Engineering weed out classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had hired a Penn eng undergraduate in the past . I was underwhelmed and quite a bit surprised by his mediocrity

I guess that's why they are not in the top 10 for engineering. #17

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had hired a Penn eng undergraduate in the past . I was underwhelmed and quite a bit surprised by his mediocrity

I guess that's why they are not in the top 10 for engineering. #17

Penn is actually ranked #27 for undergraduate engineering and #17 for graduate engineering, which is solid. It's not an elite engineering school but should be producing solid engineers especially since it so difficult to get admitted. I'm sure that Penn produces its share of duds, just like every other college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I deliberately picked an engineering program that did not have intentional weed out classes. They had and have a high graduation rate. The faculty perspective is that they filter more in the admissions process, which was good for me but would not have been good for a late bloomer. The first day, when all engineering srudents were in an auditorium, the dean's message was that everyone here is capable of graduating in 4 years with an engineering degree. The faculty were committed to helping every student graduate, which I found reassuring and helpful.

I made the right college choice for me, but it might not have been right for someone else.

+1

Or today, picking a school that is NOT direct admissions, or where you have DA but then have to compete for getting the actual type of engineering you want. IMO, as long as you can get a C/C+ or better in the first 2-3 required courses, if you still want to be an engineering major, you should be able to give it a shot. And students should work together/be collaborative.
My kid is at a T40 just like that. Lots of encouragement, smaller classes so you get to know the professors and learn outside of class as well. And in reality anyone can switch to engineering. However, if you don't start freshman year you might need an extra year, as it's a 4 year path and each course builds on the others, so if you start late, you will be "behind", but there is nothing to prevent a student from switching into engineering (or switching out to any other major they want). It's refreshing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone in another thread pointed out that weed out classes can be good because they admit a broader range of students and then keep the ones who are successful. That makes sense to me.

But how does having weed out classes impact the culture of the school? When I was choosing a law school, I avoided schools where the 1L year had a reputation for discouraging the lower performing students to drop out because it created a competitive, rather than collaborative, environment. Engineering school is hard enough -- not being able to work with your peers would make it even more difficult.

Calculus is calculus. Physics is physics. If you can’t do well in these, don’t pick engineering as a major.

And if you do well in these majors - engineering still may not be the right major for you.

+10, they’re just the coursework needed, doesn’t make you a good engineer at all.

But if you struggle with those, engineering may not be the best for you. Because they are the basics of much of engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone in another thread pointed out that weed out classes can be good because they admit a broader range of students and then keep the ones who are successful. That makes sense to me.

But how does having weed out classes impact the culture of the school? When I was choosing a law school, I avoided schools where the 1L year had a reputation for discouraging the lower performing students to drop out because it created a competitive, rather than collaborative, environment. Engineering school is hard enough -- not being able to work with your peers would make it even more difficult.

Calculus is calculus. Physics is physics. If you can’t do well in these, don’t pick engineering as a major.

If the curve is deliberately set so that x% will fail, that means it is not necessarily an incompetent student or a student who cannot do well objectively. It just means the (school, teacher) wanted to have that percentage fail.

I went to an engineering university that had a hard curve and a percentage of the class did fail every year. Those students moved to other majors, often in the business school. Those who dropped engineering were absolutely the weaker students. It meant that when you got to the advanced classes, like senior design lab, everyone was truly excellent. It also meant that employers knew we had smart engineering grads that exceeded our University's rank.

If you're good, then weed out classes are a bit stressful but work out okay. If you're struggling, they're a clear signal that you're in the wrong major.

But if you are at a T50 school, the "weed out" likely happens during college applications. My kid's at a university (T40) where it seems 85-90% of the students were WL/SpringSTart/Soph Start at 1-3+ T25 schools. They all have the resumes for a T25, just didn't win the lottery. A few kids switch out of engineering (as is the case at most schools) but it's not because they are flunking out, it's more they stuggle (get a C) and realize, yeah this isn't what I really want to do. So they take a different path. But most could "get the engineering degree" if pushed to do it, just why would you do something you are not really interested in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Discrete math and data structures

+1

If those are too difficult/not interesting to you, you probably should not be a CS major

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That can be achieved by grading students by how well they know the material. Grading them relative to the performance of other students means students are competing with each other instead of collaborating.

We studied together and collaborated because you it was easier to learn the really hard material together than on your own. You would do better on tests if you had a good study group. Those other 2-3 kids in your study group, plus your roommate or other friends, weren't enough to offset the other 200-300 kids in the class when a curve was calculated.

I wasn't posting tutorials on the Internet or handing out answers or anything, but I absolutely worked with others despite a hard curve.

That is how it should be done. The point is to actually learn the material, develop critical thinking skills so you can problem solve in engineering. A great study group does just that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I deliberately picked an engineering program that did not have intentional weed out classes. They had and have a high graduation rate. The faculty perspective is that they filter more in the admissions process, which was good for me but would not have been good for a late bloomer. The first day, when all engineering srudents were in an auditorium, the dean's message was that everyone here is capable of graduating in 4 years with an engineering degree. The faculty were committed to helping every student graduate, which I found reassuring and helpful.

I made the right college choice for me, but it might not have been right for someone else.

Why don’t you help us out and tell us what college it is?

Many smaller colleges are known for this. Lafayette, Bucknell, Lehigh and Union are the ones in the Northeast known to have rigorous but supportive programs. They know a few will change out of engineering but they are not intentionally taking 1000 kids into engineering yet intentionally weeding out 200 letting 800 move on for the next year.

DP. Add WPI and Olin to your list

WPI does not "weed out". But in general at a school where the median GPA is 3.89 (UW), they have already done the "weeding out" when granting admission

Also, WPI allows NR for courses, so if you are getting below a C, you NR and retake, it doesn't affect your GPA, and your new course replaces it. So they encourage students to learn the material or decide to take a different path.

[Anonymous]

UF 1979

“ Look to the left “
“Look to the right “

“50 percent of you will fail out by second quarter “
“Drop this class now “

“ ladies you will have an even harder time “

Yep that is what my professors said in electrical Engineering and CS Engineering
In those days CS was considered Eng at UF.

In 1980 they even had a professor who went out of his way to fail women

I graduated top of my class I will never forget the way we were treated and how that affected students my peers emotionally and academically.

4 th generation to graduate only female in my family.

My children are all engineering majors as well none went to UF because of my experience.

Matriculate directly to engineering program ie never go to one you are not accepted directly into as a freshman
Make sure collaboration is allowed. It’s ok to get c’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I deliberately picked an engineering program that did not have intentional weed out classes. They had and have a high graduation rate. The faculty perspective is that they filter more in the admissions process, which was good for me but would not have been good for a late bloomer. The first day, when all engineering srudents were in an auditorium, the dean's message was that everyone here is capable of graduating in 4 years with an engineering degree. The faculty were committed to helping every student graduate, which I found reassuring and helpful.

I made the right college choice for me, but it might not have been right for someone else.

My kid is at an ivy with an engineering school: they do not weed out much as 98% continue in the E school after freshman year. The other ivy they considered has a much larger engineering group and also boasts high retention. The other two top-10 privates they considered have E schools in the 350-450 range similar to the ivy they chose and also are clear weedout is done before admission. Kid did all 4 admitted student days to decide and is very happy with the one they picked, Penn: collaboration is the norm, though the other 3 mentioned this as well. DS and peers are only sophomores and they have gotten lots of support from faculty along with very challenging courses. Cs are pretty rare, but for the few who get more than one C for the final grade theylike you to meet with advisor and discuss. Kid has a good friend at one of the top10s he didnt pick and it is run supportive as well and Cs are rare. They also do a lot of undergrad research. Some students study almost all weekend and many hours at night to get As and others study the same and get the average on the curve (B or B+) no matter how much they study. No one takes more than 4 years to graduate unless they are doing 4+1 masters. 4 years for BSE is doable and expected

It's surprising that engineering has a higher retention rate than the school as a whole. It's also nice to see that nobody fails. I guess Penn bats a thousand when accepting students.

My DS just graduated Duke Engineering. No one fails and almost no one gets C or D. The courses are curved to B/B+ median or even A-. 3.7 is the average final engineering gpa and 3.8 for Trinity. Only around 5% transfer Pratt to Trinity after first year but it is due to fit/choice more than grades. Most top ranked privates are like that for Engineering the past several years: the hard part is getting in. They work very hard but the curves are set quite differently than 30 years ago when 1/2 my spouse’s CMU courses got C or below.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone in another thread pointed out that weed out classes can be good because they admit a broader range of students and then keep the ones who are successful. That makes sense to me.

But how does having weed out classes impact the culture of the school? When I was choosing a law school, I avoided schools where the 1L year had a reputation for discouraging the lower performing students to drop out because it created a competitive, rather than collaborative, environment. Engineering school is hard enough -- not being able to work with your peers would make it even more difficult.

Calculus is calculus. Physics is physics. If you can’t do well in these, don’t pick engineering as a major.

If the curve is deliberately set so that x% will fail, that means it is not necessarily an incompetent student or a student who cannot do well objectively. It just means the (school, teacher) wanted to have that percentage fail.

Admittedly last Century, but we had no “curve.” Either you got it right or you didn’t. There was usually some partial credit involved hence the oft repeated “show your work” instructions.

Our “weed” outs weren’t really defined that way, but rather were classified as “C-Wall” classes in that you had to get a C or better in the triplet to be allowed to sign up for the next year’s slate. There was one, general set for freshmen (Calculus, Physics, and, yes, English)…then another set for sophomore-level engineering, which varied based on the intended discipline. in Civil, it was Statics, Dynamics, Hydraulics/Fluids, and Solids. The specific courses have changed a bit but the concept is still there.

It made sense then and still does to me. Give any/everyone the chance to prove yourself.

Yes but welcome to the modern age where companies refuse to review your profile with a sub 3.5 GPAa often now.

First, most summer internship/research programs have a 3.0 cutoff not 3.5. Only the top sector of tech internships want 3.5. Furthermore getting a 3.5 is very reasonable in Engineering at the top schools that weedout as a part of admissions as many posters above have said. Even the relatively deflated schools (hopkins, penn, cornell) have a median engineering-school gpa of 3.6 these days. Many have closer to 3.8 (the rest of the ivies, Stanford).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone in another thread pointed out that weed out classes can be good because they admit a broader range of students and then keep the ones who are successful. That makes sense to me.

But how does having weed out classes impact the culture of the school? When I was choosing a law school, I avoided schools where the 1L year had a reputation for discouraging the lower performing students to drop out because it created a competitive, rather than collaborative, environment. Engineering school is hard enough -- not being able to work with your peers would make it even more difficult.

Calculus is calculus. Physics is physics. If you can’t do well in these, don’t pick engineering as a major.

If the curve is deliberately set so that x% will fail, that means it is not necessarily an incompetent student or a student who cannot do well objectively. It just means the (school, teacher) wanted to have that percentage fail.

What school does this? I thought most curve to a B or B-

No good schools have X% fail anymore, and all the top ones that are on target lists for top recruitment set the curves much higher than B-. B- was 25 yrs ago. Employers definitely keep up with what current trends are, and departments keep up to keep curves in ranges that allow the majority of students to have a shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone in another thread pointed out that weed out classes can be good because they admit a broader range of students and then keep the ones who are successful. That makes sense to me.

But how does having weed out classes impact the culture of the school? When I was choosing a law school, I avoided schools where the 1L year had a reputation for discouraging the lower performing students to drop out because it created a competitive, rather than collaborative, environment. Engineering school is hard enough -- not being able to work with your peers would make it even more difficult.

Calculus is calculus. Physics is physics. If you can’t do well in these, don’t pick engineering as a major.

If the curve is deliberately set so that x% will fail, that means it is not necessarily an incompetent student or a student who cannot do well objectively. It just means the (school, teacher) wanted to have that percentage fail.

What school does this? I thought most curve to a B or B-

No good schools have X% fail anymore, and all the top ones that are on target lists for top recruitment set the curves much higher than B-. B- was 25 yrs ago. Employers definitely keep up with what current trends are, and departments keep up to keep curves in ranges that allow the majority of students to have a shot.

At least one DMV university does have x% fail in their weed out courses for their engineering program.

And when freshmen get together the Dean cautions that many freshmen will be gone for academic reasons before Sophomore year, and more will be gone for academics before Junior year, at which point the enrollment stabilizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I deliberately picked an engineering program that did not have intentional weed out classes. They had and have a high graduation rate. The faculty perspective is that they filter more in the admissions process, which was good for me but would not have been good for a late bloomer. The first day, when all engineering srudents were in an auditorium, the dean's message was that everyone here is capable of graduating in 4 years with an engineering degree. The faculty were committed to helping every student graduate, which I found reassuring and helpful.

I made the right college choice for me, but it might not have been right for someone else.

Why don’t you help us out and tell us what college it is?

Many smaller colleges are known for this. Lafayette, Bucknell, Lehigh and Union are the ones in the Northeast known to have rigorous but supportive programs. They know a few will change out of engineering but they are not intentionally taking 1000 kids into engineering yet intentionally weeding out 200 letting 800 move on for the next year.

DP. Add WPI and Olin to your list

WPI does not "weed out". But in general at a school where the median GPA is 3.89 (UW), they have already done the "weeding out" when granting admission

Also, WPI allows NR for courses, so if you are getting below a C, you NR and retake, it doesn't affect your GPA, and your new course replaces it. So they encourage students to learn the material or decide to take a different path.

PP here. That's why I suggested it. As a non weed out option

[Anonymous]

WPI is an expensive, nerdy school that doesn’t appeal to a lot of kids. I’m sure it’s great for the right kid but that group is limited. Large state schools are the backbone of engineering education and also offer the experience that the vast number of kids seek even if they might have to take a couple of hard classes and run the risk of a low grade if they don’t perform.