Value of "Weed-out" Classes (computer science, degrees, cost, high school)
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.
Just saw our youngest off for the final year of college. He's studying a liberal art whereas me, our oldest, and most of my friends, were in STEM programs. One thing I noticed, which has been touched on in several threads here, is his program did not contain any "weed-out" classes unlike all the STEM programs I'm familiar with.
Which kind of brings up the question of what is the purpose and value of weed-out classes?
From some definition, weed-out classes are those that are essential to the discipline, often required as pre-requisites for higher level courses, that are taught in a ridiculously hard manner to force students to drop that major. Professor Kingsfield (Paper Chase) often comes to mind "... if you survive ...". In my program and my oldest, "weed-out" started day one of the first class, first semester. Our professor started with the classic "Look at the student on each side of you. Only one of you will graduate with a degree in physics." Out of the almost 30 in that first class, six of us graduated.
With that background, I'm honestly of two minds. Part of me understands the need to weed-out those who can't handle the material and the methods of thinking. I can see the difference in caliber of new hires at work from those who came through harder colleges with intense programs vs those who came from 3rd tier schools. It's obvious in their approach to engineering, in those who find new ways to solve problems vs those who use the textbook approach and wait for guidance on anything new. You can see it in things as simple as how they write up a project proposal, or an experimental plan, or the analysis of results. There's an extra level of thoroughness in their product. And you can see it when they're asked to present to senior managers and high level VIPs. It doesn't phase them and they do a good job, whereas others lack confidence in their ability to present their results and fold if challenged.
On the other hand, I also know the weed-out courses were brutal in their approach. Was the brutality necessary or is it essential to the results?
Last edited by tnff; 09-01-2021 at 07:42 AM..
Reason: typo
Most people can't pass physics. That's why colleges are supposed to be elite institutions in which only the very intelligent and capable survive.
Unfortunately, we're a long way from that now because of the need for tuition units. Except for the heavily endowed major institutions, most colleges are struggling to survive.
I was a civil engineering major at a PAC12 university in the late 1970s (it was actually the PAC10 then). We got the same speech; that is, look to each side of you, only one of you will graduate with a degree in civil engineering. It was more or less true. Of the four of us from the same high school who started, I was the only one to graduate in civil engineering (two switched to business after the first quarter of calculus, one (our high school valedictorian) managed to last two years before he dropped out altogether). My university used to advertise the percentage of graduates who passed the EIT/FE examination was above 98%.
I agree with you about the quality of graduates. I am retired now, but I would definitely hire a graduate from my university over someone who went elsewhere. Some of the PAC12 schools had weak engineering programs (UCLA graduates never impressed me), and some of the graduates of a certain class of colleges and universities, even with advanced degrees, were not to impressive either (I would mention this class, but I am afraid I would get booted from City-Data). Some of these graduates could not pass the EIT/FE examination. I had professors at my university that told us if you could not pass the EIT/FE examination during your senior year, you should sue the university for letting you pass courses without gaining the proper knowledge.
I also have to say that at my university, these weed out courses made for a very competitive atmosphere that could be called a "hostile learning environment". After graduation, I worked for a couple of years, then went for a masters in civil engineering at another PAC12 university. The hard part of graduate school was getting in; the learning environment was so much more relaxed (I actually became friends with my mentor professor for my thesis and we kept in touch until he passed away recently).
I also have a son. He majored in electrical engineering at a good university where they also had weed out courses. He also said he thought it was a hostile learning environment, and like me, had a more enjoyable time in graduate school.
So, to answer your question, I think the brutality is necessary, but it was definitely not enjoyable.
Most people can't pass physics. That's why colleges are supposed to be elite institutions in which only the very intelligent and capable survive.
Unfortunately, we're a long way from that now because of the need for tuition units. Except for the heavily endowed major institutions, most colleges are struggling to survive.
“Weed out” doesn’t mean that people can’t cut it at the school. It just means that people realize that a certain major is not for them and switch majors. Not everyone is cut out to be CS or physics major, but that doesn’t mean they can’t excel in other fields.
I think the point of weed out classes early on is so that people don’t end up in junior year switching majors and then end up having to stay 5 years. Ranking is somewhat based on who graduates on time, so there is no benefit to keeping students in a major a long time.
Weed-out courses are absolutely essential, and provide a significant portion of the value of your degree. Without weed-out courses, college is just party time for young adults and a rubber stamp that you started life with the correct level of socioeconomic privilege.
I took the weed-out courses for Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Aerospace Engineering in a highly-rated college. Yes, getting 29% of questions correct on the first exam, after studying for 12 hours, is disheartening, but if you don't have the heart to keep fighting to succeed in your discipline, then you should pick a different vocation. It's good for students to realize how stupid they are, and then to discover they can become slightly less stupid by spending 80 hours a week pounding away at example problems, camping outside TA's and professor's offices, and re-re-re-reading texts.
I really disliked a lot of graduate school (went back after working for a while) because it was too easy--almost as easy as working in the real world. I'm not paying upwards of $10K in tuition to have a good time!
I also have to say that at my university, these weed out courses made for a very competitive atmosphere that could be called a "hostile learning environment". After graduation, I worked for a couple of years, then went for a masters in civil engineering at another PAC12 university. The hard part of graduate school was getting in; the learning environment was so much more relaxed (I actually became friends with my mentor professor for my thesis and we kept in touch until he passed away recently).
.
That's an interesting way to think of it. Sometime way back, don't recall if it was undergrad or grad school, I learned the term "combat physics." It meant you had to be tough enough and know your subject well enough to "win" in the battle of ideas because when you were presenting yours, others in that audience were going to challenge everything you said. And you had to be gracious enough, and courageous enough, to accept when someone else's idea was better than yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict
“Weed out” doesn’t mean that people can’t cut it at the school. It just means that people realize that a certain major is not for them and switch majors. Not everyone is cut out to be CS or physics major, but that doesn’t mean they can’t excel in other fields.
I think the point of weed out classes early on is so that people don’t end up in junior year switching majors and then end up having to stay 5 years. Ranking is somewhat based on who graduates on time, so there is no benefit to keeping students in a major a long time.
I agree that many who didn't make it through my program switched majors and graduated in other programs. However, at least where I went, most of them did lose at least a semester and perhaps a full year by the time they switched. One of my eldest's best friends in college actually lost 2 1/2 years by sticking it out through first half of junior year before switching majors. In that time had dropped so many classes due to grades she was well behind in both credit hours and pre-reqs after switching. But did find a much better fit and was much happier after switching majors and was able also to get a good internship which led to a job. So it worked out in the end, but came at a high price.
There is an interesting cost discussion too. My oldest graduated in four years, found a good job that is paying for her grad school. There has to be a lost opportunity cost in addition to extra semesters of college expense for adding years to graduation.
That's an interesting way to think of it. Sometime way back, don't recall if it was undergrad or grad school, I learned the term "combat physics." It meant you had to be tough enough and know your subject well enough to "win" in the battle of ideas because when you were presenting yours, others in that audience were going to challenge everything you said. And you had to be gracious enough, and courageous enough, to accept when someone else's idea was better than yours.
I agree that many who didn't make it through my program switched majors and graduated in other programs. However, at least where I went, most of them did lose at least a semester and perhaps a full year by the time they switched. One of my eldest's best friends in college actually lost 2 1/2 years by sticking it out through first half of junior year before switching majors. In that time had dropped so many classes due to grades she was well behind in both credit hours and pre-reqs after switching. But did find a much better fit and was much happier after switching majors and was able also to get a good internship which led to a job. So it worked out in the end, but came at a high price.
There is an interesting cost discussion too. My oldest graduated in four years, found a good job that is paying for her grad school. There has to be a lost opportunity cost in addition to extra semesters of college expense for adding years to graduation.
I think it depends on the school too. I switched early and still finished in 3 years. My best friend’s husband switched from CS to business with a tech focus and he only had to do an extra semester. I don’t know when he changed majors. Interestingly enough, he still ended up spending years as a software developer, but his business background really allowed him to move into the managerial roles. I think that it worked out better for him than remaining in CS. Our gen ed requirements were pretty liberal, so it was easy to switch and not get behind. In my home state, it was pretty common for people to get behind a year or more if they switched majors, even if they came in with some credits. This was partially due to availability of certain courses you needed to complete the major.
Weed-out courses are absolutely essential, and provide a significant portion of the value of your degree. Without weed-out courses, college is just party time for young adults and a rubber stamp that you started life with the correct level of socioeconomic privilege.
I took the weed-out courses for Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Aerospace Engineering in a highly-rated college. Yes, getting 29% of questions correct on the first exam, after studying for 12 hours, is disheartening, but if you don't have the heart to keep fighting to succeed in your discipline, then you should pick a different vocation. It's good for students to realize how stupid they are, and then to discover they can become slightly less stupid by spending 80 hours a week pounding away at example problems, camping outside TA's and professor's offices, and re-re-re-reading texts.
I really disliked a lot of graduate school (went back after working for a while) because it was too easy--almost as easy as working in the real world. I'm not paying upwards of $10K in tuition to have a good time!
That's a good point to recognize. I had many of those 29% exams. It felt like in many classes the only thing that separated the ones who finished from those who didn't was the willingness to hang on one class longer than the next guy. Not genius, because I certainly wasn't, but being willing to put up with it to get to the goal.
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.
