I feel I need to play devil’s advocate again here and point out that there are actual potential benefits to the “first year engineering” approaches to engineering education. The whole idea is to make sure every student is up to snuff on the basics before they enter the actual core courses. Sure, it adds another layer of stress if you have to go through a competitive admissions process a second time, but the whole idea is to try to make sure students are truly prepared for the core classes and actually improve retention. It’s no coincidence that these programs tend to pop up at large state schools with big programs that don’t have the luxury of being ultraselective in their initial admissions decision. In some sense, it levels the playing field.
The important point is to carefully research and understand the GPA requirements for keeping Merit scholarships. (Need -based financial aid typically would not depend on GPA).
It is more likely that the reason behind these programs is to keep enrollment within each major’s capacity. GPA minimums or selection standards are generally set to keep each major’s enrollment within capacity, even if a popular major has to deny well qualified students (e.g. has a 3.5 GPA minimum, denying 3.4 GPA students) while a less popular major takes all applicants with at least a 2.0 GPA.
In theory, C grades indicate solid passing performance and readiness for the next course, so, in theory, a student passing frosh year courses with C grades should be “up to snuff” to go on. But many engineering divisions “weed out” students with significantly better academic performance.
Having worked at one institution who implemented one of those programs, I can tell you that isn’t the case. That may be a friend benefit, but the primary goal is retention. In particular, large state schools are facing increased enrollment requirements and, as always, have lower entrance requirements than the privates. The primary goal of these programs is to avoid dumping a kid who can’t pass calculus into a thermodynamics class.
“Can’t pass” would be earning a D or F grade, so such a student would not be able to progress regardless of whether there is an additional weeding step requiring a GPA significantly higher than 2.0.
Unless, of course, the implementation of the weeding process is an indirect way of saying that “passing” means a 3.0 or 3.5 GPA instead of a 2.0 GPA.
That may be, but the motivation is finding a way to improve retention. Faculty and administrators don’t sit in smoke filled rooms trying to devise ways to exclude more students. Not in this era. In our committee meetings, the focus for these things is always on how we can improve retention and how we can reach more people.
How is weeding out a student who is doing fine (e.g. 3.0 or 3.4 GPA) supposed to help retention?
Both my kids went to schools that had a year of general engineering. I was glad they had the opportunity to explore their options before committing to a major. The requirements are well known upfront in terms of what you need to move into a major, so it was not a big deal. Some prefer these kinds of programs, others prefer schools that admit directly to major.
It is a big deal though. Just because an objective is know, doesn’t mean it’s easily attainable. Every kid starts certain THEY will get a 4.0. Having to compete injects the risk that illness, lack of discipline or focus, or any one of a bazillion other unfortunate things could derail a career.
That said, my son’s school is the complete opposite. They admit competitively by major. That means prospective MEs are only judged against other perspective MEs. It’s a tough system for an uncertain student as changing majors is arduous at best and for some desired moves, impossible.
I’m surprised that wpi is viewed to have grade inflation. gpas might be higher because the minimum passing grade is a C, but it is pretty easy to see when someone has not passed a course (if you are interviewing and seeing a transcript). Their graduates certainly are in high demand and command high salaries. In my recruiting I’ve found them to be very impressive students but hard to hire because they have jobs lined up early in their junior years from all of the coop/internships they take.
@eyemgh Regarding WPI, I would be a little surprised if a 4.0 covers ‘average, good, or very good’ students. That’s a wide band. However, I get your point. It can be difficult to distinguish very good from truly great. There is a pretty healthy percentage of students who ‘NR’ at least one class while there. Since a D or F is never recorded, employers might not know it took 2 tries to get through a calculus course. Plus, the GPA doesn’t reflect the low grade.
OP - some smaller engineering schools do offer merit with no minimum GPA. WPI is one, though if you don’t pass two or more classes, I believe they reduce the scholarship. RPI is another. Case might be the same. As discussed here, common wisdom is Case and RPI have grade deflation.
@boneh3ad I know a lot of schools have implemented 1’st year programs, and it is due to retention concerns.
However, what is the retention advantage of a 1’st year program? All first year engineering students take the same basic core classes, Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, etc. They may also take a few other freshman level “engineering” classes, like autocad/mathlab/programing. However, most engineering classes (like Thermo) can’t be taken, due to pre-requisite requirements. Many schools also have 1’st year orientation classes, either by major or/and by college.
From someone looking in from the outside, it seems to be more of a structural change. Perhaps it’s a way to identify potential engineering students, where before most freshman/sophomores were “undecided”…Every student takes the same classes, sees the same advisors, etc. I see the biggest advantage, is having freshman engineering students work with college of engineering advisors, who ensure they take the correct classes, etc.
Without a doubt, varying the GPA requirement by major, acts as a tool to manage enrollment by major. However, that’s been around for decades, it’s not something that’s new with these first year engineering programs. I had a roommate (back in the 80’s) who switch from electrical to Industrial, because he’s physics grade (C or C+) was too low.
@VMT, I wasn’t suggesting that everyone at WPI gets a 4.0. I’ve just heard they have grade inflation. As such there’s less separation at the top, less certainty that a high GPA student is truly a stellar performer.
Yes, students need to realize that earning a 3.5 GPA in college is harder than earning a 3.5 GPA in high school.
Note that this also applies to scholarships which have high renewal GPAs.
There are really no absolutes in these things. "Every kid starts certain THEY will get a 4.0. " Not my experience. We had no discussion about it and neither son made any pronouncements in advance . Only thing we advised was that we expected them to do their best and not screw off TOO much, as we were paying good money for them to go to college. 
"Earning a 3.5 GPA in college is harder than earning a 3.5 GPA in high school . " Not for everyone. My younger kid did much better in college than high school, well above 3.5 after first year. Oldest did well in both high school and college.
General engineering allows kids to explore options before committing . It is not for everyone. If you absolutely know at 17 or 18 what you want to study, you might want to focus on schools that admit to major. CS is particularly popular these days . Most of the schools that start with general engineering still do well with placement in a kid’s desired major, some with 87%+ matching of first choice . There will always be students who do not do well in the beginning classes. Those may have to settle for a second or third choice major or move out of engineering altogether. But many of the big programs do want good retention and offer support for students. Not all students, though, will make use of available resources. That is probably nothing new .
Sorry for the delay, but I’ll expand a little bit, since others have asked, on my defense of those first-year programs. I think it’s especially disingenuous of some of you to insist that students with a 3.4 GPA are being turned away. That’s at best ignorance of and at worst willful disregard of the fact. I’ll use Texas A&M as an example, since it’s the program with which I am most familiar. The following links have the pertinent information:
[Entry to a major (ETAM)](Entry to a Major Process | Texas A&M University Engineering)
[ETAM requirements and fourth semester info](https://engineering.tamu.edu/academics/advisors-procedures/fourth-semester-general-engineering-program-student-policy)
[2017 ETAM profiles](https://engineering.tamu.edu/academics/advisors-procedures/entry-to-a-major/resources/analysis-spring-2017-admission-cycle)
So, the first benefit is obviously not locking you into a major based on information you have in high school. I guessed mechanical engineering when I was 18 and turned out to have made a pretty good guess. Not ever high school senior is so lucky. In these programs, they attend school, learn about the various forms of engineering, and make a more informed choice later. A more informed choice means they are less likely to end up switching majors later when they realize they’ve made a mistake based on their high school thinking.
Second, many of these state schools have very large programs and have a certain responsibility to educate the students of their state. This means their admissions standards are often quite low. If you place students in a first-year program that allows up to 4 years of prep prior to ETAM, that, in some sense, normalizes the 5-year plan for students who need more remedial work, and also prevents them from registering for advanced classes outside their abilities just because that class is “next up” on their schedule. In short, it helps discourage students from overreaching at the beginning. A more measured approach like that, in theory, should help pace students better for their own ability level and make them less likely to flame out early.
A more cynical “benefit” in terms of retention is that it leads to students who just can’t hack it dropping out before they actually reach one of the departments. That doesn’t necessarily change the dropout rate of the engineering college as a whole, but it would make the stats of the departments look better. That is definitely not a student-facing benefit. More of a political technicality for the departments.
The main downside is that obviously there is uncertainty and stress about going through a second application process, but the school cites 100% of students get admitted to a major, 95% to a first or second choice, and 87% to their first choice. That first choice is based on when they apply, so I don’t believe that accounts for students who intentionally choose their second choice due to changing their minds.
In short, it’s not a perfect solution, but I don’t think it’s a universal bad thing, either. At worst I’d call it neutral.
The negativity about general engineering ,first year programs , has seemed overblown. If people graduated decades ago, these programs may seem more unfamiliar. And programs/departments became more or less popular as time goes on.
Getting to a specific GPA is HIGHLY dependent on the school and even sometimes the program within the school. It’s not simply a matter of will and horsepower.
Of course that is true that GPA’s are school specific. And that is nothing new. And employers can get a sense of a candidate based on what they know about a specific school . There are so many good schools for engineering that fit, finances, location all come into play. And no, it’s never a matter of only “will and horsepower” but those qualities/aptitudes never hurt.
If you are concerned about keeping the scholarship, you need to pay attention to what is required to keep the scholarship and see if that gpa is being earned by most students at that school. My daughter had two different scholarships that required a certain gpa, and was 3.0 (Florida Bright Futures) and the other was 2.8 (school merit). Many more students in all the schools in Florida lose the BF because they can’t keep up a 3.0 than lose the merit scholarship at the engineering school. Her school is not an ‘easy’ school, but the students work hard to keep up their grades. Getting one C is not going to cost you the scholarship, but getting a whole bunch of them may.
There are schools that set very high requirements to maintain the the scholarship and many students are weeded out the first year. Avoid those.