classes were a complete joke next to my math classes, and I went to a reputable school. there's a reason why the huge splitters (2.9/176 or whatever) are nearly all engineers/math/physics/etc.

I have to admit this is the first time I've ever seen ANYONE say that political science is harder than math/physics, so I'm kind of dumbfounded. I mean, I'm getting trolled, right? there's no way this is serious

Sure, but that means you can't say liberal arts courses are easier either, assuming you've never taken a 400-level course on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

[asfasdagdsfawe]

From my experience (BA Russian Studies, BS Biology), it's not so much that one is harder than the other, it's that they each require a different "type" of studying. I don't know how else to exlain it than that. I do, however, think that the type of study required for liberal arts will be more conducive to law school. But, I'm a lowly 0L, so I guess I'll find out with time.

TITCR

[GTman11]

If a student consistently receives A+ grades in their college level courses their school is a joke or gpa boosts (like most Ivy's). Geniuses do exist, but they are few and far between. With that being said, I am not worried that A+ grades receive that boost because unless you are consistently an A+ student, that whole A-, A, A+ business hurts you overall.

Since coming back to school I have had 1 class out of 40 or so classes below a 98. My school does NOT give A+'s, and it isn't fair. Then again it is also a non-issue. If you are capable of getting 97+ in most classes you should be capable of being in the 99th percentile on the LSAT. So should have no problems in the T14

My school's average for econ majors is a 2.2.

Good Job Kakarot, you definitely are doing a lot better than your colleagues and simply may be an exception. You are a good example of who gets hurt when there is no A-/A/A+ grading scheme, but there are not many people like you. For the majority of students the differentiation between A types hurts GPAs. The OP thinks that "boost" is unfair, but in reality those same students would most likely have higher GPA's had their colleges been on the ABCD plan. IDK why the OP thinks it's an unfair system.

[daesonesb]

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...

[babaghanouj]

Studying for the physics exams I had took waaaay less time then researching for the papers I had to write for poli sci classes.

Cue the douchebaggery:

And honestly, "I had took"? Where the hell are you getting your liberal arts degree from anyway?

Ever hear of the word "taken"?

As shadowfrost brought up, taken would be more fitting for this situation.
Perhaps phrasing it like "I took less time studying for the physics exams than researching for the papers yada yada" would be much more reasonable... Normally, I am not a member of the grammar police, but seeing a liberal arts major trying to rip on science majors while making such a silly phrasing gave me no choice

"I had TAKEN way less time than I had (TAKEN) for researching?"
I didn't even criticize him. It was just your attempt at attacking someone else with obvious stupidity that annoyed me.

EDIT: Should probably just be "took" instead of either though.

You science majors should try replacing the superiority complex with a basic grammatical primer before law school. Unbelievable.

[MC Southstar]

Oh man, don't even get me started on how useless computer science degrees are. I can think of better ways to spend 60k and 4 years of my life then to learn Java and Scheme and maybe C. Like putting $100 and a few months towards learning php or something there is actually work for.

As opposed to your Arts & Flowers degree?

At least arts and flower degrees arn't generally pursued by students who think its their ticket to big bucks. You don't even need a high school degree to make money programming as long as you are skilled, but countless students line up for CS degrees because "Geez, I want to make lots of money and I sure do like video games and 4chan, I should take Computer Science!"

You are on the money in a way, but having a CS degree still counts to employers. There is a certain amount of theory that is not directly applicable to MOST programming jobs, but should still be background knowledge for CS majors so that they have context. It's the same reason engineers do a lot of difficult math and physics in their courses when it isn't necessary to do that kind of computation manually in their line of work. You can't really say that a CS degree is just a piece of paper if you compare it to a lot of other majors, but it is fair to say it isn't necessary.

[englawyer]

in my opinion, more and better CS/tech degrees = easier to get in the door/ easier to move up the food chain:

-QA/Test/Process
-Developer
-Designer
-Manager
-High level manager

i am talking primarily about corporate jobs. startup world is kinda crazy, as they mostly care about merit and your past projects (what a crazy idea)

[vanwinkle]

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, because of a number of things.

It doesn't logically follow that someone who gets all As would always get an A+ if it were offered. They'd still very possibly still be getting A's in a lot of those classes. Even someone who gets 30 As might only have 5 or 10 or 15 of those turn into A+s, which will affect their GPA no more than .1. In order for it to make more than a .1 GPA difference, you'd have to convince me that student is capable of making not just As but A+s in not just some but the true majority of their classes, and anyone who's doing that is already getting almost all A's anyway. The change might get them from a 3.9 to a 4.1 or so, and for the very few students for whom that's true, they're still graduating with a 3.9 or so which really doesn't hurt them in a measurable way.

On the other hand, a policy like having no A- grades is necessarily creating an unfair advantage. There's no uncertainty about how that affects a lot of students at all. Someone with 30 A-s would automatically get all 30 grades bumped up to As if their school changed to not having A-s. To put this in greater perspective... someone who has a 3.65 GPA who has 27 A-s suddenly turned into As jumps up to a 3.85. That's entirely automatic once the school changes to not offering A-s anymore, it happens to every class with an A-.

3.65-3.85 is a much more important shift than 3.9-4.1. Either a 3.9 or a 4.1 is sufficient for admission to HYS. 3.65-3.85 is a huge difference in whether you're above or below median at many T14 schools.

To break it down:
1) The only people who would consistently get enough A+s to have a dramatic impact on their GPA are going to already have mostly As and graduate in the 3.9-4.0 range anyway.
2) In order to increase your GPA noticeably you need to very consistently make that grade. Very few people can consistently make A+s, but there are an awful lot of people who can consistently make A-s, so that change is more likely to actually affect people.
3) The A to A+ bump is not automatic if the school starts offering A+s, the student's As might not be high enough to warrant being turned into A+s. The A- to A bump is automatic if the school stops offering A-s, because anything that's above a 90 automatically becomes an A.
4) The difference in the A- to A range (raising a GPA from, say, 3.65 to 3.85) will realistically impact an applicant's chances a hell of a lot more than the difference in the A to A+ (from, say, 3.9 to 4.1) will.
5) In total, the likelihood of someone getting bumped to 3.9-4.1, and of it making an actual difference in their cycle, is far smaller than the likelihood of someone getting bumped from 3.65-3.85, and of it making an actual difference in their cycle.

While I find it hard to believe that there's people out there with enough As that would turn into A+s to make a real difference, I don't doubt there are lots of people out there with enough A-s that if that change happened at their school it would make a real difference.

So, not being hypocritical. Just being aware of the enormous difference between a possible A to A+ jump and an automatic A- to A jump. Either way it requires many more grades than the 8 you had to matter, but I consider it a lot more likely for someone to have a lot more than 8 A-s than a lot more than 8 A+s, and that was kind of my point.

[prezidentv8]

there is a reason that Math departments at most schools have drop out rates of more than 50%.

Because it's kind of boring?