S: College Grading Woes

[kei2]

In my electrical engineering class, the average score on the first quiz was 11 out of 30. Now you'd think that my 17, being 20% above the mean, would be worth at least a B, but my friggin' professor isn't curving the class at all. :angry: That's right, so the average grade in the class right now is about 37%. If I had to guess, I'd say over 100 of his 150 students are failing right now. To top it all off, the other professor, who teaches the same material and administers the same quizzes, is curving his class (as it should be). Oh and I forgot to mention this but my prof's a complete jerk too. Any time the professor gets into shouting matches with students during a lecture it's not a good sign.

[Kim]

Buumer! Good luck!

[zenbooty]

Curves are for the weak. :P

I never liked them, even though I certainly benefited from them. And I never used them when I was a TA.

You either know the stuff you've been assigned, or you don't. What your peers know or don't know should have no bearing on your performance.

[nickel]

gotta agree with zen.
curving is really for the prof's benefit. he/she doesn't want to look like he is not getting the message across to the class so the curve makes it all seem hunkey dorey.

[ramazank2]

I have had many profs that say they are not going to curve but they always end up doing it. they use it as a scare tactic.

[Ladogaboy]

Curving is also for courses where the profs only expect the students to grasp about 30-40% of the material. Mostly sciences, from what I've seen. :shrug:

[kei2]

Originally posted by ramazank2
I have had many profs that say they are not going to curve but they always end up doing it. they use it as a scare tactic. That's my only hope really, that the guy's just full of **** and was bluffing to scare people.
Originally posted by zenbooty You either know the stuff you've been assigned, or you don't. What your peers know or don't know should have no bearing on your performance.I appreciate that opinion, and it's true in principle... but even the other professor (who is teaching parallel material and curving his class) said it's ridiculous for an electrical engineering class not to be curved. The average grade right now is 37%. That's not just 1 guy slacking off, that's the majority of the class failing. I doubt all those people were just slacking off.

[Nija]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Curves are for the weak. :P

You either know the stuff you've been assigned, or you don't. What your peers know or don't know should have no bearing on your performance.

:stupid:

It sounds like people didn't know the material, and are now feeling the consquences.

[kei2]

Originally posted by Nija
:stupid: It sounds like people didn't know the material, and are now feeling the consquences. Well yes and no. Ignore for a second the fact that the average was 37%. The nice prof said he designs the quiz hoping for a 50%-60% average. So if there was no curve, and the prof designed the quiz PERFECTLY (to get the exact distribution he wants), half the class would still fail. That doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Ladogaboy Curving is also for courses where the profs only expect the students to grasp about 30-40% of the material. Mostly sciences, from what I've seen. Exactly, but in this case it's 50%-60%.

[ray]

Grades are only a mere reflection of one's short term memory. If you want to show the professor that you know the stuff, participate in class, ask and answer questions and contribute to conversations. Speak with the professor about current events that relate to your field of study, in this case, engineering. As far as his policy about no curving, he is not going to fail the entire class. He would be fired in a heartbeat if he did that.

[kei2]

Originally posted by lilbigblue
Grades are only a mere reflection of one's short term memory. If you want to show the professor that you know the stuff, participate in class, ask and answer questions and contribute to conversations. Speak with the professor about current events that relate to your field of study, in this case, engineering.It doesn't really matter what the prof thinks of me, because it's a huge class and he doesn't know his students personally. It would have no bearing on my grade (which at the moment stands at 57%).
As far as his policy about no curving, he is not going to fail the entire class. He would be fired in a heartbeat if he did that. Yeah you'd think he'd at least be on probation or something. I don't know what the deal is, some profs flunk a lot of their students, but I'm not sure how they are disciplined (if at all).

[ray]

Originally posted by kei2
It doesn't really matter what the prof thinks of me, because it's a huge class and he doesn't know his students personally. It would have no bearing on my grade (which at the moment stands at 57%).

More of reason for you to get to know him personally. It's usually a good thing when a teacher remembers your name out of 150 students.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Curving is also for courses where the profs only expect the students to grasp about 30-40% of the material. Mostly sciences, from what I've seen. :shrug: OooK... I guess if this was the situation, a curve would make sense. But I guess my question would be, "Why the bloody Hell would a professor teach a course expecting students only to grasp 30-40% of the material? Why bother teaching it all then? Just teach that which you expect your students to grasp!

Or if you feel it necessary to teach more than you think the students can handle, then make a test where the students can choose a percentage of the questions to answer, but no more, then grade off the basis of that? That would seem to satisfy the rigors of the class while alleviating the need for a curve.

[PrObLy]

Originally posted by zenbooty
OooK... I guess if this was the situation, a curve would make sense. But I guess my question would be, "Why the bloody Hell would a professor teach a course expecting students only to grasp 30-40% of the material? Why bother teaching it all then? Just teach that which you expect your students to grasp!

Or if you feel it necessary to teach more than you think the students can handle, then make a test where the students can choose a percentage of the questions to answer, but no more, then grade off the basis of that? That would seem to satisfy the rigors of the class while alleviating the need for a curve.

I agree with you, but the prof isn't always the one who decides what material has to be covered. Also, with the curve, many universities have a requirement for a minimum percentage of students to get certain grades so the professor would have no choice but to curve the class if everyone is getting 30-40 percent on their exams. It's not like highschool, where the exams are designed for the class to have about a 75% average...especially in a topic like electrical/computer engineering where there is a ton of complicated material to try to grasp, it's just downright crazy to expect the average college student to be able to hold up a 75 average while taking 4-6 engineering-specific classes that all have these strict demands for time and amounts of material covered.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by PrObLy
It's not like highschool, where the exams are designed for the class to have about a 75% average...especially in a topic like electrical/computer engineering where there is a ton of complicated material to try to grasp, it's just downright crazy to expect the average college student to be able to hold up a 75 average while taking 4-6 engineering-specific classes that all have these strict demands for time and amounts of material covered. I'm sorry but I think the above part of your statement is bull. I was taking those computer courses along with a mathematics double major, while working part time, and also working as a TA my senior year. I held WELL above a 75% average before any curve was applied. I think too many kids these days (and I include the time when I was going to school, which wasn't SO long ago. There were plenty of them when I was in college) don't challenge themselves nearly enough in school, and expect everything to be easy. They rely on curves when they should be pushing themselves to achieve.

[Grubbie]

physics/engeneering are the worst. You can't always blame the students, if the prof doesn't prepare the class(not going over hw/problems/examples) and you just end up reading the book. And when you come to class, you have a quiz/test which is really hard, and the avg is a 30-50% that is not good. I feel your pain man.

You can't always blame the students, if everybody is failling the prof has something to do with it. One of my last physics classes, was a 42% avg. I had an A since I was in the 80-90's and he curved, but I was one out of five kids who understood it out of 150...

[RoniMan]

i had an engineering class where the professor actually told us that he only expected about a 30% understanding rate. b/c, as he put it, "the engineers out in the real world work on projects with only 30 accuracy." funny teacher...used the simpsons in a lot of his lectures.

[PrObLy]

Originally posted by zenbooty
I'm sorry but I think the above part of your statement is bull. I was taking those computer courses along with a mathematics double major, while working part time, and also working as a TA my senior year. I held WELL above a 75% average before any curve was applied. I think too many kids these days (and I include the time when I was going to school, which wasn't SO long ago. There were plenty of them when I was in college) don't challenge themselves nearly enough in school, and expect everything to be easy. They rely on curves when they should be pushing themselves to achieve.


Zen, it appears as you were obviously beyond the average college student. I think that's awesome that you were able to work/study/double major/succeed/and TA at the same time, but let's face it, most people aren't able to do that no matter how much effort they put into school/studying. I really wish I could be able to do all that and it's obvious you put a TON of effort into your college work. I will agree with you that a lot of today's students could be challenging themselves more, but when they do study and do fail these exams, it's tough to convince oneself that they need to challenge themselves more when their grade is ~50%. Right now I am falling into this category in a couple classes. I'm a sophomore mechanical engineer major at the University of Iowa, and I've never studied so much in my life, and at the same time, done so poorly. Last year was a breeze, and now it's time to buckle down and learn all this truly new stuff, and really, it's overwhelming. I'm really not trying to rebut your statement, but just show that there is another side to those who don't get great grades besides the one's who don't apply themselves.

[Kevster]

Just curious - what EE class is this? What is the material? (I have an MSEE myself)

I don't want to make a sweeping generalization about larger engineering schools, but I have found that schools that have a large research program tend to neglect their undergraduate programs. One school that comes to mind is UCLA - about 10 years ago they lost their accredidation and only got it back after they appealed and were on probation for 6 years.

[kei2]

Originally posted by Kevster
Just curious - what EE class is this? What is the material? (I have an MSEE myself)

I don't want to make a sweeping generalization about larger engineering schools, but I have found that schools that have a large research program tend to neglect their undergraduate programs. One school that comes to mind is UCLA - about 10 years ago they lost their accredidation and only got it back after they appealed and were on probation for 6 years. I assume you're asking me, Kevster (as I posted the original grievance). It's ECE102 (upper division analog circuits) at UC San Diego. It's a class required for both EE majors and CE (computer engineering) majors like myself.

[DaFunkyUnit]

Originally posted by Kevster
Just curious - what EE class is this? What is the material? (I have an MSEE myself)

I don't want to make a sweeping generalization about larger engineering schools, but I have found that schools that have a large research program tend to neglect their undergraduate programs. One school that comes to mind is UCLA - about 10 years ago they lost their accredidation and only got it back after they appealed and were on probation for 6 years.

wait, really?!? UCLA LOST their accredidation? the Engineering school? no way! :eek:

i just graduated from UCLA with an BSEE degree (just picked up my diploma today, actually. a rather anti-climatic ordeal. takes them 4 months to give you the diploma, and another 6-8 weeks just to plaque it :mad: )

but anyways, being an engineering student is ****ing hard work. You will have to make enoromous amounts of sacrifice, and you will still not get the results(grades) that you want.

of course there are those few geniuses who make the grade, and to them I say more power to you.

and then theres the others who I greatly despise, all the cheaters in the class (at UCLA school of engineering, that would be almost %50 of the class!) the school is soo competitive, that I wonder at what some students would do just for the extra point or two.

grade curves are a double-edged sword. if you fall with in the 'average' range, and the class is really hard and everyone is struggling, then most likely you'll get a B-/C+. Of course, if you can just somehow 'edge' past the average kids, bam! just like that you're looking at B+/A-. This is what motivates students to cheat like mad.

After finishing my college ordeal, I have mixed feelings about engineering school at UCLA. Lower div classes have 2-3 hundred students. Upper div classes will ususually have ~100 +/- 50 students (depending on how easy the prof is). With those numbers, and the type of students who get into the school and who willingly pursue the Engineering field, its no wonder that one will face fierce competition. The school is on a quarter system, so the pace is very, very fast. Because, UCLA is a "research school," everything was pretty much theoretical. No hands-on experience. Job-market value: nil.

:sigh: Kei2, I dunno man, just hang in there, and try to have some fun while you're in college. (btw, from what i hear, the UCSD CS program is actually far superior to UCLA now. In the last 4 years, the UCLA CS department has deteriorated like crazy. Just recently, though, they had M$ take over to "revamp" facilities and what not. Yep, pretty bad.)

[coleslaw]

So this must be what you feel like:

http://flabba.ma.cx/arkivet/1/28.jpg

I know the feeling... Been there! Done that! Just hang in there!! :hihi:

[RoniMan]

Originally posted by coleslaw
So this must be what you feel like:
image *snipped*
I know the feeling... Been there! Done that! Just hang in there!! :hihi:
haha! :heh:

that's pretty good. when i was going through my eng program, i would get to about the second line of notes, and fall asleep.

hence, why i'm not an engineer today.

[Kevster]

Originally posted by DaFunkyUnit


wait, really?!? UCLA LOST their accredidation? the Engineering school? no way! :eek:

It was about 10 years ago, but ABET did pull their accredidation for a couple of disciplines (ME and CE I think) because they were not updating their curriculum. That's the whole point of having accredited engineering schools - so that each school is teaching engineers the skills they need when they get out in the industry. Northrop University in Inglewood was a specialized engineering school for the aerospace industry and they lost their accredidation - unfortunately they didn't have the resources that UCLA has to beef it back up and within 3 years they were closed (The campus is now a paralegal school - West Los Angeles College or something). All the students left immediately because you have a year's grace period before your engineering courses are null and any school that you transfer to will likely require you take them again. That story was really sad - I have seen some annual Los Angeles-area engineering awards with Northrop engineering students' name on them from 15-20 years ago.


i just graduated from UCLA with an BSEE degree (just picked up my diploma today, actually. a rather anti-climatic ordeal.


I graduated from Loyola Marymount with a BSEE in 1994. I got my MSEE specializing in communications from Loyola in December 1997. :)


but anyways, being an engineering student is ****ing hard work. You will have to make enoromous amounts of sacrifice, and you will still not get the results(grades) that you want.

of course there are those few geniuses who make the grade, and to them I say more power to you.

and then theres the others who I greatly despise, all the cheaters in the class (at UCLA school of engineering, that would be almost %50 of the class!) the school is soo competitive, that I wonder at what some students would do just for the extra point or two.

grade curves are a double-edged sword. if you fall with in the 'average' range, and the class is really hard and everyone is struggling, then most likely you'll get a B-/C+. Of course, if you can just somehow 'edge' past the average kids, bam! just like that you're looking at B+/A-. This is what motivates students to cheat like mad.

That is why I chose a smaller engineering school. I was very glad that Loyola had an average engineering class size of only 20-30 students. The thing I liked the most was that the classes were taught by the professors - not the TAs or grad students. We always had people from the local industry (Boeing, Hughes, Raytheon) who were technicians and wanted to get their engineering degrees. Those people gave us a lot of insight into what the industry is like!

Kei2 - you are a CS student stuck in an analog electronics class - I do feel for you. For EE's this is a bread-and-butter class that is core to understanding what is going on in later courses. The EE curriculum can be best described as an inverted pyramid - all of the core classes are at the point at the bottom and everything else is essentially built upon what you learned there - just different applications of it. Good luck on that - it certainly isn't easy.

[kei2]

UPDATE: Considering the 37% average, I had previously concluded that the prof was bluffing to make us work harder, but now I'm not so sure. Okay so apparently the average lab grade is somewhere around 90%... so balancing that with the average quiz grade (37%), you get some 63.5%. The lab category and quiz category are equally weighted, and the final exam will be worth more than either of them. So yeah maybe he really won't curve. That would suck. Yes I've taken all the above opinions into consideration, and I appreciate all those points of view, but it doesn't change the fact that I currently have a 73.5% (57% on the first quiz, 90% on the first lab). You have to figure the final exam average will be close to the quiz average, and that would not be good at all. Quiz 2 coming up later today, here's hoping I'm at or above the mean again.

[aggieSlaughter]

I'm a computer engineering major at TAMU(texas A&M) right now...I feel your pain.
EE 454(integrated circuit design(5 micron technology))
EE 350(computer architecture, MIPS assmebly language, BLAH)
CPSC 311(algorithms, not good)
ENGR 482(an engineering ethics class)
and working 20 hours a week to pay for this little venture we call greater education. I'm also taking a history class at my local comm. college(blinndergarden) because I don't think I could take 16 hours at tamu and work and stay afloat in all of my classes.

I'm having a hard time in my classes right now. I just had a test today, and have a test tomorrow...

a year and a half to go....weeeeeeeee

good luck kei2....