<p>
</p>
<p>Grad programs can be pretty strict in their GPA requirements. In my program, I’m required to keep a 3.5 GPA, and in certain courses, I need to get an A or A-. If I get a B+ in one of these courses, I have to retake it if I want to graduate. So yes, in some sense a B is a failing grade. And I’ve seen similar requirements elsewhere.</p>
<p>Even though general relativity is usually considered graduate-level in the US, I am the only graduate student in my own GR class, which is an upper-division elective; the instructor made it clear at the beginning of the semester that undergrad vs. grad was not important in assigning letter grades at the end of the semester in my case. However, that means the passing grade in absolute terms is higher since a B- is the passing grade in grad school (70% vs. 50%, which is a D)…</p>
<p>Maybe I didn’t read all the posts carefully enough, so forgive me if I missed this…
I was in mixed courses as a grad student. While we did sit in the same classes and have the same book, the tests were not the same. Grad students were expected to pull more out reading/lecture and so would, for example, be asked to respond to all question prompts rather than picking 3 out of 4. We also had more papers. No way were we getting graduate credit for doing only what the undergrads did. </p>
<p>I remember first year grad students without previous design degrees in my upper lever design classes; they composed about one third of the class… The grad students probably had slightly different course requirements than the undergrads (more reading and more writing but same projects) and were graded separately from the undergrads. It seemed totally reasonable to everyone.</p>
<p>In grad school, the Biostats classes were similar in that grad students from the Biostats department had different requirements than non-Biostats grad students. Getting a high pass took the same level of work for all students and was very difficult but it was easier for non Biostats students to get a pass.</p>
<p>ucbalum, there is a difference between weeding by default–ie; the class presents the material that OUGHT to be mastered for progression to the next level, and if you don’t master it to an appropriate level you don’t proceed to the next level, at least not yet–and a class that is set up to deliberately weed out students who HAVE mastered the material and COULD proceed to the next level. </p>
<p>I supposed it could be justified if there were simply no room for those students in the major, but a better response would be to add resources to accommodate more <em>competent</em> students.</p>
<p>It seems as if some STEM types like to boast about how many people they can discourage from pursuing their field. </p>
<p>My undergrad physics department tended to avoid deliberately weed out; the weeding was done by default - then again, how many classes did you see perform both a weeding by default and a deliberate weeding?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But how often does intentional weeding (i.e. giving of D or F grades) of students who have acceptably learned the material occur?</p>
<p>Given the relatively low rate of mastery of high school math among entering college frosh (as evidenced by the high rate of enrollment in remedial level math courses in college) it would not be surprising that much of the supposed “weeding” is simply due to the students’ poor preparation and/or ability to handle college level math.</p>