<p>Maize & Blue -- that's what I'm thinking. There are a lot of branches of science. A person may do well in one area and not so well in another. </p>
<p>My daughter seems interested in molecular biology. Time will tell. My dad (a retired physicist) tells me about the school he went to in the old days (South Dakota School of Mines) where everyone started in college with Algebra and no one took Calculus until their junior year of college. Yet, somehow he ended up learning everything he needed to know to do physics (went to grad school in Berkeley and then to Iowa for his PhD). A slower approach is not necessarily a worse approach. Of course things have changed since then. But I still feel instinctively that there is no need to be in such a hurry. One can take their time and end up knowing everything one needs to know to be succcessful. </p>
<p>Perhaps the intro courses won't be as "killer" at some schools, but if the student continues into higher levels with a good understanding of the basics, they will eventually catch up to the ones that got there faster. And pass the ones of course who got discouraged and gave up because of the weeder mentality. Of course there will always be some that will be weeded out, but why design a course specifically to be discouraging to almost everyone in it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
A slower approach is not necessarily a worse approach. Of course things have changed since then. But I still feel instinctively that there is no need to be in such a hurry. One can take their time and end up knowing everything one needs to know to be succcessful.
[/quote]
This reminds me of my #1's kindergarten teacher who told us parents that learning to read was like a flower blooming. It will happen, just stand back and watch the beauty. And, of course, practically every kid in his little high-powered group was reading at the same level by 3rd grade! And I worried so much that he was not reading in K like some of his peers (all gifted kids in some manner or other). Now, he's a lawyer. Ah, the benefit of hindsight. I guess I didn't damage him by making him do the Cat, Hat, Bat phonics when he wasn't the least bit interested.</p>
<p>Back to the OP: My "never had a B in her life" kid, has had many in college, along with a (horrors) C at her selective, reachy LAC. At the end of each year, they have a ceremony recognizing the top 10% in each class of about 480 kids. The first year she said it felt really weird not to be on such a list anymore. She got over it. In fact, in her major and with her school's reputation, there are seniors with 3.3 and 3.4 gpa weighing acceptances to top chem Phd programs (Berkeley, CalTech, Princeton, UNC, Washington and others).</p>
<p>As someone with a Ph.D in theoretical physics and a professional physicist, I would advise students who continue to have problems with physics relative to other students to find another major - it isn't the right one for them. The strongest scientists tend to find science easier than other subjects. If you aren't really good at it, no matter how much you love it, you won't be successful.</p>
<p>I completely agree with that assessment, DocT, and believe that "fit" is as important to a field of study as is a college campus. We have an acquaintance who has recently done just that: switched from one science concentration to another, as the second is more reflective of her abilities, at least as presented at this institution, in this department.</p>
<p>Of course, any college would do well, when requiring breadth of their undergrads, to offer intro courses that are BOTH engaging/challenging, AND digestible for the non-major. It makes no sense for any U to offer only specialty courses to non-science majors (or similarly for humanities courses). There's no need for a breadth intro course to be either watered down on the one hand, nor incomprehensible on the other. The most enlightened institutions do this, and I applaud them for it.</p>
<p>Chiming in late here on the "humanities vs. science" debate and the relative difficulties - I think it really does depend on the strengths of the student, not on some inherent "hardness" of the discipline. I double majored in English and Chemistry (with a postgraduate degree in Chemistry), and to me, organic chemistry was no more difficult than "Romantic Poets" (and actually much easier than Shakespeare.) Different skill sets, different talents, but surely one was no "easier" than another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay, I'm from CA. I haven't had much practice zipping up a winter coat with a hood for the past three decades . . .
[/quote]
When my husband was a grad student at Caltech I would often go with him to the lab and read in their conference room. That room was so cold I always wore my down jacket in there!</p>
<p>But back to the subject. I never took a French class with a teacher I really liked (she hosted a French table at our house) because she regularly required reading at least a complete fat 19th century novel a week. I couldn't imagine doing it in English much less French.</p>
<p><a href="epiphany%20wrote:">quote</a> 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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your need to do more quoting and less fabrication. What I "believe must be true" is that, given two large and otherwise mostly equal populations with a significant SAT difference between them (what counts as significant will decrease with population size), the one with higher SATs will tend to perform better and the one with lower SATs will tend to perform worse. This is not controversial and it is in fact borne out by some of the same studies advertised as showing the irrelevance of SAT. I strongly suspect that this is the case for the study hinted at by mini, but will await further information from her, if she has it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Show us where I claimed a "retention problem". Quote what I wrote, not what you have fabricated. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's also possible to be outside the 25% & 75% areas & still be a National Merit Finalist. (Mine was.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>25 and 75 percent of what? For non-minority NMF's (i.e. excluding minority-specific designations such as National Achievement Scholar), it is rare to get it without top SAT's except perhaps in noncompetitive states where you don't have to make the commendation cutoff to be a finalist.</p>
<p>Sorry, I was referring to the proportion of Commended to Finalist per state.
I think the selection process is not the same per state, but will recheck and post again when I have the information.</p>