Why can't engineering be more relaxed?

College Majors Engineering Majors
61

<p>
[quote]
Those "few", eh?</p>

<p>"Roughly fifty percent of the students who begin in engineering leave the field before receiving
their engineering degree."

[/quote]

In your haste to whip out statistics, you've completely missed my point. The point was that engineering departments are going to make their policies based on what works for producing quality engineering talent.</p>

<p>The only outcome I can see from the changes you suggest is that it will be easier to become a mediocre engineer all for the sake of inflating the GPAs of a subset of students who won't become engineers anyway.</p>

<p>Do we really need more grade inflation? (In any discipline?) Why don't we just let anyone be an engineer (so they don't have to even make the mistake of choosing the major to begin with) and only revoke their engineer status once they kill a few people. Then we have all the engineers we need and it doesn't affect GPAs one bit!</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
Quote:
If public safety was really the goal, then we would shut down the lower-tier schools. After all, this is public safety we are talking about, right? So we should be getting rid of all of these schools that produce shoddy graduates, right? </p>

<p>Is there any empirical evidence that "lower-tier" schools "produce shoddy graduates?" I think you are assuming facts not in evidence here.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I mean 'shoddy' by extension of other people's arguments.</p>

<p>Let me recap: </p>

<p>It has been asserted by some that engineering departments, particularly at the top schools (like UIUC) should flunk out bad students in the name of public safety - namely that these students will do dangerous engineering work that will put people's lives at risk. </p>

<p>My response is that public safety is just an excuse, it's not the real issue at hand. After all, if even the worst engineering student who flunked out of UIUC could have probably graduated from some low-tier no-name school. Hence, if engineering departments REALLY cared about public safety, they would be pushing to close down the no-name schools. </p>

<p>After all, let's review the logic. If those who flunk out of the top schools in the name of public safety can still graduate from a no-name school and become practicing engineering, then that means that those no-name schools must be producing engineers who are a menace to public safety. Hence, those no-name schools ought to be shut down in the name of public safety.</p>

<p>Note, that's not to say that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE in the logic. In fact, I do not. I would argue that these students are not being kicked out in the name of public safety, but for another reason entirely, namely preserving the prestige of those top schools. I think that's the REAL reason for kicking these students out. It has nothing to do with public safety.</p>

<p>This is an example of what mathematicians call "proof by contradition". You follow a line of reasoning until you reach an absurd or impossible condition, and that proves that the line of reasoning is flawed. For example, if you start with some assumptions and you logically follow those assumptions to get to 1+1=3, then that must mean that those assumptions are wrong. Similarly, if engineering departments were really kicking people out in the name of public safety, then they would also be moving to shut down those low-tier schools that those kicked-out people could have graduated from. This is not happening, which indicates that those departments are not really kicking people out in the name of public safety. They may SAY that they are, and they may actually believe it, but in reality, they are not.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
In your haste to whip out statistics, you've completely missed my point. The point was that engineering departments are going to make their policies based on what works for producing quality engineering talent.</p>

<p>The only outcome I can see from the changes you suggest is that it will be easier to become a mediocre engineer all for the sake of inflating the GPAs of a subset of students who won't become engineers anyway.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I think YOU are the one missing the point. </p>

<p>Since when did I propose a situation where it is easier to become a mediocre engineer? I too care about the quality of the engineering product produced.</p>

<p>My point is that there are MANY ways to skin this cat. There are MANY ways to arrive at quality. You don't just have to implement harsh grading.</p>

<p>One method is to simply shut down some of the lower-tier no-name schools. After all, why not? Like I said, even a guy who flunks out of MIT is probably still better than the some of the guys who barely graduate from a no-name school. </p>

<p>So, WRPrice, you talk about engineering quality. If you're really so worried about quality, then what about the quality of the graduates coming out of these no-name schools? Why do you harp on the grading of the top engineering programs, but choose to say nothing at all about the hundreds of lower-tier programs out there? I find that very convenient and interesting of you. Specifically, I find it interesting that you continue to advocate that the top schools flunk out suppposedly 'bad' students, but say nothing about all of these no-name schools that continue to churn out graduates, some of which will end up in jobs that have to do with public safety. What about them? </p>

<p>Like I said, if you really care about quality, then one way you can square the circle is to simply implement tighter admissions. Why not? The top schools do it already. It is already extremely difficult to get into MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and schools like that. So what's so controversial about making it even more difficult? </p>

<p>Another way you can approach the problem is to have an entrance exam into the major. Or an exit exam from the major. Make the passage of the FE exam required for graduation, for example.</p>

<p>The point is, there are many ways to skin this cat. You don't have to rely solely on harsh grading. The fact that eng departments continue to use this without considering the other options just tells me that they WANT to use harsh grading.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
It is NOT in the job description of the TA's to actually assign final grades.

[/quote]

Again, you miss the point. NO ONE has advocated TAs assigning final grades, only advocated that, based upon their capacity within the instruction of the course, they have the right to express their opinion on the quality of a student's work. THAT'S ALL, so quit making a mountain out of a molehill.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And besides, you keep talking as if all of these students who get bad grades are just lazy. How about this, wrprice. Why not come down to MIT and talk to some of the students and ask them just how 'easy' it is for them to avoid getting bad grades. Or better, yet take some classes at MIT yourself. Then perhaps we'll see just how amazed you are about "by how little responsibility" these MIT students who are getting bad grades must be taking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why don't you take a minute to come down off of your academic high horse? Seriously. I went to Rice, I received my fair share of harsh grading and... gosh darnit, I'm not afraid to admit that I've received an "F" or two on my transcript during my time there. Do I consider myself lazy? No. Could I have done better with more effort? Yes. Do I feel that the "F"s on my transcript are accurate? Absolutely. I'm not looking for excuses.</p>

<p>And I don't need to go talk to some MIT snob to know that despite my shortcomings, I still pulled a quality education from my school and left with a degree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You said it yourself - if young people haven't had the chance to prove themselves, then why even run an admissions process at all?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Forgive me for not being so explicit in my example as to prevent you from over-generalizing it. I was meaning to suggest that while the undergraduate admissions process is finely tuned to determine whether an applicant has potential to succeed at a particular institution, it is NOT designed to determine if that applicant already has the skills necessary to specifically be an engineer. Furthermore, based on the breadth (not depth) of a high school education, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do so. In fact, the undergraduate program exists to fill this void in the first place.</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
Since when did I propose a situation where it is easier to become a mediocre engineer?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That would be:</p>

<p>
[quote]
For the record, I believe that the F should not be a grade that is handed out, for I see no purpose in doing so that couldn't also be accomplished by just not giving out a grade at all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here, I'll work it out for you...</p>

<p>Let there be a requirement that, to earn an engineering degree, a student's cumulative GPA must be >= 2.0.
Let the student's grades be the following:
Course 101 = C (2.0)
Course 102*= F (0.0)
Course 102+= C (2.0)</p>

<ul>
<li>- denotes a course that would simply not be recorded if Sakky had his way</li>
<li>- denotes a re-take of a course</li>
</ul>

<p>With accurate grading (what Sakky considers "harsh"):
GPA = (2 + 0 + 2) / 3 = 1.33 ==> no graduation</p>

<p>Sakky's "nicer" method:
GPA = (2 + 2) / 2 = 2.00 ==> graduation! yay!</p>

<p>Now, I already know you're going to say, "But the student got a C on the second try, so why can't we pretend that was the first try and everybody's happy?"</p>

<p>The answer is: because if we're using GPA <em>at all</em> as a relative index of a student's performance, we can't selectively ignore some of that performance. Should a candidate who only passes one course a semester, yet, by the end of 36 semesters has a 4.0 GPA (possible under your proposal) be weighted equally with someone who completed the same courses with a 4.0 over only 8 semesters?</p>

<p>It's a feedback loop, pure and simple.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
If you're really so worried about quality, then what about the quality of the graduates coming out of these no-name schools? Why do you harp on the grading of the top engineering programs, but choose to say nothing at all about the hundreds of lower-tier programs out there? I find that very convenient and interesting of you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm glad you find me interesting, though it has nothing to do with convenience -- quite the contrary, in fact. I simply can't comment on every single tangent you take on this thread. I've been trying to focus on the top-tier schools since, generally, those are the ones that will grade "harshly" -- and that WAS the original topic, was it not? Please forgive me for trying to stick to the point.</p>

<p>For the record, I do wish that the "lower tier" schools (whichever those are) would produce the same quality engineer (on average) as the "top tier" schools. And while the odds aren't in their favor, I'm sure some of them manage to accomplish this despite the utter lack of recognition by the rest of us. However, I try to remain rooted in reality and pick my battles.</p>

<p>Regardless of what "tier" a school is in, I don't think "less harsh" grading is the solution to anything -- independent of discipline -- probably because I don't consider the current grading methodology (from what I saw at Rice) to be "harsh" in the first place. I think it's mostly accurate, and yes, sometimes the truth hurts.</p>

<p>If you want more of my real-world experience, I took a math course once where the grading was exceptionally lenient. So lenient, in fact, that I left with a B and didn't learn a damn thing. I took the time otherwise required for the course and dedicated it to other, tougher coursework. I regretted that leniency later since, you know, I really did need to know what that course was supposed to teach me. And my grades in other courses suffered because of it. But hey, I got the easy B, right?</p>

67

<p>Does anybody remember those exercises in lower school, in reading comprehension, where there'd be this long and convoluted reading passage, and you'd have to find the "main idea"?</p>

<p>Does this remind anybody of those exercises?</p>

<p>This freaking makes my brain hurt. Plus, I kinda resent the fact that this has evolved partially into a critique of my moral and ethical responsibilities in my former job as a teaching assistant, which I obviously took very seriously. In your own words: back off, sakky.</p>

<p>We're talking about real life here. We're explaining why it is the way it is. Not how it should be. You can talk about your engineering education philosophy all you want, but get off your soapbox and say it's just a philosophy, don't condemn all of engineering education just to hear yourself yakk.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I just realized that "yakks" is an anagram of "sakky". Apt.</p>

<p>Clouding the discussion and explanation of why engineering's graded harshly with pages upon pages of random opinions and discussions of philosophy and hypotheticals, and one grad student's opinions of why things oughta be how he thinks they oughta be, only confuses the people asking the questions. Honestly. Cool it. Engineering's tendency to grade critically is a currently implemented failsafe, in real life, not in imaginary-world-where-we-say-what-should-happen.</p>

<p>I mean, c'mon. You've brought up Hitler and slavery. This is ridiculous.</p>

<p>OP, engineering's graded harshly because of the reasons we've said. Maybe that's not the way it <em>should</em> be, but whatever. If you want to change it, then... yeah, have fun with that...!</p>

<p>This thread's gettin' to me. I'm going home now. Y'all have fun.</p>

68

<p>
[quote]
My response is that public safety is just an excuse, it's not the real issue at hand. After all, if even the worst engineering student who flunked out of UIUC could have probably graduated from some low-tier no-name school. Hence, if engineering departments REALLY cared about public safety, they would be pushing to close down the no-name schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, and I think the false assumption being made is that a engineering graduate from Western Arkansas State Lutheran University of Technology will have the same responsibility as a top grad from Caltech. You're proof by contradiction proves that the total reasoning is incorrect, but doesn't identify that in fact it is YOUR assumption that makes it so.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Let me give you an analogy. If I teach my child to not shake hands, to frown all the time, to not look people in the eye, to yell and scream all the time, and basically to engage in weird behavior, everybody is going to misinterpret him as being rude or mentally deranged or angry or all sorts of other things. Now, one might argue that all those other people need to recalibrate how they perceive his behavior. But wouldn't it be better for me to just teach my child to be polite, to engage in social pleasantries, and basically to conform to the rules of social etiquette?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Another dynamite analogy that happens to not make any sense. People will not misinterpret this child as rude, they will correctly interpret that he is rude.</p>

70

<p>Your point about having failed classes is just ridiculous. You basically think that taking a class and failing it miserably should be seen as no more of an academic failure than not taking the class. If you take a class and you fail it, you deserve a failing grade. This doesn't change whether it is a ChemE class or an english class.</p>

<p>I really think your issue is with how engineering grades are seen by others. I agree that failing chem lab shouldn't matter if someone wants to work as a high school english teacher, but that is on the employer to decide, not you, not me, and sure as hell not the university. There needs to be an accurate record of a person's academic performance so that employers can decide how they want to deal with this info. Your issue should be with what employers consider, not with accurately recording performance.</p>

71

<p>

QFT</p>

<p>4567890</p>

72

<p>I think I've made this point before, but:</p>

<p>In fact, "out there" I have witnessed individuals from lower-regarded programs rising higher and faster than some individuals from higher-regarded programs. This can, and does, happen in part because the tasks they are called upon to do in their jobs are not completely identical to the tasks they had to do to get through school. All that theory that the brainiacs master more quickly is mostly just background info. The brainiacs may not have much, or any, advantage in actually doing the real job.</p>

<p>Closing down "no-name schools" would be a shame since plenty of effective engineers come out of these schools.</p>

73

<p>Yeah, I don't think anybody in all seriousness agrees with any opinions expressed with regards to closing down lower-tiered schools. So... I think we're okay on that.</p>

74

<p>


</p>

<p>I totally agree with this statement. This is the reason why your verbal score doens't matter MUCH when you apply for graduate admissions in engineering. Because even if you recieve a failing score, it won't count too much against your admissions status(provided you excelled in engineering related courses).</p>

75

<p>
[quote]
Again, you miss the point. NO ONE has advocated TAs assigning final grades, only advocated that, based upon their capacity within the instruction of the course, they have the right to express their opinion on the quality of a student's work. THAT'S ALL, so quit making a mountain out of a molehill.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, what are you talking about? Aibarr specifically said that she thought that the person should have failed. How is that any different from a TA assigning final grades? Look through the thread, and you will see that that is EXACTLY what has been said. </p>

<p>When I see a mountain, I'm going to call it a mountain. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Why don't you take a minute to come down off of your academic high horse? Seriously. I went to Rice, I received my fair share of harsh grading and... gosh darnit, I'm not afraid to admit that I've received an "F" or two on my transcript during my time there. Do I consider myself lazy? No. Could I have done better with more effort? Yes. Do I feel that the "F"s on my transcript are accurate? Absolutely. I'm not looking for excuses.</p>

<p>And I don't need to go talk to some MIT snob to know that despite my shortcomings, I still pulled a quality education from my school and left with a degree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This has nothing to do with 'snobbery'. This has something to do with the fact that I don't think that engineering grading is appropriate for this particular day and age, considering the fact that other majors have moved away from this grading. Back in the old days, most people didn't even go to college at all, and of those who went, the vast majority would not graduate. Heck, back in the old days, most people wouldn't even graduate from high school. </p>

<p>We as a society have progressed. Well, apparently not all of society. Engineering departments are still apparently highly reactionary. </p>

<p>My point about engineering is that you need to adjust with the times. You need to adjust to whatever the social settings are. To willfully ignore what is happening in the rest of society is to deliberately put yourself at odds with the social norms of a particular time, and that will inevitably lead to your being treated as an outcast. This is what, I am afraid, engineering is becoming. People who would otherwise make for good engineers become afraid to major in it because they don't want to prematurely close doors that are available to them. And that's a shame.</p>

<p>This is nothing to do with "MIT snobbery", but rather about simply appreciating that plenty of people who flunk out of MIT can still make for perfectly good engineers, as I will explain below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Forgive me for not being so explicit in my example as to prevent you from over-generalizing it. I was meaning to suggest that while the undergraduate admissions process is finely tuned to determine whether an applicant has potential to succeed at a particular institution, it is NOT designed to determine if that applicant already has the skills necessary to specifically be an engineer. Furthermore, based on the breadth (not depth) of a high school education, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do so. In fact, the undergraduate program exists to fill this void in the first place.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why is it so impossible? Again, let's take MIT as an example. The majority of students there are engineers. Hence, it is likely that if MIT admits a person, that person will probably study engineering. Hence, MIT is in effect making a decision about whether that person will probably be able to graduate in engineering. </p>

<p>I think this phenomenom is made even more explicit at schools like Olin or Rose-Hulman or Harvey-Mudd where the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of students are engineers. Hence, it is quite clear that these schools are explicitly making a decision regarding whether the person can become an engineer in its admissions process. After all, if that's not what they're doing, then what exactly are they doing? </p>

<p>Hence, if these schools can do it, why can't others?</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
The answer is: because if we're using GPA <em>at all</em> as a relative index of a student's performance, we can't selectively ignore some of that performance. Should a candidate who only passes one course a semester, yet, by the end of 36 semesters has a 4.0 GPA (possible under your proposal) be weighted equally with someone who completed the same courses with a 4.0 over only 8 semesters?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why can't we 'selectively' ignore performance? Why is that so impossible? Schools do it all the time. Heck, even MIT does it through its hidden freshman grading scheme, and its sophomore exploratory grading scheme. Caltech does the same thing through its freshman shadow grading scheme. Stanford in the old days used to not even have the 'F' grade, and to this day, it's still practically impossible to get an 'F' at Stanford. Are you saying that these schools are wrong to do that? </p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/uinfo/academics/grading/grades/features.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/uinfo/academics/grading/grades/features.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The reason these schools enacted these policies is simple - to prepare students for the shock of a difficult program. </p>

<p>The point is, I am not advocating radical maneuvers. I am advocating options that have already been enacted by some extent by respected programs. MIT, Caltech, and Stanford are 3 of the most respected engineering schools in the world, and even THEY are going around trying to protect students from F grades in certain instances. So if they can do that, why is it so radical for me to propose that engineering programs do the same? If MIT can do that, why can't Berkeley? Why can't Rice?</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
I've been trying to focus on the top-tier schools since, generally, those are the ones that will grade "harshly" -- and that WAS the original topic, was it not? Please forgive me for trying to stick to the point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? Top-tier ones are the ones that will grade harshly? Maybe you'd like to familiarize yourself with a certain school in Palo Alto.</p>

<p>That's actually one of the key points to understand. If a school like Stanford can have relatively relaxed grading in its engineering program, as somebody like imblue has alluded to numerous times, then why can't Rice? Why can't Berkeley? Why can't Georgia Tech? Nobody disputes that Stanford produces some top-notch engineers.</p>

<p>Hence, if Stanford can do it, I am quite certain that other engineering programs can do the same. It's not that they "can't". It's that they don't want to. There's a big difference between being unable to do something and not wanting to do something.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
This freaking makes my brain hurt. Plus, I kinda resent the fact that this has evolved partially into a critique of my moral and ethical responsibilities in my former job as a teaching assistant, which I obviously took very seriously. In your own words: back off, sakky.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aibarr, if you don't like my posts, or you can't follow them, then do us both a favor, and don't read them. I don't have a gun to your head. Nobody is forcing you to follow my posts.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
Yes, and I think the false assumption being made is that a engineering graduate from Western Arkansas State Lutheran University of Technology will have the same responsibility as a top grad from Caltech. You're proof by contradiction proves that the total reasoning is incorrect, but doesn't identify that in fact it is YOUR assumption that makes it so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How is it MY assumption? </p>

<p>Again, trace back the logic here. It has been asserted that the reason why engineering grades harshly is for reasons of public safety. That is not MY assumption, that is SOMEBODY ELSE's assumption. I think we can now agree that public safety has little to do with it. After all, like I said, the guy who flunks out of Caltech could still have been an engineer if they had simply gone to a no-name school. Hence, this person would still have become a practicing engineer, and still ended up on projects that had to do with public safety. So the fact that he flunked out of Caltech had NOTHING to do with truly protecting public safety. Caltech flunked him out because he wasn't good enough to reach the threshold necessary to be deemed worthy to be a Caltech engineer. It has nothing to do with protecting the public. </p>

<p>In fact, heck, this makes me think of an example. My brother knows a guy who transferred out of Caltech to his state school because he was doing poorly at Caltech. If he had stayed, he might well have flunked out. So he transferred to his state school, graduated with an engineering degree there, and, guess what, now he has a job designing aircraft. I think it's safe to say that that job has a strong public safety component to it. </p>

<p>So, what's up with that? He wasn't good enough to be a Caltech engineer, but he nevertheless ended up with an engineering job that has a public safety component to it. So, really, his presumed future expulsion from Caltech really have anything to do with public safety, or did it have more to do with trying to preserve the Caltech brand name? </p>

<p>Look, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Caltech was trying to preserve its brand name. Every school needs to be cognizant of its brand name.</p>

<p>I am simply saying that we should be honest about this fact, not try to falsely hide behind the shield of public safety when that is not the real motive. If the primary concern is the brand name, then we should say so. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Another dynamite analogy that happens to not make any sense. People will not misinterpret this child as rude, they will correctly interpret that he is rude.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How so? He's not INTENDING to be rude. He was just not taught how to present himself socially.</p>

<p>I can offer you another analogy. In Turkey, it is considered to be extremely rude to put your feet up such that the soles of your feet are facing a person. But this is not considered rude in the West. So if you go to Turkey, and nobody tells you about this social custom, you might unintentionally offend a lot of people. But that's not really your fault. You're not TRYING to offend anybody. It's just that you don't know how to present yourself in the way that the social customs would dictate. People are MISINTERPRETING you. You put your feet up, and people think you're rude, even though that was not your intent. </p>

<p>In the same way, people who have undergone an engineering curricula tend to have bad grades and that causes the same misinterpretation. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I really think your issue is with how engineering grades are seen by others. I agree that failing chem lab shouldn't matter if someone wants to work as a high school english teacher, but that is on the employer to decide, not you, not me, and sure as hell not the university. There needs to be an accurate record of a person's academic performance so that employers can decide how they want to deal with this info. Your issue should be with what employers consider, not with accurately recording performance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, don't you see that you've implicitly contradicted yourself? It's a subtle contradition, but it's there. </p>

<p>In post #68, you stated grads from Caltech are not getting the same jobs from grads from a no-name school. Yes. I agree. But why? It's because Caltech has a powerful brand name. Employers are going to see the brand name and TRUST that the graduates are going to be strong. After all, that is the whole point of having a strong brand name. </p>

<p>But NOW you say that the problem of engineering grading can be solved by simply having employers understand what engineering grading is all about. This is something that wrprice has said also. </p>

<p>Now, THAT is where the contradiction happens. On the one hand, you say (and I agree) that employers are going to give Caltech grads better jobs than no-name school grads, because Caltech has a better brand name. On the other hand, you say that the problem with engineering grading could be solved by simply having employers understand what engineering grading is all about. </p>

<p>Now, don't you see - that is mutually exclusive because of the problems of asymmetric information, something that ALL labor markets are riddled with. Essentially, NO EMPLOYER really knows how good a particular job candidate is, which is why they have to rely on cues. Like college brand names. Like grades. Information is not a free good. In fact, information is one of the scarcest commodities in the world. Employers use things like college brand names and grades to be able to conserve on information. </p>

<p>Let me try to make the situation more clear. You say that employers ought to know that engineering grades are not comparable to Film Studies grades. Fine. But then that would also imply that employers ought to be able to look past college brand names too. Why not? If employers had enough information to understand different grading schemes, then they should also have enough information to not need to rely on college brand names. After all, if companies are going to have more information on one topic, then it stands to reason that they would just have more information in general. </p>

<p>Hence, if they just have more information in general, then they would be able to distinguish between the 'good' Caltech grad and the 'bad' Caltech grad. After all, that is what it means to have more information at hand. If Caltech had a bad student, but let that student graduate anyway, then these 'more informed' employers would know that that student is a bad student and simply not hire him. Hence, you wouldn't need to flunk this student out. </p>

<p>To summarize, "more intelligent" employers would obviate the need for bad grades. After all, bad grades send a signal that a student is bad. But if the employers are 'more intelligent', then they wouldn't need this signal because they would already know that that student is bad. </p>

<p>Brand names and grades are all signals, and signals are necessary PRECISELY because employers have limited information. They don't really know who is a good candidate. That's why they need signals. A top engineering employer would recruit at Caltech because it is relying on the Caltech brand-name signal. </p>

<p>Similarly, other non-engineering employers rely on grades as their signal. The problem is that they misinterpret the engineering grade 'signal'. Your response is that they should have more information so as to not misinterpret this signal. The problem is that the world is filled with actors with limited information which necessitates the use of signals. </p>

<p>Hence, my point is, if the world is going to constantly misinterpret the signal of engineering grades, then I think we should change the signal. Just like if my friend is going to Turkey, I am going to advise him not to put his feet up because I know that if he does so, he will be misintepreted. I am certainly not going to try to teach all Turks that if a Westerner puts his feet up, he is not trying to be rude. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, I don't think anybody in all seriousness agrees with any opinions expressed with regards to closing down lower-tiered schools. So... I think we're okay on that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Neither am I advocating that this happen. And that, again, gets to the point that this whole idea of top schools flunking people out has nothing to do with public safety. After all, like I said, plenty of these students from the top schools who flunk out could have graduated from the no-name schools.</p>

80

<p>Companies are constantly complaining that new graduates are unfocused, lack the drive and ambition to get on top. Specifically, engineering graduates are criticized for not being able to jump into 'real world' problems. This overall trend would suggest that the lovely generation of 'no losers, all winners' and 'A for effort' has resulted in a bunch of coddled dimwits. I would draw from this information that colleges need to be MORE rigorous, not less.</p>

<p>I think the most obvious danger consequences ARE seen in engineering, but that's not a major point. When you get a job in an engineering firm they are NOT going to review FBDs for you or reexplain forced convection in an internal tube, you are supposed to KNOW. Not, 'sort of know because I made an F in the class but go rounded to a C- so it's all the same'. It's NOT the same. A person who fails a class has no right to have it expunged or swept away, they took on the load and they could not perform. An employer certainly has the right to know when looking at engineer a vs. engineer b that engineer a made 99.9999 in thermal fluids and engineer b made an 80 but engineer a took it twice already. </p>

<p>It's easy to say from a theoretical standpoint that we should be 'kinder' to engineers because being a little slower than the other kids isn't necessarily going to kill anyone. But if your new GTA game is behind schedule, your new apartment complex has to be razed because of stress failures and off-pixels start showing up on your screen a year before warranty all because of engineers who should switched out but get to work because we decided to be 'nice', I think you'd change your mind.</p>

<p>BTW, TAs often know more about students than profs do. This is kind of their job, to be the profs underpaid and unloved minions who do all his bidding while he shows up for class and scares you big evil formulae. So it's certainly within a TAs job description to say 'yes, billy bob has a 90 in this class but that's because he copies his programs from amanda and sits next to mcgenius during exams.' Or when billy has an 88 and the prof is pondering giving him an A, to say 'yea, but he's a bum who never reads assigments and just asks me a million stupid questions to get his work done.' So don't listen to them aibarr</p>

<p>I am an engineer. I've made bad grades and I hiss and moan about them afterwards, but I know I deserved them. If someone can't take the fact they couldn't cut it at something, I don't know of any major or job that's going to fix that problem. So the sooner people learn to deal with failure and move on in a brisk fashion, the better. Whether the consequences of their action is that they kill someone or they spend a few extra months fetching cappucinos for the boss.</p>