“Only half of you will remain in this course.”
If you’ve taken Gen Chem, Orgo, Intro to Engineering or anything like those courses at Cornell or elsewhere, you’ve probably heard that statement. It’s a trademark of the infamous “weeder” classes — and a source of dread for thousands of Cornellians.
So, what exactly is a weeder class?
Weeders are often the first barrier to entry into certain professional careers for students. The most famous example is being “weeded-out” of the pre-med track. These classes usually have a large enrollment, absent professors, lack of support and challenging material. Weeder classes are meant to be an “equalizer,” as they are supposedly impartial.
The Bottom Line argues that “competition plays a huge role in in our life after college, and thus our preparation would be woefully inadequate without these classes.” Competition in itself helps with polishing fundamental principles and creating stronger and smarter students that are ready to take on the real world and graduate professions. Empirically, these claims make sense. After all, professions such as medicine are difficult and competitive. And regardless, both professions naturally have barriers to entry — so why let someone go through only to fail later on?
But who are the students actually being weeded out? Are they lazy? Bad studiers? Just flat out not good enough for a certain major or profession? While that is the goal of the weeder class, it is no surprise to see that the majority of students that get “weeded out” are first generation, low income students. An article by Marissa E. Thompson from the Brookings Institute finds that “first-generation students were less likely than continuing-generation students to persist in STEM majors, even when accounting for background characteristics and prior preparation,” and that “they are also more likely to receive low grades in the first place” compared to continuing generation students in STEM fields, even when accounting for background and preparation. Thompson asserts that the grading goals of weeder classes gatekeep FGLI students and lower their persistence rates, which leads to a smaller percentage of FGLI students entering into fields such as medicine or engineering.
In Whistling Vivaldi, social psychologist Claude Steele conducts various studies around FGLI performance in universities — specifically in those harder intro courses. He finds that minority students from less privileged backgrounds are often barred from higher level professions and graduate programs because of weeder classes and the lack of support within. Students that are not FGLI and from privileged families already have preparation from better schools, tutors and strategies that work. Moreover, FGLI students tend to isolate themselves due to an institutional failure to build study skills throughout high school. Practically, it can be seen clearly that weeder courses are not equalizers. In fact, they exacerbate inequality and continue to push wealthy and privileged students to the top while putting down minority and low-income students.
At Cornell, one common course for constant complaints is CHEM 2070. Not only is it the ultimate GPA killer, it also serves as one of the great determinants of whether a person can feasibly stay pre-med. Importantly, though, this gen-chem course assumes that students taking it have prior knowledge from AP Chemistry in high school. When paired with the cutthroat grading curve, this assumption makes 2070 especially difficult for first generation students. A student coming from a low-income background may have attended a high school which did not have an adequate AP Chemistry course or teacher, or worse yet, an AP Chemistry course to begin with.
Admittedly, Cornell does offer courses such as CHEM 1007 (Academic support), CHEM 1560 (Intro to Gen Chem) and CHEM 1729 (Solve it!) as precursors or supports to 2070, but they are still not adequate to address the inequity created by 2070’s weed-out methodology. In fact, they can hinder the pre-professional timeline for many students by pushing them a semester back. Furthermore, equity can and should exist within 2070 itself. CHEM 2070 is about pushing and challenging a prospective pre-med or pre-professional — but as it stands it can single handedly bar someone from a certain career path. Why can’t it both challenge and encourage? Yes, classes like 2070 should be a learning curve. They should not be easy. However, they should not be designed for students to fail.
Many professors take the “weeding-out” aspect as an excuse to avoid teaching. Lectures are often either textbook regurgitations or incredibly fast paced coverage of material, and most of the “learning” is done independently. No course can accommodate the needs of every single student, but when a course is barely meeting the needs of any student, it becomes a problem. A course can offer opportunities for learning and growth by presenting resources other than packed office hours.
Importantly, no course — even a well taught one — needs a dog-eat-dog grading curve. Rather, a far more productive approach does the opposite: by shifting to pass-fail. Many may argue that pass-fail is the “easy way out.” However, a pass-fail weeder class may be more helpful than a traditional weeder class. Pass-fail gives students flexibility and time to learn content and material at their own pace. It is a gauging tool to explore study methods while encouraging open bonds with professors. A student in a traditional weeder with a low grade or a “stupid” question may be more reluctant to reach out because of the grading curve’s “someone else is better than you” mentality. On the other hand, a pass-fail course encourages openness and a more hospitable learning environment for all students. Course material will remain challenging, but not impossible (or an end all, be all towards one’s future). Nay, weeder courses should not exist, however, challenging courses that encourage learning above all should take that place instead.
Asfi Tias is a first year student in the College of Arts and Sciences. Her column Thoughts After Midnight focuses on students’ academic and social experiences on Campus with hot takes and political commentary. She can be reached at [email protected]