Can my A/B student end up a B/C student at a Reach School?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>Anitaw, I am not the parent of an engineering student, but I think my comment came pretty close to jmmom's in intent. I understand that engineers have to sometimes make fast decisions -- but so do lawyers & political leaders who often come from a very different type of education in the humanities. I am not sure that the best way to build the ability to make such fast decisions is through intense pressure during undergraduate exams -- I think it would be much better to work to ensure a thorough understanding of the material, building up the skill level and familiarity with situations that left more time for thought and reflection. Let the hurried judgments be made by those who have already acquired the foundational mastery of the subject matter so that they don't have to combine their quick reaction time with wrestling to remember basic facts and formulae that a few years down the line will have become second nature to them. </p>

<p>Here's why I dropped chemistry and abandoned a science major: I got a B. </p>

<p>What disturbed me is that I spent the whole semester feeling almost clueless about what was going on, went into a final exam with hardly any sleep, was confronted with questions that didn't seem to make sense, and somehow a glimmering of an answer just came to me during the exam... so I went with my gut and wrote it down and I turned out to be o.k. with it. In a class with 400 students I had done very well.</p>

<p>But I didn't <em>understand</em> what I had done. I didn't think I could do it again. And I felt if I continued.... I would just end up with future B's in settings where I didn't have a clue as to what or why I was doing whatever I did to pull it off. And I wasn't comfortable with that ... because I knew that I did not have B-level mastery -- or even D-level mastery -- of the subject. </p>

<p>I'm good under pressure, so it is not at all unusual for me to find that the answer just "comes" to me like it did on that exam... but that's not too reliable. It's more like a skater who can occasionally nail a double axel but lacks the technique to do it consistently - that skater needs a lot more practice before competition. </p>

<p>I don't have a problem with the idea that a good exam will have some questions that may take the student a step further and require some real thought -- but I think edad's comment about the range of questions and evaluative purpose on an exam make a lot more sense, if the real goal is educating the student. I'm not sure whether, in some schools, the primary goal is simply to weed out the weakest third of the class rather than to educate everyone. </p>

<p>I think the downside of such an approach is that it discourages a lot of students from entering the sciences. I've noticed that one of the qualities that women's colleges like Smith and Barnard are quite proud of is their ability to encourage women to pursue sciences and excel in them... and I'm wondering how much of that simply stems from a more supportive, and ultimately more effective, approach to teaching the basics.</p>

62

<p>I just read this entire thread, which I found fascinating because it moved from the OP about a parent's concern re: A/B h.s. child might make unfamiliar C's at college, attached itself to the issue of math/sci vs. humanities ("it depends on the major"), and then dipped into parental memory about studying science v. humanities.</p>

<p>I am most interested, b/c I used to believe I was intelligent but after guiding my kids through h.s. and college, I realize that all of us can only do "rocks for jocks" and "poet's physics" although my eldest could handle calculus fairly well into college. But we all maxed out at some point in our math understanding (for one child in 5th grade, for me 11th grade, not so for my eldest who took college maths for pleasure...but finally reached a stop-point likely due to messing up his GPA). When the comprehension goes, so goes the confidence/motivation to press forward.</p>

<p>I find this so sad, really limiting as a lifelong learner who must have had a previous life in the Renaissance but who can't keep up now. It makes me feel quite inept, honestly, such that I'm not sure anymore if I'm a brilliant or stupid
person. </p>

<p>As a teacher of elementary school students (1st and 2nd grades) I've not done any real damage since I can master such dazzling concepts as (can't recall the formal name for it, but...) why it doesn't matter which addend is written first in an addition equation, but it matters for subtraction (trans..something). The important thing for the "babies" is to teach it so it becomes part of their tissue structure, so it's the pedagogy that's interesting.
Best one I saw and used: we called them "turnaround facts" and pasted numbers on file-cards and hung associated numbers of clothespins on a coat-hanger. Flipping that coat hanger around, the kids could see (and feel, and pull on and off...) that 3 + 6 = 9, no matter whether the coat-hanger was turned forward or backward.
We tested "number conservancy" in entering first-graders by sitting with them to observe whether, after they counted a group of 7 beans put in front of them and the teacher added one more, did they just say "now it's 8" or did they go back and count again from 1 through 8. Developmentally, if they recounted, that meant there would be a host of other things they couldn't get (YET!) until that piece was in place. If they couldn't hold the number 7 in their head but had to reconstruct it each time, that spoke volumes.
What I wish was that the same kind of close attention to pedagogy could be paid as math continues to be taught higher and higher, instead of students just feeling that they "get it" or "don't get it" as a math student.</p>

<p>On the topic of grades, what helped me most "back in the day" recover from my first "C's" as a freshman, even in humanities where I was powerhouse, was that after Kent State happened, our college admin had a spiritual crisis of sorts and gave us the option of "credit/no entry" in all courses, across-the-boards.
Following freshman year, I had noticed deficiencies in how my public school
didn't prepare me for college work, compared to the prep school kids. They
had been given multiple sources to compare, were coached on how to write
college-level papers, and so much more. My anxiety over the minutia was causing me to block seeing the larger picture, because I was trying to grab<br>
for grades as the public schools had trained me: learn lots of facts. By removing the pressure for grades for an entire year, I could relax (=learn deeply) during my sophomore year without worry. Then and only then, I learned to read more quickly and deeply; notice overlaps in sources so could make efficient time choices and shortcuts; engage in higher order thinking
WHILE reading new material, and so much more. When junior year came along, and grades resumed, I was reincarnated as an A humanities student (except for the sciences, where I proudly earned B's).</p>

<p>All that leaves me with as an adult is that, when I notice a young child building brilliantly with blocks, I whisper, "Someday, when you build a bridge,
I want to drive on it" which causes them to build more passionately.</p>

63

<p>Calmom -- I could be wrong, but I think that for some intro courses at some schools, yes they are intended to weed people out. That's why I am steering my daughter (potential science major) to small schools where the professors seem to want the kids to succeed. Why put her in a situation where she is likely to be squashed rather than nurtured and encouraged? She is not a competitive type of person. Such an approach (weeder class) is likely to turn her off science completely.</p>

64

<p>Paying3tuitions-- I wish you were teaching math at my daughter's elementary school!</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
Can you cite the studies by colleges that show that non-"high" scorers supposedly have a high drop-out rate?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The 6-year graduation rates, and thus the 6-year rates of failure to graduate, are published and searchable by institution:
<a href="http://www.collegeresults.org/default.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeresults.org/default.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Consider the 6 year non-graduation percentages reported at Harvard, which has the highest graduation rate of the top schools: </p>

<p>Asian 0.7 ; White 1.8 ;
URM 6.5 ; Latino 3.8 ;<br>
Black 8.4 ; Native American 14.3</p>

<p>Thus, blacks are half the Asian enrollment at Harvard but outnumber Asians in absolute number of dropouts by a factor of 6. The difference in average SAT total for these subgroups of the student body is very conservatively estimated at 100 points (for a more refined method of estimation, see the Princeton study of admissions preferences at elite universities). Do you think this difference in graduation rate is correlated with the SAT differential?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeresults.org/search1a.aspx?InstitutionID=166027%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeresults.org/search1a.aspx?InstitutionID=166027&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Socioeconomic differences don't explain away these numbers, because legacies exhibit the same pattern. Here is a recent study at Princeton confirming the extent to which low-SAT legacy admits flounder at college, even more so than minorities and athletes. </p>

<p>"Low-SAT legacies receive lower GPAs"
<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518026%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518026&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

66

<p>Post 65 fails to answer the question. The question is not whether legacies on average or URM's on average have the lowest scores, and "therefore" do not graduate, but whether it can be established that all "low" scorers (not limited to URM's or legacies) present retention problems for elite colleges.</p>

67

<p>The study specifically singled out legacies with low SATs as the ones with low performance. Legacies with ordinary SATs did as well as their peers.
Does that constitute correlation with SAT, in your opinion?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/03/29/news/17854.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/03/29/news/17854.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Regarding minority graduation rates, the evidence is that the rate of non-graduation (across schools) correlates nicely with the level of affirmative action, i.e. the de facto virtual number of extra SAT points corresponding to the admissions advantage for that category. That is, the groups with lower average SAT drop out more often. Legacies with lower SAT perform badly as well. There is no known example of a large subpopulation of students with statistically significant below-average SAT that performs above-average as measured in grades, graduation rate, GRE scores, exit salary, graduate admission, honors degrees, etc. But for every subpopulation known to have lower SAT's, the performance is worse.</p>

68

<p>The studies are old "news." They were referenced earlier on CC. They pertain to <em>legacies</em>, and incidentally to URM's as well. Neither the studies nor you defined "low," unless I missed that in the article, in which case I apologize. </p>

<p>Legacies and URM's are hooked candidates, for which different standards apply than those non-hooked. So still the question remains, What is "low"? (for any population), and how do non-legacies and non-URM's with "low" scores perform during 4 yrs at an Elite, compared with students with "high" scores?</p>

69

<p>The study defined "low" as "lower SAT than the average at their school".<br>
Several thousand students at 28 schools were considered.</p>

<p>Thus, they divided the legacies (and some other pools) into two subpopulations: those with below-par SAT, and those with SAT at or above the school's average SAT. The lower-SAT subpopulation had low GPA whereas the average-or-above part had slightly better grades than the average for the school. This is no surprise; the publicity attached to the further finding that low-SAT minorities and low-SAT athletes do less badly than low-SAT legacies.</p>

<p>I in no way claim that these are the only examples of studies pointing to a predictive effect of SAT on grades or other measures of performance. On the contrary, there are a million and one studies by College Board and others correlating SAT with everything under the sun. What is needed is even ONE example of a study that makes valid comparisons between high and low SAT scorers, but fails to find correlation between SAT and performance. Can you cite any such?</p>

70

<p>"the subject matter (in the humanities) 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>Calmom, I believe your assessment matches my experience. In order to get a good grade in the humanities, you just need a little effort. If you have an assignment to write a paper on the origins of WWI, you read what others have written, you then write a paper which summarizes these explanations with a few dates and facts thrown in. There are always concerns about plagarism, but there are rules about that. It is perfectly acceptable to quote and properly cite entire passages from the writings of respected historians. You can write an entire paper which consists of a bunch of quotes and a few paraphrased ideas. In the sciences, you might be assigned the task of describing the motion of a charged particle in a complex electromagnetic environment. You need to understand the theoretical model and you need to understand complex mathematical tools and apply them to a unique situation. Your answer is either right or wrong.</p>

71

<p>The game of chess might be an interesting analogy.</p>

<p>The humanities majors will study the history of chess. They will learn about the great masters, their successes and the strategies they used. They will discuss some of the major competitions and how these influenced the interest and further developements in the game of chess. The professor may have written a book on intimidation techniques used in chess and may be currently working on another involving development of chess move timing devices. The kids at Smith or Bernard will discuss the ancient Sumarian miniature chess set carved from peach pits. It turns out this generated a rebirth in chess enthusiasm and matches a similar event, centuries later in Meso-America. Grades in these courses will be determined by exams, papers and class participation. A student will need to put in some serious study time to get a solid grade, especially at an elite LAC. </p>

<p>The science majors will spend little time on the history of chess. Some may not even read about that famous Sumarian chess set. The professor may be an expert in programming computers to play chess and some of the lectures will cover the techniques needed to turn strategies into specific chess moves. TA's will help students work through examples which illustrate chess strategies. The science students will spend a lot of time in labs, reproducing old games and working on new techniques. Grades will be determined by the number of chess games each student wins. At grade-inflated schools, a 50% win ratio will be a B. At the rigorous schools it will be a C. Some students will be disappointed especially if they had high chess SATs and had won almost every game they played in high school.</p>

72

<p>And some of those chess "science" majors, who previously loved the game of chess, will give up the game entirely. Weeded out.</p>

73

<p>The humanities majors, unable to play the game, will work for the Ministry of Chess, promulgating volumes of regulations and reporting requirements.</p>

74

<p>jmmom -- exactly. My hope is that my daughter, even if she does not end up majoring in science, will not lose her love of the subject. On that note -- I highly recommend the UC Cosmos summer program for high school kids interested in science -- esp. for those who live in California (price is a little steep for out of staters). It really made science fun for her. She had the best experience in that program.</p>

75

<p>I don't think a lot of people are listening to you on this particular mission of yours, siserune. Maybe it's because too many of us know students who don't fit the "predictions" you believe must be true. Either that, or the Elites are doing a terrible job of selecting, aren't they? In any case, my above 75% (in one area) child and below 25% in another tested area is doing beautifully at an Elite (including in that 25% area) and would laugh at you for indicating she might be a "retention problem." Her profs (one of whom has actually gone to the trouble of contacting me about her, in a positive vein) would also laugh at you. Her friend at Harvard, who scored almost identically on the 2 SAT sections, is doing similarly. It's also possible to be outside the 25% & 75% areas & still be a National Merit Finalist. (Mine was.)</p>

<p>...Moving right along,
On the thread topic here, Universities and courses and professors differ in rigor & expectations. My toughest prof at illustrious research U was a history prof (my Minor). It was extremely difficult to get a B in his course. The reason was that he adhered to orthodox historiography, where method was crucial to argument and conclusion. The parameters of an approach to a subject can determine the difficulty of meeting the course requirements, and hence the grade. The same can be said for literary analysis in a very disciplined department of a very scholarly U.</p>

<p>Regarding the sciences (at same research U), those that I personally know who have struggled the most, esp. initially, are those who have had the poorest preparation. I have found that to be true to a person. I'm not saying that very prepared students don't also find the sciences challenging, but for example a science-oriented high school grad I met recently said that her physics preparation was extremely bad in high school. Physics at university was really, really hard going in, therefore, although science was her "gift." She has now made the transition and has caught up intellectually with where she needs to be, but her first year in her Major courses was quite tough.</p>

76

<p>Kids who liked the science courses in high school often find that the courses are completely different in college. Physics is a good example. High schools physics is a watered down survey of the field. Some colleges also offer a similar course - physics for non-science majors. Physics for scientists is completely different. It is very heavily dependent on advanced calculus skills. This type of course is also taught differently than high school or non-science physics. Mstee, I completely disagree with your approach. There is indeed a good reason for the "weed out" approach. Some kids just do not belong in the sciences and it is better to be challenged and find out early. Science is not a humanities course with a different subject matter.</p>

77

<p>I was the most poorly prepared person I knew entering *** years ago as I came from a tiny all female school and had been the only person taking calculus and one of 3 in physics (and the other 2 thought it would be easier than memorizing those hard words in bio). I had ridiculously low initial expectations for myself as I knew I had not been prepped liked kids from Stuyvesant or Andover. I coped in the freshman year with a mixture of propping up from a very kind advisor (*** accepted you because they knew you could do it eventually) and the sense that I was, indeed, making very gradual headway against the rushing waters of the fireman's hose. I am a huge fan of initially low expectations counterbalanced by a clear set of ultimate goals. I decided I wasn't profoundly science-y (it is easy to get a distorted sense of this when you are the only person at your school who understands acceleration is not the same as speed). I am only slightly over-exxagerating here.</p>

<p>I feel badly for kids who feel weeded out by virtue of grades and not by virtue of changing or evolving interests(which mostly is a reflection of aptitude in my mind). I can see how for many kids these become intertwined. In those cases, I think that doing research or internships can really help to answer the questions..is this for me and is this worth it??</p>

78

<p>I am aware of the points you made in post #76, edad, but in <em>addition</em>, a lack of preparation toward a scientific orientation, coupled with any weakness in the advanced math area, is merely an additional aspect of college struggle.</p>

<p>I do think, however, that either you have had very different experiences in humanities courses than I (a major, even) have had, or in a different kind of institution with different demands. The humanities courses that are oriented toward discipline and toward methodology can be enormously demanding, intellectually. These are not "soft" courses. For example, the Philosophy courses at one University I can think of is taught almost like higher mathematics: that's how oriented toward Systematics it is. I don't think the kinds of generalizations you've made regarding relative "easiness" of humanities are ones that hold across the board at the most demanding of higher institutions.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
The humanities majors, unable to play the game, will work for the Ministry of Chess, promulgating volumes of regulations and reporting requirements.

[/quote]
I would say nibudong about Humanities majors.</p>

80

<p>It is not a matter of whether or not they are equally challenging, but sometimes of the cognitive skill set which is required for the two. Most engineers are not impassioned writers and many find this as difficult as an English major would find 'fluid dynamics.' What Edad is saying is that HS science classes are a less good reflection of college demands in math/science than humanities classes are of the college demands in humanities/social sciences- hence, kids go into math/science classes initially with less of an idea of the depth and challengs. Am I right? </p>

<p>I had many friends who started in Physics and ended up in Economics, as an example. Similar cognitive demands confronting different sets of problems?</p>