Weed-Out Classes: Are They Ethical?

Many of us have taken– or will be forced to take– a weed out class at some point in our secondary education. Weed-out classes are common at Universities and Colleges both in the U.S. and abroad, but why? The idea behind most weed-out classes is that they “push out” the less prepared or less committed students in their respective fields– the goal being to retain only the best or most resilient students, who they believe have the best chances of success in the field. The theory behind them is relatively simple, but are such classes really ethical? Below I will explore a few arguments for and against weed-out classes, specifically at the University level. 

Before I jump in, I would like to first make a distinction between a weed-out class and a challenging course. As previously mentioned, the goal of weed-out classes is to push students out of a program– such classes aim to harvest the most promising candidates by pushing uncommitted or unprepared students out of the program. Alternatively, a highly challenging course has the goal of educating students within a program or course– such classes aim only to educate. The distinction lies in the goal of each course type. One aims to exclude or push out, the other aims to educate and often even support. In this article, I advocate against the use of weed-out classes, rather than challenging courses (which I would argue are essential for a high-quality education).

Weed-out courses are not all bad and the use of such classes do have a few potential benefits– one being the maintenance of prestige a given program may have attained. Consider a school with an incredible math department. They may be incentivized to ‘weed out’ weaker math students in order to maintain program prestige and difficulty– those who made it out are the “best of the best,” and would be well-equipped to push the program forward. Such classes are also often argued to simulate a high-stress work environment– one that students may encounter following graduation. By simulating these conditions early, and weeding out those who cannot handle it, they both maintain program prestige and better prepare their students for the workforce. In this sense, weed-out classes may not only be effective, but essential to higher education.

These arguments seem rather underwhelming to me, however. The idea that weed-out classes protect a program's prestige seems far-fetched and also seems to miss the point. The ‘prestige’ or reputation of a program should be determined by how difficult it is to succeed in the program, not the introductory courses. This is an important differentiator. I would predict that a program with impossibly-rigorous introductory classes and easier high-level classes will produce less successful students than programs with rigorous classes top-to-bottom. The point here is not to advocate for nearly-impossible levels of difficulty in academic programs, but simply to point out that students’ ability to make it through a weed-out course is likely not what determines program prestige or workplace success.

I do think there is a legitimate argument, however, in saying that difficult entry-level classes may push students into other disciplines that better suit their skill sets. In a vacuum, this argument is certainly plausible. Our world, however, is inherently unequal. Students from privileged backgrounds are, almost by default, going to be better prepared entering a highly rigorous class in their first year of college, and are thus better-positioned to succeed. Such privileged students may already have had significantly more exposure to some topics, and those who didn’t may have things like tutoring services at their immediate disposal. In such scenarios, weed-out classes become tests of privilege or wealth rather than intellectual potential. 

For the aforementioned reasons, it seems it would benefit the higher education system (and its students) to explore alternatives to weed-out classes. Project-based learning and mentorship programs are both alternatives that could be proposed in place of such classes. These programs would seek to eliminate the social-economic barriers that some weed-out classes present, although their complete eradication would be dependent on many other factors outside of the program itself.