<p>I fumbled upon interesting article:</p>
<p>My</a> Turn, by Kurt Wiesenfeld</p>
<p>I am afraid to take this guy's class lol. Here's one of student's response to his statement:</p>
<p>My</a> Turn (For Engineers)</p>
<p>Dr. Jarrio’s worse (he is there currently).</p>
<p>The professor is right in that Gatech is more about the long hours of hard work than learning.</p>
<p>The student is right in that the grading at Gatech is based on how well you do on tests compared to the rest of the class.</p>
<p>That’s interesting, but I think lots of teachers have the same sentiments at many colleges, even ones with grade inflation. Luckily, at Emory most classes only curve up. Some do clearly cap grade ranges to percentages. Most tougher classes try to lump people or get the average to B- (especially pre-med dominated courses), so as to give a B range grade w/o giving the desired 3.0 or higher in the course for most people (yeah +/- can be rough, especially when they decide to curve down. I took a class where I was curved down. It was brutal). But yeah, we get the same, primarily b/c profs. here believe that they are extremely approachable and that all of the resources are in place for a student to do well. Unfortunately, that does not account for when they want design that one impossible exam meant to lower the average of their section (again, seems to be a rule to lower science courses, especially intros. to C+/B- by some means). Honestly, lately, our tough intro. courses have been more generous/less brutal than normal when it comes to grading. Biology (if you haven’t heard, it’s terrible here) actually has been scaling up sections falling significantly below others since last year. However, that’s probably only because of the new Dept. Chair who is stepping down. The new chair is brutal (I had him for Bio 2, did well, but it was the hardest section. Lots of people didn’t even manage C+) and I am certain he is for biology remaining a weed out unlike the current chair. Chem. profs. seem to be easier too (but the exams are still pretty difficult) and sometimes curve up. </p>
<p>Yeah, happens at many top institutions. I imagine it’s a bit rougher at Tech though. Primarily because many classes are large, and teachers are not as accessible and perhaps care less, like that prof. in the article. But if you have to take his class, don’t worry and do the best you can. Chances are you will not have to be one of those unfortunate students having to ask for a higher grade.</p>
<p>Just be happy you know what to expect from certain profs. there. It doesn’t suddenly change. The experience is so subjective here, depending on the year. One year, one professor is easy, the next they decide to whale on students and vice-versa. That’s what happened with chem. this year. Bio always changes 50% of its line-up (as in profs. teaching gen. bio) which can result in major changes. This year, Bio 1 was brutal (they let the neuro-scientists teach it) and there was no curve, and Bio 2 was easier because exams were even standardized to some level and there were curves. Being a science major here can be lame at times, and it’s not the mere difficulty, it’s knowing what to expect. Unlike what is being suggested in that student response, having past information/exams on certain profs. here is useless sometimes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s what Dr. Wiesenfeld meant, particularly since he said, The one thing college actually offers - a chance to learn - is considered irrelevant, even less than worthless, because of the long hours and hard work required.</p>
<p>I doubt there’s a single professor out there who doesn’t share Dr. Wiesenfeld’s exasperation at the recurring phenomenon of students asking for extra credit after the final. I’m surprised that the article was written in 1996; apparently, this type of behavior has been going on for a long, long time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether or not he meant it, it’s what he said- putting in long hours and hard work is more important (to students) because it brings in the grades- and learning and being interested in the material you’re learning is secondary- and that it’s not just a problem at Georgia Tech, but at every school.</p>
<p>I blame the bell curve for this whole discussion. If you literally decided at the beginning of the semester (based on prior year’s data) that you would give every student +5 points, whether they would average a 100 in the end or a 60 in the end, I think everything concerning grades and learning would be better.</p>
<p>It really ****es me off. The AP chem class in our school is probably the 2nd toughest in the school (behind AP Physics). It is ridiculously hard. I’ve ended up with a C+ prior to the bell curve pretty much every quarter. Usually around a 77. Then it gets scaled and I’ve pretty much been on the B/B+ line all year (86/87). BUT, there are also seniors who don’t care about their grades (senioritis) and just pretty much give up on the class. They wind up with 45s/50s prior to curve, but after the stupid bell curve, they gain 25-30 points and get a C! Where are my 25-30 points? That’s all I ask. Where are my 25-30 points? And if not my 25-30 points, give them their 9/10 point raise to wind up with an F. But certainly don’t reward them for doing no work all year long.</p>
<p>Ah, I remember AP chem at my school. It was one of the toughest grade wise (perhaps physics, AP US History, and both AP Govs. were as tough, because those teachers were also really hard). She did not curve (I don’t know any AP teachers at my school who did) either. We were on 4X4 block schedule, and did AP Year round. 4 quarters. The first quarter of her class was always brutal. My year was the first year that in which there was not 100% failure first semester (in most schools in Ga., 70 was passing, so all grades for first quarter would be below 70). My year was opposite, and grades generally decreased as we went along (mines were the opposite). Sometimes keeping it fair involves not curving at all as far as I am concerned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had Jarrio and I thought he wasn’t too bad >_></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Compared to some of the calculus teachers, probably not, but an ******* nevertheless.</p>