| >Your whole argument about the curve centers around the flawed and bizarre presumption that the curve has to center around a C. It doesn't always work that way That's where they usually center the curve. This is where MOST schools set the average. It's not bizarre it's actually bizarre if a school doesn't do this. There is no requirement for this to be the case JUST LIKE there's no requirement to grade people off of A,B,C,D, or F grades. But people do it anyway because of culture and ubiquity. If your school doesn't do this, then your school is clearly outside of what is normal. Any school that doesn't grade off of a curve tends to be an easier school, because these schools don't have an absolute requirement for a certain amount of people to fail. >Of course something can be adjusted. you can make 'A' top 1%, B next 1%, C next 1%, D Next 1%, and fail the bottom 96% for instance. No dude. A probability distribution is AN OBSERVATION. You cannot adjust data that's observed. You clearly were talking about the shape of the curve, but now you seem to think we're talking about the grading policy. Clearly I marked a delineation here. >Good luck telling the judge that you didn't like the grade the professor gave you. It's a jury. Not a judge. And telling the judge that the ENTIRE class failed is a valid argument bro. You don't even have to tell that to a judge. Tell it to the dean and the dean will have a talk with that professor. It's absolutely insane for a whole class to fail. >Maybe your selective school mostly filthy-rich people with money to waste on lawsuits tying up the courts with cases that are meritless but wear down the college enough that they eventually relent. I went to a public school buddy. None of BS affirmative action by race or money. So the school is loaded with Asians. Meritful to the point where it shows disparity among race. Asians rate highest in academic achievement and scoring, if your school isn't by population rated most heavily by Asians then your school is most likely performing meritless admissions. >Your curve may have been based around C being average. I have seen 'curves' where the average was F or D. Setting the average score to an F or a D is a one way ticket to retaliation. If it occurs at all it's fucking rare. I'm more inclined to believe you're lying here. But whatever. >Yeah our 'curves' weren't always like that. They were adjusted to compensate for non-selection present in our program. I.e. all people may fail or in a group of top performers no one may fail. Send me a link to your "curve" rules. Is it a standard or is it special to your school? If it's a standard methodology there should be some information or wiki on it somewhere. >Tell yourself your deranged and confused lie over and over, and tell me more about how you don't understand how different schools may grade differently (to objectively obtain same grade results as 'selective' school) even while maintaining SAME difficulty with a selective school. Of course schools grade differently. But there is a generality and a norm that schools tend to cluster around. That's the Bell curve normal distribution and A,B,C,D,F grading scale centered around the center of the curve. MOST schools do this and therefore you can make a GENERAL statement about all schools that says: "Selectivity influences difficulty. Period." Any school that doesn't do this is outside of the norm. You're using outliers as your evidence. >Programming isn't equal to CS. Did you even study engineering or CS? Even chemical engineers program. These are all basic concepts you've missed, it's really hard to believe you have any experience at all in ABET accredited engineering program. This is just pedantic. You're getting knee deep into language issues. Nobody is even sure if CS should be engineering or even a science. It's clearly closest to math. But why get into this BS? It's off topic. Nobody cares bro. I don't want to argue about this shit. Stay on topic. I don't need to study the intricacies of ABET. I don't even care about that garbage. My school was ABET accredited that's all they told me, I believe it, but I don't advertise it on my resume because the name of my school is more famous then ABET itself. Nobody puts ABET on their resume and nobody cares. We both agreed it's trash. I don't understand why you're bringing it up if YOU AGREED it's garbage. >No they fail almost everyone, the engineering rankings go up even further because any survivors are more impressive, and the rest filter into different programs. Everyone wins when almost everyone fails. The school uses engineering program as bait to draw people into other programs as much as anything. Failing almost everyone out is a win-win because it strengthens the bait and feeds money into other programs to broaden the school. https://www.reddit.com/r/college/comments/3t48ej/what_happen... Nobody in that thread agrees with you. But fine. Keep your opinion. The way you talk about it almost seems like you didn't even go to university. I know you did though, but your opinion is so far out there that you would benefit in knowing that barely anyone else shares it. >You have no understanding of an IQ test. It's meant to provide an objective outcome so that no matter the subset in a group taking the test, the measurement of the individual is the same. Taking the test with a group of fellow high-performers doesn't give you a lower IQ score. It's not harder no matter how selective you make the group taking the test. Universities can provide like feedback in grading. back to the analogy, the IQ score is the grade, get it? Dude. This is just pedantic again. Replace IQ with whatever you want to indicate a higher performing group, or more intelligent group. I just used the word to indicate that the POPULATION of people that were applying was overall superior. The detailed intricacies of an IQ test are irrelevant. I am well versed in what an IQ test is and what an IQ score means. BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT IQ TESTS. First off different universities do provide different hardness levels in tests. Most of them try to make it hard enough so that 75% is the average score. Failing to make that number the score is curved. Generally more selective universities DO HAVE more challenging tests, but this is anecdotal and is hard to objectively measure. What can be measured is curving. ASSUMING all else is the same and we follow the STANDARD methodology not used by garbage outlier schools When all else is the same other then selectivity, selective schools are more difficult. >Selectivity doesn't confer difficulty. Period. You're just being stubborn. When you reach for outlier evidence that's how you know you're searching for evidence to support a premeditated conclusion rather than using evidence to construct a conclusion. |