Interesting story coming out of NYU. Professor Maitland Jr prominent chemist was fired after students complained his course was too hard.

[Professor Emeritus]

In my case, it was a top-3 (at very least a top 5) program in the nation and there was no real "preparation" advantage. Our classes were filled with kids on top level from elite schools. And I feel if that is the reputation you have, you need to have academic standards that weed out people beyond the standardized test scores and grades that happen at admission.

These weeder courses were almost always mandatory prereqs and almost always were at the start of the program.

So, I disagree about high school preparation playing a huge role.

You're contradicting yourself. You're stating that the "weeder" courses were mandatory prereqs that came at the start of the program, then trying to claim that high school preparation didn't play a huge role?

Are you just trying to claim that only people from elite schools should have a place there, and fukk the kids who didn't happen to have that background?

And I'm OK with top programs requiring not just the ability to repeat what you're told to do but dig extra deep. There's always other programs that are less punishing and demanding.

Nice strawman. I've affirmed that critical thinking and problem solving should be an essential aspect in every comment. No one is disputing that. What I'm pointing out is that colleges should work hard to teach that, not just fail the students who were unlucky enough to go to schools that hadn't already instilled it.

 

[Piff Perkins]

Organic chemistry is hard, period. And is kind of a "gear check" type course that determines whether those fields (medicine) are for you or not. That being said from what I've read it sounds like his particular course was poorly designed so it's moreso about his failure as a teacher than the students.

 

[yseJ]

You're contradicting yourself. You're stating that the "weeder" courses were mandatory prereqs that came at the start of the program, then trying to claim that high school preparation didn't play a huge role?

Are you just trying to claim that only people from elite schools should have a place there, and fukk the kids who didn't happen to have that background?

No, the point I was trying to make that in this program, there were already top kids from the top of their class from elite class, and they were ALSO getting buried deep by midterms. It's the second weeder after the weeder admission process.

It wasn't about the high school prep at all. It's about seeing how good you were at the problem solving per se and applying things that you've learned to problems you've never seen before and outside of the box thinking. Sure, there was some implied notion that you have some background in the computer science and engineering (the program) by taking related classes in high school - but its college of engineering and they already did the first weeder via admissions. It was not a "free-to-choose" major.

The only reason I mentioned that it was a top program is to highlight that it was already selective. In less competitive programs, you naturally would not and should not have weeder classes.

Nice strawman. I've affirmed that critical thinking and problem solving should be an essential aspect in every comment. No one is disputing that. What I'm pointing out is that colleges should work hard to teach that, not just fail the students who were unlucky enough to go to schools that hadn't already instilled it.

I dont see the strawman really. I said I'm ok with some top level, competitive programs to be punishing and difficult and expect some floor and not be required to get students to the floor if they arent there already. That doesn't contradict your statement about critical thinking, but I also don't think it's a must to teach the critical thinking skill itself in a vacuum - and I honestly don't know how one would do that. There are a lot of students who when even taught to use critical to use a known problem to solve an unknown problem in one way, would not be able to do so when another completely new problem is presented.

Hence the open-book tests with virtually no time limit.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

It wasn't about the high school prep at all. It's about seeing how good you were at the problem solving per se and applying things that you've learned to problems you've never seen before and outside of the box thinking. Sure, there was some implied notion that you have some background in the computer science and engineering (the program) by taking related classes in high school - but its college of engineering and they already did the first weeder via admissions. It was not a "free-to-choose" major.

That's naive. First off, your ability to problem solve in that manner is deeply tied to previous experience, it doesn't just emerge out of a vaccuum. There's a small contingent at the very top who can excell in it regardless of background, but there's a far greater group who can excell at it with the right preparation and opportunity. I've seen that plenty of times myself in both university and the workplace - there's a ton of people from elite prep schools who clearly didn't have the same raw ability of some of their peers, but who were still competent in the degree and profession due to superior preparation and opportunity.

And second, plenty of students (like myself) didn't even have any meaningful CS or engineering courses available in high school. So again, are you suggesting that only students from elite high schools deserve to be in elite university programs?

The only reason I mentioned that it was a top program is to highlight that it was already selective. In less competitive programs, you naturally would not and should not have weeder classes.

You're contradicting the previous arguments for the "weeder classes". Wasn't it already claimed that weeder classes are necessary to ensure the students who pass them will be competent enough to make it in the field? If you're saying that less competitive programs in the same field shouldn't have weeders, then you're admitting that the bar wasn't actually necessary and you can make it in the field without it.

You've accidentally exposed the point that @EndDomination and I both affirmed earlier - the purpose of those classes isn't actually to protect the field from incompetent professionals. The purpose of those classes is pure elitism, to create yet another bar which ensures that the status of the elite degree remains primarily in the hands of the select contingent of society that has been pre-approved for it.

 

[yseJ]

That's naive. First off, your ability to problem solve in that manner is deeply tied to previous experience, it doesn't just emerge out of a vaccuum. There's a small contingent at the very top who can excell in it regardless of background, but there's a far greater group who can excell at it with the right preparation and opportunity. I've seen that plenty of times myself in both university and the workplace - there's a ton of people from elite prep schools who clearly didn't have the same raw ability of some of their peers, but who were still competent in the degree and profession due to superior preparation and opportunity. Honestly, I'd say my wife is one of those - because of who her parents were, the quality of her high school, the competence of her peer group, and a lot of hard work, she ended up graduating from one of the top universities in the country and becoming an above-average aerospace engineer. But if you had put her in my upbringing and school situation, she probably would have gone to a state school and been a social worker. There's a ton of people like that.

And second, plenty of students (like myself) didn't even have any meaningful CS or engineering courses available in high school. So again, are you suggesting that only students from elite high schools deserve to be in elite university programs?

Elite university programs already take kids who have demonstrated success on some level. It doesnt have to be elite high schools, but the admission process taking standardized tests (a bad litmus test tbh), grades and extracurriculars. isn't it how it works ? And yes, preparation one way or the other is pretty much required, they're top fields for a reason.

You're contradicting the previous arguments for the "weeder classes". Wasn't it already claimed that weeder classes are necessary to ensure the students who pass them will be competent enough to make it in the field? If you're saying that less competitive programs in the same field shouldn't have weeders, then you're admitting that the bar wasn't actually necessary and you can make it in the field without it.

You've accidentally exposed the point that @EndDomination and I both affirmed earlier - the purpose of those classes isn't actually to protect the field from incompetent professionals. The purpose of those classes is pure elitism, to create yet another bar which ensures that the status of the elite degree remains primarily in the hands of the select contingent of society that has been pre-approved for it.

Top level programs always try to get "best of the best"

however, as Ive mentioned, the weeder classes in top programs are/were needed because

1 ) No one knows how you got those grades you got in HS, maybe you cheated. Hell, I know a specific religious school that cheated on standard tests and a lot of its students would go on to Stanford...and they did it through a religious practice delay on their tests....which enabled the cheaters to know the questions in advance.

2) To again test your knowledge of applying concepts to the second level, beyond what you did in homework or classwork.

The weeder classes basically make sure that you didn't accidentally wander to a top program without some degree of competency. And that's the main source of contention between you and me. You think regardless of program that colleges should provide you the whole education from the ground up. And I say it's next to impossible. If you've never seen as much as a computer program in your life before college and never exhibited some level of proficiency for math or logic, it's going to be extremely difficult for a college to make you a top program expert in four years; this doesn't mean you won't be generally incompetent, it means that you're not good enough to hang with the top level program.


and here's the funny part - a lot of "elite HS" people would be the ones really struggling, whereas a guy who went to public schools with no "preparation" but who actually have been programming for fun for years - theyd wax these guys with elite HS preparation. Because HS preparation can only do so much and a lot of these elite private schools still did learning (at least in my day) by the book, inside the box.



To reiterate - our only point of contention is that you think colleges should teach foundation of problem solving in their field, and I don't think it's needed, at least on top level programs. The foundation for the "top programs" should be laid in the previous years; it doesn't have to be elite or private high schools.


For uncompetitive program that don't have the rigorous competition or prestige, sure I will agree that weeder classes are not as needed. There still remain some situations where I'd think base level weeder course could be helpful, but I can see your point there and dont have much in terms of arguments to use.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Elite university programs already take kids who have demonstrated success on some level. It doesnt have to be elite high schools, but the admission process taking standardized tests (a bad litmus test tbh), grades and extracurriculars. isn't it how it works ? And yes, preparation one way or the other is pretty much required, they're top fields for a reason.

You're just begging the question. A huge proportion of American students (including a straight majority of Black/Brown students) don't have that preparation available to them in high school. So you think that elite programs should be beyond their reach, regardless of their potential, because their preparation wasn't gonna be there yet when they arrive freshman year?

Hell, if preserving the sanctity of the "top fields" were so important, then top universities wouldn't have so many fukking legacy admits. Yet legacy admits don't only get in, they largely graduate whether or not their ability is top-notch, because their preparation was adequate.

Top level programs always try to get "best of the best"

Which you appear to define by preparation rather than by potential, and thus eliminate a substantial portion of the American population from the running due to socioeconomic situation and high school quality alone.

however, as Ive mentioned, the weeder classes in top programs are/were needed because

1 ) No one knows how you got those grades you got in HS, maybe you cheated. Hell, I know a specific religious school that cheated on standard tests and a lot of its students would go on to Stanford...and they did it through a religious practice delay on their tests....which enabled the cheaters to know the questions in advance.

2) To again test your knowledge of applying concepts to the second level, beyond what you did in homework or classwork.

The "weeder courses" aren't necessary to test either of those things. Both will easily be answered over the course of the program. Any degree program which requires those skills will have them embedded into most of their classes and someone who legitimately is just a cheater or incapable of learning problem-solving skills and advanced concepts is never going to make it to the end. So what is gained by throwing the weeder in right at the beginning, before the less-prepared students have even had the chance to scaffold up, other than to preserve elitism?

The weeder classes basically make sure that you didn't accidentally wander to a top program without some degree of competency. And that's the main source of contention between you and me. You think regardless of program that colleges should provide you the whole education from the ground up. And I say it's next to impossible.

Yet another strawman. I never said, "whole education". But yes, there are people with fantastic ability whose high school preparation is poor. You're saying that top universities should ignore such students?

If you've never seen as much as a computer program in your life before college and never exhibited some level of proficiency for math or logic, it's going to be extremely difficult for a college to make you a top program expert in four years; this doesn't mean you won't be generally incompetent, it means that you're not good enough to hang with the top level program.

Ridiculous strawman. No one is saying, "Turn someone with no math or logic ability whatsoever into a top-level computer programmer". But it is 100% possible for an intelligent, logical person with very little computer programming background to become an elite programmer in college. Four years is far more than enough time to make that happen if they have abilities. It would be stupid to throw them in the deep end freshman year without enough preparation when you could easily have had a great programmer by year 3 if you'd only designed the cirriculum with patience.

and here's the funny part - a lot of "elite HS" people would be the ones really struggling, whereas a guy who went to public schools with no "preparation" but who actually have been programming for fun for years - theyd wax these guys with elite HS preparation. Because HS preparation can only do so much and a lot of these elite private schools still did learning (at least in my day) by the book, inside the box.

"programming for fun for years" is part of the preparation that isn't even in the picture for a lot of people I'm talking about. They haven't had the resources for that. But that doesn't automatically mean they don't have ability.

To reiterate - our only point of contention is that you think colleges should teach foundation of problem solving in their field, and I don't think it's needed, at least on top level programs. The foundation for the "top programs" should be laid in the previous years; it doesn't have to be elite or private high schools.

Our primary point of contention is that you show little awareness/sympathy for how little preparation most Black and Brown high school students have access to before they reach university and think that students without elite preparation should be arbitrarily forced out of the field freshman year, even though you still haven't articulated why it's necessary to do that immediately. If the field is really that tough, then they're not going to make it four years, they're not going to sneak through and grab some unearned degree. So why not forget the immediate hammer freshmen year and give them a chance to work their way up and show they have the ability?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@yseJ , your mention of cheating brought this article to mind:

The Scandal That Reveals the Fiction of America’s Educational Meritocracy

Americans love to see “miracle students.” T. M. Landry College Preparatory School seems to have capitalized on that.

www.theatlantic.com

The craziest thing about the scandal isn't that the school cheated to get nearly 40% of its students into the Ivies and Stanford. The crazy thing is that many of them did just fine when they got there. Even though they were poor black kids, even though their high school prep was mediocre, even though they didn't really have the test scores, even though they didn't really have the grades, they were able to succeed when given a chance. Pretty crazy to me that less than 1% of poor Black kids will ever have the shot of an education like that when so many of them could demonstrably handle it in that real life experiment.

When you don't put arbitrary obstacles in the way, a lot more poor Black kids can succeed than the "meritocracy" bullshyt artists would have you think.

 

[yseJ]

You're just begging the question. A huge proportion of American students (including a straight majority of Black/Brown students) don't have that preparation available to them in high school. So you think that elite programs should be beyond their reach, regardless of their potential, because their preparation wasn't gonna be there yet when they arrive freshman year?

Hell, if preserving the sanctity of the "top fields" were so important, then top universities wouldn't have so many fukking legacy admits. Yet legacy admits don't only get in, they largely graduate whether or not their ability is top-notch, because their preparation was adequate.





Which you appear to define by preparation rather than by potential, and thus eliminate a substantial portion of the American population from the running due to socioeconomic situation and high school quality alone.





The "weeder courses" aren't necessary to test either of those things. Both will easily be answered over the course of the program. Any degree program which requires those skills will have them embedded into most of their classes and someone who legitimately is just a cheater or incapable of learning problem-solving skills and advanced concepts is never going to make it to the end. So what is gained by throwing the weeder in right at the beginning, before the less-prepared students have even had the chance to scaffold up, other than to preserve elitism?





Yet another strawman. I never said, "whole education". But yes, there are people with fantastic ability whose high school preparation is poor. You're saying that top universities should ignore such students?





Ridiculous strawman. No one is saying, "Turn someone with no math or logic ability whatsoever into a top-level computer programmer". But it is 100% possible for an intelligent, logical person with very little computer programming background to become an elite programmer in college. Four years is far more than enough time to make that happen if they have abilities. It would be stupid to throw them in the deep end freshman year without enough preparation when you could easily have had a great programmer by year 3 if you'd only designed the cirriculum with patience.





"programming for fun for years" is part of the preparation that isn't even in the picture for a lot of people I'm talking about. They haven't had the resources for that. But that doesn't automatically mean they don't have ability.






Our primary point of contention is that you show little awareness/sympathy for how little preparation most Black and Brown high school students have access to before they reach university and think that students without elite preparation should be arbitrarily forced out of the field freshman year, even though you still haven't articulated why it's necessary to do that immediately. If the field is really that tough, then they're not going to make it four years. So why not give them a chance to work their way up and show they have the ability.

First you accuse me of strawmen and then you tell me about lacking sympathy for black and brown students whereas I never said that

I agree with you that a lot of minority folks don't get the correct preparation needed for college in general - and that is largely on school education system and should be solved on that level. When it gets to the top level program in universities, we are talking young adults and top level programs expects some headstart, not starting from level one. Yes, for completely unprepared there might be an insane difficulty spike, and they warn you about it. If you have ability tho, you should persevere. It's just not many people have that ability. It's not something that can be easily learned in four years.


I agree with you legacy programs are utter bullshyt. This is moreso in private schools than in public schools. It has to be merit over bloodline association, no argument there.


Again, you want essentially for top level programs to teach the entire foundation of the program from start to end. Again, whe you talk about ability - that ability will shine through in the weeder courses if the ability exists in the first place.


I went to a public middle school. I got into a good public high school for which I paid zero dollars, because I had good math test results. I took an interest in math and programming and then had good grades and got into a top program at Cal. All as a minority.

Now, I know many folks don't have that opportunity. And that is a school system problem, not college level imo.


And just off talking to ppl from high school who went to Stanford, the difference there in cs classes was that they basically didn't fail anyone. As a result, many people stopped growing intellectually-wise even tho their connections grew.


The reason weeder classes are in the first or second year tops is so that when you realize you aren't good enough, you don't just drop out. You could transfer to almost any major you'd want after flunking weeder classes and still have many years to go. If your weeder class is in junior year, you won't have any time

 

[yseJ]

@yseJ , your mention of cheating brought this article to mind:

The Scandal That Reveals the Fiction of America’s Educational Meritocracy

Americans love to see “miracle students.” T. M. Landry College Preparatory School seems to have capitalized on that.

www.theatlantic.com

The craziest thing about the scandal isn't that the school cheated to get nearly 40% of its students into the Ivies and Stanford. The crazy thing is that many of them did just fine when they got there. Even though they were poor black kids, even though their high school prep was mediocre, even though they didn't really have the test scores, even though they didn't really have the grades, they were able to succeed when given a chance. Pretty crazy to me that less than 1% of poor Black kids will ever have the shot of an education like that when so many of them could demonstrably handle it in that real life experiment.

When you don't put arbitrary obstacles in the way, a lot more poor Black kids can succeed than the "meritocracy" bullshyt artists would have you think.

I don't see anything wrong with meritocracy as long as there is no systemic impedement, which obviously is still pretty big in school education system. By the time you get to college level, there is some level of expectation for top level programs, man.


The school cheating in my case was a Jewish orthodox school who "couldn't" take SATs on Saturday so theyd get the tests beforehand and one of the test guys would open a packet and distribute the tests beforehand. It wasn't a scandal but lotta people knew. A girl I knew transfered to this private school because she was flunking my high school and couldn't handle the competitive classes. She went to Stanford right after

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I don't see anything wrong with meritocracy as long as there is no systemic impedement, which obviously is still pretty big in school education system. By the time you get to college level, there is some level of expectation for top level programs, man.

That's like saying you're fine with facism so long as its benevolent. Systemic impediment isn't just present in the American education system, it's the dominant feature, and for about 30-35 years its been getting worse rather than better.

So I guess we agree that meritocracy is bullshyt, since we agree that systemic impediment dominates?



Personally, i think "meritocracy" is silly even without systemic impediment, because the criteria by which meritocracy is defined rarely aligns well with actual excellence in the field. Temple Grandin is a legend in animal science who made significant transformations in the livestock industry, but she wouldn't even be able to get her degree in most elite universities because she sucked at algebra (I posted the article on that earlier in this thread). Proponents of meritocracy virtually always use limited, shortcut methods to define merit which have only a passing resemblance to actual competence in the field. You'd get a far more diverse professional body, and likely a healthier one, if you focused more on baseline competence rather than ranked meritocracy and then created all candidates above the competence level equally.

Not to mention that meritocracy as defined has led to a brain drain among certain occupations. If you create a ranked incentive system and funnel everyone above a certain bar into a particular field, then you start depleting all the "lower" fields of certain kinds of talent and then lose out in innovation.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

First you accuse me of strawmen and then you tell me about lacking sympathy for black and brown students whereas I never said that

You didn't "say" it, you just ignored them throughout the entire argument.

I agree with you that a lot of minority folks don't get the correct preparation needed for college in general - and that is largely on school education system and should be solved on that level. When it gets to the top level program in universities, we are talking young adults and top level programs expects some headstart, not starting from level one. Yes, for completely unprepared there might be an insane difficulty spike, and they warn you about it. If you have ability tho, you should persevere. It's just not many people have that ability. It's not something that can be easily learned in four years.

And yet the legacies do just fine, despite supposedly lacking the baseline ability required for other admissions. And many of the kids from T.M. Landry did just fine, despite supposedly lacking that baseline ability. That is proof that you CAN develop those things in four years if you're given a chance.

I agree with you legacy programs are utter bullshyt. This is moreso in private schools than in public schools. It has to be merit over bloodline association, no argument there.

You're completely missing the point though. My point was that legacy admits still generally do just fine in college - proving that the claims of the "meritocracy" are overstated. The same goes for those TM Landry kids. They're proof that you can be successful even at the most elite schools without necessarily having the test scores they claimed you needed to have to succeed.

Again, you want essentially for top level programs to teach the entire foundation of the program from start to end. Again, whe you talk about ability - that ability will shine through in the weeder courses if the ability exists in the first place.

Bullshyt - you have absolutely zero justification to make that claim. People who are just thrown into a difficult course without preparation early on won't automatically succeed. There is a certain high-end group who can do that, but there are far more students who COULD have succeeded in such a course but WON'T because they never got the preparation.

I went to a public middle school. I got into a good public high school for which I paid zero dollars, because I had good math test results. I took an interest in math and programming and then had good grades and got into a top program at Cal. All as a minority.

Now, I know many folks don't have that opportunity.

As a "minority" lol. There are more Asians at Cal than any other group, even White, and the vast majority of them who got there were like you in that they had elite preparation before admission that the vast majority of Black/Brown kids will never touch.

And just off talking to ppl from high school who went to Stanford, the difference there in cs classes was that they basically didn't fail anyone. As a result, many people stopped growing intellectually-wise even tho their connections grew.

By itself, that's a nonsense statement. No decent computer programmer fails to advance just because the threat of failing the class is taken away. If you were only trying because you were afraid of failing then you don't belong in the field.

And Stanford grads seem to be doing just fine after they get out.

The reason weeder classes are in the first or second year tops is so that when you realize you aren't good enough, you don't just drop out. You could transfer to almost any major you'd want after flunking weeder classes and still have many years to go. If your weeder class is in junior year, you won't have any time

Yet again you're begging the question - claiming that "you aren't good enough" solely because you came in with inadequate preparation. It's just as likely that they could have been good enough with more support.

And someone who has been passing all their classes up through junior year has options. Sure, they won't be able to transfer to "almost any major you'd want", but if they got to year 3 without feeling like they were in the wrong field then they're certainly already in the ballpark of where they need to be and can transfer to an associated field that doesn't require the same rigor in the particular skill they lack (such as the organic chemist moving to biology, or the aspiring veternarian moving to animal science, or the ME major moving to Civil Engineering). It wouldn't be some sort of death blow and would be a hell of a lot better than what happens to most young people who fail weeder classes, which is they give up and leave STEM entirely or don't even graduate at all.

 

[yseJ]

That's like saying you're fine with facism so long as its benevolent. Systemic impediment isn't just present in the American education system, it's the dominant feature, and for about 30-35 years its been getting worse rather than better.

So I guess we agree that meritocracy is bullshyt, since we agree that systemic impediment dominates?



Personally, i think "meritocracy" is silly even without systemic impediment, because the criteria by which meritocracy is defined rarely aligns well with actual excellence in the field. Temple Grandin is a legend in animal science who made significant transformations in the livestock industry, but she wouldn't even be able to get her degree in most elite universities because she sucked at algebra (I posted the article on that earlier in this thread). Proponents of meritocracy virtually always use limited, shortcut methods to define merit which have only a passing resemblance to actual competence in the field. You'd get a far more diverse professional body, and likely a healthier one, if you focused more on baseline competence rather than ranked meritocracy and then created all candidates above the competence level equally.

Not to mention that meritocracy as defined has led to a brain drain among certain occupations. If you create a ranked incentive system and funnel everyone above a certain bar into a particular field, then you start depleting all the "lower" fields of certain kinds of talent and then lose out in innovation.

No, I dont agree meritocracy is bullshyt at all; the systemic issues just interfere with it. Meritocracy is what we should aim for ultimately. As opposed to nepotism, cronyism and "networking"; all "rewards" should be determined by ones ability, not their background or who they know or whose offspring they are. Systemic racism undermines the background part and fukks up early development.

What is the "baseline competence" level you speak of ? Sounds to me just another way of say "merit" without saying "merit".
What you're discussing is still meritocracy, you're just debating where you want to draw the line and at what point.

In many fields, I suspect "baseline competence" level will be much higher than other fields. That's just the reality of things as they are. Especially past college and "learning period". Most people probably don't want someone with baseline competence level operating a submarine or operating on their loved one.

 

[yseJ]

You didn't "say" it, you just ignored them throughout the entire argument.






And yet the legacies do just fine, despite supposedly lacking the baseline ability required for other admissions. And many of the kids from T.M. Landry did just fine, despite supposedly lacking that baseline ability. That is proof that you CAN develop those things in four years if you're given a chance.






You're completely missing the point though. My point was that legacy admits still generally do just fine in college - proving that the claims of the "meritocracy" are overstated. The same goes for those TM Landry kids. They're proof that you can be successful even at the most elite schools without necessarily having the test scores they claimed you needed to have to succeed.






Bullshyt - you have absolutely zero justification to make that claim. People who are just thrown into a difficult course without preparation early on won't automatically succeed. There is a certain high-end group who can do that, but there are far more students who COULD have succeeded in such a course but WON'T because they never got the preparation.

Like I pointed out, my wife would say herself that she's an example of that. She graduated with a B-average from one of the most difficult programs in the nation and had a successful career as an aerospace engineer. Zero chance she would have even ended up at that school if her pre-university preparation hadn't been in the top 5%. She's not the kind of person who would have just shined through without preparation, but she's the kind of person who works hard enough to learn anything if she's given enough structure and scaffolding.





As a "minority" lol. There are more Asians at Cal than any other group, even White, and the vast majority of them who got there were like you in that they had elite preparation before admission that the vast majority of Black/Brown kids will never touch.





By itself, that's a nonsense statement. No decent computer programmer fails to advance just because the threat of failing the class is taken away. If you were only trying because you were afraid of failing then you don't belong in the field.

And Stanford grads seem to be doing just fine after they get out.






Yet again you're begging the question - claiming that "you aren't good enough" solely because you came in with inadequate preparation. It's just as likely that they could have been good enough with more support.

And someone who has been passing all their classes up through junior year has options. Sure, they won't be able to transfer to "almost any major you'd want", but if they got to year 3 without feeling like they were in the wrong field then they're certainly already in the ballpark of where they need to be and can transfer to an associated field that doesn't require the same rigor in the particular skill they lack (such as the organic chemist moving to biology, or the aspiring veternarian moving to animal science, or the ME major moving to Civil Engineering). It wouldn't be some sort of death blow and would be a hell of a lot better than what happens to most young people who fail weeder classes, which is they give up and leave STEM entirely or don't even graduate at all.

I didnt ignore anything. I already stated that systemic issues plague the preparation part.

Whats the criteria for "doing just fine" as pertaining to legacy students? Graduating ? How do we compare it with people who had more "merit" than them ? If you have some sort of comparison tool, I'd be interested to see it.

I have the same amount of justification as you do to make the opposite claim. In some fields simply working as hard as you can is not good enough. No amount of slamming hard into a wall can help solving some issues in certain fields. Now, in my field it isn't really the case, but in many others it certainly is the case. Many fields require certain talent and way of thinking that is formed during the child years. This is why early development of a human is the most important phase to me.... where all the innate knowledge groundworks is laid. By the time you hit college its basically a job fair with people picking the best candidates with best resumes.

Uh....are you implying I'm asian ? Cuz I'm not. But if you are saying that being a minority engineer at Cal is somehow an exception, ok sure

It's not a nonsense statement. If you couldn't fail anything then what's the point of grades then ? I feel like you want a system akin to what some employers provide where they train you like crazy and dont actually "grade" you until performance reviews...So do you then disagree with the whole idea of passing and non-passing grades and grades in general ? I just wanna know where you stand on here. Hell yeah, fear of flunking was big with me in some classes I took. Definitely made me go harder and study more rigorously than if I had known Im gucci either way, and would maybe succumb occasionally to some hoes (ugly ass hoes at Cal who am I kidding lmao) drunk parties and shyt.


I know a lot of people who did fail the weeder classes (again, in my school) and then transferred out of engineering altogether or stayed and did something else in engineering. It's not a big deal. Again, imo it's better to recognize you're not good enough earlier than later.



BTw- how do you do a multiquote nowadays ? I try to break it up into smaller pieces to quote posts and it's not working I have to manually do quote tags which takes forever. Is it via insert quotes button ?

 

[YvrzTrvly]

Dynamics is the same way in terms of difficulty. Professor matters. Quantitative testing for certain subjects need not happen. I've never taken ochem but it seems to require testing...do surgeons use chemistry on a daily basis?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Dynamics is the same way in terms of difficulty. Professor matters. Quantitative testing for certain subjects need not happen. I've never taken ochem but it seems to require testing...do surgeons use chemistry on a daily basis?

I've taken o-chem, it's interesting in its own way but the problems you need to solve to do well in a difficult o-chem course have absolutely zero relevance to the vast majority of doctors. Unless you're a research physician studying certain mechanisms at a really foundational level, you're literally never going to run into that shyt in a medical practice. I've been told that most physicians have already forgotten all the o-chem they ever learned in undergrad and never find it relevant to anything.

I'm not saying that knowing chemistry is useless for a doctor. There are several specialities for which you'll use knowledge of chemistry on an occasional or even semi-regular basis. But that primarily involves some pretty basic awareness of the biochemical aspects of certain diseases, or how acid-base reactions play out, and can be learned on its own in very short time with limited background. The actual "tough" problems in o-chem are shyt that 99% of doctors are never going to reason out again once they're done with their boards.



Dr. Donald Barr found that 50% of underrepresented minorities at Stanford and UC-Berkeley dropped out of pre-med (compared to only 17% of other students), and chemistry was listed as the #1 reason why. He thinks the pre-med curriculum is basically filling the need of a century ago, has become completely outdated and is "weeding out" many of the best doctor prospects and causing them to drop out before they even get to medical school.

https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/03/the-pre-med-drop-out/https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/9750/questioning-premedical-paradigm

Questioning the Premedical Paradigm: Enhancing Diversity in the Medical Profession a Century after the Flexner Report

Unsuspecting readers might think that Donald Barr's Questioning the Premedical Paradigm critically evaluates the role premedical education plays in physici

academic.oup.com