:)

Btw, I was agreeing with KappaMD and referring to Angel's post.

agzg, I agree. Intro level courses across disciplines** are designed to reach a range of students. Therefore, the textbooks are more cut and dry. Professors sometimes try to challenge intro students to think beyond the cut and dry, but that's only successful for the "good students" who know how to do more than memorize information. Upper level courses across disciplines are still concrete to a great extent (we'd be debating students' grades all day if there was never a clear right or wrong), but go beyond the "concrete" and therefore have more leniency (both good and bad) on the part of the professors.

**social sciences, math, and science

Ha, that's probably why I hated many of the intro classes- I can't stand rote memorization! Give me something to do with the info and I'm happy, but I will never be the one to recite names and dates and places and whatever.

It's all about balance. :)

It's bad to just memorize and expect exams to basically be recitation. College students should be beyond high school level.

It's also bad to not know things like names and dates (basic info that the professor has probably stressed the importance of) and think that you can apply the information. Students will sometimes not do course readings and come to exams expecting to guess based on what seems familiar or answer essays based on their ability to convincingly bullshit. That happens across disciplines.

On a general basis, the sciences are much more concrete. I'm not discussing theoretical physics here. Chemistry, Biochem, Anatomy, Botany, Physics, etc. are fairly concrete and have "right" answers. If you don't know the material, you can't BS your way through it. Sure...you can get fairly out there with string theory and other concepts, but for the most part science courses are concept driven. You understand the concept, you can work the problem. You can pass the class. After BSing my way through humanities classes in HS and college, unless they are asking for specific multiple choice rote memorization type questions, these classes are more based on subjective not objective evaluation criteria. That does not make them not difficult (especially if your mind is more analytical), but it may leave them open to grade padding.

I know that this is true from personal experience.

Also, I am feeling the lack of inflation in science grades right about now and I don't like it ooooonnnneee bit! (I'm in grad school for my PhD in biochem)

I went to a public college and the young woman from my college who received the highest honor bestowed upon a student in the State University of New York system was a journalism major. I remember how much my fellow science major friends and I hated on her perfect gpa because we felt our gpa's could have been inflated had we chosen a different major... I'm shocked to know that we were RIGHT! (and not just hating on her)

Totally. And college is a lot about context, too. They should be providing the background information and then asking you to think about it in some way- thus you need to know a lot of the details, but you have something to apply them to. I'm a contextual classroom learner... I can never do the online stuff because I constantly ask "but why does it happen this way?" or "what if this happened in a different setting?" Just telling me to memorize it because I should doesn't work.

Great example: I know the dates of the civil war because I can put it in context to when Kappa was founded. But until I made that connection, I always drew a blank. Doesn't have to be GLO related of course :p but putting a personal, theoretical, or interesting spin on things helps.

Common misconception.

That is your teacher's fault and does not translate to what you think it does.

What what! I love my private university edjumacations.

The most selective private universities tend to have students who are at the top of their game. If you have a class of perfectionist overachievers, unless you grade on a curve, there is going to be a higher percentage of kids who are going to get As and Bs because that's the quality of work they're putting out. Also, most of the kids going to selective private universities worked their asses off to get there. Taking four college classes, none of which meet every day, is a walk in the park compared to taking 7-8 AP/IB/advanced/college level courses/whatever on top of sports and extracurriculars, most of which meet every day too. That's what happened to me. I was like, I don't have to be at the high school from 7 AM to 6 PM, with homework afterwards and on the weekends? Score! It was very easy, then, to focus on those four classes and do well in them, and still take advantage of the smorgasbord of awesome my college provided.

That's your opinion, but I've taken enough higher level science courses to back up my assertation.

Ummm.....

Anyway, that's your opinion. Yeah.

You hit the nail on the head for my school.

But also, I feel like everyone here has to bust their asses for a B. Maybe it's just my curriculum, but if you have a 3.5 at my school, it's assumed you're either Jesus or sleeping with the professors.

Weeeeeell, I have personally written BS answers in biology classes when I was unsure of exactly what the question was asking and I earned generous partial credit. However, I teach General Chemistry now and I agree that USUALLY they either know a concept and get straight to the point or they don't know it and they make things up. However, you can show that you know the definition of a concept without knowing how to apply that knowledge and get partial credit.

Sounds like the humanities to me. :)

Yep and this is mostly based on the teachers/professors.

Yep. To me, too. :cool:

This is the new generation of science students. The "my mom/dad/grandma/cat told me I should be a doctor so I'm majoring in biology even though I barely understood high school bio" generation.