<p>
[quote]
Anyway, to add something substantive to the discussion, for what it's worth, sakky, I don't believe that people generally fail out Caltech because they weren't smart enough. Most of the people who fail out do so because of not working hard enough - for whatever, often understandable, reasons. In most majors, I'd strongly claim that anyone could get a 3.0 average should he or she be motivated to do so. In engineering, this might be a little lower (due to more classes, generally tougher grading schemes, etc.), but it's still well above 2.0. This is a direct result of strong admission standards - which of course you support. </p>
<p>If you believe that (which you don't, but hey, you've only seen the workload second hand right?), then it's obvious that the 2.0 limit is just there to keep people working at a high level. And hence, you know that any Caltech degree implies not only aptitude (which is confirmed upon admission), but also work ethic. The latter, of course, is much harder to gauge during undergrad admissions, and that's one of the reasons why colleges use grades in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'm afraid that that's a bit of a cop-out, don't you think? You can ALWAYS accuse anybody of not working 'hard enough'. </p>
<p>The issue to me is that there are other no-name schools out there where some students don't work very hard at all...and STILL pass. Like I said, I know a person who did poorly at Caltech, such that he knew that if he stayed, he would most likely flunk out. So he transferred out to his no-name state school. He ended up getting good grades at his new school, while working EVEN LESS than he did at Caltech. </p>
<p>So the issue is that some people from certain schools successfully earn engineering degrees without working very hard. This is true whether you are talking about the top schools. For example, Stanford is an elite engineering school that is also somewhat relaxed, such that you can probably slide by without doing that much much. It is also true of some no-name schools, like the school that that former Caltech guy transferred to, where he is living proof that you can pass without doing all that much work, by his own admission. Hence, hard work is not the differentiating factor that determines whether some people get engineering degrees and others don't. </p>
<p>I am therefore questioning why is it necessary for some schools to tag their students with failing grades because they "didnt' work hard enough", when other schools don't do that? I have suggested numerous alternatives. For example, we could use a system of tough professional licensing exams. That would get bar people who didn't work hard enough to know the material from practicing as engineers. We could simply not give out failing grades at all (and just give people no academic credit) for classes they fail, and so if the person needs that class to graduate, then he won' graduate, but at least his transcript is still pristine. We could agree to wipe out the failing engineering grades for people who don't end up majoring in engineering anyway. After all, if a guy isn't going to major in ChemE anymore, who cares what grades he gets in the ChemE weeders? </p>
<p>But the point is, there are many alternatives. There are many things you can do. But the programs just don't want to do them. So as a result, you are just going to deter people from even trying out engineering, for fear that they will be stuck with bad grades that will damage their careers. You never get the chance to show these people just how interesting the actual discipline of engineering can be, because people fear the grading. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that I don't think that engineering departments really need to rule with a culture of fear, which is what many of them have been doing. You don't need to be constantly trying to intimidate your students. Other schools (notably Stanford) are living proof that you can run an elite engineering program that is also relatively relaxed and pain-free.</p>