Is college becoming harder or easier as the decades pass?

<p>I've heard from many sources that MIT is easier than it used to be (although part of the reason is because it has diversified - UndulyLamarific said that Caltech, too, is easier than it used to be).</p>

<p>But yet, on the other hand, MIT and Caltech have more competitive applicant pools and stronger students than they used to have. Acceptance rates in past decades have been far lower in the past.</p>

<p>So I have a few questions. 1: Is the trend of easier courses universal among colleges across the US? (not just MIT and Caltech). And 2: If students are stronger than they were in the past, and the curriculum is easier than it was in the past, but is still very rigorous for most of its students - then how could the arguably weaker students in the past have coped with harder workloads? Did more students drop out in the past? Were GPAs in Caltech and MIT lower than they were in the past? Were lower GPAs expected of Caltech/MIT grads?</p>

<p>Third question: In the case that graduation rates for Caltech have been lower in the past (that is, IF they were lower in the past), then does this mean that Caltech's graduation rate increase is due to Caltech addressing the issue directly at hand, or does this mean that the increases in graduation rate were more so due to the aforementioned factors (namely, stronger students?)</p>

<ul>
<li>This is a direct question in response to sakky's numerous complaints with Caltech not doing enough to address its high dropout/transfer rate. I do not take sides on this - I just think another question would be helpful.</li>
</ul>

<p>Fourth question: Now, on the other hand, has the VARIANCE in the student body's ability (at Caltech/MIT) changed over the years?</p>

<p>how are you measuring the easiness of the course?
i doubt its getting "easier"</p>

<p>some cause might be
-course seems easier for more recent students from more competitive applicant pools, but itself did not get easier
- more is known about the world today, something that was new, complicated and high tech 10 years ago do not seems as confusing today.
-students today can start getting used to the harder course load in hs with all the AP classes</p>

<p>just my thought</p>

<p>However, AP is not making course curricula more rigorous</p>

<p>Here is a post from Roy Smith/mathwonk (who is a professor at UGA)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Some remarks on high school preparation for a college education:</p>

<p>Some time ago I argued that XXX could not be considered a particularly "hard" school in comparison with many others, because it had so few AP courses. Now that this is changing, I have begun to have some reservations. I had hoped AP courses would strengthen the program by upgrading weaker course offerings, rather than competing against the excellent courses already in place. I believe that in the country as a whole, this may have been a principal result of the proliferation of AP courses, tending to a sort of standardization of advanced instruction, bringing a reduction in quality of education at good high schools, rather than an overall upgrading of the level of the average course offering. I also did not realize that graduates of "Advanced Placement" courses would take the term too literally and try to place out of substantive courses in college which they should have taken. In the case of those AP students who repeat beginning college courses I have also found the problem of trying to teach in depth a college subject to people who think they have already learned it.</p>

<p>I am most familiar with mathematics, which I teach at the University of Georgia, so I use that example. The AP designation in calculus refers to a specific list of "topics" on which one must be prepared to work problems. A year of this AP material coincides with the content of one or two quarters of non honors college calculus at Georgia, but a full year college course, and especially an honors course, not only covers more ground, but treats the material at greater depth. It is ironic that AP calculus courses, which are taken by honors high school students, are comparable at best to non honors college courses, which the best such students would not elect.</p>

<p>As a result many entering AP college students place either into advanced, but less stimulating, non honors courses, or into intermediate honors college mathematics courses for which they are not prepared. Before the AP revolution, students prepared by getting a better grounding in algebra and geometry (and sometimes logic) than is found in high schools today, then took a first year college calculus course which included theory. Introductory college calculus courses for gifted mathematics students which teach theory as well as computation are hard to find today because so many students exempt this course with AP credit. The disappearance of the most outstanding introductory college calculus courses is thus a direct result of the proliferation of significantly inferior AP courses.</p>

<p>In view of its unsuitability, it is ironic that AP credit has begun to be designated as the "prerequisite" to some advanced courses, even though the true prerequisite for advanced work is often just the ability to think in a certain way. This may be the case even when the college catalog says otherwise. At Stanford for example, the prerequisite listed recently for honors intermediate calculus is a certain score on the AP calculus exam, but when asked, the departmental advisor said "Of course that's not the real prerequisite" (his emphasis). The real prerequisite? "To be able to handle proofs, with no apology". The book used in that course is volume 2 of Apostol, an outstanding text treating calculus with theory. Presumably the right preparation is to learn beginning calculus from volume 1 of Apostol, but where can the interested student find such a course? Stanford does not offer it (that's the course that was replaced by the AP courses), and it certainly is not available in most high school AP classes; (books used in the XXX course are ordinarily one or even two levels of sophistication below Apostol). The result of this at Stanford is roughly a 70% attrition rate (after the first week!) in the honors intermediate calculus class, among those students who have the required score on the AP test. Surely many of those students who must drop out are disappointed that they are not in fact prepared for the course, and possibly the career, they had wanted.</p>

<p>Unfortunately AP calculus courses and the standardized testing mentality have helped to eliminate, not just from the college Freshman mathematics curriculum but also from high schools, classes in which theory and proof (i.e. systematic logical reasoning) are taught, since "proofs" are seldom included on AP tests. For example the 1982 and 1987 AP BC calculus tests in my practice book have less than 3% proof questions, whereas the exams in the Stanford course above are said to be100% proofs. This phenomenon has accompanied years of decline, and the current near extinction, of adequate teaching of geometry in high school, which worsens the problem of learning either calculus or deductive reasoning.</p>

<p>I conjecture that these negative effects are not so great in some subjects where AP exemption is less common. For instance my impression is that in the recent past students from XXX's non AP honors English courses have been superbly prepared for beginning college courses in that subject. Presumably the reason is that in these classes, students learn to read, write, and discuss their ideas. I hope these courses are never replaced by ones designed to prepare people to answer multiple choice questions on the correct author of some obscure poem.</p>

<p>Interestingly, although our data at the University of Georgia shows no correlation (and even some negative correlation!), between scores on the quantitative SAT test and performance in our precalculus and basic non honors calculus courses, there does apparently exist a positive correlation (almost a direct one) with scores on the verbal SAT test. My own theory is that the verbal test, as bad as it is, at least measures vocabulary (mathematics is a language), and the ability to comprehend what one has read. Consequently the demise not only of instruction in reasoning in mathematics, but the decline in the ability of the average student to read and write, has steadily tracked the drop in performance also in basic mathematics courses for non honors students. (One might even argue from this that the claim that Saxon's books raise SATQ test scores, also suggests that they may lower average performance in college mathematics courses.)</p>

<p>What is my conclusion? I suggest the school seriously reconsider the practice of creating AP courses in subjects which are already represented by excellent honors courses, since this may well lead to the demise of the superior course, and a decrease in the quality of student preparation. In subjects where AP courses already compete with non AP courses, I strongly urge students to select the course which involves the most writing, and the deepest analysis, without regard to which one boasts a syllabus sanctioned by the Educational Testing Service. In cases where an AP course has already driven a superior course out of existence, I feel there is a strong argument for creating, or recreating, a non AP honors alternative.</p>

<p>I do not oppose taking AP classes in principle, but since (in my experience) they do not play an appropriate role in advanced college placement, I do believe they must justify themselves based simply on their educational merits. I also strongly suggest that a graduate of an AP class consider taking an introductory college honors course in the same subject rather than skipping the introductory course altogether.</p>

<p>The only case in which I see a reason to consider creating an AP class is in a subject where the existing course work is currently on an inappropriately low level. Even in such cases I think it likely that a non AP honors course designed by the teacher may be an even better option. In my opinion such an opportunity exists at XXX in the physics program, which I understand does not ordinarily offer a calculus based course. One possible way to make good use of the existing AP calculus course would be to offer a subsequent or concurrent calculus based physics course, or even a course that combined the two subjects. Since Newton invented calculus precisely to do physics, this is one of the best possible ways to learn both physics and calculus.</p>

<p>From my own perspective I believe there is also a real need for new substantive mathematics courses which are not just oriented towards performance on standardized tests. When I tell my colleagues at the University of Georgia that XXX does not offer a year long course in geometry for example, they do not readily believe me. I would also like to see innovative, faculty - sponsored, courses on other subjects of current or abiding importance in mathematics and related areas, such as linear algebra (an easier and more fundamental subject than calculus), finite mathematics and probabilty, computer programming, algorithms, numerical analysis, or computer aided design.</p>

<p>In general, I believe those of us who are "consumers" of XXX educations, parents and students, should have faith in the knowledge and scholarship of the teachers; these outstanding individuals should be considered at least as qualified to select the content of their courses as the faceless people who write standardized tests. Some of these teachers value and use an AP syllabus in their own courses, which is a recommendation to me of the positive aspects of some AP programs. Others prefer to design their own curricula. Such distinctive courses offer opportunities unique to XXX, and I believe they play a large role in the school's impressively successful identity. Some teachers may even be holding back exciting proposals thinking we want only standardized education from them. I hope such individually conceived courses will continue to be encouraged, and valued for the rare gems that they are.</p>

<p>For the students who must enroll in the courses if they are to survive, I suggest you remember primarily to try to educate yourself. In particular try not to let the quest for a flawless GPA prevent you from studying subjects you find difficult. Even if science courses are hard for you, how much can you understand about our world if you don't know at least something of biology, chemistry, physics, and (yes) mathematics? If you would enjoy going to Paris, or Madrid, it would help to speak French or Spanish. If you think art and music classes are not valuable, you might think about how you are going to create a beautiful environment in your apartment or home, or your life, without such knowledge.</p>

<p>Now what about the "real world" of getting into college or getting a job? Is it practical to just go along learning to read, write, reflect, analyze, discuss, and play, when you fear that college admissions officials are going to judge you based mainly on your standardized test profile? May I respectfully suggest we all try not to hyperventilate over college admission. From my own experience as a college professor, and reader and writer of countless recommendation letters, I recommend to you to be curious, to be diligent, and to pursue activities for which you have real enthusiasm. If you have a genuine enjoyment for learning, if you have thought deeply about any significant topic, if you have worked hard to accomplish something in any area, if you can express yourself well and have practiced discussing your ideas with others, it will come through in your college essay or interview as well as in your letters of recommendation.</p>

<p>I believe too, the tight job market in higher education over the last couple of decades means more and more colleges are now assembling the most qualified faculties they have ever had. Certainly this is true in mathematics. If you honestly embrace your XXX education, I believe you are virtually assured of admission to a college which offers more than any one person can possibly absorb. This is borne out by a glance at recent lists of admissions, and by speaking with recent graduates. Since there is a shortage of well qualified students at most colleges, there may be even a slight danger that you will get into a school which is actually too challenging.</p>

<p>And if after all you find yourself in a situation where you seem to need credentials you don't have? A positive attitude always helps overcome gaps in your vita. I have often been inspired by a story my mother told me about her interview for a secretarial job she needed badly during the great depression. When asked if she had any experience, she said "No, but I can learn to do anything anybody else can do." She got the job. You can too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i am NOT gonna read something that long....</p>

<p>AP depends on the school
for a school that has AP score average of like 3 , it might not be harder
for my school where most people get 5's , the class is harder (twice the hw, and deeper into the subject)</p>

<p>taking and doing well in AP classes are definitely harder than just normal classes. and its not just the curriculum that students are getting used to, it's also the pressure and balancing of activities.</p>

<p>and students will learn more with AP classes and are thus more prepared for college in general.
AP class are after all just an introductory college class
and i think that article has to do more with taking APs for GPA then how hard the curricula</p>

<p>more people taking AP classes are just another sign of people learning more in the same time frame .etc.</p>

<p>just my speculation</p>

<p>i don't get your logic
but wtv
i mean the course work load is all subjective
calc bc might be easy for some one that took precalc, someone that only took algebra 2 would be totally confused</p>

<p>if the applicants are more competitive the same course load will be easier on them...</p>

<p>In any case - in terms of AP course load - yes, applicants in HIGH SCHOOL are stronger than they were in the past. And there are MORE stronger applicants in high school than there were in the past.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>My point was, however, that a number of people have also said that at the same time that applicants are getting stronger, that COLLEGE courses have been becoming easier (by people like mathwonk and UndulyLamarific). I also read from sources in this forum that Caltech and MIT used to be a lot more of a firehose in the past. Perhaps it's that people there were more specialized (and more theoretical/mathematical) than they are now.</p>

<p>Mathwonk's concern above was that AP courses may be rigorous - but they aren't teaching real math (and do not prepare their students for theoretical math courses).</p>

<p>My (admittedly somewhat cynical) opinion is that MIT hasn't actually gotten easier, but that alums always mope about MIT being way less hardk0re than it was back in the day when they had to walk uphill both ways to 77 Mass Ave, etc.</p>

<p>I think that in general, incoming MIT students are both more talented on average and more prepared on average when they come in. That's not to say that high schools on average are better, but that it's easier for very talented students to come by enrichment in high school, even if they don't go to an east coast prep school.</p>

<p>What's that quote about the good old days being the world's youth?</p>

<p>Yeah, so my basic thesis is this:</p>

<p>If students were weaker "back in the day when they had to walk uphill both ways to 77 Mass Ave, etc." and if they had a more hardcore curriculum - then it's predictable that those students would be doing far less well than students are now (as in, students back then would have lower GPAs/higher drop out rates)</p>

<p>But no one has agreed that the old curriculum was harder yet. </p>

<p>Both Mollie and I speculated that it's might seems easier nowadays because of the better prepared students.</p>

<p>Have you thought of the possibility that the old curriculum might be actually easier?
Again it's all sort of subjective. Furthermore the the schools are more competitive now so its more likely for people to drop out from the stress/get lower scores from the curve for GPA because of the competition?
Again, all guess.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So I have a few questions. 1: Is the trend of easier courses universal among colleges across the US? (not just MIT and Caltech).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I strongly suspect that colleges in the US are substantially easier than they were in the old days. Of course I can't "prove" that, but it is a strong gut feeling based on the evidence put before me. See below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But yet, on the other hand, MIT and Caltech have more competitive applicant pools and stronger students than they used to have. Acceptance rates in past decades have been far lower in the past.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While it may indeed be true that MIT and Caltech have more competitive applicant pools compared to the past, I'm not entirely sure that that holds for schools across the board. Specifically, I am not sure that the average high school graduate or the average college freshman (whichever one you want to look at) is really better than his counterpart in the past. See below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
2: If students are stronger than they were in the past, and the curriculum is easier than it was in the past, but is still very rigorous for most of its students - then how could the arguably weaker students in the past have coped with harder workloads? Did more students drop out in the past? Were GPAs in Caltech and MIT lower than they were in the past? Were lower GPAs expected of Caltech/MIT grads?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To your first question, they didn't cope. To the rest of your questions, the answer is almost certainly 'yes'. Grade inflation only started taking hold in the 60's and 70's, largley as a response to the Vietnam War draft (as profs would try not to flunk students out as that would mean losing a student draft deferment and thus possibly getting sent to war). </p>

<p>
[quote]
Third question: In the case that graduation rates for Caltech have been lower in the past (that is, IF they were lower in the past), then does this mean that Caltech's graduation rate increase is due to Caltech addressing the issue directly at hand, or does this mean that the increases in graduation rate were more so due to the aforementioned factors (namely, stronger students?)</p>

<ul>
<li>This is a direct question in response to sakky's numerous complaints with Caltech not doing enough to address its high dropout/transfer rate. I do not take sides on this - I just think another question would be helpful.

[/quote]
</li>
</ul>

<p>Ben Golub would have more information about this, but I am 99% certain that Caltech graduation rates were lower in the past, and substantially so. </p>

<p>Secondly, while some of it may indeed be because the average Caltech student is better than in the past, much of it is also due to the fact that Caltech is a more accomodating school in the past. To give you a simple example - Caltech didn't even have the Humanities and Social Science department until a few decades ago. In the old days, if you came to Caltech and found out that you wanted to study one of the arts, you basically had no choice but to drop out. A similar thing happened at MIT - the MIT didn't even start offering degrees in humanities and social sciences (except for management) until a few decades ago. Heck, the Sloan School didn't even offer undergraduate management degrees until 1984. So, again, in the old days, if you came to MIT and found out that you wanted to major in something artsy, social-sciency, or businessy, you were SOL. As a case in point, Sloan management is now the 2nd most popular undergraduate major on campus after EECS (of all types). </p>

<p><a href="http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/histories-offices/sch-hum.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/histories-offices/sch-hum.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://mitsloan.mit.edu/50th/s-main.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mitsloan.mit.edu/50th/s-main.php&lt;/a>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/registrar/www/stats/deg0405.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/registrar/www/stats/deg0405.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>When you offer students more choices of major, your school becomes easier to graduate from simply because there is a greater chance of providing programs that the students want. Given the high popularity of Sloan right now, I think it's almost certain that Sloan's relatively new undergraduate program has corresponded to increasing MIT's graduation rate. Not to mention that the Sloan management degree program is almost certainly easier than the MIT engineering or natural science programs, such that if you come to MIT and find the technical curricula to be too hard, you can just "retreat" to shelter at Sloan. {Yet, Sloan grads make some of the highest starting salaries of any major at MIT, meaning that the 'retreat' to Sloan may actually be a brilliantly cunning move.} </p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation06.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation06.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>But anyway, even putting that aside, I strongly suspect that graduation from SOME college is a lot easier than it was in the old days. Let's face it. In the old days, the vast majority of Americans never went to college. Heck, the vast majority of Americans didn't even graduate from high school. To be a college graduate from ANY college in those days was to be a member of a very rare group. </p>

<p>Nowadays, that's just not true. Now, being a college graduate is so common as to be mundane. That's why a lot of companies can demand college degrees for jobs that, frankly, have nothing to do with a college education. They can often times demand that their secretaries have college degrees. Back in the old days, just being a high school graduate was often times enough to qualify for practically any secretary job. Nowadays, companies can demand college degrees just because they can - in short, because there are enough college graduates out there that they can start increasing their demands. I worked at one company where every secretary had at least a master's degree (and a few even had multiple master's, and one even had a PhD). None of their degrees had anything to do with their jobs, but it didn't matter - the company could demand graduate degrees even from its secretaries just because it knew it could. </p>

<p>The simple availability of the college degree has vastly increased due to the sheer number of colleges that opened in the last few decades, as well as the expansion of slots in those colleges. I seem to recall reading somewhere that before WW2, only a few hundred 4-year colleges existed in the US. Now we have about 2500. The growth in total seats in colleges has vastly exceeded the population growth. The upshot is that a college degree (from SOME college) is simply far easier to get than it was in the old days. </p>

<p>Graduate professional programs have likewise adjusted. For example, throughout most of American history, you didn't need a bachelor's degree to go to law school and/or to become a lawyer. Harry Truman never graduated from college, but still studied in law school for 2 years. Abraham Lincoln never graduated from any school (not even grade school), but yet still won admission to the Illinois Bar. Walter Reed (of the eponymous medical center) only studied for 2 years post-high-school to receive his MD, at age 18, from the University of Virginia (hence, he didn't need to have completed an undergraduate degree first). </p>

<p>The same thing seems to have happened with the high school diploma. Let's face it. The HS diploma nowadays doesn't exactly mean a whole lot - there are cases of people graduating from high school who can barely read or do simple math. Again, while I can't prove this, I suspect that this didn't happen in the old days - that high school teachers in the old days would not hesitate to flunk you out. However, given the litigious nature of K-12 education these days combined with the phenomenom of social promotion, these days you almost certainly have a substantial number of people who graduate from high school who really shouldn't be graduating. In other words, graduating from high school is probably easier today than it was in the past.</p>

<p>So having said all that, this is where I believe Caltech (and to a lesser extent) MIT is wrong in terms of how they flunk some of their students out. Like it or not, we live in a world where college degrees (from SOME college, ANY college) are so readily available that employers now demand degrees for even their most basic jobs. Hence, by flunking some students out, Caltech is gravely hurting those students. You know what's going to happen. When you submit your resume for a job, and you don't have a degree, your resume is going to get tossed. The employer isn't going to care WHY you don't have a degree. All they're going to see if that you don't have a degree, and that's the end of the story. You can't sit down with them and explain that you just happened to go to a very difficult school that flunks a lot of very worthy people out. You won't even get to have that conversation with them. </p>

<p>The truth is, whether we like it or not, employers now use education as * screening mechanisms*, such that many of them won't even interview you if you don't have a degree. The reason why employers do so now and not in the past is simply because they CAN. Back in the old days, there were so few college graduates that screening for such grads made no sense because you would reduce the number of candidates to a miniscule level. Nowadays, with college degrees being so readily available, you can successfully screen for degrees. But that means that those people who went to difficult schools like Caltech and flunked out will get screened out, despite the fact that they are far more qualified than those people who graduated with cheesepuff degrees from no-name schools but who didn't get screened out (because at least they have a degree). Similarly, graduate schools (i.e. law schools, med schools) now require a bachelor's degree, or at least several years of college with strong performance (hence, not failing). </p>

<p>Look, I don't like it that employers use degrees as screens. But like it or not, this is the world we live in. Those schools who pretend otherwise are just hurting their own students. Sure, back in the old days, flunking out of Caltech (or any college) was no big deal, because there were so few college graduates anyway. You could still get a quite decent job, or still go off to law school or medical school without a bachelor's degree. These days, it's not so easy. </p>

<p>Now, I can understand Caltech (and MIT, Berkeley and other difficult schools) not wanting to grant degrees to people who they don't think meet their standards. Fine. But I think, at the very least, you can still help those students out. For example, how about just not print on the external transcripts any failing grades of any of the students who flunk out (i.e., as if they had just retroactively dropped those classes). Or at least convert them to grades of "C-". Something that looks better than an F. Why not? They're not going to graduate from your school anyway. So who cares what their real grades are? Let them transfer to another school with a clean slate. Let them pursue the rest of their career with a clean slate. </p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. Right now, if you flunk out of college, that fact will haunt you for the rest of your life. Any future employer, any grad school, any of these institutions who ask for your transcripts will notice that you flunked out and may choose to hold that fact against you. Even personal bankruptcies are, by law, wiped from your credit record after 10 years (and many credit bureaus will wipe it after 7). But your academic record sticks with you * for life *.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fourth question: Now, on the other hand, has the VARIANCE in the student body's ability (at Caltech/MIT) changed over the years?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Variance has probably increased. Back in the old days, colleges didn't have admissions committees. Instead, your admission was based on obtaining a minimum score on the entrance exam. </p>

<p><a href="https://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/%5B/url%5D"&gt;https://libraries.mit.edu/archives/exhibits/exam/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hence, if nothing else, you knew that every student scored at least the minimum necessary to get admitted. </p>

<p>These days, you can't be so sure. There are no minimum criterions that everybody has to meet. Some people with relatively low qualifications that ordinarily should have resulted in rejection will nonetheless get admitted anyway because the admissions committee finds some redeeming virtue in that students application. Note, I am not commenting on the propriety of this policy, I am simply pointing out that this happens. The point is, no longer is there a standard that everybody has to meet to get admitted. Hence, that would indicate that variance has probably increased. It doesn't prove it, of course. But it is an indication.</p>

<p>Very nice post, sakky! :) Indeed, it is probably far easier now to graduate with SOME degree due to those departments. I'm also curious about whether it has been becoming easier to graduate with math or theoretical physics degrees now than it has been in the past. </p>

<p>==
One of the best sources of information pertaining to whether the curriculum was more difficult in the past or not may come from parents of MIT/Caltech students who were themselves MIT/Caltech grads. If these parents saved their problem sets, textbooks, and answers, then they probably would have a means of comparing difficulty between earlier years and later years.</p>

<p>What we do know - is that for one thing, the Putnam was much easier in the past, and that for another thing, that there was not as much to learn in the past as there is now. Before the 1960s, many fields that exist now didn't exist in the past. And I wonder if increasing educational standards could correspond to the fact that people now just need to learn more in order to do any scientific research at all (another thing is that fluid intelligence is known to decline with age and that "Physics is becoming so unbelievably complex that it is taking longer and longer to train a physicist. It is taking so long, in fact, to train a physicist to the place where he understands the nature of physical problems that he is already too old to solve them" - in the words of Eugene Wigner.)</p>

<h1>But on the other hand - it seems that most of the additional research is being taught in grad school. Undergrads are typically only exposed to material that has been developed before say, the days of Quantum Electrodynamics.</h1>

<p>

-- lapse in attention, I meant, acceptance rates now are far lower than they were in the past.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If these parents saved their problem sets, textbooks, and answers, then they probably would have a means of comparing difficulty between earlier years and later years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I did just that. The textbooks and problem sets are of equal difficulty. But the students today have the distinct advantage of being able to use calculators and laptops instead of slide rules. Even typing up a paper is now easier, due to word processing and spell check. Those old typewriters were not very unforgiving when it came to typos. Laboratory work is move advanced today, but the equipment is also much easier to use. They now get to use Digital balances with auto-tare instead of verniers, and computerized, self integrating results from spectrographs instead of the old sheets of semi-log graph paper. It all adds up to greater ease of use and faster results. Math difficulty is pretty much the same as always, except the students are taking beginning Calculus in high school instead of Freshman year. I'm not sure how much of an advantage that is to the students today, however.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Math difficulty is pretty much the same as always, except the students are taking beginning Calculus in high school instead of Freshman year. I'm not sure how much of an advantage that is to the students today, however.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On the other hand - that sort of beginning Calculus is purely computational rather than theoretical or difficult. The post I quoted above illustrates a math professor's complaint about the AP-obsession of schools. Depth is sacrificed for breadth.</p>

<p>"Now, I can understand Caltech (and MIT, Berkeley and other difficult schools) not wanting to grant degrees to people who they don't think meet their standards. Fine. But I think, at the very least, you can still help those students out. For example, how about just not print on the external transcripts any failing grades of any of the students who flunk out (i.e., as if they had just retroactively dropped those classes). Or at least convert them to grades of "C-". Something that looks better than an F. Why not? They're not going to graduate from your school anyway. So who cares what their real grades are? Let them transfer to another school with a clean slate. Let them pursue the rest of their career with a clean slate."</p>

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I have been reading posts on your position on Caltech's graduation for some time. I have to say I did not always agree with them but having a son that recently graduated from the institution I have changed my opinion.</p>

<p>I naively bought into the idea that a student that did not fit at Caltech could simply transfer to another university. For all I know you can find examples of students that indeed transferred to Duke or Harvard, but this is far from the norm. What I have learned through my son is that many of students will probably not make it into schools that a year or two before were their safeties.</p>

<p>I don't think either one of your examples would work because a transcript with no grades would probably convey the same information about the student performance. I personally don't think converting grades would be an acceptable solution but that is beyond the point. The reality is that this is a problem that should be addressed, and the Institute has the resources to do something about it. I want to believe, and I think I am correct on this, that the community cares enough about to be looking for a solution.</p>

<p>I don't think will work either but for the sake of discussion why not offer students a "transition year" through Occidental or a nearby college or university? During this year the student could build up his/her GPA and show the upward trend that other schools look favorably. Of course this would not work for every student that chooses to leave, but it would make the safety net stronger than it is.</p>

<p>Please do not interpret my reference to Oxy as condescending since I am implying that another school's drop out would be successful there. I think it is far to say that students accepted to Caltech have already proven that in the right conditions they can excel.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think either one of your examples would work because a transcript with no grades would probably convey the same information about the student performance

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It probably wouldn't work perfectly. But I would argue that it would work a lot better than what happens now. For example, there are plenty of state schools that really do admit students, including transfers, largely based on "the numbers". Hence, even if you do go to a school like Caltech and do poorly but have your failing grades excised out (or at least converted to C- grades), then, combined with your still-valid SAT score, your application may still be strong enough to merit admission to that state school. In any case, I would argue that that's still better than what happens now. </p>

<p>And besides, only in rare cases would I envision a Caltechstudent presenting a transcript with absolutely NO grades. That would only happen if the student truly did fail every one of his classes. In most cases, a student who does poorly will only fail (or get D's in) some of his classes. In that case, I would advocate simply excising those bad grades from his transcript. Again, why not? He's not going to graduate from Caltech anyway. So what does it matter if he did poorly in some of his Caltech classes? Let him just take a 'retroactive drop' of those classes. </p>

<p>For those rare students who really did fail every one of their classes, why not just act as if that student had never registered for any classes at all? Just give him an official withdrawal from Caltech retroactive to the day before classes started. Again, if the student isn't going to graduate from Caltech anyway, why not do this? It doesn't hurt anybody. </p>

<p>I see that you've invoked the notion of information signalling. You say that conveying a blank transcript would convey the same information as what happens now. I'm afraid I must disagree. After all, * this entire problem * is predicated on the lack of available information. After all, if all other schools really knew how difficult Caltech really was, such that those who flunk out of Caltech are still, frankly, probably better than a lot of other students who those other schools actually admitted, then they would admit those failed Caltech students, and I agree there would be no problem. For example, a school might see that somebody got an F in Caltech in his "Super-Complicated Quantum Theory of Everything" course and would simply not that that's a course that practically everybody in the world would get an F in, and not hold it against the student. The problem is that those other schools either don't know this, or they do know it and don't care. Either accidentally or deliberately, they are misinterpreting the information. Hence, if this is what happens, then the best thing to do is to simply deny them the information. After all, better to not provide any information at all than to provide information that you know is going to be misinterpreted. </p>

<p>I think this phenomenom is demonstrated most starkly in law and med-school admissions. The truth is, law and med-school admissions are just a game of getting high grades. They don't reward knowledge, they don't reward challenging curricula. They reward grades. Hence, it's far better to get an A in "Counting from 1 to 10" than an F in "Super-Complicated Quantum Theory of Everything". Sad but true. Hence, law and med-school adcoms time and time again will choose to misinterpret information conveyed by grades, especially bad grades in difficult classes. Hence, I think this is a situation that is crying out loud for denying information that we know will be misinterpreted. Just like how the market misinterprets how flunking out of Caltech is supposedly worse than having a degree from a 4th tier school (even though most students at the 4th tier school would get absolutely creamed if they had gone to Caltech). </p>

<p>
[quote]
The reality is that this is a problem that should be addressed, and the Institute has the resources to do something about it. I want to believe, and I think I am correct on this, that the community cares enough about to be looking for a solution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually, I'm not sure that the community really does care. While I don't want to overly put words in Ben Golub's mouth, he has several times expressed the sentiment that the legitimate danger of flunking out is what gives Caltech that 'extra edge' -i.e. that the knowledge that you really could ruin your career is what supposedly drives the students to go the extra distance. Hence, it seems to me that at least some of the Caltech community view the danger as an inherent part of the program, and hence wouldn't want Caltech to find a solution.</p>

<p>As far as I know MIT has not begun to offer 'Physics for Poets' yet so everyone can relax! MIT and CalTech are still amazing tough schools to get into and graduate.</p>