"By not adjusting their grading policies, STEM programs ultimately hurt..the economy"

[aegrisomnia]

<p>

The bottom line is that engineering grading is determined not by how much you learned, but by how much you learned relative to what other students have learned, and that’s not trivial to know.

Of course I’m not saying that students should be expected to have perfect information when making decisions. Perfect information usually has a finite value, and spending more than that value to get it generally doesn’t make sense. However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t call a mistake a mistake. Deciding to stick it out in class the student fails in is a mistake. People make mistakes. If you take risks, you run the risk of having one backfire. That’s the nature of risk. </p>

<p>

Is there a difference between academic and work experience? Of course! But is that difference respected today? Clearly no, which seems to be the basis for your proposal.

To be clear, I’ve only been arguing that industry might be using academic credentials in a utility-diminishing way. Do engineering programs reject applicants who have demonstrated poor performance on the job, if they have a strong academic record?</p>

<p>

Fair enough. Then at least I hope that you would agree that such an attitude must inherently reduce experimentation and risk-taking.

Your solution makes risk-taking impossible. There’s no risk where there are no negative consequences. </p>

<p>

Nevertheless, these are some of the most prominent engineering schools in the nation and so hold outsize influence upon what other engineering schools will do.

Of course that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t mean that we should hope other schools follow suit, much less argue that they should.</p>