Not necessarily. In my student days (undergrad and grad) it was expected that roughly 65% of incoming first year calculus students would fail the course - a few would have withdrawn during the year but the majority of the rest would simply crash and burn. And nobody blinked. [You've never had the "joy" or marking a three hour final exam where the student gets a zero despite having tried every question.]

And it wasn't just one prof - the percentage was pretty uniform across the board. There are a number of reasons for this. A few students had reached the limit of their ability to do mathematics. For many it was inadequate preparation at the high school level (in particular basic algebra and trigonometry). For most of these students it was the first university level math course they took (and in many cases would be the last). And then there is the social side of things - for most of these students it was their first time away from home. The first time nobody was policing their study habits. The first time they didn't have someone monitoring their work and suggesting they should come in for extra help - that help is almost always available but it's up the student to seek it out - nobody is going to tell them to go. And of course a lot of these kids had never learned how to study (there's no "one size fits all" approach - the question is what works for them).

On that topic, I know that as an undergrad the engineers were proud of the fact that two-thirds of freshmen wannabe engineers wouldn't make it into second year. About half of those that did wouldn't survive to enter third year. And about a third of those third year students wouldn't make it to fourth year. Most fourth year students would graduate and get to wear that iron ring. If you do the math that means that something like 10% of those wannabe engineers who started in September of their first year actually graduated as engineers.

As an aside, when I was an undergrad if we weren't doing well in a course we just took it as a sign that we had to work harder. Fast forward to my grad student TA days - if students weren't doing well they'd complain that the course was too hard/the prof marked too hard/the prof was covering the material too quickly/and so forth. Fact is, my first job after finishing my PhD (in math) was as a sabbatical replacement math prof and I actually had the Dean (of the whole school) stop me in the hall one day and ask me if I really had to cover the material that quickly. Seems some of my students had complained. When I pointed out to him that I was actually two weeks behind where the syllabus said I should be he just nodded and walked off.

And I think many teachers can identify with this

A better question - why is the university accepting students who don't have what it takes to pass the course?

Yes, a companion question, which also helps reconcile your prior post.
And yes, hardly anyone finishes college with the same goals they began with. It is a process of refining what you like to do and what you are good at. My parents made me major in something I hated and I eventually quit and entered a new university with a new major at my own expense.

However, it is possible that my original postulate is correct. We had to take finance as sophomores and there were five or six sections taught by several different profs. Everyone jockeyed to get in the sections with the best teachers and stay away from "F- Flynn's " sections.
As you point out that there is a lot of help and support available for students and it is part of the job of the paid professionals to direct those who need it to the resource. At the price of college these days, I would be very hard pressed to spend money on a class where there is anything greater than a 25%-30% failure rate.

Then you'd better forget about enrolling kids in engineering in my alma mater. After all, only 10% of those incoming freshman wannabes will actually earn the right to wear that iron ring.

For that matter, first year calculus was a required course for all STEM students. Same problem.

But on the topic of "good" teachers. My fourth year complex variable course was most politely described as a bear. The prof was one of the best teachers I've ever had but he was tough. And that's spelled with a capital "tough". He openly admitted that he aimed his lectures about a third of the way down the class (as measured by ability). And he pushed as hard as he thought the students could take it.

The thing was there were two fourth year complex variable courses and you had to take one of them if you wanted to graduate with a degree in math (that included statistics). And the course I took was required if you were studying pure math. Statistics majors could take either. So first day of class there were sixteen students enrolled in that class. By the end of the first week there were three of us left (at that level things get pretty rarified). So we've now got a prof who pushes students as hard as he can. A class with three students, all fourth year honors math majors, and all three of us went on to do PhD's in pure math. Think you can imagine what that course was like.

I have no problem with higher level very difficult courses. As you pointed out, many people self selected and dropped the course. There is no reason that an organic chemistry class should result in a 42% failure rate. Students should be able to realize that medical school is not for them if they can't pass organic chemistry. It's a foundational course, not a super high level specialized course for a PhD

I have to question why educational standards should be lowered, as they clearly have been.

It's also one of those courses "which is, in part, designed to filter out students unsuited to rigorous pre-med curriculums".

"Administrators at such tuition-dependent universities have a lot of incentives to make sure that their students do not fail out. That isn’t about snowflakes but about the economics of modern higher education. Any battle in the culture war is always about the culture of economics.

In the final analysis, this is not a great example of academic standards adrift. Organic chemistry has always been challenging. Many majors have similar courses, courses that have to be taught at scale, which means bringing in a lot of contingent labor to meet demand. Anxieties around such funnel classes — in which failing means starting over or changing majors — are as old as these kinds of courses themselves. This is not an invention of the student consumer model. The tell is that the students who petitioned against Jones were surprised that he was fired; that’s not what the petition asked for. This does not exactly smack of the inmates running the asylum."

I think your article highlights my points quite nicely

But lowering standards is not the solution.

No one is suggesting lowering standards. In fact, your last article points out there the professor had much leeway to impose his own standards, which in fact means nothing is standard. It is subjective.
"In the final analysis, this is not a great example of academic standards adrift. " from your example

As long as his "standards" don't mean making the course "easier".

But university profs have a lot of leeway in terms of what they teach, especially at more senior levels. I know that a number of my third and fourth year courses "sort of" followed the curriculum stated in the calendar but there was tremendous variation from year to year depending on who taught the course. And that extended to the level of difficulty (see my comment re my fourth year complex variable prof above) to the actual material that was covered. I had algebra courses where not only was there no textbook but the material covered was gleaned from various research journals (the material covered wasn't even available last year). And I had a third year algebra course that was mostly group theory (there was no hint of that in the calendar). Have to admit that was the only undergrad course I had where I was completely at sea during most of the year. In fact the exam was an oral and I remember the prof asking me if I knew the "Proof of Rado" (don't ask) and I said yes because I had memorized it. Then he asked me if I understood it. When I said "No" his response was "Good. Neither did I."

It's not just the US ....

Worldwide Education Problem Is Staring Us in the Face
From Israel to America and lots of places in between, government schools are failing. This should not surprise us.
Lawrence W. Reed

“Our schools,” reports a knowledgeable observer, “are producing ignoramuses.” The average graduate, he explains, “does not know how to read critically, write expressively, or debate intelligently and politely.” Meantime, the unions are opposing huge, proposed increases in beginner-teacher salaries because, instead, they want higher pay for teachers with seniority, regardless of individual performance.

Are we talking about America here? No, though Americans can sadly and credibly claim similar circumstances. What you just read comes from writer Amotz Asa-El in the July 29-August 4 issue of The Jerusalem Post. In his article titled “How can Jewish Schools be Bad?”, the country whose schools he excoriates is Israel.

For more than 2,000 years, a thirst for learning has been a core element of Jewish culture. Asa-El writes,


One could reasonably assume that such a deeply rooted heritage would produce good public schools in a country defined by its Jewishness. But instead, says Asa-El, they are a “disgrace.” Not only are they academically bad, they also ...

https://fee.org/articles/the-root-of-to ... -the-face/