I would assume so.
But the university’s reasoning to end the professor’s contract based on the class average dropping < 65% would be completely illogical (and IMO indefensible).
-
It is possible that this was the “curved” average. If there was a bimodal distribution of grades and the lower mode is failing miserably (Jones indicates that many were), then the average can be very low even if higher mode was successful.
-
Also, according to NYU, Jones’s class had a “high rate of withdrawal.” Students were apparently allowed to withdraw even after the the course was finished. If a high percentage of students withdrew from the course rather than get a poor grade, then the percentages of As and Bs would not provide a good indicator of how students performed, but the curved average might.
-
Also, this article implies that this drop in performance was the criterion for non-renewal, but NYU offered a different explanation:
the school’s decision not to renew his contract was, in addition to the petition, informed by “a very high rate of student withdrawals,” poor course evaluations, and “multiple student complaints about his dismissiveness, unresponsiveness, condescension, and opacity about grading.”
“In short, he was hired to teach, and wasn’t successful.”
This last point seems to be the fundamental sticking point here. Jones and his supporters (and this article) insist that he wasn’t renewed because he was a tough grader. NYU notes that he wasn’t renewed because of his poor performance as a teacher and provides a number of factors (other than low grades) that it considered (the petition, evaluations, complaints, withdrawals.) These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. If he wasn’t reaching the students who most needed competent instruction, then the grades of students who needed competent instruction would very likely suffer, and those students would check out.
In short, when a student is getting 20% on tests, and the professor isn’t of any help, those kids won’t bother with office hours. This is especially true when the professor is demeaning, condescending and insulting, or when, as one student put it . . .
Jones “was not receptive to questions, and I didn’t want to open myself up for him to be rude to me.”
If 70% (245 students) of the class of 350 received an A or B average. Let’s assume the uncurved average for that group was 88%, a B+ grade. If the remaining 105 students all scored a 0, the average grade for the entire class would be 61.6%
That would be a really severe bimodal distribution. This would argue the grades had to be curved.
If those students arent attending, watching recorded lectures, or attending office hours, why would you assume any other accommodations would be helpful? Indeed, why would you assume they have any interest in learning the material at all-there is little evidence of it? The petition tells us just that they enrolled ( perhaps-was that even verified by Nyu?) And they were disappointed in their grades.
Not everyone who enrolls in a required course is eager to learn the material. Some just wish to pass the requirement by doing the absolute minimum and move on. Seems like the minimum was more than they realized in this case.
Since we are outside observers without access to all of the facts, my guess is that all 3 parties: students, professor, and the university all bear some responsibility for this failure. In retrospect,
each could have done things better to avoid this outcome
7 Likes
If a high percentage of students withdrew, and if the scores of the students who withdrew are included in the numerical score average, then the bimodal distribution would be much less severe. For example
If 100 of the 350 withdrew (28.5%), then only 250 of the 350 received final grades. If 70% of these remaining 250 received an average of 88%, that would be 175 students with an average of 88%. If the average score of the other 175 students (including students who withdrew) was 42%, then the overall average score would be 65%
Given that Jones indicated that grades for many students fell off a cliff, it seems plausible.
But like you said, we don’t know all the facts. I would add some of “the facts” we do know might be misleading. For example, the percentage letter grade breakdown of those who didn’t withdraw doesn’t really add much meaningful data unless we also know the percentages of students who withdrew and their scores.
I do agree that all likely bear some responsibility for the “failure,” and have said so from my first post. But Jones was the teacher, and it is not clear to me that NYU’s remedy addressing his “failure” was inappropriate. And, whether appropriate or not, failing the students wouldn’t address Jones’s failure.
This is especially so given that NYU was apparently amenable to allowing him to teach Chem Majors only, but Jones wouldn’t even consider it.
This controversy does touch on more global themes which are IMO of greater importance.
What is the most important goal of going to school (attending college)? What is more important, learning or getting good grades? To me, it seems like grade point averages and test scores have been increasing over time throughout the entire US education system. Meanwhile, the fight to get into competitive schools has become increasingly fierce with greater emphasis on grades and test scores. The implicit message is that you go to school to get good grades not to learn. How is a professor to wisely decide what is a fair grade to assign to each of his students? Should it be based on his own rubric if he is an extreme outlier within his own institution and even more so compared to outside peer institutions? Do students have any right to feel disgruntled in these situations?
Finally, what is the purpose of requiring students to take a course they have no interest in learning, know it’s going to be a tough weed out class, and know it will have little to no usefulness in their future careers? Is there any surprise, they are only taking it for the grade?
4 Likes
Compounded by a pandemic which saw many high schools merely passing everyone through with high grades or passing grades online.
2 Likes
If I recall correctly, nearly all colleges allowed students to take courses on a pass/fail basis in the spring and fall of 2020, wasn’t that the case at NYU?
Yes it was for Soring, with certain conditions. Most importantly, while courses required for the major could be taken P/F, a P was a C- or better.
For Fall 2020, grading options returned to normal
1 Like
Just to let you know the competitiveness of medical school admissions right now:
I’m a member of multiple parent premed FB groups. There’s a post today from a parent of a competitive applicant from UCLA who applied to 35 schools for fall 2023. If a school likes an applicant, you are asked to submit a secondary application, and if that looks good you are invited for an interview. The parent is nervous because they have received a request for a secondary from only 1 school. Another parent responded that they are in a similar situation - they also have a very good applicant from University of Michigan who also applied to 35 schools and has received a secondary request from only 1.
2 Likes
Purdue’s pre-meds have a different organic chem class than the engineers and the non pre-meds. Pre-med orgo is supposed to be geared towards helping students with the MCAT.
For my D’s orgo classes, they were taught by chemical engineering professors. D said the exam means were usually in the 60-70% range.
2 Likes
Does one class cover more material than the other? Or the same material at different pace? Presumably the premed class isn’t graded more leniently than the other.
This seems like a win-win-win for students, professors and medical schools alike.
2 Likes
Here are the description of the orgo options:
I believe they have different points of emphasis and are all graded on a curve.
CHM 26105 - Organic Chemistry For Engineers
Credit Hours: 3.00. Chemical principles underlying the reactivity of organic molecules with an emphasis on mechanism; the structure and stereochemical properties of organic molecules and functional groups; physical properties that influence the reactivity of organic molecules; an introduction to ionic and racial reaction mechanisms with particular attention given to issues of product selectivity; synthesis and structure of polymeric materials. Recommended for students majoring in Chemical Engineering. Typically offered Fall.
CHM 25500 - Organic Chemistry
Credit Hours: 3.00. A study of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons and their simple derivatives in terms of (a) structure, bonding, etc.; (b) general syntheses and reactions; and (c) a logical modern rationale for fundamental phenomena as supported by reactivity orders, orientation effects, stereochemistry, and relative rates. Recommended for biology majors. Typically offered Fall Spring.
CHM 25700 - Organic Chemistry
Credit Hours: 4.00. Introductory organic chemistry. Emphasis is on structure, nomenclature, reactions, and theory as applied to simple organic compounds. This course is designed for students who require a one semester overview in preparation for biochemistry. Not recommended for majors in the College of Science. Typically offered Fall Spring
3 Likes
As long as the pre-med class covers the material necessary for taking and understanding biochemistry etc. and does not automatically gives an A to everyone, that is a good approach. Non-majors don’t need in-depth knowledge of mechanisms of every named reaction and things like that.
5 Likes
When I took orgo almost 45 yrs ago, the teaching was nomenclature-based–we learned all the classes of organic compounds, how to name them, attaching side chains, etc. Now it is reaction-based, “show the steps used to convert compound A into compound B”.
Someone who is a chemical engineering candidate certainly needs to learn reaction-based orgo. Pre-med majors, OTOH, would perhaps be better off having a survey course of all the classes of organic compounds, structure, characteristics, etc. Wouldn’t that be of benefit to a physician? Now, someone who wants to be an MD/researcher would need the more rigorous course.
Just my two cents.
1 Like
No MD remembers the chemical structure of any medication because there is no clinical relevance to knowing chemical structures. Chemical structures are complex and difficult to remember. Everyone knows acetaminophen (Tylenol), but why is it clinically useful to know that it’s structural formula is N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, since no MD will ever need to learn how to synthesize acetaminophen or use it as a substrate in a lab?
There are an estimated 19,000 prescription medications in existence. Physicians struggle enough remembering the several hundred drugs that they commonly use or encounter. Even with those medications, they don’t remember everything and often have to look things up. It’s a bit pathetic because every medical school graduate passed a pharmacology class. That class had a lot more clinically relevant material including: indications/contraindications, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse reactions, toxicity, drug interactions, and safety in pregnancy & breast feeding.
I don’t think 95% of physicians would be able to identify N-acetyl-p-aminophenol as Tylenol. Especially not the old ones.
2 Likes
I think you missed my point. Knowing ABOUT the various groups of organic compounds as opposed to the 15 steps required to convert compound A to compound B in the lab seems more important to me.
I never said that a doctor should be able to recognize the difference between 2-pentanone and 3-pentanone, for example, but shouldn’t he/she know what ketones are and how they behave in living systems?
You make my point when you say that a doctor will never have to synthesize acetaminophen in the lab–I agree with that 1000%.
But amino acids contain amino groups, which end up as ammonia in urine–isn’t that useful to know??
I agree with you. These are all nice things to know, especially during college or early medical studies. However, the reality is that over time every physician ends up in his/her own silo and will only concentrate on what is important for his/her line of work. Many things learned in medical school and even during residency atrophy and are eventually forgotten because they have no further use for it in their career.
A surgeon will focus on diagnosis and surgical skills. A radiologist will focus on interpreting imaging. A cardiologist will focus on the function of the heart. However, a nephrologist will have great knowledge about ammonia and its purpose in the urea cycle. But he and metabolic specialists might be the only specialists in medicine who would actually care about ammonia.
This atrophy isn’t just confined to subject of organic chemistry. Ask a surgeon how to read an EKG, a cardiologist how to suture a wound, or a radiologist how to use a stethoscope. You might laugh.
2 Likes