<p>JHS, I took writing, a couple of lit courses, several philosophy courses, world history, economics, art history, a couple of years of German, cultural anthropology, behavioral pysch, and who knows how many I forgot. Except for some of the philosophy courses, these were many intro level so maybe that is why there appeared so easy. On the other hand I don't remember anything easy about intro level science courses or math courses.</p>
<p>I should clarify, I worked hard for quite a few of those non-science courses. We were discussing grades. The difference seemed to be the relative easy of getting good grades in the humanities as opposed to the sciences.</p>
<p>Marian - I cut-and-pasted the online grade report with the "main menu" portion of DS' registrar page that showed his name, class, school and term. It was totally "doctored" but totally honest. The insurance company took it.</p>
<p><em>now back to your regularly scheduled original topic</em> :D</p>
<p>
Maybe this is a different thread, but this statement reminds me of one of my real questions about grades in these tough science classes. So often, after each test, the results come back with a class average something like 67 or 52 or maybe 70. (Grades are then typically curved from there, or done so at the end of the term). Now, I teach adults in my professional field. If I gave a test or quiz with results like that, I'd feel I hadn't done my job well at all. I didn't convey the material in a way for the class to get it. Can someone explain to me what is up with this in rigorous science classes? Do the kids get the material but the tests are so tricky it is impossible to score well (my son sometimes thinks this)? Is the class only learning 67% or 52% or 70% of the material? If so, is this okay?</p>
<p>I have also questioned that jmmom. In the physics class where my son is struggling--the first test had a class average of 42%. Now, like you, if I were teaching the class, I would have to ask myself what am I doing wrong---this is a class of intelligent students who want to succeed (most are pre-med--so they really care about those grades)---I wouldn't think that kind of average shows that the prof is getting the material across or else is making the exam impossible to all but the "physics gifted".</p>
<p>jmmom -- I don't know the answer. It seems to be part of the math/science culture. Perhaps it is supposed to keep students humble? Or is a way of looking for those few brilliant students? My son told me recently that one of the math profs at his school puts <em>unsolved</em> problems on his math tests, and every once in awhile some kid will solve one! Must be something that math/science people like to do. Put things on tests just for the heck of it, to see if any one will get it, to spark something, perhaps.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, I teach adults in my professional field. If I gave a test or quiz with results like that, I'd feel I hadn't done my job well at all. I didn't convey the material in a way for the class to get it.
[/quote]
I've asked my husband this same question regarding the histology course at the med school. But apparently I just don't get it.</p>
<p>Flashback 30 years ... whoa!! I vividly remember sitting at orientation & having the Dean of Students tell us, "Look to your left, look to your right. One of you won't be here by the end of your 5 year." (co-op school ... thus the 5 years) Grades were often set by curve. Everyone had done well in high school. We generally carried 21 credits (sometimes 18 or 19, sometimes as high as 23). Many of us were humbled! For most of us, some grades were great, some not-so-great ... it depended on our strengths. Those of us who survived found that we were well-prepared for life. I always thought that was the point of college. </p>
<p>The truth is, the first year of college is tough. There are many adjustments, academic & personal. Grades will not always be what students are used to. As a student finds his/her strengths, grades will probably reflect those ... and that can help the student choose a major. Of course, some students will excel at everything!</p>
<p>As for the OP's concern, there is no way to know. My best friend in college had lower SAT scores & high school gpa than I but did better in college. Her study skills were phenomenal ... she had had to work in high school, so she was better prepared for the rigors of college. A young man I know who had probably among the lowest ACT scores at his very selective LAC is doing quite well there his freshman year ... he works very hard & takes advantage of the opportunities they have for tutoring/extra help. It just depends! There is no reason why any student who gets in cannot do well --- most good school don't admit anyone they don't think can handle the work! I would venture a guess that many formerly all-A students find that difficult to maintain in college ... and still do well.</p>
<p>kelsmom makes a very good point. Though my son is not the straight A student he was in high school--he has worked hard and so far has a gpa that he is proud of. As an entering student he said he felt like he was in the bottom percentiles of the incoming class as it seemed everyone around him mentioned their near perfect SATs, their elite prep school academic backgrounds, the many more AP classes their high schools had than his did.</p>
<p>Now, after 3+ semesters, some of those students have flunked out, some on academic probation, some doing wonderfully. What is the common factor of those who have been successful is (as kelsmom stated) good study skills and work ethic.</p>
<p>It seems that many science, math and engineering exams are hard and the scores are low. Obviously, this is poor way to evaluate students. A good exam should have at least some range of questions from easy through hard and very hard. Tough exams are designed to challenge and push the students. They are not very good tools for evaluating progress.</p>
<p>edad, I had the same experience - math/science/computer science courses very challenging, with lowish grades, vrs. little efforts and more As than Bs in humanities. I 'grew a brain' in the sciences, and cruised in the humanities. In fact, it makes me wonder whether this explains the push for elite institutions - so that humanities students can be adequately challenged? I'd have been disappointed if I'd been, say, an English or Psych major (took a few 200 level courses).</p>
<p>BTW, in my engineering school the average test score was 50% pretty much throughout the 4 years. It isn't really unfair, it just takes some getting used to! And everyone worked very, very hard - lowish and high grade earners.</p>
<p>There's a considerable difference in the work required between an science/engineering student (a lot) and the typical humanities student (not so much) at some colleges with the engineering students, who generally had to qualify at higher levels than the norm to even be accepted to the engineering departments, ending up at least a .5 GPA lower than the humanities student. I'm not knocking anything but when asking about toughness of getting the higher GPAs as is the OP's question, the major really makes a difference. One also can't assume that a more selective college equates to more difficulty in attaining a high GPA since some of them are known for grade inflation while some other colleges including some state schools are know for grade deflation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My d's college - which has a relatively wide range of SAT scores among students - spent 3 1/2 years studying this question ... They concluded that, among students attending, they could find no correlation between entering SAT scores and GPAs or graduation rates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is probably urban legend. No study has shown the irrelevance of SAT's when making apples-to-apples comparisons; any links to studies purporting to show that would be interesting, to say the least. Having tracked down such anti-SAT claims before, well, let's just say there is often a negative correlation between what the study actually shows (i.e., the importance of SAT) and what its publicizers claim has been shown.</p>
<p>"No study has shown the irrelevance of SAT's when making apples-to-apples comparisons; any links to studies purporting to show that would be interesting..."</p>
<p>I believe that collegeboard has done a study, showing correlation only for freshman year, but no correlation beyond that. Others here may have more info on this.</p>
<p>Plus, I believe that more than one college has either done similar examinations and/or is re-evaluating the importance of score level relative to other applicant features, due to their observations of dubious relationships between test scores and student performance. Again, other posters may have specifics on this.</p>
<p>In the first pre-organic chem class I took at *** the class average was 18. No one in the class had ever had a grade below A in science in their life until that point. How you chose to think about that and respond to that event said a lot about you as a student. The professor came dressed in black and mourned for his wonderful test. One could choose to buy in to the feeling, which would rapidly lead to the feeling that ***had made a mistake admitting you and that you were going to bomb out. </p>
<p>Or one could choose to see that, in fact, science and math at the college level is not science and math at the HS level. It is not a matter of knowing what you know, and then seeing what you know on the test. It is a matter of knowing what you know so well that when you don't see any of it on the test you none-the-less see patterns and clues and hints and facets of it that you can synthetically and creatively arrive at answers and understandings. </p>
<p>Tests are too hard sometimes because the class is not prepared, but most of the time tests are too hard by design so that students have to really look within themselves for a different level of understanding-- not just of the problems in front of them, but of themselves as a person and a learner. </p>
<p>I chose, in fact, to believe the professor was a pompous jerk and that I, like all my classmates, would someday 'get it',and I did!</p>
<p>edad, re math/science vs. humanities and your view of "academic rigor": I think that at a strong college, the academic expectations are as high in the humanities as in sciences, but the subject matter does not adhere to rigid standards of what is correct vs. incorrect --so grading probably reflects more a response to the effort put in than a measure of how "right" the papers and midterm essays are. </p>
<p>I don't know if I am expressing this well -- but at the college level, subjects like history move away from the fact based (memorizing names & dates), and focuses more on understanding and analysis of trends and relationships, for which there is no one right answer. If a student has done the reading diligently and attended class regularly, and if the student writes well, then the student should expect to do reasonably well (an A or B) on a midterm essay -- it's not like they is going to be suddenly confronted with a problem that leaves them stumped. </p>
<p>You probably perceived it all as being easy and lacking academic rigor because, my guess is, you have an analytical mind and you can express your ideas well in writing -- so it does seem easy for you. For another student - perhaps not. </p>
<p>I don't know about you, but years down the line I do not remember one thing I learned in organic chem. It's like a huge blank spot in my brain -- I know I took the course, I have a vague memory of learning about carbon molecules... and I know that the course involved some math that was very difficult for me to wrap my brain around. I also remember that it was in a huge lecture hall and that the lab was either in a basement or some windowless room that seemed like a basement, and the T.A. spoke Chinese. </p>
<p>Not only is organic chem a huge blank spot in my brain, but I think it was already blank a matter of weeks after the final exam. I simply crammed my brain full of stuff I needed to keep my head above water in the class... and later on it was gone. </p>
<p>But my first year, history of western philosophy class? I remember it like it was yesterday -- I remember reading & discussing Locke & Hume & Kant, I still have a sense of what we read -- I could still probably retrieve a relevant point from that class if it were relevant to a discussion I was engaged in. The same is true of the content of courses like history or cultural anthropology or literature -- much of what I learned is still with me, well over 30 years since I graduated. </p>
<p>I'm sure things would be different if I had pursued a career in math or sciences, but I didn't. </p>
<p>Were the A's easier to get in history than in chem? Definitely. But I kind of hesitate to equate the idea of "academic rigor" with an educational philosophy of overwhelming the student with too much information and problem sets and exams that are always just beyond what the student can comfortably integrate and use. It may be good preparation for the intensity of medical school, but it's not necessarily a good education. </p>
<p>I do agree that it is easier to get A's in humanities than most math & science courses.... but part of that may simply be because the students are being taught better. I'd note that very often at large universities the math/science classes are huge, and teaching is largely a lecture format -- whereas even at the larger universities, it is common to have many of the humanities courses in smaller classrooms, with much greater opportunity for class discussion. (There were about 40 in my freshman philosophy class, compared to at least 400 in organic chem). </p>
<p>My son had what looked like an easy A in his college chem course, but he was at a LAC with a class of about 10 students, and a very close relationship with his prof, who also personally supervised the labs. I don't know how the "rigor" of his class compared to my UC experience with chemistry... but I think whatever my son did learn, he fully understood. And I'd rather have my kids calling me excited about what they are learning than struggling wondering if they are going to pass the class... because in the latter case, I'm not at all sure if they really are learning the material. </p>
<p>I know that sometimes with math & science there is an "aha" moment down the line when some concept taught much earlier suddenly starts to make sense, and it all starts to come together. I'm just asking, is it such a bad thing if it all is understood and comes together in the first place?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is a matter of knowing what you know so well that when you don't see any of it on the test you none-the-less see patterns and clues and hints and facets of it that you can synthetically and creatively arrive at answers and understandings.
[/quote]
Seems to me that this is a valid approach to educating the scientific mind. What doesn't seem right to me is creating a situation where the students are expected to seek "patterns and clues and hints" from which they "synthetically and creatively arrive at answers" when they are given - what? - 12 minutes at a time?</p>
<p>These science tests given in a class hour, with 5 or 6 questions of the type you describe, create a very artificial setting for someone to think synthetically and creatively. And the result, when the class succeeds about 40% of the time, is more to leave intelligent, motivated students question their own abilities. A bit distasteful to me. </p>
<p>Seems kind of like the old "well, we had to work 72 hour shifts when we were medical interns, so the next crop should have to do the same thing" approach. Bad for the intern, bad for the patient. But makes someone feel like it builds character. Or something.</p>
<p>Jmmom,
Having also done the 'I did 80 hours straight so it is good for you to do it too' thing as well, I appreciate the comparison. The latter has been proven downright dangerous. The former has the potential to be so if the student cannot regulate their mindset. This is one of the reasons that it is easier to be an engineering student or science student at a school where everyone else is. IT is not just shared misery, it is the cultivation of spirit that goes along with it. You are right in that these sorts of tests are sometimes not a reflection of much of 'real life.' However, H and his engineering/scientific coworkers actually DO sometimes have to make snap decisions with little concrete, familiar, easily observed material to work on and the decisions have both safety and financial consequences which are very significant. Some science and engineering IS done in circumstances like this. That my H does it so well is probably a reflection of the same reasons he was able to withstand the the grueling education he received without a shred of impact on his very healthy ego. He, much more than I, loved the science so much that in fact the grades were almost secondary. </p>
<p>There IS more worry now owing to the reasons you delineated. I will grant you this. But, engineering has always been a cyclical industry and the ups and down will be best weathered, IMHO, by those who have the right mindset as well as the right grades. Everyone we know who has stayed in engineering (as opposed to using it as a spring board to being a patent attorney or investment banker for example) loves the science.</p>
<p>re: SAT studies, there are many, but none that made a relevant comparison (such as the share of high versus low-SAT students among cum laude graduates or post-baccalaureate admissions) and found the SAT lacking.
We know from schools' own published data that groups of applicants admitted with lower SATs (minorities, etc) have a disproportionate share of dropouts, which belies the claim of non-correlation with graduation rate.
Schools that studied this did not, in fact, find non-correlation, they just made a great show of the fact that the rather substantial correlation is well below 100 percent. Focusing on insignificant proportional differences between similar graduation rates, such as 94 versus 98 percent, can mask a 3-to-1 ratio of dropout rates between groups.</p>
<p>Similarly, an applicant with high math SAT who took AP calculus in high school might get hosed in the sequel math class at college, whereas a low scorer would avoid math entirely or take watered down first-semester calculus and get an "A". </p>
<p>You need to compare apples to apples -- dropout rates are a start, performance metrics such as graduate admission and salary on exit are also relevant. There is some evidence that SAT is quite related to these, and no serious evidence of non-correlation that I'm aware of.</p>
<p>Can you cite the studies by colleges that show that non-"high" scorers supposedly have a high drop-out rate? (You cannot assume that all non-high scorers are limited to URM's.)</p>