Sure, there are always a few jerky profs who don’t give a darn about undergrads, but I’d bet big cyber dollars that most Chem Profs, for example, want kids to like Chem. Heck, I’d wager the vast majority of Organic Chem profs want kids to learn the spatial-temporal reasoning skills to master Organic.
(The more kids in the courses means more money for the department.)
The rub comes from the fact that, unlike some Lit/Hume courses, STEM courses are curved. (Grading type does not matter.) STEM courses will not award a class full of A’s. Just cannot happen, at least in lower division coursework. (Now whether it shoudl be that way is another issue; STEM faculty may question why Lit/Hume courses aren’t curved!)
And since many of those taking Gen Chem 1 or Calc 1 have already aced the respective AP course, the other non-AP students are behind the curve at the outset.
@Data10, when I was there, Northwestern STEM classes tended to have a grade distribution where roughly a third of the class each got A’s, B’s, and C’s (and a tiny percentage did worse).
The grade distribution at Northewestern increases overtime, as described at http://www.gradeinflation.com/Northwestern.html . In 2015, the average Northwestern GPA as reported in the link above was 3.48. At the current rate of increase, the expected average GPA at Northwestern would be a little over 3.5 today… comparable to other similarly selective colleges and again suggesting the majority of grades are A, and few get C’s. In older reports, McCormick engineering had an average GPA of ~0.1 below the overall university. If the GPA gap between STEM and non-STEM is consistent with such older reports and/or comparable to other similarly selective colleges, then the average grade distribution in Northwestern STEM classes would be quite different from your post.
@Data10 It seems the OP is asking about freshman engineering grades. I assume you are quoting graduation GPAs.
Engineering has a higher attrition rate, so does pre-med. Students often change their major and excel during the next three years, often overloading (freshman are limited to a max number of credits). C or C- in Chem or Physics freshman year will not greatly reduce a final GPA.
It is also common (at Penn not sure about others) for there to be multiple sections of the same course. The depth of the core science and math courses are often tailored to different groups of engineering majors. Non-stem majors take an additional section. Obviously some of those course sections are more difficult than others, and the track (your recommended core class sections of math, physics, chem) ensures that you obtain the skills to succeed in your major specific classes.
Yes, IVYs and other top tier schools have a very talented population. However, a parent and child do not really know if they are capable or have the desire and determination of standing out in that population until they assimilate. The general population is not as talented, so the working world will seem like a breeze in comparison.
“Bcos it doesn’t matter. If the Prof’s median is a C+, then a 60 average is a C+. If a different Prof’s median is a 85, then that’s what the C+ level is.”
Of course I understand that. Grading on a curve existed even back in my day. However, you are cherry picking parts of my post to counter. Here’s the rest of what I said:
“So, a median in the 60s means that at least half the class failed that particular exam, absent curves of course but if a prof needs to curve so heavily, again I ask what can be changed either in the test or the teaching to get more students to a higher level of mastery and learning. Final grades might be higher but learning should be about subject mastery IMO and less about grades anyway. Just kind of question whether tests where so many bomb are really helping the cause of learning and mastery of material.”
Okay, let’s not call it “failing” since everyone seems to be getting caught up on that word. Let’s call it taking an exam and not getting half the questions correct. Perhaps, that is okay if, as @profdad2021, that is supposed to be part of the learning experience. I still question the merit of that approach, though. Just because it has always been done that way doesn’t mean it needs to be or should be. Frankly, I could care less about grades and GPA which I think too many parents and students focus on too much vs. learning for learning’s sake. More important to me is learning and mastery and I’m not convinced the current approach maximizes either learning or mastery. To me, it is somewhat analogous to what I deem to be an antiquated med school system - the long, long hours, the stress, etc. There are huge downsides to that. I’ve never heard compelling arguments as to why that is considered “best practice”. I just don’t think it needs to be the way it is because that’s the way it has always been.
@doschicos Mastery with a time constraint for a problem that requires levels of critical thinking can be defined in many ways. Difficult physics, chemistry and math problems were not solved in under two hours, they were pondered, different solutions debated and discussed. What makes students very upset is when the department does not publish problem set or review problem solutions. I doubt that this is from being lazy, but intended to facilitate more collaboration, discussion and debate among the student body.
" Difficult physics, chemistry and math problems were not solved in under two hours, they were pondered, different solutions debated and discussed."
Good info and I’m sure it’s true. Perhaps measurement of mastery should incorporate ways that encourage that collaboration, discussion, and debate which we all know is important in the real world then.I don’t get the sense these kinds of exams being discussed here help with that. And hopefully, all those goals are clearly laid out for students rather than expecting them to stumble through their first year learning the hard way about the best way to learn and handle exams. Given how many posts I’ve seen over the years like the OP’s, I don’t get that sense at all. To me, it is very similar to the compensation models and measurement tools used by a large corporation. Thought should be given, and often isn’t, to exactly what type of behavior one is trying to encourage when deciding how to reward people, in a job setting through pay and other rewards, and in the classroom through grading and how you measure mastery.
Freshman generally do not take engineering major specific classes. In my original post of this thread, I listed specific course distributions in freshman math/science classes at Stanford, which are taken by a wide variety of students including engineering, pre-med, and others. Using Stanford as an example, one can compare freshman math/science class grade distribution to overall grade distribution and get a relative idea how GPA might changing between freshman math/science and overall. I am assuming the most popular course when there are multiple levels (there usually are for intro freshman math/science). Intro math/science classes usually do have more C grades than upper level classes for reasons that have been discussed in this thread, but I’ve yet to hear of a highly selective college with grade distributions similar to the ones suggested by the original post.
Freshman Math – 55% A, 15% C or lower
Freshman Physics – 50% A, 10% C or lower
Freshman CS – , 60% A, 5% C or lower (often Stanford’s most popular class)
All Engineering School Classes – 65% A, 5% C or lower
All Classes – 65% A, 5% C or lower
Ok. THIS is why our high school prepares kids so well. In honors classes, the tests look nothing like the problems from homework. Especially in the math and science classes, you are given problems that are unfamiliar but that the kids should be able to figure out if they know their stuff. When I hear about kids on CC who have 97 or 98 in a class, I don’t get it because that’s not our kids’ reality. In fact, in honors science classes, they only need an 80 to get an A in the class and, even then, only about a half of the class gets an A. It’s rough. That being said, every student I know who went off to college last year came back and said they felt prepared. I’m glad our school does not inflate grades.
" only about a half of the class gets an A. It’s rough. That being said, every student I know who went off to college last year came back and said they felt prepared. I’m glad our school does not inflate grades."
No offense but IMO half the class getting As is still grade inflation. Glad they are well prepared though.
@doschicos The reason that good tests don’t produce a bunch of 95s is that they test how the kids apply what they’ve learned. They don’t just memorize how to do a problem they’ve seen in homework. The tests are not unfair. They stretch the kids to think.
I’ll never forget a professor I had in college who always let us bring our notes and books for open note tests. He told us to go for it because it wouldn’t help us. My brain hurt after those tests. He would curve the scores. Most kids ended up with a B which I thought was fair. Nowadays kids think they should get an A if they can regurgitate their homework reading or do math problems on a test that are the same as the homework. They charge that “it’s no fair! We didn’t learn that problem!”
As for American standardized tests, the SAT does a much better job on the math section of challenging the student with the questions. Most of them aren’t particularly straight forward. The kids have to think about how to do some of those problems instead of just remembering a formula and sticking numbers in. The questions are more like puzzles to figure out. The ACT’s problems are really homework problems out of a textbook. That being said, SAT math still doesn’t differentiate students very well since it stops at trig and many kids go way past trig in high school.
“The reason that good tests don’t produce a bunch of 95s is that they test how the kids apply what they’ve learned. They don’t just memorize how to do a problem they’ve seen in homework. The tests are not unfair. They stretch the kids to think.”
Totally get that and it is why we made the educational choices for our kids that we did and sacrificed financially to do so. Again, as I’ve stated before, I’m not concerned that students aren’t getting As or 95s and am aware of rampant grade inflation in many high schools. Yes, grade inflation sucks. Memorization and plugging numbers into equations without understanding why sucks. I’d still argue that there is a HUGE territory between a 95 and a median of 50 or 60, especially in an environment where all students meet a certain intellectual ability.
I think a lot of the discussion is hung up on what IS instead of thinking how to make the learning process and the mastery better, whether the current exams and grading environment is maximizing the best outcomes for the most students or not.
There is another factor as well-some tenured professors are more focused on research than teaching. They are unfortunately not skilled in getting their ideas across to students.
Also in some colleges, the STEM instructors are not native English speakers and tend to be extremely confusing in their lecture style and how they write their midterms.
From my perspective it would have been helpful if D would have been given more of a heads up before selecting her classes. Perhaps she would have audited… like some chose to do. Or would have studied differently before her gpa took a hit. I totally get that they are selecting for those students who can analyze/problem solve at the next level.
I think just telling 17, 18 yr olds that college is “hard and be ready” is not really all that helpful.
Definitely not limited to Ivies, or to Engineering classes. She is not alone. I hope she is not discouraged. Time to regroup, modify studying plans, and approach next year well rested.
Sounds pretty cush to me. Our competitive public HS had about 20% A’s, 35% B’s, and that was across most academic disciplines (excl. music PE, Health and art courses like Ceramics).
In fact, your example just shows the fallacy of a grade system based on 90 = A, 80 = B, and so on vs. a curve. In fact, they are both curves. Its just in your HS, the teacher sets the rigor of the tests such that half the kids earn a 80+, for an A. (In other words, easy rigor.)
But mathematically (remember this is STEM), that is no different than setting the rigor of the tests for a median at 60+ and still giving all of the top half of the class an A.
On the other hand, if all kids are smart and engaged, there doesn’t necessarily need to be many Cs, or any Ds and Fs at all. At least that is how fairly high GPAs at elite schools are justified. It doesn’t have to be a distribution where someone must fail.
However, you are cherry picking parts of my post to counter. Here’s the rest of what I said: