Universities on this world have different seniority, infrastructures, expert professionals, quality of education, reputation and varying degrees of strictness towards provision of grades. Do you think students graduated from newly established universities with poor resources who score high grades are given priority as compared to students who have lower grades that are from senior universities that provide complete service and higher quality education? In short, is CGPA a surrogate indicator and decisive in determining admission and scholarship provision without looking at the reputability of the institutions?
It is obvious that getting grades is easier from newly established universities as compared to senior ones. Furthermore, it inevitable that the emerging universities may not settle resources and may teach students with few easy equipments they have hand and evaluate students based on this few topics providing grades above the students ability. Yet, reputable and senior universities are highly strict on grades as they also prepare critical thinking appealing questions.
Your views are well come!
Probably not, but then what is the alternative? Institutions have to have guidelines to go by in making the decisions. If they did not it would be blatant favoritism. They do look at other things on applications. In my case I had a 2.6/4.0 average and still got into graduate school, based on my senior research. My senior research mentor read the committee the results of one experiment that I did as a senior, and asked the committee 'who in this room could have done this experiment?' On the basis of that, they let me in. So looking at grade averages can mislead. My grades in graduate school were 3.98/4.0.
My point is that they try to be fair, but one has to have guidelines to make most decisions routine as they are considering multiple candidates and grade averages are a convenient long term summary of the student's achievements and in general, an indication of how they will do. Will good people fall through the cracks? Sure. But can you define a better method for filtering able students?
As a sidelight, the reason I had a 2.6 average was that my 2nd year advisor told me all the wrong courses to take. I wound up taking ALL of my advanced chemistry courses in Junior year. Cs and Bs but I got through it. Organic, Analytical, P-chem, Inorganic, and Instrumental Analysis all at the same time. So you are right. Grades don't always reflect ability, but they may be the best they have. It would be even more unfair to try to adjust grade average by institution quality, as education depends on the quality of instructors, not the reputation of the institution.
- Badges
- Science topic