<p>Harvey Mansfield, the political science professor at Harvard has another theory; he thinks that the influx of minority students has professors grading the minority students higher (becuase they don't want to be considered racist, of course), but also everyone else higher!
Most people just dismiss the theory by calling Mansfield a racist hick. That he is working on a book about the virtues of "manliness" doesn't help his case either!
But instead of calling him a racist pig perhaps we should try to think about the theory...
I definetely see some problems with it...I don't understand why professors would be afraid of being called "racist" if they grade minority students down (if they deserve it) or why, even if they were giving advantages to minority students, they would give the same advantages to everyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvey Mansfield, the political science professor at Harvard has another theory; he thinks that the influx of minority students has professors grading the minority students higher (becuase they don't want to be considered racist, of course), but also everyone else higher!
Most people just dismiss the theory by calling Mansfield a racist hick. That he is working on a book about the virtues of "manliness" doesn't help his case either!
But instead of calling him a racist pig perhaps we should try to think about the theory...
I definetely see some problems with it...I don't understand why professors would be afraid of being called "racist" if they grade minority students down (if they deserve it) or why, even if they were giving advantages to minority students, they would give the same advantages to everyone else
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet even if this theory is correct, it elicits two questions. #1 - why is it that liberal arts profs are apparently afraid to be labeled as racists such that they have to minority students (and thus everybody else) high grades, but engineering profs are not afraid to do this? Shouldn't ALL professors be afraid of being labeled as racists? </p>
<h1>2 - it seems to me that a liberal arts prof can avoid being called a racist by just giving everybody (minority and nonminority) bad grades. Then if a minority student complains that he got a bad grades, the prof can just say that all the white students got bad grades too, so everybody was treated badly. Like I said, if the engineering students can put up with weeders, then so can all the other students.</h1>
<p>So, again, I have yet to run across a good rationale for why engineering majors have to be graded harder than other majors. If engineering should be graded hard, then fine, the other majors should be graded hard too. What's fair is fair.</p>
<p>bing: In the late 1960's, the math sequence in Maryland was:
8/9th: Algebra 1
9/10th: geometry
10/11th: Algebra 2 / trig
11/12th: Intermediate Analysis
12th: Calculus
People at my eng school from NJ typically had two years of calculus in high school.</p>
<p>where I live you take a test in 6th grade, and if you score high enough you can take Algebra 1 in 7th grade. That's the only way you can get 2 years of calc in w/o summer school (algebra 1, geom, algebra 2, pre calc, calc 1, calc 2).</p>
<p>I've got a good rationale for why engineers are graded harder. Do we want idiots designing our bridges and tunnels and airplanes? I personally don't.</p>
<p>scarletleavy has a strong point. Engineers have always been graded extremely hard during freshman year in order to weed people out. It is a profession like law and medical where the need for a high level of competence is needed. However, unlike law and medicine, a higher level of certification like law school and medical school doesn't exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've got a good rationale for why engineers are graded harder. Do we want idiots designing our bridges and tunnels and airplanes? I personally don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, the unstated implication there is that it's OK to have idiots running around with humanities and arts degrees. Again, I am not saying that everybody with a humanities or arts degree is an idiot. Indeed, some are geniuses. But the fact is, others are not impressive in the least. </p>
<p>The other unstated implication is that all engineering schools agree on what the minimum standard of knowledge is, and weed people out accordingly. This is false. The fact is, those students who get weeded out of top-ranked engineering programs often times are perfectly capable of surviving the weeders of, and hence graduating from, a lesser-ranked engineering program. For example, I know guys who got weeded out of Berkeley engineering who I am quite convinced could have graduated from the engineering programs at a CalState. Maybe they wouldn't have graduated from the CalState engineering program with top grades, but they would have graduated. Hence these people are good enough to be engineers, just not good enough to be BERKELEY engineers. </p>
<p>Hence, the notion that the only people that get weeded out are just a bunch of incompetents who you wouldn't watch touching a bridge anyway is simply incorrect. Plenty of people get weeded out who would have made it if they had simply gone to a lower-ranked program. Or put another way, the CalStates confer engineering degrees to plenty of people who would have been weeded out at a top-ranked school. Yet now that they've got their CalState engineering degree, nobody seems to be afraid of hiring them to work on bridges, tunnels, and airplanes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
scarletleavy has a strong point. Engineers have always been graded extremely hard during freshman year in order to weed people out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have a simple way to square the circle. Simply grade the weeder courses pass/notpass. Or even better, grade it such that if you don't pass, then no record of that class is placed on your record. You can still mail letter grades to the students which would communicate the grades that the student would have gotten if the class had been graded normally, but for the purposes of the transcript, the class grade would be marked pass/notpass or pass/no-grade-recorded. If you're so worried about eliminating people who are supposed unqualified to become engineers, simply set the Pass bar high. But if somebody doesn't cross the bar, there's no point in punishing him further by tagging his record with a bad grade. </p>
<p>Lest you think this is a radical idea, this is precisely how MIT runs its "hidden grades" policy for all first-semester freshmen. So it's not as if this idea is without precedent. </p>
<p>Why is is this a good idea? Numerous reasons. #1, it eliminates the problem of engineers getting unfairly shafted when it comes to things that are gpa-dependent like Rhodes/Marshall/Truman Scholarship competitions just because they had to take difficult weeder courses and other students didn't. #2, it also eliminates the problem of people even afraid to try engineering for fear that it will hurt them. For example, as we all know, plenty of people try to become engineers, but get weeded out and so end up majoring in something else. Well, if they end up weeded out and majoring in something else, then what does it matter what grade they got in their engineering weeder class? They've already been weeded out, so the engineering department has already proven its point, so what's to be gained by tagging the permanent records of those people with bad grades too? If the guy ends up majoring in Film Studies, who cares what his grades were in a weeder chemical engineering class? Let them go to another major with a clean slate.</p>
<p>if you major in film I highly doubt your employeer will care that you got a bad grade in an intro engineering course.</p>
<p>Maybe not, but you can be darn sure that if you apply to law school or med-school after having majored in Film Studies, the adcoms are going to care. But why should it matter? You tried out engineering, you got a bad grade, so you decided to move on to something that suited you better. Fine. So why does that bad engineering grade have to follow you around, decreasing your chances of getting into a top law/med school compared to some other Film Studies major who never took an engineering weeder and consequently doesn't have a bad grade following him around?</p>
<p>sakky: I don't think it is reasonable to try to change the entire engineering culture which most people are actually quite happy with just so that a few people can major in engineering and get into law/med school.</p>
<p>Well that other Film Studies person didn't try engineering. It's all about choice. The one who took the engineering weeder courses chose to do so, he wasn't forced. So why shouldn't that reflect on his grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: I don't think it is reasonable to try to change the entire engineering culture which most people are actually quite happy with
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are you talking about? Most people are happy in engineering? Well, I don't know what engineers you've seen, but the engineers that I have seen are always ticked off that their grading schemes are harsher than that of the liberal arts students. I would posit that if my proposals for pass/NP grading in the weeders and generally less harsh engineering grading was put up to a vote by current and future engineering students, I'm fairly certain I'd win the majority of votes. What sick masochistic student actually "enjoys" putting up with low grade curves? What engineering student "enjoys" putting up with weeders when they know other students don't have to? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well that other Film Studies person didn't try engineering. It's all about choice. The one who took the engineering weeder courses chose to do so, he wasn't forced. So why shouldn't that reflect on his grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So basically what you're advocating is academic cowardice, right? In other words, to maximize your grades and hence maximize your chances of getting into professional school, you should never even think about taking a difficult course or a course outside your comfort zone, is that what you're saying? Hence, your strategy is basically to cherry-pick all the easiest possible classes and only take classes where you are sure you can get top grades? Laxdad, where are you when I need you? I'm sure he will have some choice words to say about that. Is this the risk-taking, brave spirit that made America great?</p>
<p>Look, that guy who tried out an engineering course took a risk, and it didn't work. The guy basically wasted his time trying to learn engineering. I think he's been punished enough just from all the time he's wasted trying to pass that class. Why does he need to get punished more? By following your proposal, nobody will ever dare to take a class unless they know they can get a top grade. </p>
<p>For example, I know a several guys who were fluent in various foreign languages, but took all the intro classes in that foreign language anyway. Why? To get a string of easy A's. They didn't learn a darn thing in those classes, because they obviously knew all of it. But it didn't matter. The point wasn't really to learn anything, the point was to get a bunch of A's. This sort of behavior doesn't alarm you? In other words, people out there are just trying to get top grades, without caring about whether they actually learned anything.</p>
<p>No I'm not talking about cherry-picking classes. But why would a Film Studies Major be taking engineering classes in the first place? And its not like an engineer could get through school taking all the easy classes. If you're going to take harder classes you should be prepared for the possible grades. It's the same in business. If you start a business you are putting yourself out there and taking the possibility of failing. Does that mean you should get the same treatment afforded to people who aren't doing the same thing? No</p>
<p>But the real issue I think is people overestimating their own ability. I think everyone knows deep down there real ability and have parents/GC encouraging them to do things that for them are not feasible, say engineering for example. If they're not cut out for it they won't get through it. So I think most people know what they're getting into when they sign up for a class.</p>
<p>I did not mean to imply that engineering students are sitting around libraries everywhere talking about how great it is that the grading curves are so tough. However, they are proud of being engineers and would not necessarily change it, or at least they wouldn't change it after the term is over. Obviously, this would not apply to the ones who did not make it. It is a lot like the Marine Corps. Marines don't go around all day smiling and talking about how great the cafeteria food is, but they are basically happy with the system.</p>
<p>Completely agreed.</p>
<p>Ahem, well, I would say that there are QUITE A FEW engineers who did manage to graduate but who are still rather ticked off at the engineering grading system. Perhaps you'd like to come to the Law school section of CC and tell somebody like ariesathena just how wonderful the engineering grading is. Or perhaps you could tell Calkidd how great it is. </p>
<p>The fact is, engineering grading does not necessarily have to be difficult. There are shades of difficulty. Some engineering schools are graded easier than others. And it's not just a simple matter that the ones that are graded easier are not not prestigious. For example, in comparison to other engineering schools, the engineering school at Stanford is probably one of the least harsh ones in terms of grading, yet Stanford is clearly one of the best engineering schools in the country. Stanford engineering is no cakewalk, mind you, but it isn't the gauntlet that it is at many other engineering schools. Yet nobody goes around accusing Stanford engineering of not being rigorous. The point is that Stanford has proven that you don't have to punitively weed your students to run a strong engineering program. If Stanford can do it, other engineering schools can do it too.</p>
<p>Or take a gander at the graduate engineering schools. I will say right now that even at MIT, the graduate engineering classes are grade-inflated, relative to MIT undergraduate engineering classes. Yet nobody goes around accusing the MIT graduate engineering school of being unrigorous or unrespected. Far from it, in fact. Once again, this illustrates that you don't have to be a b*tch when it comes to assigning grades, yet still have a highly rigorous and respected program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No I'm not talking about cherry-picking classes. But why would a Film Studies Major be taking engineering classes in the first place? And its not like an engineer could get through school taking all the easy classes. If you're going to take harder classes you should be prepared for the possible grades. It's the same in business. If you start a business you are putting yourself out there and taking the possibility of failing. Does that mean you should get the same treatment afforded to people who aren't doing the same thing? No
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But cherry-picking is exactly what you're implying. You're basically encouraging people to take the path of least resistance and least risk in order to boost their GPA. I would once again proffer the example of people taking classes in things they already know (like a foreign language) just to rack up a bunch of easy A's. Is that something we ought to be encouraging?</p>
<p>Look, I think the true conflict is what we believe school should be about. I believe that the true purpose of school is to actually learn things, and that the best learning experience comes from taking subjects that you don't know anything about. I think that a college education is wasted if all you're going to study are things in which you are already familiar. If you already know something, what's the point of taking a class on it? </p>
<p>Unfortunately, somewhere down the line, the role of education got corrupted. Now a lot people see the purpose is just to do well and get good grades, and learning became secondary. A lot of people sadly seem to believe that an A in a class where you don't learn anything is better than getting a B in a class where you learn a lot. You seem to be a fan of this philosophy. You ask why would a Film Studies person be taking an engineering class. Uh, I don't know, to learn something, maybe? However, looks like you believe that that person should be punished for trying to learn something new. Basically, it seems to me that you're not really interested in having people learn things, you just want people to get good grades, regardless of whether they learned anything.</p>
<p>I actually agree with you that the purpose of education has been lost. People today are far too concerned with getting B's and C's. That's where one of the problems lie. If C is average and A is excellent, why are A's expected by everyone? I'm not a fan of the philosophy of taking easy classes, quite opposite. I think taking challenging classes should be encouraged and taking obviously easy classes should be discouraged. But short of changing the entire grading system and curriculum what can be done? </p>
<p>We have fostered this attitude that not getting all A's makes you a failure and not going to a top school also means failure. I think its good for people to take other classes, especially in areas that might not be their strong suit but should be prepared for the grades. I wish that we didn't have grade inflation or the culture of A's that we have. But we do. I've personally taken a lot of hard math and science classes and as a result my GPA has suffered, but the thing is it doesn't bother me that much. Of course I want people to learn things, but there are a lot of people out there not interested in real learning, they are interested in the grades and the jobs. </p>
<p>Sure engineering grading doesn't have to be tough. But it is. As long as people accept the system, it stays.</p>
<p>Yes, it is ironic that making grading easier has put more pressure on people to get good grades. As scarletleavy said: "We have fostered this attitude that not getting all A's makes you a failure..."</p>
<p>Allright guys. Good! Now we're getting to brass tacks. Now we're getting to the real heart of the matter. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But short of changing the entire grading system and curriculum what can be done?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Changing the entire grading system and curriculum is exactly what I am proposing. And it's not just me. There has been a lot of concern at the national policy level about how to encourage more Americans to study engineering and science to meet the economic challenge of other nations, principally India and China. The experts generally concur that one of the major reasons why America does not produce more technically-oriented college graduates is that, quite frankly, the grading of technical classes is difficult, and, like it or not, that tends to deter students from learning technical subjects. Numerous technical groups like the National Academies of Engineering and of Science, as well as numerous Nobel laureates, have weighed in on this matter, and are pushing fundamental government policy change to encourage more Americans to study technical subjects so that the country can maintain its technical leadership. Several remedies have been proposed, from convincing schools to adopt more standardized grading across the board (meaning that the grading of humanities would be more synchronized with the grading of science and engienering), to outright paying students (in the form of scholarships) to complete technical degrees, to better science and math education at the primary and secondary-school level. </p>
<p>I don't know which of these proposals will be enacted, and even if they are, I'm sure it will take years to get anything done. But at least it's a start. The least we can do is candidly identify the problem and encourage reform. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. </p>
<p>I personally think we'd have to change the entire education system. Starting in lower education, elementary and middle and high schools. </p>
<p>I think our schools today are too broad and pushing college prep on everyone to the point they are missing out on core education values. And the fact that everyone gets A's. If you change the college you have to change what comes before that. I'm not sure how one would do it. Maybe change the the grading scale. Introduce a new one, more like the European systems of 1-7. Those seem to work better, as it is so much harder to get a 7 in my school than it was in America to get an A. </p>
<p>I would bet there are plenty of kids who want to study engineering or have tried but have been weeded out, some rightly and some wrongly. There has to be some kind of iniative to get more people to study science. America is falling behind a lot of other people. </p>
<p>Some kind of standardization would be good as well as some kind of incentive. Like after an engineer graduates and finds work, some of his student debt could be forgiven or taken over. Something tangible like that. That would probably help create more engineers.</p>