> So taking the same test among the high IQ group getting a 95 gets you a C
This is the source of your confusion.
Your whole argument about the curve centers around the flawed and bizarre presumption that the curve has to center around a C. It doesn't always work that way, I don't think you understand some curves are different including the median score possibly being an 'F'. You're depending on some standardized curve, when in fact there's no requirement that be the case (and it often isn't). In the example with the footballers, every footballer gets an 'A' and with the random population the average gets an 'F' because the curves are compensated so that effectively there is an objective-like standard to maintain parity across like-performers.
>It's a probability distribution determined by scores from students. Nothing can be calibrated or adjusted here.
Of course something can be adjusted. you can make 'A' top 1%, B next 1%, C next 1%, D Next 1%, and fail the bottom 96% for instance. Not everyone has to grade to make sure most people pass, which apparently was the case at your selective school. At non-selective school the whole point is to fail every unfit person possible; it's even better for the school because engineering program was mostly bait to get these people into broader programs within the university.
You can go to the media, sue, or whatever. In my case it would look like this in the media "middle-class white man slightly less successful after being held to high standards" -- yeah that'll sell great! A few foreign students committed suicide after failing out of engineering paid for with their families 3rd world life savings and even then no one cares.
Good luck telling the judge that you didn't like the grade the professor gave you. Maybe your selective school mostly filthy-rich people with money to waste on lawsuits tying up the courts with cases that are meritless but wear down the college enough that they eventually relent.
>You understand that curving a grade is based on average scores right
Your curve may have been based around C being average. I have seen 'curves' where the average was F or D. I have seen courses where there is no curve as well, and isntead an objective system. A non-selective school can introduce a 'curve' where like performers get the same grade as in a selective school.
> The curve makes sure that only a small percentage of people get an A and guarantees a percentage of people fail.
Yeah our 'curves' weren't always like that. They were adjusted to compensate for non-selection present in our program. I.e. all people may fail or in a group of top performers no one may fail.
>Selectivity influences difficulty. Period.
Tell yourself your deranged and confused lie over and over, and tell me more about how you don't understand how different schools may grade differently (to objectively obtain same grade results as 'selective' school) even while maintaining SAME difficulty with a selective school.
> I thought we were talking about CS
Programming isn't equal to CS. Did you even study engineering or CS? Even chemical engineers program. These are all basic concepts you've missed, it's really hard to believe you have any experience at all in ABET accredited engineering program.
>ABET requires it in name, but no institution does this.
Maybe your institution acted fraudulently, but I saw people fail or incomplete a class for failing to meet ABET requirements. You're simply lying on this point to support your pathological obsession with denying selectivity does not confer difficulty.
>So they fail everyone in the class and the angry students take their outrage to the media? Then the parents come in and start a lawsuit which leads to a PR nightmare. Less students join the next year because nobody wants to be part of a school that failed an entire class.
No they fail almost everyone, the engineering rankings go up even further because any survivors are more impressive, and the rest filter into different programs. Everyone wins when almost everyone fails. The school uses engineering program as bait to draw people into other programs as much as anything. Failing almost everyone out is a win-win because it strengthens the bait and feeds money into other programs to broaden the school.
> The test is harder among the high IQ group. This is definitive man.
You have no understanding of an IQ test. It's meant to provide an objective outcome so that no matter the subset in a group taking the test, the measurement of the individual is the same. Taking the test with a group of fellow high-performers doesn't give you a lower IQ score. It's not harder no matter how selective you make the group taking the test. Universities can provide like feedback in grading. back to the analogy, the IQ score is the grade, get it?
>Your whole argument about the curve centers around the flawed and bizarre presumption that the curve has to center around a C. It doesn't always work that way
That's where they usually center the curve. This is where MOST schools set the average. It's not bizarre it's actually bizarre if a school doesn't do this. There is no requirement for this to be the case JUST LIKE there's no requirement to grade people off of A,B,C,D, or F grades. But people do it anyway because of culture and ubiquity.
If your school doesn't do this, then your school is clearly outside of what is normal. Any school that doesn't grade off of a curve tends to be an easier school, because these schools don't have an absolute requirement for a certain amount of people to fail.
>Of course something can be adjusted. you can make 'A' top 1%, B next 1%, C next 1%, D Next 1%, and fail the bottom 96% for instance.
No dude. A probability distribution is AN OBSERVATION. You cannot adjust data that's observed. You clearly were talking about the shape of the curve, but now you seem to think we're talking about the grading policy. Clearly I marked a delineation here.
>Good luck telling the judge that you didn't like the grade the professor gave you.
It's a jury. Not a judge. And telling the judge that the ENTIRE class failed is a valid argument bro. You don't even have to tell that to a judge. Tell it to the dean and the dean will have a talk with that professor. It's absolutely insane for a whole class to fail.
>Maybe your selective school mostly filthy-rich people with money to waste on lawsuits tying up the courts with cases that are meritless but wear down the college enough that they eventually relent.
I went to a public school buddy. None of BS affirmative action by race or money. So the school is loaded with Asians. Meritful to the point where it shows disparity among race. Asians rate highest in academic achievement and scoring, if your school isn't by population rated most heavily by Asians then your school is most likely performing meritless admissions.
>Your curve may have been based around C being average. I have seen 'curves' where the average was F or D.
Setting the average score to an F or a D is a one way ticket to retaliation. If it occurs at all it's fucking rare. I'm more inclined to believe you're lying here. But whatever.
>Yeah our 'curves' weren't always like that. They were adjusted to compensate for non-selection present in our program. I.e. all people may fail or in a group of top performers no one may fail.
Send me a link to your "curve" rules. Is it a standard or is it special to your school? If it's a standard methodology there should be some information or wiki on it somewhere.
>Tell yourself your deranged and confused lie over and over, and tell me more about how you don't understand how different schools may grade differently (to objectively obtain same grade results as 'selective' school) even while maintaining SAME difficulty with a selective school.
Of course schools grade differently. But there is a generality and a norm that schools tend to cluster around. That's the Bell curve normal distribution and A,B,C,D,F grading scale centered around the center of the curve. MOST schools do this and therefore you can make a GENERAL statement about all schools that says: "Selectivity influences difficulty. Period."
Any school that doesn't do this is outside of the norm. You're using outliers as your evidence.
>Programming isn't equal to CS. Did you even study engineering or CS? Even chemical engineers program. These are all basic concepts you've missed, it's really hard to believe you have any experience at all in ABET accredited engineering program.
This is just pedantic. You're getting knee deep into language issues. Nobody is even sure if CS should be engineering or even a science. It's clearly closest to math. But why get into this BS? It's off topic. Nobody cares bro. I don't want to argue about this shit. Stay on topic.
I don't need to study the intricacies of ABET. I don't even care about that garbage. My school was ABET accredited that's all they told me, I believe it, but I don't advertise it on my resume because the name of my school is more famous then ABET itself. Nobody puts ABET on their resume and nobody cares. We both agreed it's trash. I don't understand why you're bringing it up if YOU AGREED it's garbage.
>No they fail almost everyone, the engineering rankings go up even further because any survivors are more impressive, and the rest filter into different programs. Everyone wins when almost everyone fails. The school uses engineering program as bait to draw people into other programs as much as anything. Failing almost everyone out is a win-win because it strengthens the bait and feeds money into other programs to broaden the school.
Nobody in that thread agrees with you. But fine. Keep your opinion. The way you talk about it almost seems like you didn't even go to university. I know you did though, but your opinion is so far out there that you would benefit in knowing that barely anyone else shares it.
>You have no understanding of an IQ test. It's meant to provide an objective outcome so that no matter the subset in a group taking the test, the measurement of the individual is the same. Taking the test with a group of fellow high-performers doesn't give you a lower IQ score. It's not harder no matter how selective you make the group taking the test. Universities can provide like feedback in grading. back to the analogy, the IQ score is the grade, get it?
Dude. This is just pedantic again. Replace IQ with whatever you want to indicate a higher performing group, or more intelligent group. I just used the word to indicate that the POPULATION of people that were applying was overall superior.
The detailed intricacies of an IQ test are irrelevant. I am well versed in what an IQ test is and what an IQ score means. BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT IQ TESTS.
First off different universities do provide different hardness levels in tests. Most of them try to make it hard enough so that 75% is the average score. Failing to make that number the score is curved. Generally more selective universities DO HAVE more challenging tests, but this is anecdotal and is hard to objectively measure.
What can be measured is curving. ASSUMING all else is the same and we follow the STANDARD methodology not used by garbage outlier schools When all else is the same other then selectivity, selective schools are more difficult.
>Selectivity doesn't confer difficulty. Period.
You're just being stubborn. When you reach for outlier evidence that's how you know you're searching for evidence to support a premeditated conclusion rather than using evidence to construct a conclusion.
Clutch those pearls harder. Your program wasn't more difficult because it was more selective. Stubbornness is refusing to believe difficulty can remain constant across varying degrees of selectivity of cohorts. You're making the assertion it can't, I'm simply calling bullshit on your unsupported and specious claim.
>Clutch those pearls harder. Your program wasn't more difficult because it was more selective.
I never claimed such. I only know the hardness relative to another school I went too. That's as far as the anecdotal evidence goes for MY individual school. Still, we're not even talking about our respective schools anymore, I don't even care for that. I'm talking about a generality.
The numbers illustrate a generality that is axiomatically true. I'm not going to restate it, but I think you know already that it's true.
OK so selectivity is causal to difficulty, everywhere but at the school you attended? Are you sure you didn't study law, because this kind of insane logic is something I've only read in legal briefs.
I made no statement about my school or your school specifically in reference to how hard they are in general. We both did however use our schools as anecdotal supporting evidence for each of our respective opinions though.
But anecdotal evidence is worthless. That's why I moved to numbers. This is what the numbers say:
Selectivity is causal to difficulty in general.
Your school could be an exception and my school may be an exception as well. But given my statement above, by probability, it is highly unlikely.
In short, it's more probable that my school is harder than your school and this probability is only escapable if someone who attended both can give us a more accurate first hand comparison.
OK so selectivity is possibly causal to difficulty and possibly not? So 99.9% of non-selective schools could be as difficult as peer selective schools while the rare exception isn't? You may be on to something.... At least you finally admit you don't get to feel special about going through something more 'difficult' on account of whatever idea your school had of selectivity.
>OK so selectivity is possibly causal to difficulty and possibly not? So 99.9% of non-selective schools could be as difficult as peer selective schools while the rare exception isn't?
Where the hell are you getting that 99.9% number? I would think someone who went to a good school wouldn't pull random numbers out of thin air.
Selectivity is causal to difficulty. Period. But the causal connection like all things in reality is a connection built upon probability. Think of the luck stat in RPGs. On average the more selective the school the harder. If there's any school that breaks the model, that school is an exception and a minority. Your school might be an exception, but by probability it is most likely not and it is more likely you just think your school is harder.
>At least you finally admit you don't get to feel special about going through something more 'difficult' on account of whatever idea your school had of selectivity.
I never said my school was special or commented about how I feel. If you look at the initial posts, I was telling you that going to a non-selective school ISN'T anything special, because you were the one talking about it.
Going to a non-selective school isn't special, and neither is a selective one. For one, they can have the same difficulty and SELECTIVITY DOESN'T CONFER DIFFICULTY. You most definitely commented how you felt, including talking about how going from your non-selective school to selective school you felt the difficulty became higher as your peers were something like #1 from their previous less selective program/high-school and now they are just average.
Personally I think you just have a chip on your shoulder thinking a selective program is generally more difficult than a non-selective program. Elitist arrogance.
>Where the hell are you getting that 99.9% number? I would think someone who went to a good school wouldn't pull random numbers out of thin air.
I said could be, because you decoupled by saying now that it merely COULD be that a selectivity influences difficulty, before backtracking to play your devious and treacherous claim you were never talking about the school from which your anecdotes came. YOU pulled the figures like 25% and 50% out of a hat, which is fine because we acknowledged they weren't hard numbers. Don't be a hypocrite.
>Selectivity is causal to difficulty. Period
Selectivity doesn't confer difficulty. Period.
Edit: here's a comment from a student at one non-selective school
"This leads to <<school>> feeling very impersonal for Freshman and Sophmores while the university treats you more or less like an experiment to see if you can handle the pressure. This can lead to people that would normal be denied to being accepted and excelling, but it can also lead to other students who shouldn't have been placed in such rigorous programs having to drop out, transfer, or graduate late. This is from a personal observation and 2 good friends transferring schools and another friend who dropped out his Junior year."
they note the university "Put them in extremely tough classes go start with and weed out those who can't handle the pressure."
This is how it tends to work in non-selective schools. They hold students to the 'selective' school standard freshman/sophomore year until by junior year you're effectively in a cohort that looks like the cohort at the selective school. The difficulty is still there, although it's an independent variable from the selectivity.
>Going to a non-selective school isn't special, and neither is a selective one. For one, they can have the same difficulty and SELECTIVITY DOESN'T CONFER DIFFICULTY.
It does. Because selectivity effects the curve. If all schools had the same curve and the same curriculum and same everything except selectivity then, selectivity influences the curve. I've said it a thousand times. If you disagree you have to counter the logic of the curve which you haven't.
I'm also well aware that choice of a curve is a random variable. You've stated it multiple times. Therefore if it's a random variable then hold it the same when comparing mathematical models. Assume all random variables are the same and only adjust the relevant variable which in this case is selectivity. In this case selectivity is causal to difficulty.
>YOU pulled the figures like 25% and 50% out of a hat, which is fine because we acknowledged they weren't hard numbers. Don't be a hypocrite.
The context around those numbers make it clear that they're just really rough estimates. Additionally those numbers were not used in calculations, I simply stated that the numbers I found are inn-accurate because of several factors and gave a really rough estimate on what i thought the numbers could be (50% and 25%). The subsequent conclusion and calculation were based on the lower more inaccurate numbers which STILL show that selectivity is causal to difficulty.
99.9% is not a rough estimate. It's clearly a really exact number with a decimal point.
>Personally I think you just have a chip on your shoulder thinking a selective program is generally more difficult than a non-selective program. Elitist arrogance.
Well did I insult you in any way to the degree of calling you Elitest or arrogant? I'm just making a point. You're the one crossing the line with insults. I think you have a chip on your shoulder.
>I said could be, because you decoupled by saying now that it merely COULD be that a selectivity influences difficulty, before backtracking to play your devious and treacherous claim you were never talking about the school from which your anecdotes came.
In all of reality and all of science, especially the social sciences all causal connections are coupled with probable connections. Nothing is connected with pure logic. Logic only exists in math and logic games. If I said all men are stronger than women. Clearly the generality is true, but obviously there are exceptions and it is unnecessary to comment about those exceptions. But nonetheless, nobody talks in terms of probabilities. In common human parlance we communicate using absolute statements in reference to topics that are in truth generalities and we assume that the other party has the intelligence to know about the exceptions to the generalities.
I simply brought up the probability because I explicitly wanted you to know that YOUR school might be an exception. But by probability it is most likely not an exception. That is all.
>Edit: here's a comment from a student at one non-selective school
I'm more interested in the comment from a student who went to both a very selective school and a school that's not selective. Many students in an "easy" school think it's hard only because they don't have a point of comparison.
>This is how it tends to work in non-selective schools. They hold students to the 'selective' school standard freshman/sophomore year until by junior year you're effectively in a cohort that looks like the cohort at the selective school. The difficulty is still there, although it's an independent variable from the selectivity.
Again. The curve is not an independent variable from selectivity. Therefore selectivity is causal to difficulty. This is a literal numeric connection. I've said this multiple times. Anecdotal and qualitative evidence is worth considering but this causal quantitative connection far stronger.
Your best bet is to find someone who did undergrad stuff at both MIT and Georgia Tech. That persons anecdotal experience is far more accurate.
>If all schools had the same curve and the same curriculum and same everything except selectivity then, selectivity influences the curve. I've said it a thousand times. If you disagree you have to counter the logic of the curve which you haven't.
I already have. Different 'curves' for different school. Or even uniform objective standards so that cohort performance is irrelevant to grade outcome. You can create a 'virtual' objective standard by creating curves that are compensated -- i.e. the 'selective' school has a curve where the median score receives a C while the non-selective is curved such that like-performer parity is present and the median receives an F. In practice this is how the non-selective school manages to give F, D, or incomplete/drop-out to the majority of students in a course.
Again the school doesn't give a shit when people complain about this, there is a suicide by a 3rd world national who fails out almost every few years because the school will allow the parent to spend their last dime sending their kid to college and the kid ends up killing himself out of honor when they find out the non-selective university will actually take anyone and happily fail out most of them. The media doesn't give a shit, the judge doesn't give a shit, and the jury of your peers (in this city, basically working-class midwesterners who very well may relish putting a snobby complaining rich kid in his place) don't give a shit. The jury will probably laugh as they go home and have a toast to their wife that their competition for rental housing are falling after eliminating the competition.
>You're the one crossing the line with insults. I think you have a chip on your shoulder.
How original, you'd make a nice parrot.
>99.9% is not a rough estimate. It's clearly a really exact number with a decimal point.
You indicated that selectivity doesn't always mean that the school is more difficult. You failed to designated a bound other than your school wasn't included amongst those whom your were claiming were more difficult on basis of selectivity (in fact you go so far as to say you SPECIFICALLY did not include your school), so threw out a number that COULD be the case based on your own argument.
>Your best bet is to find someone who did undergrad stuff at both MIT and Georgia Tech. That persons anecdotal experience is far more accurate.
Pretty much agree except I would do UC Berkeley (#3) vs Purdue (#4) since those are the most near peer selective vs non-selective I could find on 2023 engineering top 10 rankings. MIT is #1 vs GIT at tie #7 is a bit wider. As number 1 MIT is probably a class of its own vs 2-10, since they have 'winner-take-all' advantage in anything where only number one will do.
>I already have. Different 'curves' for different school. Or even uniform objective standards so that cohort performance is irrelevant to grade outcome. You can create a 'virtual' objective standard by creating curves that are compensated -- i.e. the 'selective' school has a curve where the median score receives a C while the non-selective is curved such that like-performer parity is present and the median receives an F. In practice this is how the non-selective school manages to give F, D, or incomplete/drop-out to the majority of students in a course.
Was already countered with this:
>I'm also well aware that choice of a curve is a random variable. You've stated it multiple times. Therefore if it's a random variable then hold it the same when comparing mathematical models. Assume all random variables are the same and only adjust the relevant variable which in this case is selectivity. In this case selectivity is causal to difficulty.
Please respond to that rather than regurgitate an argument I already addressed.
>You indicated that selectivity doesn't always mean that the school is more difficult.
The curve argument addresses this. You'll need to address my counter argument to your argument against the curve.
>Pretty much agree except I would do UC Berkeley (#3) vs Purdue (#4) since those are the most near peer selective vs non-selective I could find on 2023 engineering top 10 rankings. MIT is #1 vs GIT at tie #7 is a bit wider. As number 1 MIT is probably a class of its own vs 2-10, since they have 'winner-take-all' advantage in anything where only number one will do.
Sure. Find someone. Idc if it's MIT vs GIT or UCB versus Purdue. Also another caveat to keep in mind... rankings aren't exactly a good indicator for difficulty as we aren't even sure about the criteria used to determine the ranking.
To really strengthen your side, multiple people from multiple schools should be used. But one person is enough for me to at least speculate on an alternative conclusion.
Until then, selectivity on average is causal to difficulty.
The choice of a curve isn't a random variable. The choice of a curve is a human selected, non-random variable. Quite probably, and in practice most definitely, I have seen it adjusted so that in a 'top-performer' class the median is a 'C' while in a 'anyone-with-a-pulse' the median is more like 'D/F/dropout/incomplete'.
This isn't random. With higher selectivity, in practice, it seems likely and at very least not impossible that the variable is adjusted to make grades elevated vs median cohort member so that difficulty of passing is constant across selective vs non-selective. IDK how you could possibly assert the curve bias is random. And you've still completely ignored objective grading systems, which I have indeed seen used in core engineering classes to ensure cohort performance is completely irrelevant.
>Until then, selectivity on average is causal to difficulty.
You haven't proven this. It's a totally unsupported claim. There's zero evidence to indicate mere selectivity confers difficulty.
>The choice of a curve isn't a random variable. The choice of a curve is a human selected, non-random variable.
You're misunderstanding statistics. If you have 5000 humans and let them each choose a choice for a curve. Then you select a random human to see what choice he or he/she chose, that choice might as well be a random variable. If you try to find the mode of which curving methodology the person chose you'll find one that's the majority. That's a good value to freeze the choice around.
For the purposes of this argument ^^ the above is the definition you should center your research around. Deeper meanings into "random variable" become too pedantic.
>IDK how you could possibly assert the curve bias is random.
Random variables don't technically exist unless you study quantum mechanics. It's not even a provable notion whether they actually do exist. But typically in statistics you can treat all measurements as taking a sample of a random variable. When you shuffle a deck of cards, when you draw from a raffle... or when a random school chooses what curve methodology it uses. The language I'm using here "random variable" might have thrown you off, but it's common parlance in science and statistics. Try re-reading my previous response with this knowledge in mind.
>You haven't proven this. It's a totally unsupported claim. There's zero evidence to indicate mere selectivity confers difficulty.
Again, please understand the concept of a random variable, then re-read the response again. Then you will see, the evidence is quite strong.
I'll restate it here for clarity. Read carefully. We can test if selectivity influences difficulty in a mathematical model of schools. First treat all parameters that are part of a model of a school as random. Because those parameters are random we can just freeze all those values at some average and make it the same for everything, because it's not something we're trying to measure... and likely these parameters cluster around some average anyway.
SO, as a result, we have a bunch of mathematical models of schools that are all EXACTLY the same. Each school model takes in an ass load of parameters as inputs, and outputs some number that measures "difficulty" as an output. Since all models are identical all input parameters yield the same Output.
To test "selectivity" we just take two identical models and fiddle with the "selectivity" input parameter. If the "difficulty" output changes when you adjust "selectivity" then you have proven selectivity is causal to difficulty for that model.
I don't have to know exactly what this mathematical model is. Just pieces of it. I know grading policy influences difficulty, I know the curve influences grading policy, and I know the amount of smart people in the school influences the curve, and I know selectivity influences the amount of smart people in the school.
Thus I know when you fiddle with that selectivity parameter, difficulty increases.
Your argument is saying that you can't ignore the other input parameters that the choice of the curve matters. I agree. It matters, but we're not trying to measure that. We want to throw it out of the measurement equation and see if selectivity influences difficulty. So we freeze the curve methodology at some arbitrary option and ignore it. We measure selectivity so that's the only parameter we fiddle with.
Think of it like this. You have 20 switches labeled with numbers 1 - 20 and a single lightbulb. Each switch may or may not be connected to that lightbulb. I don't know, but I only care about switch 5 and I want to know if switch 5 turns on that light bulb. I don't care about switch 3, 4, 6, or 7. Only switch 5.
I test switch 5 by freezing all other switches at ON then flipping switch 5 on and off to test if it has a causal effect on the light bulb. Switch 5 in this analogy would be "selectivity" and switch 7 can be "the choice for the curve methodology"
This is the exact SAME proof I'm using to show that selectivity influences difficulty. Same concept but instead switches are the input parameters and the output parameter is the lightbulb.
This is the source of your confusion.
Your whole argument about the curve centers around the flawed and bizarre presumption that the curve has to center around a C. It doesn't always work that way, I don't think you understand some curves are different including the median score possibly being an 'F'. You're depending on some standardized curve, when in fact there's no requirement that be the case (and it often isn't). In the example with the footballers, every footballer gets an 'A' and with the random population the average gets an 'F' because the curves are compensated so that effectively there is an objective-like standard to maintain parity across like-performers.
>It's a probability distribution determined by scores from students. Nothing can be calibrated or adjusted here.
Of course something can be adjusted. you can make 'A' top 1%, B next 1%, C next 1%, D Next 1%, and fail the bottom 96% for instance. Not everyone has to grade to make sure most people pass, which apparently was the case at your selective school. At non-selective school the whole point is to fail every unfit person possible; it's even better for the school because engineering program was mostly bait to get these people into broader programs within the university.
You can go to the media, sue, or whatever. In my case it would look like this in the media "middle-class white man slightly less successful after being held to high standards" -- yeah that'll sell great! A few foreign students committed suicide after failing out of engineering paid for with their families 3rd world life savings and even then no one cares. Good luck telling the judge that you didn't like the grade the professor gave you. Maybe your selective school mostly filthy-rich people with money to waste on lawsuits tying up the courts with cases that are meritless but wear down the college enough that they eventually relent.
>You understand that curving a grade is based on average scores right
Your curve may have been based around C being average. I have seen 'curves' where the average was F or D. I have seen courses where there is no curve as well, and isntead an objective system. A non-selective school can introduce a 'curve' where like performers get the same grade as in a selective school.
> The curve makes sure that only a small percentage of people get an A and guarantees a percentage of people fail.
Yeah our 'curves' weren't always like that. They were adjusted to compensate for non-selection present in our program. I.e. all people may fail or in a group of top performers no one may fail.
>Selectivity influences difficulty. Period.
Tell yourself your deranged and confused lie over and over, and tell me more about how you don't understand how different schools may grade differently (to objectively obtain same grade results as 'selective' school) even while maintaining SAME difficulty with a selective school.
> I thought we were talking about CS
Programming isn't equal to CS. Did you even study engineering or CS? Even chemical engineers program. These are all basic concepts you've missed, it's really hard to believe you have any experience at all in ABET accredited engineering program.
>ABET requires it in name, but no institution does this.
Maybe your institution acted fraudulently, but I saw people fail or incomplete a class for failing to meet ABET requirements. You're simply lying on this point to support your pathological obsession with denying selectivity does not confer difficulty.
>So they fail everyone in the class and the angry students take their outrage to the media? Then the parents come in and start a lawsuit which leads to a PR nightmare. Less students join the next year because nobody wants to be part of a school that failed an entire class.
No they fail almost everyone, the engineering rankings go up even further because any survivors are more impressive, and the rest filter into different programs. Everyone wins when almost everyone fails. The school uses engineering program as bait to draw people into other programs as much as anything. Failing almost everyone out is a win-win because it strengthens the bait and feeds money into other programs to broaden the school.
> The test is harder among the high IQ group. This is definitive man.
You have no understanding of an IQ test. It's meant to provide an objective outcome so that no matter the subset in a group taking the test, the measurement of the individual is the same. Taking the test with a group of fellow high-performers doesn't give you a lower IQ score. It's not harder no matter how selective you make the group taking the test. Universities can provide like feedback in grading. back to the analogy, the IQ score is the grade, get it?
>Selectivity influences difficulty. Period.
Selectivity doesn't confer difficulty. Period.