What they are trying to do is keep the kids that would otherwise do well but might freak out in the first semester. Seems pretty fine to me especially since those are grades that if we are being honest really don't matter anyways.
So what do you mean with "uncertain environment"?
As someone that graduated when you started and was much closer to 08, it turned out to be a non-issue for everyone I know that went to college with me.
There is a real issue that housing is unreasonably expensive in many areas, which we could fix via the innovative strategy of not making it illegal to build housing.
Here is real wages with cost of living factored in for a bunch of locations in the US. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release?rid=439
This data shows that real wages are rising even with cost of living factored in.
The data don't support the story you are telling, at least not on a 17 year time scale. Most places including LA and New York actually show the opposite. Real wages are rising faster than cost of living in the long term just about everywhere in the US.
I understand the argument, and housing is a problem, but there just isn't much to support the doom and gloom narrative if you don't use cherry picked data from opeds. I suspect that a lot of people have distorted views about what they should be able to afford.
People point to the 1960s as the "golden age" where everyone could afford everything on a single person working an easy entry-level job. However, that is also a meme, not reality. According to the census bureau median family income in 1960 was $5,600, which is $58,946.59 in Jan 2024 dollars. It's $83,730 in 2024. For individual males, in 1960 it was $4,100 ($43,157.33 Jan 2024 dollars) and $71,090 in 2024.
Sources:
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1962/demo/p60-03...
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-28...
The source I provided specifically does not look at total income but real wages compared to cost of living. Did you look at the data you are arguing against?
Also, you are wrong about people working more hours. Here's the actual numbers. We are working slightly fewer hours than we have been on average for the past 20 years: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP.
Has it occurred to you that the data really just doesn't support your perception? People have been giving you sources that refute what you are saying at every level. I get it. I keep reading and seeing people talk about how awful everything is, but I just can't find hard evidence that this is the case on a broad basis. You should look into the concept of the "vibe-cession". People are convincing themselves that things are getting worse based on talk and perception, and, well, one of the limits of humanity is that perception is reality inside your head.
Kids have "managed" this by dropping out of college.
> That's the slippery slope fallacy. That's not what's being proposed and not what's going to happen.
They have proposed 1 semester, if they propose extending it then I'll be right along side you saying that's ridiculous. However, it's just as likely that they'll say "Actually, 1 semester was too long, we'll just do it for 1/2 a semester".
No it's not, because that's a tangentially related thing. You can't say "because social promotion is widely practiced, colleges will eventually eliminate grades" That's a non-sequitur. It'd be just as silly as me making the argument that "because some classes at my college were pass/fail, eventually they'll all be pass fail". That's the slippery slope argument.
> Own your argument man
That's not my argument, dude. And claiming it is is bad faith bro.
> If you are ok with end result, say so.
The end result of a single semester not being graded? Yeah, I'm fine with that. Because it's just as likely the university finds it's a mistake and rolls it back as it is that they expand it. It's also likely that they don't do anything with it.
That's my argument. That this policy is probably positive and worth trying. My argument isn't "nobody should ever be graded ever". That's a straw-man that you've cooked up.
Once you're on your own nobody coddles you and it can be brutal.
So again I ask. What's the harm?
Hiring practices expanding to include multiple take-home exercises to prove competency.
Students not fully learning foundational knowledge they’ll need later because the class is an easy pass.
I've never cared about where the degree of someone comes from. You really think and employer is going to look at UofM and say "Oh, they gave their students a 1 semester reprieve, obviously they are of lower quality"?
> Hiring practices expanding to include multiple take-home exercises to prove competency.
Why would the policy of UofM change the hiring practices of companies that are not UofM? Where's the connection?
> Students not fully learning foundational knowledge they’ll need later because the class is an easy pass.
This may be a real harm, but ultimately they'll have to learn the foundational knowledge to continue going to UofM. Plenty of students fail to learn foundational knowledge outside of UofM, I know because I had to tutor them.
Yes. This will be evident on the transcript. It won’t reduce a student from “must-hire” to “do not interview.” But it could make a marginal difference when two students are compared.
One has all A and the other has all P. If the all A is Ohio State and the all P is Michigan, if I’m otherwise indifferent I might hire Ohio State.
The transcript? Employers aren't pulling transcripts. I've done hiring interviews and reviews, the transcript has never come up.
About the only place this could come up is higher education.
This seems like you are reaching for straws.
While I still think it's a disservice to the student, I'd be curious to hear from those that lived through this: Both those that attended and graduated and those that had to drop out.
For the former I'm guessing there's not much to report. I'd be curious about the latter.
As a student: Grades are one of the clearest signals on whether you're a good fit for a major or topic you're interested in, you need more work, or you need to trim down the number of classes.
Not providing that clear, cumulative signal is a major disservice to the students.
Also, UofM is expensive so dragging it benefits only the financials for the school.
It sounds harsh but it’s an important reality check for the student.
It's just 1 semester and also gives students time to switch majors if they determine it's not for them (which is also common).
Yes. We should ignore things like school shootings, which have long been described as the result of mental health issues. Ignore PTSD. Soldiers can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. By all means, ignore the mental health of a rape victim or a child abuse victim. They can just tough it out. Clearly, that's the better strategy.
Oh, and you've been working in this field for how long?
> I was not going to engage
Then don't.
"Is raising mental health awareness causing more harm than good?", https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analyst-comment/is-raisi...
"Are We Overdoing Mental Health Awareness?", https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/silicon-psyche/20250...