When I came to Penn, there was only one thing I thought I would study: international relations. I had participated in mock trial and Model United Nations in high school, caring deeply about politics and economics. Of course, when coming to college, I wanted a major that would make me money. But I also wanted a major that would be the reason I woke up in the morning, put on my suit, and went to work excited. However, that passion for international relations dwindled upon taking my first weed-out class in my first semester.
A weed-out class is a notoriously difficult introduction course designed to filter out students who are not projected to succeed academically in a certain major. These classes intimidate students who struggle with the coursework, often encouraging them to explore other areas of study that are considered less demanding. Hoping to dip my toes into a field of my interest, I took PSCI 0400: “Introduction to International Relations.” Instead, I drowned.
I went to every lecture and recitation, attended countless office hours, and even recited the content that I learned to my friends to the point that they could repeat it themselves. But no matter how hard I tried and how much I studied, I kept receiving grades that would make my high school self rip her braids out. It got to a point where the struggle wasn’t just affecting my grades, but was beginning to erode my passion.
As my average declined, so did my enthusiasm for the subject. International relations is an inherently analytical concentration within political science, yet I felt that my performance in the course did not reflect my actual understanding. I had assumed that genuine passion would naturally lead to mastery, but it did not. As the semester progressed, it became increasingly easy to disengage from lectures, as I no longer believed I would meaningfully absorb the material.
Gradually, I stopped keeping up with current events, hesitated to attend events related to my major, and disengaged from course readings altogether. As winter break approached, I found myself questioning: if departments want to attract prospective majors, why design introductory courses in ways that alienate them? Courses structured in this manner discourage students who once held a strong interest in the subject, ultimately pushing them away rather than drawing them in. While such changes can reflect genuine intellectual growth, leaving a field due to discouragement in an introductory course suggests a failure to cultivate, rather than filter, student interest.
I am not arguing for the University to rid itself of difficult classes. Rather, I believe that rigor should be balanced with purpose. Challenging coursework is essential to intellectual growth, as it pushes students to think critically, engage deeply, and expand their understanding beyond surface-level knowledge. However, there is a difference between a class that challenges students to rise to the occasion and a class that discourages them from trying at all. When difficulty becomes overwhelming without clear support or direction, it can leave students feeling disconnected from the material and insecure about their own abilities. In these cases, rigor no longer serves as a tool for growth, but a barrier that distances students from the very subjects they once felt passionate about. Penn should strive to create environments where difficulty inspires resilience and curiosity, rather than diminishes interest and confidence.
I eventually moved on from PSCI 0400 and took other classes that restored my love for international relations because of professors who communicated information with enthusiasm and care. But an education at an institution like Penn should not depend on chance encounters with inspiring professors. We should consistently foster curiosity, engagement, and a genuine love of learning in every student.
ZOE MACKEY is a sophomore studying political science and international relations from Philadelphia. Her email is zmackey@sas.upenn.edu.
