« on: March 04, 2006, 03:07:08 AM »
it's been pointed out before that gpa is still necessary to distinguish distance between ranks. #1 may have a 4.0 and #2 may have a 3.0. If all the data you had was 4.0 and 3.0 you would think the students were worlds apart. If all you had was #1 and #2 you would think the students were very close together. In a more realistic situation, students in the 50-33 range may be very tightly grouped while students >33 and <50 may be distant from 'the pack'.
this, of course, does not mean that the #1/4.0 at cooley would be a #1/4.0 at harvard. much of this arguement lies upon the fact that the professors who teach the classes typically grade the classes. student X may answer a K hypo at cooley and be awarded a perfect score because it was incredible (by cooley standards and the standards that the professor sees student to student / year to year). given the same hypo and the same answer, a harvard prof might grade the answer an A- or a B+ or even lower, because he expects to see answers of a higher quality.
to tread into the retarded analogy region again (nobody liked my midget thing... i shouldve included a yellow brick road): assume basketball shooting was a class. at cooley, most of the guards shoot 30%. There's a few that shoot 55 or 60%, and they are exceptional. Their coach thinks they're the sh*t and they get A's. at Harvard, everyone shoots at least 50%. most shoot 75-85%, and the best shoot 95%. the harvard coach wouldn't dream of giving an A to someone who shot under 90%. he routinely gives Cs to 45-65% shooters. if the top cooley shooters (55-60%) transferred to harvard, their A's become C's.
or imagine the AAA baseball batter that hits .550 with 40 HRs. he might be the best in the AAA league because he's batting against AAA pitching. if you bumped him to the majors would you expect him to hit as well? of course not.
to put it blunty: Cooley is the sticks. HLS is the bigs.