>> Your argument appears to be that the students being unable to master the material is the fault of the professor. <<
That’s a load of crap. I specifically compared his students to MIT by comparing little-leaguers to major-league sluggers.
>> Across 5 different professors, the grades on an identical tests had a median F. <<
Are you asserting that you know of some outside, objective criteria that *all* of the classes failed to meet?
(Or do you presume that anything less than 65% of all scores correct should be an ‘F’? If so, probably every student at NSU ‘flunked’ their SAT scores, which translate 65% correct to an 1180 out of 1600 ... which before the redesign was a good enough score to get Harvard, Stanford, etc. sending you scads of recruitment brochures!)
If these kids would flunk an objective measure, I’d certainly retract my comments, but I’d have to see good sources.
Fair enough, Dangus. Regarding the 5 different professors, I was simply referring to information from the article. Not being involved directly in the situation, I cannot determine the correctness of the assessment.
SAT scoring, however, is not absolute as defined prior to the test being taken. It is a comparative score only (with comparisons valid only for each re-normed version of the test that is administered).
If 65% is the established criteria for pass/fail on the test described in the article, then it is eminently fair to hold students to that standard (provided that the test is properly normed for this grade scale).
I apologize if I mischaracterized your argument, although I did simply state the way it appeared to me. Thanks for the clarification.