[matwood]

It didn't just suddenly materialize.

From the current article

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.

[acaloiar]

> It didn't just suddenly materialize.

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.

[magicmicah85]

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.

[boringg]

"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.

[BeetleB]

Actually, when I read they usually graded on a curve, I lost all interest. I don't respect teachers that grade on curves.

You should be graded by how well you know the material - not how well your peers don't know it. I'm always grateful both my undergrad and grad professors didn't curve on a grade.

In my first company, I had 4 different jobs. It was a common adage: Go into a low performing team that does simple work and you'll get promotions much quicker than in a high performing team doing challenging (but fun) work.

It was right. I had 2 "dream" jobs where I did cool, challenging stuff, but where everyone was more than competent. They turned out to be career killers. The promotions I got were all in the other 2 jobs where I did boring business logic coding, and where my peers were barely competent (one had trouble navigating directories using the command line).

That's what happens when you grade on a curve. Smart people begin to work on boring stuff, and not the real challenges.

[seanmcdirmid]

For failing grades sure, there must be some sort of minimum competence. For sorting out >= B/3.0 grades, a curb can work since you are getting evaluated against your peers to see he is standing out vs just doing acceptable.

If you wanted to grade purely off a curve, you would be stuck with old test problems that were thoroughly vetted and calibrated, an impossible task for smaller classes where the material changes rapidly.

[BeetleB]

> For sorting out >= B/3.0 grades, a curb can work since you are getting evaluated against your peers to see he is standing out vs just doing acceptable.

I'm still not getting it. For a standard course, the criteria for what is "good" vs "great" should be pretty clear, and it should be independent of your peers. You have a syllabus, and a set of abilities for each grade level. If you hit those targets, you get the grade. If half the class gets an A, then it means they're pretty smart, or you did a great job in teaching. Of course, there's the chance the class was too easy, but you can always fix that.

No, I don't see why you're stuck with old test problems. For standard engineering classes, there's a huge (almost infinite) set of problems one can create.

For smaller classes, grading on a curve is even sillier, as the variance is always higher when the population size is small. For example, a lot of my small classes consisted of highly motivated students (all "A material"), because they're usually obscure electives where the content is challenging. You then pointlessly penalize students who sign up (just like they do at work). In fact, my professors were usually much more lenient on small classes for this very reason (i.e. lowering the standard needed to get an A).

I once took an Intro to Analysis course. It was moderately challenging. I got the highest score in the class, and my grade was A-. Everyone else got B+, B, or lower. A friend of mine (who didn't take the course) got really upset that I didn't get an A (or A+) given that I was the top scoring student.

But I knew my level of understanding/performance. It wasn't that great. I felt even an A- was too high a grade for me. And the teacher did a pretty good job in teaching. Why should I get a higher grade just because the other students were worse?

[Terr_]

> It seems like prerequisite classes are not being fulfilled.

FWIW I did a little digging, and EECS 127 indeed has explicit prerequisites of:

* Math 53 - Multivariable Calculus

* Math 54 - Linear Algebra & Differential Equations

* CS 70 - Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory

This suggests the students are either taking those classes or have provided some kind of AP/test-taking credential to skip them.

[Forgeties79]

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.

[insane_dreamer]

> It didn't just suddenly materialize.

Huh? I'd say that a jump from 10% in 2025 to 35% in 2026 qualifies as "suddenly materializing"

That's not to say that things were already getting worse, but this is a big jump that is definitely not explained by not requiring SAT scores.