It's such a farce that our country/our state/our school system says they want to encourage STEM. Such a lie.

weed out classes can be good because they admit a broader range of students and then keep the ones who are successful

No, that' not it. Instead, the top 3% (only) of math/science students are admitted, attend AND THEN get weeded out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The problem I have with the weed-out argument as applied to an engineering pre-major is that the weed-out courses are taught by other departments for the most part. Generally, a first-year engineering student will take Calc 1 and 2, physics, chemistry, English, and an intro to engineering course. Only the engineering course will be taught by the engineering department, with the rest taught by their respective departments and required by many other majors. It seems a stretch to me that classes required and taught by other departments would be intentionally difficult for engineering students. Wouldn't that adversely impact other students as well?

No. It does not necessarily impact other students.

In my university, purely as an example, the Physics department had 3 separate sets of courses. One set was specifically for students in the College of Engineering. A second set was for non-Physics majors in the liberal arts College. The third set was specifically for Physics majors.

Also, please recall that there are some schools which are extremely STEM focused, as in they do not offer degrees in arts & letters. In theory at least, such a school might apply the weed-out approach to all students.

This is where I start to get confused. When looking at schools for my kid that were not direct admit, there is generally a requirement to take a certain number of credits or specific classes (such as calculus, physics, chemistry mentioned earlier) before applying to a major. In the schools that I researched (large public universities), these classes were taken by students across the university, not just engineering students. My point is that engineering students at these schools don't appear to be held to a different standard than other students.

I did a quick browse of reddit and found student mentioning weed out courses at engineering schools that are direct admit and considered not to be weed out schools, so maybe all engineering schools have weed out courses?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

A predetermined curve (bottom 20% out say) seems wrong. A set of standards—everyone with a 3 in these math, eng courses can contine—seems fine.

It's not a fixed percentage. Engineers are better at math and statistics than that. Usually the prof plots the grade distribution and picks a cutoff that is below the bulk of students. Most students are all clustered around the median, with a few who are stronger and a few who are weaker. Sometimes the prof will use standard deviation to draw the line for D or F, but sometimes it's more subjective based on the shape of the curve. The goal is that the kids weeded out are the ones falling below the bulk of the class, i.e., the tail of the parabola for the plotted grades.

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-

There is at least one engineering program in this general area (DMV), that does this. Look at 4/5/6-year graduation rates at all programs one is considering applying to. Then choose the best programs for one's DC.

Anonymous wrote:To be truthful, the kids making Bs and Cs in those most basic classes rarely finished in Engineering. A/B students usually found their groove in upper level courses or even they, too, faded away. It wasn’t unusual to see big(ger) differences between in-major and overall GPAs. But you’re right; the landscape has changed and grade inflation at all levels of school hasn’t helped.

That might be true some places, but it is not the case at other places. Some would rather hire a C+ student from MIT than an A student from some random school.

Anonymous wrote:
The problem I have with the weed-out argument as applied to an engineering pre-major is that the weed-out courses are taught by other departments for the most part. Generally, a first-year engineering student will take Calc 1 and 2, physics, chemistry, English, and an intro to engineering course. Only the engineering course will be taught by the engineering department, with the rest taught by their respective departments and required by many other majors. It seems a stretch to me that classes required and taught by other departments would be intentionally difficult for engineering students. Wouldn't that adversely impact other students as well?

No. It does not necessarily impact other students.

In my university, purely as an example, the Physics department had 3 separate sets of courses. One set was specifically for students in the College of Engineering. A second set was for non-Physics majors in the liberal arts College. The third set was specifically for Physics majors.

Also, please recall that there are some schools which are extremely STEM focused, as in they do not offer degrees in arts & letters. In theory at least, such a school might apply the weed-out approach to all students.

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-

People tend to talk about weed-out courses in conjunction with programs that require a secondary application to an engineering major. Sometimes majors are space limited or at capacity and the school adds a GPA requirement or even requires an application to be admitted to a space-limited major.

The problem I have with the weed-out argument as applied to an engineering pre-major is that the weed-out courses are taught by other departments for the most part. Generally, a first-year engineering student will take Calc 1 and 2, physics, chemistry, English, and an intro to engineering course. Only the engineering course will be taught by the engineering department, with the rest taught by their respective departments and required by many other majors. It seems a stretch to me that classes required and taught by other departments would be intentionally difficult for engineering students. Wouldn't that adversely impact other students as well?

I don't think that there are weed-out courses. What I think is that some of these courses are difficult and some kids are not prepared.

Anonymous wrote: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.

A predetermined curve (bottom 20% out say) seems wrong. A set of standards—everyone with a 3 in these math, eng courses can contine—seems fine.

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.

To be truthful, the kids making Bs and Cs in those most basic classes rarely finished in Engineering. A/B students usually found their groove in upper level courses or even they, too, faded away. It wasn’t unusual to see big(ger) differences between in-major and overall GPAs. But you’re right; the landscape has changed and grade inflation at all levels of school hasn’t helped.

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.

Employers know schools that don't inflate grades. Our university curved to a 2.6 GPA. It wasn't a secret.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Having attended an engineering school with weed out classes, they were absolutely intentional. They didn't want students struggling in the harder upper level classes so "weeded" those with weaker skills before they got too far into the major. Those students would pivot and do great in an easier major.

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.

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.