I'm having a difficult time imagining how an admissions event in 2021 materializes in the spring semester of 2026 in a class largely taken by first-year students.
In addition to overreliance on AI, Garcia also pointed out that many students are underprepared mathematically, a concern echoed by campus associate teaching professor Gireeja Ranade.
From the article discussed the other week:
Over three years — from fall 2021 to fall 2023 — the letter said, at least 20% of Berkeley first-semester calculus students who took a diagnostic exam showed deficits. “Basic mathematical fluency is analogous to literacy; without it, success in university-level STEM becomes structurally unattainable for students,” faculty wrote.
It's been steadily getting worse. The current article only looks at F's which conveniently hides if there has been a slope down. Additionally, kids entering HS in 2021/2022 would just now be hitting college.
A sudden materialization is what's depicted by the data.
> It's been steadily getting worse.
I don't believe this is accurate. Failing grades are what the observation entails, and the data clearly depict an abrupt change; not a gradual one.
In the section titled "Failing grades in 3 CS classes skyrocket in spring 2026
", there's a clear jump in failing grades for all cited courses between 2025 and 2026. Failing grades for every course jump by multiples of the previous year.
The jump is very likely due to AI usage and lack of skills in mathematics. It seems like prerequisite classes are not being fulfilled.
"Ranade said students are expected to enter the course having taken classes on linear algebra, vector calculus and mathematical proofs. However, she found out in office hours that many students struggled with linear algebra, and was even more shocked when one student told her the linear algebra class they took at UC Berkeley had an “open-internet, open-AI policy” for homework and exams."
Also, this professor doesn't grade on curves? Could be very specific to this teacher. I don't know. Would be great to have more data but it is a big jump and could be very specific to this professor or perhaps this class.
"Also, this professor doesn't grade on curves? Could be very specific to this teacher. I don't know." Someone has to hold standards up -- they seem to be falling down across the board in education.
SAT/ACT math is incredibly simplistic and at worst maybe contributed by not filtering as many out. Math scores have been declining nation wide for decades now, that’s been a big issue for a while.
One big reason is preparation, people start preparing for tests 2 to 3 years in advance. And the method of testing influences exams used in grades before as well.
So assume 4 years of high school and someone that just came in. They are still preparing for SAT like tests in their first year of high school. Someone in final year of high school is well trained in it. So even though the benefits do not carry, enough portion of incoming students are still reaping benefits of standardized tests. The decay only shows later when batches without any benefits of standardized tests are coming through.
> They are still preparing for SAT like tests in their first year of high school.
Literally nobody does that except high achievers whose parents are pushing them for a high SAT score to get into Stanford or whatnot. Those are not likely to be the kids who are now getting Fs.
> people start preparing for tests 2 to 3 years in advance
Pardon? Is that a normal thing in the USA? I don't think I've ever started preparing for a test more than a week and a half ahead, a month if you count graduation exams. Not sure they ever determined more than a year in advance (more commonly: a bit less than a semester) what tests we'd be given in the first place
That's not what this actual data shows. While there has been an increase math deficiency, the increase in failure rates happened recently and probably only partially related to the math preparation issue.
I think we will make a major mistake if we think math preparation fixes this - especially in CS classes where AI literally calls out to be used for projects. And it certainly doesn't explain me hearing the same problems are happening at MIT -- they just are being a bit wiser about "catching students" (or rather not doing so).
Please see the graph "Growth of the Math 2 Population by Major (2019-2024)". UCSD's Math 2 class is remedial high-school level maths. It has grown from under 100 students in 2016-2020, to more and more people each year starting from 2021.
UCSD tested the people who took this class, and 25% of them could not answer the question "Fill in the box: 7 + 2 = [_] + 6" (with only pencil and paper allowed, no calculators or other electronics)
I'm suggesting the problem is not limited to Berkeley. They both show the same underlying issue, there's a growing number of students attending university without the prerequisite maths skills they need to succeed.
It seems they're now at the point where the sheer number of students that need improved maths skills overwhelms the staff, resulting in them failing.
But my point was that while you might expect remedial math students to fail (they're in remedial math for a reason), you shouldn't be having 1/3 of students failing a CS class (except perhaps if it's full of humanities majors who were required to take it for some odd reason)
No probably needs a couple more years. Writing the test itself is motivation to do well in HS math. If that no longer becomes a driver probably takes off the drive in other courses over a couple years. I bet without the SAT as a standardized test a lot of HS math courses are easier for the teacher because the quality can lapse.
Also some children who excel write their SATs sometimes 2-3 years before college and then re-write if need be.
Not if kids are prepping for the test in a way that results in real gains. Which seems likely, especially in the age of AI: "should I actually study math or just use ChatGPT to pass this course?" One semester of coasting through might not do that much harm, but at some point the compounding effects will tip you over the edge.
The removal of standardized testing is not the reason for a sudden spike in failures this past year.
The standardized testing changes resulted in a decrease in mathematical preparedness across the board, but outside of CS/EECS it's not very significant in other STEM majors since most students to other math-heavy majors self-select on the basis of being good in math (and took AP math classes in high school).
The big change is that LLMs became widely available 3 years ago, and practicably usable within the last 2 years. FTA, all of the failing students had enrolled in the precursor math sections that allowed for AI use on homeworks and tests; none from the other sections.
If it's a lagging effect, then why is the year-over-year spike in failure rates happening not just in 1st/2nd year classes, but also in a 3rd/4th year class at the same time?
It was already discussed on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48309233