PCP – The new 1A policy will help new students excel in first year engineering. – Point

The Faculty of Engineering’s recent announcement regarding the new 1A course load policy has left more than a few people astounded. The comments often thrown out, even in casual conversation, have been scathing or completely soaked in condescension. “How do these kids expect to get through the degree if they can’t even handle the 1A course load?” I’ll hear. “1A was so easy. And I mean, when it was kind of hard, we sucked it up and dealt with it.”

On the surface, the sentiment is easy to understand, even if one has experienced failure in the faculty. Speaking from my own personal experience, 1A was not particularly difficult; I coasted along easily, and was promoted to 1B with minimal effort. So did most of my class. However, this isn’t to say that I did not have my struggles in first year and so, for a number of reasons, I actually think this is a damn good idea. And not only is it a good idea, but it is also one that will likely ensure that the engineering students who decide to take advantage of it get through. Here’s why:

1. Not all high schools cover the same material: The makeup of the faculty is broad given Waterloo’s reputation for its technical programs; students who attend are from all over Canada and beyond. Certain other provinces don’t cover particular concepts in their entrance-requirement courses (Manitoba, for example, with its exclusion of introductory calculus from its math courses). This can prove to be devastating when you realise that all your peers know half the material in your 1a calculus course while you only know three days’ worth. This argument can even be extended to the fact that the Ontario secondary school math curriculum no longer includes a fair chunk of what it used to, even though the first year engineering curriculum has remained the same; the gap is just too large now, and too many students are falling into the abyss of academic failure.

1. First year is a cultural shock: You are on your own, without the supervision of your parents or usual support group. Most likely you know a little cooking, but aren’t well adjusted enough to plan out well-balanced meals (but your rate of alcohol consumption increases, causing your overall health to be that anaemic hobo while also turning you into a cheap drunk). Attendance to lectures is no longer mandatory. You are thrown headfirst into a mire of endless temptation. You have no study habits. You are also highly likely to be 18 (and probably lack the maturity to juggle life on your own – even if you are mature, managing all this can be tiring and stressful). I think enough has been said here.

1. Sh-t happens: Sometimes bad things happen, and then you cut your life into pieces*.
   Seriously speaking, though, almost anyone who has done well in any discipline of engineering can vouch that it is necessary to be mentally and emotionally stable in order to successfully take on a full engineering courseload. Unfortunately, when trauma occurs, it’s very apparent in the student’s results.

Most of these points have been brought up before, which is why some people have argued that this is the reason why the faculty has created a no-penalty variant of term repetition. I’d agree that, in later years, this sort of punishment for failure might actually be what’s best. My current opinion, though, is that providing this option will yield better engineers than just failing them and telling them to repeat without penalty:

1. Students who take advantage of it are likely to have the foresight to realise they are in academic trouble: There will always be a few that oppose the rule, but given that there is a price to pay for choosing this option (i.e. the one year waiting period), the students who aren’t doing the work in the hopes that they can catch up later aren’t likely to decide on this. Remember that this is not a free pass. The people that decide to drop the courses are probably good at gauging how much work they need to put in to get through. The faculty will inevitably be retaining students with decent levels of maturity, and if this makes it easier for them to stick around, then they’ll probably do just fine in higher terms.

1. It is a better segue to having the internal discussion about whether they are suited to engineering: Failure can be devastating.  Failure is also an easy incentive to quit because it’s easy to pass off as “Oh, I didn’t like the program anyway”, even if it isn’t necessarily true. Not having a failure on transcript can make all the difference for a student who still needs to think about what he/she wants. Having less courses may not only give them the time to think about it, but also to figure out what aspects of the program he/she enjoys and whether it is worth it to stay rather being bogged down by copious amounts of work while they are already uncertain. Again, this is not a free pass, so I strongly believe that those who do end up coming back genuinely like the field and know what they are in for.

Personally, I am glad that this new policy is being implemented. It has been a while coming. I wish the future 1As the best of luck, and hope they enjoy their new policy.

——-

*This should not be your last resort