Theory definitely ruined me. I didn't go in thinking it was going to be easy, but I went in grossly unprepared. I was never exposed to anything remotely theory related until I stepped into that classroom. As one friend put it...it was like I was being asked to take college calculus with nothing more than an elementary school math background. Meanwhile, many around me came from music programs where they'd been receiving some level of theory since at least the beginning of high school. That's not to say that someone couldn't pick it up and thrive, but the only people I knew that were passing had several years of theory under their belts. The professor was supposedly brilliant and gifted
https://danielsgodfrey.com/ ... and he probably is in many regards. It just took him a long time to realize that a third of his class was struggling. By the time he started offering tutoring, it was too late. What's funny is that Sight Singing was dubbed as the more challenging course. The differences...more personable professor that was quick to recognize when students needed help. He had his lead TA start offering tutoring pretty early on in our first semester. The ones that needed it were the same kids failing in theory. Unlike theory, we all got our grades up in sight singing as a result of the timely and well-designed tutoring.
Your Early Childhood Development class sounds like some of our Psych classes. Freshman weren't allowed into anything but basic Psych I and II. Once you got past those prerequisites, your options really opened up. Nearly every major had some writing requirements. As a music major, I would have been required to take 12 writing credits. I can't remember what it jumped to when I switched to Psych, but I had enough writing credits at graduation to have a minor in writing. We also had classes like yours that had an extra credit attached because there was a writing component in addition to the basic course coverage. Most of those had multiple tiers of prerequisites making it impossible to qualify for the class until at least junior year. Some of them also doubled as graduate level courses, so by junior year, it wasn't uncommon for me to have grad students in my classes going towards my undergrad degree. I'm hoping K takes the same mindset towards her education as you had, since she will lose her scholarship money if she doesn't maintain a certain GPA... meaning she'll be coming back to TX and going to a school she didn't like as much to finish her degree. She did get into several schools with admissions criteria like you noted. I wanted her to target them because I knew she's see some money.
I don't know if it's governed at the state or national level, but I remember that there was close attention paid to degree requirements and 4-year feasibility. It was legally mandated that degrees like architecture provide full disclosure that it is a 5-year program. I know they were routinely evaluating how long it took for the average full-time student to complete their undergraduate requirements in other areas because I recall a couple of degrees where requirements changed to ensure that 4 years was widely attainable completion window. It may have been scrutinized more heavily since we were private and the probability of legal action was a concern. When you're already paying an arm and a leg, peole are likely to lose it when you make a 4-year degree impossible to complete in 4 years. Even recently, I'd heard that a couple of the 5-year programs had changes because there was too much in the way of overnight work expectations. I had a couple of Surface Pattern Design majors that often slept in their studios (which had cots or lofts provided) because it was too much work to come home at the end of the day. I guess at least you guys got it done!