<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, well, if the course classification isn’t going to change, then we have to look for remedies elsewhere. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, I rather doubt that there are many D American Studies students in the first place. But of the few that may exist, the odds of them becoming a passing engineering students is probably <10%.</p>
<p>But that’s irrelevant, for I have no problem with any D American Studies students transferring to engineering and passing (what few may actually exist). The point is, they tried a major, it didn’t work, so they moved on to something else in which they are more successful. What’s the problem? Why should that failed attempt hurt them? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the case of acting, I do reject this notion…and so did you. You yourself said that the problem was with the fact that the acting class was improperly classified. </p>
<p>You even agree with me on the larger point that the larger problem is that firms and prof-school adcoms are improperly relying on certain types of academic criteria too heavily and that there is a difference between law school and how somebody did in chemical thermodynamics and certainly a difference between engineering grades and actual engineering job performance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come on, who are we really talking about here? Those eng students didn’t choose their courses scoring scheme. They had to take them as a given. It’s not their fault if the final exam is weighted heavily, as they had no role in deciding that it should be so. By your logic, nobody should ever take a course with a heavily-weighted final, because even somebody with an A+ walking into a heavily-weighted final could bomb and fail the course, and that would demonstrate ‘poor planning on his part’. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, there seems to be some sort of deep confusion and mythology regarding the notion that American Studies professors somehow care about poor performance in engineering - something that I never said, nor do I believe. Indeed, American Studies profs don’t care, for they generally take all students, even if they had failed their previous major. All they care about is whether you do well in their class. </p>
<p>Where that failing eng grade becomes an issue is later when that person then graduates and needs to find a job or a grad school. Why should that failing eng grade hurt him, if he never completed the engineering major anyway? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Why? If that student is bad, then he’ll inevitably fail his new engineering major, will he not? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then are you saying that MIT is wrong? For example, somebody who attends MIT and fails all his freshman courses can apply to transfer to another engineering school (i.e. Stanford) with a completely pristine (external) transcript.</p>