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.

We call that a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

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.

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.

+1 And in many engineering programs this is how it's done. They admit kids who want (and can do) engineering, but they need to fill the other majors somehow, so they fail a bunch to fill out the other courses.

That is unethical.

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.

Discrete math and data structures

I don’t think there are intentional “weed out” classes. I do think a lot of majors in colleges put a prerequisite earlier in the program, so that a student who is not cut out for a major gets a sense of what is entailed early enough – so they can choose another major and still graduate on time.

There were classes in my kid’s computer science program that were required to take his second semester - before officially declaring CS. Quite a few kids bailed after those classes because they realized that it Would probably become evenmore difficult for them to succeed after that.

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.

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.

+1 And in many engineering programs this is how it's done. They admit kids who want (and can do) engineering, but they need to fill the other majors somehow, so they fail a bunch to fill out the other courses.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.