Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this? Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving. While there may be exceptional circumstances that justify curving, such as if the entire class scores below a C, indicating an issue with the instruction or evaluation, it should not be used when only a few students have mastered the material with an A and the rest have lower grades. If TJ were to adopt curving practices like other schools with competing interests besides academic excellence, it would tarnish its reputation for adhering to strict standards.
Anonymous wrote:What are TJ beginner courses, Math 1 & 2? If so, it would certainly be mean to bring them up, and highlight their grading practices. Also let's avoid making a real mockery by comparing them to MIT courses.
pettifogger Member
Joined: 01/22/2020 20:34
Messages: 190
Offline
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this? Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving. While there may be exceptional circumstances that justify curving, such as if the entire class scores below a C, indicating an issue with the instruction or evaluation, it should not be used when only a few students have mastered the material with an A and the rest have lower grades. If TJ were to adopt curving practices like other schools with competing interests besides academic excellence, it would tarnish its reputation for adhering to strict standards.
You are completely missing the main point. You keep pointing to the arbitrary grading criteria of K12 education of 93% A, 80% B.. and assuming it holds everywhere. It's does not, far from it. I have had courses where an 80% or even 75% and above was considered an A, and this was explicitly stated in the syllabus without any kind of curving.
So again, I'll emphasize that you don't understand the principle that curving is based on, which is the fact that exams can be highly variant in difficulty, with many factors to consider, such as major subject, specific topic at hand, specific teacher, specific cohort of students, etc. You can't just simply make the claim that curving is bad, and thus a system that curves is automatically not rigorous. That is a false claim.
The beginner math courses at TJ consist of the typical FCPS middle school geometry courses, which do not involve much variability or factors to consider. Therefore, grading on a curve should not apply unless there is an intention to inflate the lower grades even for these basic courses.
How do you know that the beginner math courses at TJ are typical FCPS middle school geometry courses? Again, without data this is pure speculation. I can give a test that covers the exact same specific set of geometry topics students have just learned, but will yield an average that is < 50% vs a more normal 80%. Simply by selecting harder problems.
Unless you've taken a specific test with a specific set of problems, you can't just make the claim that an A is only 93% and above. It completely depends.
Personally I believe that curving (as someone else upthread described) is a good thing because it not only allows students a chance to be tested on harder material without huge repercussions, it also gives very strong students a chance to really shine by scoring multiple SDs above the curve. Effectively, we're letting students pick what they can solve out of a selection of challenging material, vs watering down the exam content to the point where everyone has to cross their t's and dot their i's or they don't get an A. This by the way happens all the time in base schools content, including APs, where the A is simply gained by following specific procedure down to the method of how one shows their work and mimics like a monkey. E.g if they don't always rationalize the denominator, they lose points, which is extremely silly.
By the way, if you're complaining so much about curving, you should be aware that many teachers at TJ give extra credit to students all the time. Students often have a chance to do other things and gain points to offset some of the bad portions of their grade. Again, one can't just claim that this is not rigorous; it completely depends on context.
Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this? Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving. While there may be exceptional circumstances that justify curving, such as if the entire class scores below a C, indicating an issue with the instruction or evaluation, it should not be used when only a few students have mastered the material with an A and the rest have lower grades. If TJ were to adopt curving practices like other schools with competing interests besides academic excellence, it would tarnish its reputation for adhering to strict standards.
You are completely missing the main point. You keep pointing to the arbitrary grading criteria of K12 education of 93% A, 80% B.. and assuming it holds everywhere. It's does not, far from it. I have had courses where an 80% or even 75% and above was considered an A, and this was explicitly stated in the syllabus without any kind of curving.
So again, I'll emphasize that you don't understand the principle that curving is based on, which is the fact that exams can be highly variant in difficulty, with many factors to consider, such as major subject, specific topic at hand, specific teacher, specific cohort of students, etc. You can't just simply make the claim that curving is bad, and thus a system that curves is automatically not rigorous. That is a false claim.
The beginner math courses at TJ consist of the typical FCPS middle school geometry courses, which do not involve much variability or factors to consider. Therefore, grading on a curve should not apply unless there is an intention to inflate the lower grades even for these basic courses.
How do you know that the beginner math courses at TJ are typical FCPS middle school geometry courses? Again, without data this is pure speculation. I can give a test that covers the exact same specific set of geometry topics students have just learned, but will yield an average that is < 50% vs a more normal 80%. Simply by selecting harder problems.
Unless you've taken a specific test with a specific set of problems, you can't just make the claim that an A is only 93% and above. It completely depends.
Personally I believe that curving (as someone else upthread described) is a good thing because it not only allows students a chance to be tested on harder material without huge repercussions, it also gives very strong students a chance to really shine by scoring multiple SDs above the curve. Effectively, we're letting students pick what they can solve out of a selection of challenging material, vs watering down the exam content to the point where everyone has to cross their t's and dot their i's or they don't get an A. This by the way happens all the time in base schools content, including APs, where the A is simply gained by following specific procedure down to the method of how one shows their work and mimics like a monkey. E.g if they don't always rationalize the denominator, they lose points, which is extremely silly.
By the way, if you're complaining so much about curving, you should be aware that many teachers at TJ give extra credit to students all the time. Students often have a chance to do other things and gain points to offset some of the bad portions of their grade. Again, one can't just claim that this is not rigorous; it completely depends on context.
pettifogger Member
Joined: 01/22/2020 20:34
Messages: 190
Offline
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this? Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving. While there may be exceptional circumstances that justify curving, such as if the entire class scores below a C, indicating an issue with the instruction or evaluation, it should not be used when only a few students have mastered the material with an A and the rest have lower grades. If TJ were to adopt curving practices like other schools with competing interests besides academic excellence, it would tarnish its reputation for adhering to strict standards.
You are completely missing the main point. You keep pointing to the arbitrary grading criteria of K12 education of 93% A, 80% B.. and assuming it holds everywhere. It's does not, far from it. I have had courses where an 80% or even 75% and above was considered an A, and this was explicitly stated in the syllabus without any kind of curving.
So again, I'll emphasize that you don't understand the principle that curving is based on, which is the fact that exams can be highly variant in difficulty, with many factors to consider, such as major subject, specific topic at hand, specific teacher, specific cohort of students, etc. You can't just simply make the claim that curving is bad, and thus a system that curves is automatically not rigorous. That is a false claim.
The beginner math courses at TJ consist of the typical FCPS middle school geometry courses, which do not involve much variability or factors to consider. Therefore, grading on a curve should not apply unless there is an intention to inflate the lower grades even for these basic courses.
How do you know that the beginner math courses at TJ are typical FCPS middle school geometry courses? Again, without data this is pure speculation. I can give a test that covers the exact same specific set of geometry topics students have just learned, but will yield an average that is < 50% vs a more normal 80%. Simply by selecting harder problems.
Unless you've taken a specific test with a specific set of problems, you can't just make the claim that an A is only 93% and above. It completely depends.
Personally I believe that curving (as someone else upthread described) is a good thing because it not only allows students a chance to be tested on harder material without huge repercussions, it also gives very strong students a chance to really shine by scoring multiple SDs above the curve. Effectively, we're letting students pick what they can solve out of a selection of challenging material, vs watering down the exam content to the point where everyone has to cross their t's and dot their i's or they don't get an A. This by the way happens all the time in base schools content, including APs, where the A is simply gained by following specific procedure down to the method of how one shows their work and mimics like a monkey. E.g if they don't always rationalize the denominator, they lose points, which is extremely silly.
By the way, if you're complaining so much about curving, you should be aware that many teachers at TJ give extra credit to students all the time. Students often have a chance to do other things and gain points to offset some of the bad portions of their grade. Again, one can't just claim that this is not rigorous; it completely depends on context.
How do you know?
It's documented on the realtalk tj site, there's a teacher guide written by various students.
Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this? Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
It's also used to avoid putting a ceiling on the performance of the highest performing kids, without leaving the test behind. Curving happens *more* in the more rigorous courses that challenge each student to rise to their potential. Courses where student are motivated by the material, not the grade.
However, it is currently being used for the beginner geometry course at TJ. We have all come to accept that achieving equity means admitting students from middle school to TJ and teaching a middle school course instead of a high school course.
Anonymous wrote:
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving.
Class at MIT- professor curved to grade=40%scored grade + 60%. And this was after making the totals go past 100 with some extra credit. The whole class did not do poorly. Many scores were over 100, which went down under this curve.
Anonymous wrote:Kids are doing this everywhere at their base school. Heaven help you if your TJ Kid can't handle it.
Thanks for the advice. That’s encouraging. At TJ though kids are strongly counseled not to do this normally so I’m not sure if there are differences in how the classes are taught there that make it harder to do concurrently.
TJ BC is brutal. Far far beyond the AP exam and base school class. Same for Physics C. Only recommended for the truly gifted to take simultaneously junior year. Plenty of TJ kids with Cs in these classes who breezed through pre calc. Not just this year but every year. Proceed with caution.
Why do they torture kids like this? Blair has a Magnet Analysis class that goes beyond Calc BC, so they give it a different name.
TJ calculus or any TJ math appears overwhelming because it's compared to base school math, where homework is kept very light and lot of time is spent on first few units, whereas last units, usually the advanced topics, are rushed through in final weeks or skipped altogether. At TJ, they keep consistent pace no matter what covering all units, and never hold back on homework or test rigor, even if half of class were to get a C.
But some teachers do curve routinely.
Not in Calc. They don’t curve even if average is a D. Which happens.
Thankfully they dont curve in advanced classes, else TJ would be no different from base school. However there is curving and grade inflation in beginner courses and we all know why.
Are you trying to make a coherent point here, or just spouting white noise? Not sure whether you realize that some of the hardest math/science courses at top colleges are very often curved (sometimes significantly), and the curve varies for each exam.
Curving is a tool that teachers use when they realize that an exam was more difficult than the performance they expected from their students.
The base schools in FCPS have provided us with ample firsthand experience of curving and inflated grades. Given TJ's reputation, one would anticipate the maintenance of high, strict standards, which is fortunately observed in the advanced courses. Hats off to those TJ Calc BC and Physics C teachers. However, the same cannot be said of TJ's beginner courses, as you also indirectly acknowledge through the justification of curving as a commonly employed tool. We expect stricter standards, even for beginner courses, at TJ. But alas!
You're spouting a bunch of claims that hinge on "curving is bad because it is used at base schools, therefore it is always bad, even at tj". If you were to do your research before making illogical claims, you will find that curving is widely used in many schools, specifically at places such as MIT, Caltech, and many, many, others. Does that mean those courses do not have high, strict standards? Does that mean that a course that doesn't curve (of which there are very many in base schools, where an 'A' is always 93% or above) is automatically rigorous? And conversely, one where the class average might be 50% (such as the AMT elective at TJ) might be lax and watered down?
Most TJ students, (even ones in the "beginner courses" that you are disparaging without any proof of your "lack of rigor" claim) could easily tell you that you've concluded nothing, from your highly fallacious argument.
If you wish to actually succeed in making the claims you seem to really want to make, you'll have to actually provide proof that a) grades are actually curved in beginner courses, and not curved in advanced courses, and b) that the material is more watered down in beginner courses, and more rigorous in advanced courses. You are completely speculating until you have information on these things.
Have you attended MIT? How can you claim that MIT curves as a standard practice? In fact, neither MIT nor any other reputable educational institution commonly employs curving. While there may be exceptional circumstances that justify curving, such as if the entire class scores below a C, indicating an issue with the instruction or evaluation, it should not be used when only a few students have mastered the material with an A and the rest have lower grades. If TJ were to adopt curving practices like other schools with competing interests besides academic excellence, it would tarnish its reputation for adhering to strict standards.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}