Weeder classes are intentionally difficult to make sure those who graduate from a major are the best of the best.

The concept is not new. We’ve been weeded out, rewarded and punished since we were children. But education, when done properly, should not be a means of weeding you out.

In my fourth-grade class, two teachers combined their classrooms. We were given a reading and math test. The scores we received on those tests determined which group we fell into: You were either deemed less advanced or deemed more advanced.

Presumably because I indicated on forms that English was not my first language, I was placed what our class called “the dumb group.” The teachers argued they needed to teach the curriculum slower to the more challenged students.

But the other group received art lessons we never got. They celebrated with events we never were invited to. They had freedoms we were not trusted with. If a student from our class turned in their homework, they were invited to “fun Friday,” where they were allowed in the computer lab to play Cool Math Games.

Our educators failed to recognize this system was discriminatory. They rewarded children on their ability to do homework, lacking consideration for what kind of home the students were expected to work in and what kind of tutoring they had access to, or the disadvantages one had when writing an essay at home with non-native-English speaking parents.

I was not the only one. My group was made up mostly of first-generation, non-native-English speaking, non-white students.

For the rest of my elementary school experience, I believed I was dumb. I did not do my homework. I doodled on my papers.

When students are grouped, they feel excluded and punished. That’s not a critique on your work; it’s a critique of your identity.

Now, as a third-year student studying at UCLA, I’ve yet to see education become any less of a filtration system than I saw during my elementary school years.

Through things such as pre-requisite classes, if a student is naturally a good test taker, they will drop into the cup. If they’re not as good at taking tests, they will struggle to make it through an education system designed this way.

The socioeconomic factors effecting standardized testing results continue this pattern. If you can afford private tutoring for exams, you can pay for SAT, LSAT and MCAT preparation until you can make it through the filter.

Despite UCLA’s historical emphasis on collaboration, today’s syllabi give different instructions. A syllabus from a class I was in recently stated that “awarding more than 40% of your class As and A-s constitutes unreasonable grade inflation.”

Sure, you got into a university where the median weighted GPA for applicants in 2023 was 4.57. But if more than 40% of your class is capable of getting an A, you are out of luck.

Getting into a top public university seemed like you finally made the cut, right? Until you have to fight your way through a filtration of majors, clubs and classes.

How many Einsteins never went to college because they could not write an essay? How many Shakespeares never got a degree because they struggled with algebra?

How many students who excelled multidisciplinarily could not go to university because they could not take or pay for a test?

Unlike in 4th grade, where I only missed out on pizza parties, the stakes are higher. Grades have the capacity to change the entire trajectory of your life. The difference between getting a 4.0 and a 3.0 could cost you graduate school, scholarships or the job that you went into debt pursuing.

School has become a form of filtration, rather than education.

Until we recognize the fact that this is a systemic failure instead of individual inadequacy, we will continue to filter out the wrong people.