Let me offer a pet theory of mine, that, I think, flies in the face of all this standard-lowering-to-compensate lunacy. The Tuskegee Airmen, it is ostensibly well-known, never lost a bomber they were escorting. This is celebrated and a point of pride, I believe. One might ask, "Why?" The answer is simple, assuming I have my history correct. They were, in fact, better pilots that others! If one asks why to that, the answer is also relatively simple. They were challenged more in training, maybe even unfairly. There was a time, in my distant childhood, when Black people celebrated "doing more" and "being better" because we were, frankly, "up to it." Now, we have begun to accept pats on the head in the place of kicking ass, and that makes me sad. (Please feel free to correct my historical understanding, if necessary!)
I have often wondered what happens to those students after their first year. That is, how well does a student do when they were perhaps not as well prepared at the commencement of their studies as they should have been? Are their failure rate significantly higher than the candidates that were well prepared when they started out? Perhaps the first year smooths thing out? Or perhaps it turns out that those that were allowed in, but now fail disastrously were the one's that were ill prepared; which would lead me to believe that the issue is perhaps that there exists a somewhat cynical scheme on the side of the administration to earn extra income for the university. What does the data say?
Excellent
Let me offer a pet theory of mine, that, I think, flies in the face of all this standard-lowering-to-compensate lunacy. The Tuskegee Airmen, it is ostensibly well-known, never lost a bomber they were escorting. This is celebrated and a point of pride, I believe. One might ask, "Why?" The answer is simple, assuming I have my history correct. They were, in fact, better pilots that others! If one asks why to that, the answer is also relatively simple. They were challenged more in training, maybe even unfairly. There was a time, in my distant childhood, when Black people celebrated "doing more" and "being better" because we were, frankly, "up to it." Now, we have begun to accept pats on the head in the place of kicking ass, and that makes me sad. (Please feel free to correct my historical understanding, if necessary!)
I have often wondered what happens to those students after their first year. That is, how well does a student do when they were perhaps not as well prepared at the commencement of their studies as they should have been? Are their failure rate significantly higher than the candidates that were well prepared when they started out? Perhaps the first year smooths thing out? Or perhaps it turns out that those that were allowed in, but now fail disastrously were the one's that were ill prepared; which would lead me to believe that the issue is perhaps that there exists a somewhat cynical scheme on the side of the administration to earn extra income for the university. What does the data say?