I doubt weeding out is intentional, except in programs that admit far more frosh than they have capacity for (nursing majors are the most common examples). However, schools undoubtedly keep track of the retention and graduation rates. It is not surprising that these rates are higher as admission selectivity goes up, and UCs are no exception. But less selective schools like non impacted CSUs have lower rates, because more of the students have difficulty with the courses. You can say students are “weeded out”, but that is not the intention even though it is expected to happen.
My understanding is that they do have expected grade distribution targets for percent of students receiving each grade including failures, at least at UCB where we have experience. The way it seems to work in many cases at UCB (at least in the LD classes my kid went through in math, physics, engineering etc. and their posted grading policies and actions) is that they don’t actually “curve” the grades, but they do something similar in that they have expected targets that shape how hard the testing and grading is in these classes. They try to approximately hit the targets, and in a particular semester, if the tests are too hard and students do poorly they’ll usually adjust grades, but what I’m seeing professors complain about right now seems to be “We expected X% failure, but so many students are doing poorly that we couldn’t rationally adjust grades enough to hit our usual grade distribution targets.”
Edited to add:
It’s a fine line between intending to fail some students, and intentionally keeping tests hard enough that they usually fail X% of students. Everyone wants to see students succeed… but these classes wouldn’t be widely called weed-out classes if there was NO intention to weed out students.
2 Likes
If this comment is in response to my earlier post about little change in portion with failing grades, note that there were often quite notable differences in the portion receiving A/B/C grades. Some examples are below. Perhaps this primarily relates to grade inflation or faculty having increased pressure to give a larger portion A grades, or perhaps there are also other contributing factors such as an increase in selectivity/filtering for engineering majors.
Math 52: 2019 → 2025
A+/A/A-: 31% → 46%
B+/B/B-: 37% → 20%
C+/C/C-: 21% → 18%
Engin 7: 2019 → 2025
A+/A/A-: 21% → 42%
B+/B/B-: 45% → 35%
C+/C/C-: 30% → 15%
My comment was in response to @ucbalumnus but yes, I agree that the observed system (as explained to students in course policies) doesn’t result in perfectly distributed grades. It is a heuristic. They aren’t curving grades to fit a distribution, they are just trying to ensure that the tests were at the appropriate and intended level of difficulty. And I believe the details of these policies have changed over time and there has been some grade inflation, for sure.
I noticed in your post that I have the date wrong. The program started in 2020. Sorry for the error. I’ll correct it.
I agree the goal ought to be about creating realistic opportunities, even if some don’t make it. That fits with the overall mission
1 Like
What about the Dean of Admissions at MIT?
https://archive.ph/A7KeI#selection-2937.0-2937.72
By 2022, MIT’s leadership decided a mistake had been made. Its admissions dean acknowledged that the SAT “significantly” predicts mathematics performance, which is especially important at MIT; the test would accordingly be reinstated.
1 Like
MIT admissions practices, policies, and goals are not similar to the UCs. Not even Berkeley. What works for MIT is what works for MIT.
2 Likes
…but when he said that the SAT significantly predicts mathematics performance in college, he said that was valuable to MIT, but not excusive to MIT. Eventually, when enough experts at enough institutions vouch for the predictive ability of the SAT for college performance, you need to acknowledge it is compelling.
3 Likes
This has nothing to do about what I think about MIT’s or any school’s data.
I could say the same thing to those who support the UCSD profs, as there have been many counter opinions coming from others in academia in response to the profs’ letter. The UCs draw from a pool that includes a large proportion of limited income students and title 1 HSs, and each UC prioritizes taking students from many HSs across the state. That’s unlikely to change, no matter those students’ test scores.
I have no idea what UC leaders will decide with regard to test scores. If they do return to test required for all, or certain majors, or whatever, the one thing I am sure about is there will be lawsuits challenging the decision.
Beyond that, I have no desire to continue to rehash ad nauseam what has been discussed on this and many other CC threads.
Friendly reminder: high school math tracks ≠ SAT prep. Let’s keep the discussion relevant to the actual exam.
1 Like
This isn’t really accurate. MIT is pretty explicit that MIT is dealing with MIT’s peculiar circumstances, and its approach may not make sense elsewhere. Schools have different approaches, different missions, different pools, different goals. This is especially so with a public university in the UC system, with their unique mission. Here is what @MITChris had to say on this exact subject . . .
Yet here you are, bludgeoning away, as if MIT’s approach fits all.
Here’s an idea . . . if you approve of MIT’s approach, then by all means send your kids there.
1 Like
No one said or implied that MIT’s approach fits all.
The MIT Admissions Dean clearly stated that the SAT significantly predicts mathematics performance in college (in general)…not just at MIT.
Some people will never agree to any form of standardized testing or any objective measure no matter what it is.
Im just going to chalk it up to a difference in opinion.
First, your claim that MIT did a study evaluating performance in college in general is patently false. MIT studied MIT students and applicants, and considered MIT demands and MIT’s mission.
Take the following statement from the dean, for example. It is about MIT, not college in general. MIT. MIT’s rigorous initial requirements which require intensive preparation upon arrival.
Our research can’t explain why these tests are so predictive of academic preparedness for MIT, but we believe it is likely related to the centrality of mathematics — and mathematics examinations — in our education. All MIT students, regardless of intended major, must pass two semesters of calculus, plus two semesters of calculus-based physics, as part of our General Institute Requirements.**05** The GIRs are both a defining strength of the MIT education, and also the functional constraint on access to it. Because all MIT undergraduates, no matter their major, must pass challenging classes in calculus, physics, biology, and chemistry — as well as a rigorous humanistic and communication requirement — we believe we can only responsibly admit students who are prepared to do all of that work, across all of those fields, at their time of entry to MIT. It is perhaps worth noting that the GIRs are also the most basic point of entry in each of these fields: MIT does not offer any remedial math classes ‘below’ the level of single-variable calculus, for example, or physics courses ‘below’ classical mechanics, so students have to be ready to perform at that level and pace when they arrive.The substance and pace of these courses are both very demanding, and they culminate in long, challenging final exams that students must pass**06to proceed with their education.07** In other words, there is no path through MIT that does not rest on a rigorous foundation in mathematics, and we need to be sure our students are ready for that as soon as they arrive.**08** We are reinstating our SAT/ACT requirement for future admissions cycles | MIT Admissions
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the predictive value of the extremely high (near perfect SAT math scores required by MIT for even for reasonable consideration for admission) have absolutely zero to do with the UC’s educational mission! The MISSION isn’t to further reward the kids who have won the educational lottery pre-College, even if those kids have a slightly better chance at success in college!
__________________________________________________________________
Should I file your statement about “some people” with your statement about people from “certain demographic groups?” Wouldn’t it make more sense to identify about whom you are speaking? If it’s me, then your characterizations are false.
2 Likes
It’s a generic statement. It’s more along the lines of ideology and political bent but you can interpret it any way you want.
Some groups oppose the ACT, SAT, LSAT, GMAT, MCAT, GRE or any standardized testing, usually with a similar rationale of why all these tests are unfair.
Ill just agree to disagree on this topic.
Reminder that CC is supposed to be a warm and welcoming community. Please move on from personal jabs.
Edited to add this was not a suggestion. Back and forth debate between users is not permitted in this sub forum.
I may be slow since I’m not getting the gist of a bunch of recent folks.
Here’s how I see it. Most people don’t object to the fact that Julliard and Curtis (and their ilk) require that applicants actually play (or sing if they are voice majors) in order to get admitted. Yes, recommendations are important. Yes, all the other stuff as well. But auditioning is a key part of their admissions process and it works for them. Want to major in music education at a branch of your state’s public U? They likely don’t require an audition. You can be passionate about music and study it to your heart’s content, but you won’t have to appear before a panel of music faculty who will judge EVERYTHING about your performance before they decide to give up a spot to you.
That’s MIT and the SAT. It works for them. You want to study math or CS or bio or whatever? There are plenty of colleges that at the moment, do not require the SAT. So you cannot extrapolate from MIT’s requirements and say “If MIT requires the SAT, it follows that EVERY college that teaches one of the many disciplines that MIT teaches must also require the SAT.” Because they do not. Some do. Some don’t. Moreover, you cannot then conclude that any college that teaches math or physics or whatnot must share the mission the MIT. Because that’s also not true. Not every college that has classes in music performance shares Julliard’s mission.
This is a strength and not a weakness of our higher ed system.
If MIT has discovered a very high correlation between math SAT scores and doing well at their university, you cannot then decide- all on your own- that every other university needs to follow suit.
Am I getting the flow of the discussion?
And the icing on the cake- to compare a PUBLIC U’s mission (supported by taxpayers) with that of a private institution is a dicey effort. Yeah, nay?
1 Like
Most people think that UCB is closer to MIT (at least in most subjects) than it is to a community college with open admissions and remedial classes.