Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. If a student studies for 12 hours and gets 29% of the questions correct, then either the professor did not properly test the material, or the exam did not properly test what was taught.
Or maybe, the test tested what was covered in the course and was properly constructed but the student just couldn't get it.
Length of time studying is not a measure of understanding.
Not everything is the fault of either the instructor or the test, the student and his abilities are also a big piece, maybe the biggest.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
Or maybe, the test tested what was covered in the course and was properly constructed but the student just couldn't get it.
Length of time studying is not a measure of understanding.
Not everything is the fault of either the instructor or the test, the student and his abilities are also a big piece, maybe the biggest.
I think there is another type of professor as well. I think one of my ology professors was like this. He slammed everyone really hard thinking getting a 55% would make you work harder and study harder, and then did final grades on a curve.
I don't know about from the university's perspective, but it seemed from some professors' perspective they felt they were the guardians of their field and weren't willing to let anyone past.
That's their prerogative, although most colleges I'm familiar with would not allow a professor to fail out more than about 35-40% of his students consistently. They would get called on the carpet after the dean saw that happening for multiple years in a row. Less than 40% success rates get on an administrators' radar FAST.
Quote:
Oh, when I first read that, I thought you said MTSU. I'm familiar with students from there.
Ha! Well, the school in question is similar in size, scope, and background as Middle Tennessee State, so I might as well have. Those types of universities are pretty much interchangeable across the country. Ie: they started as a normal school in the late 19th, early 20th century, transitioned to become a university circa the post WWII-era, now have 10-40k students, semi-selective, a decent number of Masters programs and a handful of PhD programs. Although most of them have a handful of programs they do particularly well, e.g.: MTSU has music business.
The rationale I heard in the math department was that they are training students who can be capable of moving on to Ph.D.'s since the graduates need to be strong enough to earn the qualifications for teaching at major colleges or to conduct research at a university or a corporate program. The undergraduate degree in math, chemistry, and physics often share the same goals. If you halt your education at that level, you still have the ability to move into a lot of other fields where basic research is not required. 5 out of 200 peers in my freshman class stayed in the major all four years.
Some of other sciences, such as statistics and computer science, were easier since they were heavy in applied math.
The engineers had to take some of the same foundation courses in sciences.
Some value. But they don't make the weed out courses the right courses.
They make them like Calc 2 and 4. Useless...
They should make it structural engineering. If you fail structural engineering twice, then it's a pretty good bet, you shouldn't be a structural engineer. If you fail thermo, it's a pretty good bet, you shouldn't be a Mech Eng.
Then again, most engineers want to get their PE and get to a level where they are executive and never have to do another calculation or CAD drawing in their life again anyway, so ... what's the point?
Then again, most of the time students fail courses, it's because they're not motivated enough.
I know others don't agree with me, but I don't agree with the concept of weed-out classes. For the tuition that we pay for college, the professors should be teaching us how to become a better engineer, rather than working against us. If it's being done as a favor to industry, then maybe industry should be paying college tuition rather than the students.
The real problem is that we are sending too many people to college. If anything, people need to be "weeded out" before they get to college.
The other problem is that the wrong things are used to weed people out. It's not about who can think outside the box or who can do things beyond textbook problems. It's all about who is willing to take an exam at 10 PM the Wednesday night before Thanksgiving without complaining, even though the school rules ban exams after 6 PM that day. It's all about who is willing to attend a review session during spring break when the dorms are closed. It's all about who is willing to do the most busy work. It's all about who is willing to skip their grandmother's funeral, because the professor gives a 0 for any missed exam, including a funeral or hospitalization. I'm sure some will say that this is to prepare you for the real world. But if that is the case, then that is why our workplaces are so dysfunctional. It's also very hypocritical for a professor who never spent a day in the real world to think he/she is preparing us for the real world.
If academia, the private sector, and the government sector worked together and actually listened to each other, life could be so much easier and so much more could get done for so much less wasted money.
BTW, that's just a terrible, terrible idea to weed someone out of being a doctor first semester of college, age 18 (if that).
I can't imagine how anybody who is middle aged and has lived through working life can think that's a good idea.
I’m not sure I want a doctor to care for me who couldn’t get past freshman chemistry or an engineer design a bridge that couldn’t pass calculus 101. These classes aren’t that difficult and that’s coming from someone who graduated “Lordy How Cum”.
My GPA was quite good for the first two years - and I hung on for the last two and a half. It all worked out well. 35.5 years with a Fortune 35. Wait….the company was a Fortune 5 when I started there. Maybe I’m the one who should have been weeded out.
Or maybe, the test tested what was covered in the course and was properly constructed but the student just couldn't get it.
Length of time studying is not a measure of understanding.
Not everything is the fault of either the instructor or the test, the student and his abilities are also a big piece, maybe the biggest.
I can see that argument when most of the class has a reasonable score. But far too often in these classes, the grade distribution would be centered somewhere in the 20s/30s with the high grade in the 40s. Maybe the odd Sheldon way, way, way out in the tail with a 99.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
I think there is another type of professor as well. I think one of my ology professors was like this. He slammed everyone really hard thinking getting a 55% would make you work harder and study harder, and then did final grades on a curve.
I definitely had a few of those along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
That's their prerogative, although most colleges I'm familiar with would not allow a professor to fail out more than about 35-40% of his students consistently. They would get called on the carpet after the dean saw that happening for multiple years in a row. Less than 40% success rates get on an administrators' radar FAST.
.
They didn't often give a failing grade. The usual MO for these classes was to slam the ever-loving mucus out of you in terms of homework right off the bat. Give a quiz about two weeks in that required some combination of student between Einstein and Maxwell to solve and give out grades in the 20s/30s. Step on the gas for the homework and then give a midterm guaranteed to have half the class ready to toss their cookies by the time it was over. By this point 30%- 50% of the class simply dropped the course. After that they didn't grade much homework or anything until final and you went into the final having no idea what your final grade would be. Most would get C's with a few D's, B's and an occasional A in the mix. But you could never find any mathematical relation between your grades in the course and the final grade.
By junior year, a good 2/3 or better of the original group was gone, changed majors to something easier. If your survived by this point most of the professors treated more like a collogue and would join into coffee sessions with the students. By this time, at least in my dept, we all had a key to the building and the undergrad lab, as well as a desk in the undergrad office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
Ha! Well, the school in question is similar in size, scope, and background as Middle Tennessee State, so I might as well have. Those types of universities are pretty much interchangeable across the country. Ie: they started as a normal school in the late 19th, early 20th century, transitioned to become a university circa the post WWII-era, now have 10-40k students, semi-selective, a decent number of Masters programs and a handful of PhD programs. Although most of them have a handful of programs they do particularly well, e.g.: MTSU has music business.
Being that we're a lab here in TN, we get a decent number of applicants from UT, TTU, and MTSU. Interestingly not so many from ETSU or Vandy.
Being that we're a lab here in TN, we get a decent number of applicants from UT, TTU, and MTSU. Interestingly not so many from ETSU or Vandy.
Do you notice much of a difference between them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
