The major issue, IMO, is the quality of teaching.
The major schools look for profs who will publish and get research grants. The major unis don’t care about quality of education for undergrads, just reputation, derived bringing in smart kids with little measurment if what those kids learned.
@skieurope, re. post #2, I may have missed it, but what university were you referring to? I do know that at least one Ivy League, Penn, will allow summer courses from other 4 year universities to be counted as credit if the course is pre-approved. My son got a summer Econ class from UCSD approved for transfer, but he had to apply before he took the class to make sure that he was granted approval before he took it. Maybe Penn is the only Ivy to do that? Or maybe it’s only certain classes that are approved for transfer?
@doschicos:
“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.”
Only if you don’t care to differentiate among the very top and say that every smart and engaged kid gets a gold medal.
A First from a top British uni still means something because only 10-15% of the student body (actually, these days, maybe 15-20%) even at Oxbridge (and other top UK unis) get that (and the final exams that determine most/all of your final honours level are reviewed by outside professors). . . . and granted, the vast majority at those schools get 2:1’s these days, and that is the bare minimum cut-off for entry to a good British grad school (I digress).
What does it mean when half or more of your class graduates with Latin Honors or gets a GPA above 3.5? Then that means that people can only judge by what college you got in to . . .that is, by what you did in HS (and outside factors like recs, research, etc.).
It also means that a near perfect GPA would be expected by top law schools and PhD programs (and a high GPA by med schools) for an applicant to stand a chance. Does that encourage risk-taking by students or does it encourage grade-grubbing?
My eldest son, who graduated from MIT with a math degree said that the kids who got the As in math classes were USAMO/IMO winner-types, and there were a lot of them who were math majors. My son may have been an easy straight A student in high school (where he took CC classes through Dif Equations and then worked with a tutor/mentor on upper division math topics), but he was not one of the kids getting the As or even Bs in some of his math classes. Definitely hard to get As in those math classes.
Many not-small, highly selective colleges do this in the form of a placement exam. For example, incoming Harvard students are required to take a placement exam in math, and they have optional placement exams in most sciences. Based on the placement tests returns a recommended starting course in freshman math, science, language, etc. Similarly Stanford requires a placement exam in math and offers them in science + language. The language placements often have an oral component, as well as a written one. However, such placement tests are usually recommendations on course selections, rather than requirements.
When I attended Stanford, they had 4 freshman physics sequences/classes – one physics for poets type class, one no-calculus class that was popular among pre-meds and humanities students, one uses-calculus class that was popular among STEM majors, and one more rigorous class that some who were contemplating a physics major selected. The latter class listed AP physics as prerequisite. My HS didn’t offer AP sciences, and I took the first course of the physics sequence at another university, yet I still enrolled in the sequence, starting at the 2nd course of the sequence. I probably struggled more in that class than any other class I have taken in my life. I became a regular at the physics tutoring center where I spent a lot of time with TAs and grad students on the material, both going over problem sets and preparing for exams. I don’t remember what my final grade was for the class, which probably means it wasn’t what I considered to be notably high or low; but I do think I learned the material well, and it helped in develop good problem solving and learning skills for my later engineering major.
“Only if you don’t care to differentiate among the very top and say that every smart and engaged kid gets a gold medal.”
Indeed. Compare the way Cambridge math exams work (your entire grade is based on the end of year exam). To get a third you need to answer 3 questions correctly in total over four 3 hour papers. To get a second you need to answer 7 questions correctly. To get a first (i.e. top 20-25%) you need 13 questions total. And the top student gets 35+ questions correct. They really want to identify and rank the top students so they know who deserves a PhD place.
At the Ivies, I would be shocked if F’s exist for anyone who has a modicum of ‘try’. (Which gets back to my original question to the OP: is her D at an Ivy or just a highly selective school? Is the title of this thread clickbait?)
“Only if you don’t care to differentiate among the very top and say that every smart and engaged kid gets a gold medal.”
Given that there is plenty of room for separation still between an A and C, I’m totally okay with that. Same thing happens in grad school, right? Nobody wants a C. I’m also okay with it because a) my experience in the real world has shown me that more differentiate who are already represent the top 10-15% is pretty meaningless having little to no bearing on how they’ll do professionally in life and b) the British system might be different but that doesn’t seem to equate to better lifetime results (again we aren’t discussing the UK here), and c) not everything has to turn into a contest to learn and create value.
Suppose I am a math or physics instructor and write a test with one easy problem (that C students can do), one moderately hard problem (that B students can do), and one hard problem (that A students can do).
Should I make them equal value, so that C students score 33%, B students score 66%, and A students score 100% (and grade thresholds are set appropriately)?
Or should I make the easy problem worth 70% of the score, and each of the two other problems 15% of the score, so that scores will be more like high school scores?
Question:
What is the point of having the exams be much harder/different than the homework? Why wouldn’t a professor start out with homework questions that are easier, then harder, then the most difficult – all leading up to the exam?
That doesn’t mean the students “learn by rote” how to do difficult problems. It just provides practice in how to approach doing those kinds of problems.
It seems to me that doing well in a beginning level math class should not depend on a freshman who understands that what they learn in class and do as homework has little relation to the kinds of questions they will get on exams.
Ideally, the homework should include difficult questions as well as easier ones.
But should 70% of the homework be easy questions for C students to get scores like they got in high school?
“Or should I make the easy problem worth 70% of the score, and each of the two other problems 15% of the score, so that scores will be more like high school scores?”
Sounds like this is pretty much what is being done with hard tests that half the students score 50-60% correct on or less and a HUGE curve which is how people here claim it is done.
Again, less about grades more about learning for me and the best way to maximize it.
@ucbalumnus wrote:
“should 70% of the homework be easy questions for C students to get scores like they got in high school?”
I don’t understand the question. I would expect homework to include practice doing problems of similar difficulty as the professor would have on the exam. I think it is very odd to give homework that does not include working problems of the level of difficulty on which students will be tested.
Apparently some students understand that they should look for those level of questions outside the homework to prepare for the exams? And they know the proper sources to go to in order to find them?
I went to an engineering program at a big 10 public back In the dark ages and it was similar. Having 30% or more drop from first year math, physics or chem was not unusual and then another percentage fail. I think the average student in that program now has an ACT around 32-33. Anyway, definitely don’t think this is unique. The program I went to was very much sink or swim and you better be a self starter and create your own study groups, find help, etc.
To me, the ideal educational experience would not include grades at all, but focus on learning. This is not a naïve comment 
The system for advancement educationally and professionally requires all these measures of learning called grades, but it is still about learning, and a good grade should indicate exactly that. If a student is not getting a good grade and is not happy, then perhaps that is not the area of study where learning comes easily- or happily- and a change would help. Not to get better grades, but to learn and thrive with their major. Jobs or further school may or may not mesh with the area of study. Undergrad is a chance to spend 4 years studying something that you are interested in, not something that is a struggle.
My oldest D is (or was, she graduates today) a Chem E major at a top engineering university. She had to make adjustments in the way she prepared for classes. HS was relatively easy for her. She discovered a few things that made her college courses different. First the courses moved more quickly and covered more material. Second, a good bit of the material you needed to know was not extensively covered in class. Professors expected students to learn on their own. Finally, homework was little to no part of her grades and homework work was not the same as studying and preparing for a class. Finally, she learned that professors had testing styles and that under standing their style couple help immensely in doing better on the tests.
She started in Calc 3 and got a 56 (with the curve) on her first test. What she realized is that if she walked into class and that was her first exposure to the material she was already behind and it had an accumulative affect. She got out the syllabus and began reading the material and taking notes on what she read before each class. She often wouldn’t understand things but she knew what she didn’t understand. She would then go to class, take notes and then put her notes together. If there were concepts she just didn’t understand she would take them to the TA or the professor. It was work but she felt in more control, it put her in touch with the professors and their assistants, and it had the additional advantage of allowing her the opportunity to understand the way a professor might test. She had one professor who would have complicated but very directly related quizzes in the material they were studying. His tests though we’re different. He would give them problems they hadn’t seen before. Initially this stumped her and she did poorly on his first test but upon reviewing it she realized the problems could be solved using the solutions she had used before and the questions themselves were pretty basic. It required thinking outside what she had been quizzed on. Once she realized that it made the whole testing process much easier and she ended his class with an A.
Homework was essentially to practice problems. The reading was part of the education via self teaching and studying became reviewing. Thing, while still not easy, became controllable and she didn’t feel behind. There is a lot of material in engineering and it won’t get easier or less time consuming. What it can be is less stressful and it requires staying ahead and knowing what you don’t know. Only then can you get the help you need. While I can assure you the work won’t be easier it can be something your child gets control of. Wishing them the best.
D1 was a math major at Cornell. She was a straight A student in high school and scored close to 800 on math sat, ap cal s, etc. it was an eye opener for her when she scored around 60 on her first math exam, but it was few points above the mean. There were few students who would score 85+ when the mean score was 60. I think at those top tier schools they make those tests for those top students. They want to challenge those super gifted students, not just those very good average students. Those very gifted math students are the ones who would go on to their PhDs. D1 did manage to get few of those high scores while in college, but not enough to make her think she was a PhD material.
D1 also enjoyed art history while in high school. Her first art history prelim was a C. Her professor told her even though most of answers were correct, she didn’t go into depth when making comparisons. Instead just using 2 paintings to show contrast, she was expected to use 3 to 5 to make her point. Again, it is pushing students to go over and beyond. In high school, if she showed she understood the concept and was better at expressing it than most students, she got an A. She did end up with a B+ for the course, but it probably took up most of her time that semester.
Isn’t checking the syllabus and doing the reading before class standard behavior? Real learning requires multiple exposures to material, not just one. Isn’t that clear to kids anymore?
Grade inflation is good for the self-confidence of middling students (yes, there’re plenty of them even in the most elite colleges), but it diminishes the motivation of the truly outstanding students. Sure, some of them are self-motivated regardless, but a majority of them would benefit from some external pressure. Otherwise, many of them would just coast to graduation like they’ve done in HS, and at some point in their careers, wonder why their college education didn’t prepare them for the tough problems they’re encountering.
@homerdog My daughter’s high school is the same way - every test in math and science has questions not covered in the chapter/homework that forces students to apply what they know in some kind of novel way. They’ve done that since 9th grade. I assumed most schools operated that way? I pray that will help her next year in her first year engineering curriculum. She needs a 3.5 to stay in honors college and 3.2 to be guaranteed getting into her major. Physics C this year has been a total bear and the teacher has been putting questions from MIT’s engineering physics classes on every test. Tests are graded as if they were in college, on a curve, sometimes a very steep one depending on the mean. My daughter easily puts in 10+ hours/week of homework just for physics, closer to 16+ during testing time (and this year her school had teachers cluster their exams together so it was like prelim week). By far it’s her favorite class and she loves working through the problems. Her teacher told her to expect that all her courses next year will feel like physics C and require that amount of work.
On a related note, what to do people think about using AP credit to place out of those first year engineering classes? We’ve had mixed feedback. My daughter is definitely planning on repeating chem (intended chem e major) as her teacher was new this year and the kids basically taught themselves. Physics is integrated into the project design course so can’t be skipped, so it really leaves calc. (She’ll use her credits for English and gen eds for sure). Her college has posted years of calc prelims and finals and the advisors recommend the kids go through them and see how they do. My daughter has looked them over and felt calc I could be easily skipped but she’ll review with her advisor before selecting course. Thoughts?