Students should be encouraged to try their best in every subject, allowed to make the mistakes they are naturally going to make at whatever level they are currently, and helped to improve over time. Punishing people for being less prepared than peers who did more practice or for making ordinary and expected mistakes actively gets in the way of their learning, as well as making them feel terrible. It's pretty bad for the students who are more prepared as well, as many of them internalize the idea that they are inherently good at some things and inherently bad at others, which is sometimes temporarily gratifying but often stops them from pushing themselves to try anything new or hard.
But sure, it's the same problem with any other prestigious venue. Demand far far far outstrips supply. So they don't really need to pick "the best" students. Merely students "over the bar of quality". There's no problem in the eyes of the venue, so there's nothing to change.
I think the implied assumption in this question is flawed to begin with in that not everyone needs to be at a famous institution to succeed. But if you want my likely bad take: sports coaches actually have a pretty decent method of scouting by... well, scouting. seek out local/state/national talent and nurture them years before an app goes in. If they can build a relationship, that's a personal referral that goes farther than any essay prompt.
It's the most flexible method because scouters can tailor from culture to culture, based on qualities that traditional education metrics wouldn't take into account.
This is the main reason I hold resentment towards GE's. Not because I don't want to be a well rounded person, but because when 3-4 other major classes are already crushing you the last bit of "pressure" needed is some random music theory or history course quizzing you. I never really got the time to breathe in college, and taking my time woulda been a $20k+ decision on top of the $80k I already had in debt. I literally could not afford to learn properly.
They would act like Europeans and the rest of the world where GE's aren't a thing. What that means depends on your biases, but it doesn't seem too bad to me. And since silicon valley is mostly foreign software engineers today it doesn't seem like a bad thing for their performance either.
So yes, it works in the short term, but I believe it's a net negative overall.
Grades are great, but not for the pressure they apply on students -- they are a measure of how successful the teacher has been in reaching their students!
The students do have some responsibility to learn the material.
Whatever did not worked first time around, does not work second time around and plus they are more demotivated.
Also, the issues of failing students are not easily fixable with repetition. They have often attention issues, learning disabilities, behavioral issues, mental health issues etc. that are not helped by repetition at all.
The only solution that gives every kid an equal opportunity would mean a massive increase of funding of schools and teachers. But even if that would happen, we currently do not have enough well educated teachers and the job is also not very popular due to high stress and low pay and new teachers take many years to be available...
There are many reasons why students don't learn everything they can from a class and inability to grasp the material is only one one of them, yet it is the only reason that ensures they won't learn more the second time around.
it is massive punishment due to social consequences with peers.
Get better peers? What you're saying is that it's better for students to keep failing so as not to upset their milieu. Oftentimes, the best thing you can do for a struggling child is to take them out of the environment that's holding them down.
No, that one is actually systematic result. That was original reason why they stopped doing it. It did not helped anything. Special help, additional tutors who are actually trained in behavioral and learning issues, those sometimes help. Keeping them back a grade, not much.
> Get better peers?
This real world we live in does not provide better peers. Peers are other kids, those are how they are.
> What you're saying is that it's better for students to keep failing so as not to upset their milieu.
What I am saying is that when they are hold a grade, the system is keeping them failing. They dont get better. It does not magically turns then into better performing students. They will just suck in a way similar to original suck, except that it also leads to them trying even less then before.
If we're talking college, you now need to either spend more time and especially money to repeat a course, or drop out and give up entirely. it can also disqualify you from scholarships and grants, so it is a direct financial consequence in two ways. Unlike the workforce, you are not given adequate opportunity in academia to fall behind, let alone fail.
-----
I agree in theory that there should be no shame in needing to redo classes and reinforce your learnings, but current societal expectations in traditinal education does no support such a mindset. Another reason I wish there was more awareness and accessibilities in paths outside of grade school -> university to figure out what you enjoy and how to learn it.
So, we need to get rid of the stigma, not the practice.
for grade school, I'm at an impasse. I don't like complaining without offering something actionable, but the scale and existing inequalities of schools is so dire that I don't know where to start. The realistic answer over the decades has been to simply lower the bar overtime, but that doesn't exactly help either.
The point of grades on a universal standard ought not to have anything to do with the students; it should serve as a diagnostic metric for the teacher.
And it can be far more coursely grained than it often is today. In fact, most teachers don't need a finer signal than number of passing and failing students to figure out how well they are doing.
Much like I use the uptime percentage as a signal for which code needs bugfixes and how bold I can be when introducing new features, the teacher can use the fraction passing to determine what needs to be taught differently and how quickly to introduce new material. Of course, schools don't work in a way that makes teacher-led learning possible...