I'm not aware of any undergraduate programs that follow the model Chris describes below but back in the 1970s and 1980s there appeared to be two different philosophies towards admission and maintenance of students in graduate programs:
(1) If one were accepted into the graduate program, one would get as much support as was reasonably possible to keep one in the program as long as one demonstrated the appropriate ability to handle the material (even some clinical psych programs followed this, at least the ones I was familiar with and which provided support to their grad students; clinical programs requiring students to pay their own way may have had different views) and (2) The "attrition approach" which was similar to the approach described below but the actual number/percentage expected to leave on a yearly basis was probably different. I know of one grad program in experimental psychology that used (2) above in the 1970s and 1980s and one grad program in economics that used this approach during the same time frame. One thing that made these grad programs different from other programs was their focus on being very quantitatively and mathematically oriented. The faculty in the exp psych program were also fairly famous though at least one of them was remarkably deficient in social skills (but probably the most politically powerful member of the faculty). I knew a few people in the exp psych program and was amazed at what I could only call the "intellectual brutality" they experienced. One female grad student who I thought was remarkably bright especially in math and was able to handle the work but decided to leave the program after getting her masters degree. I ran into her some time afterward on the street in NYC and asked what she decided to do after she left grad school. She said she got a job in a brokerage house on Wall Street doing econometric modeling and was making ridiculous amounts of money. She was clearly much happier. Other people weren't so lucky. Others left the program, feeling like failures. Others made it through only to wonder why did they bother. Of course, there was a small group that would go on and emulate the faculty that cultivated them. Of course, the people who "failed" to finish were thought to be too stupid to be able to do so or just didn't have the "right stuff". Made me glad to be in an exp psych program that followed (1) above. -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:21:56 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: >I once had a friend in graduate school who suggested that since >we are (in all honesty) so abysmally bad at predicting who will >do well and who will do poorly in university, that we should opt >for an entirely different admissions system: (1) Let in everyone >who wants to come in. (2) At the end of the first year, only allow >the top half of the class to continue on to second year. (3) At the >end of second and third year, allow only the top half of that year's >class to return for the (respectively) third and fourth year. (4) Only >graduate the top half of the fourth year class -- one sixteenth of the >original starting class. > >Now, I imagine that everyone will think that knocking out a full half >the class at the end of each year is a little harsh. Imagine that we >promoted 85% each year instead of just 50%. That would result in >52% of the original group graduating at the end of four year. That way >we wouldn't have to predict which ones will succeed, we would give >everyone who wanted it a chance, and end up graduating those who >were in the top half. > >Second chances? Sure. If you get knocked out, let's say you are >allowed to re-register and try again after two years out of the institution >(or perhaps you can simply start again at another school). --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
