@Canuckguy : GREs will correlate with SAT reasoning and not what a student does in college. Employers would need to ask for subject tests of the GRE. In STEM, they are much more challenging than the curriculum many students put themselves through in college. For chemistry and biology, this is definitely the case where the biochem and molecular cell biology exam rivals or is perceived as more difficult than MCAT biology/chemistry sections. The physics and chemistry exams are also viewed as difficult. So is biology. Most of the GRE subject tests become challenging because they a) either test the upper levels of content a student was supposed to be exposed to or b) because they put MANY items of higher level complexity on the test. Students who dodged instructors who gave the latter will have to really study up for the exam to compensate or truly suffer.
The problem with SAT reasoning as predictor is something I’ve been attempting to describe for a while. You have these schools (mainly elite) with students that like to complain about grade deflation and the rigor of their courses, and people believe them because, on average, their SATs are nearing perfect or some ridiculous number. However, with things like STEM, you go and investigate and then see, that in general, courses often does not demand the cognitive complexity of analogous courses at peer institutions with similar or lower score ranges. It turns out…the students just like to complain. They had been tricked into believing they were “it” because of their performance on the SAT reasoning and perhaps their GPA and class rank in HS and were thus complacent, and thus when things got slightly harder than they were in HS, they stumble and complain the school is unfairly difficult or grades too harshly with claims such as: “We, the best test-takers in the world should not yield a 60-70 average on any exam. If this is happening, then the course is unfairly rigorous” (naturally, I step in and correct this by showing the analogous course elsewhere or highlighting how the grading schemes are identical to other top schools, even those with higher overall grade inflation which mainly comes from the humanities. The problem is NOT the grading) which for one, implies a) the SAT reasoning is the most challenging standardized/entrance test in the world, and b) it covered the same content as their HS AP or honors chemistry, biology, math, physics, etc course.
I went and looked through some common datasets and found something interesting. Some of the elite schools have students who seem to hail from more difficult schools. One way I’m measuring difficulty is by looking at how well the categories for “rank in the top decile and quartile” match “GPAs 3.5 and up”. With the complainer schools, often their is a mismatch or they exactly match. At many schools with rigorous courses where students are more or less content or expect a certain level of challenge, it seems that more top decile students actually have lower unweighted GPAs than you would expect (as in, their would be say, 80 something percent in the top decile but only 50-60something percent at an unweighted 3.75). Given that these schools do not have really that many minorities, it is unlikely just minorities coming from noncompetitive schools. There are probably many more upper or middle class students coming from schools with harsh grading standards. So at schools like these, the professors have more wiggle room in terms of the cognitive demands put on students (regardless of their SATs). The only problem with this assessment of mine is that everyone reports GPA, but everyone reports rank. But given the low numbers of students that report rank at most of these schools, it could tell something.
As long as it is taught decently well, the students won’t really complain that there is say, grade deflation or that “classes are too hard”. They have higher “tolerance” for rigor that more laid back students that are used to constantly seeing perfect numbers do not. My school, perhaps because it is a big STEM/life sciences/pre-health destination for undergraduates had a surprising amount of students whose experience with a science subject went beyond AP/IB and into competitions (not often, international olympiad level of course, we know which schools have a monopoly on such admits), research, or perhaps they attended schools (private or charter) with actual renowned programs in a STEM area. Thus, there were many more students that welcome certain levels of intensity and do not feel “oppressed” by it. You see this at extreme levels at places like Harvard, Princteon, Yale, Stanford, MIT, and a few others. Regardless of their SATs, many students are just waiting for their teacher that will truly push them and are willing to do it starting their freshmen year.
Schools with student bodies with the SAT range of those (HYPSM,etc) places, but that complain when they receive a much lower level of work, have a problem. Apparently the resistance can spiral out of control if a professor attempts to teach at the level of those institutions (there was a case at WUSTL I will not repost). I didn’t see that problem at my school and you know what it is. In terms of SATs, it is the lowest of the top 25 I believe. The solid instructors just do what they want (several pitch their course at exactly the same level or higher than some of the tippy top schools), and the students shut up and do the work (if you go over to the forum, you do not constantly see these threads asking about grade deflation because students who go there do not whine about such things. They accept that their teacher is easy, medium, or hard and move on), and thank them in the end. The most difficult instructors actually seem to be the most revered and all have many teaching awards. Best of all, students flock to some of these courses (though I notice biology students tend to be more timid with such classes in their own major. Perhaps they believe that if they major in biology, it would be risky to not make high grades in all biology classes, however, with something like chemistry, physics, psychology, neuroscience, or a difficult humanities or social science course, they can take a risk? I’m just glad they are willing to take a risk somewhere). Even business school favorites are among the most challenging (in particular, there is a business law professor known for giving I believe 4 hour exams, but students love her despite being forced to take the course I believe).
I digress: Solutions include, GRE subject tests or Chapel Hill’s grading scheme or simply paying close attention to the internal reward systems. Students should be rewarded for taking academic risks by the institution itself and I resent any reward scheme at a university (especially an elite) that only gives it to the person with the highest GPA in a subject (yes, there are some elites who have many departments that work like this. They give an award for highest GPA and that is the only criteria). Schools/departments attempting to foster higher levels of academic engagement typically look for that with other attributes (research, public scholarship, etc), because they want to reward scholarship and not perfect numbers. Elite schools should aim to turn as many students into scholars as possible regardless of their career goals IMHO. If a curriculum is effective, it will find ways of facilitating that.
