100-level: 16/171 = 9.4% 200-level: 5/165 = 3.0% 300-level: 12/243 = 5.0% 400-level: 12/199 = 6.0% The evidence supports the claim that 100-level classes ar

100-level: 16/171 = 9.4% 200-level: 5/165 = 3.0% 300-level: 12/243 = 5.0% 400-level: 12/199 = 6.0% The evidence supports the claim that 100-level classes are relatively more likely to have bimodal grade distributions than upper-division courses, but does not support the claim that they are likely to have bimodal grade distributions (and we would want to compare csci to other 100-level classes if we thought there was something particularly problematic about entry-level csci education). By all means let's get more data, but entry level csci courses do not in general have bimodal grade distributions according to the data. Having TA'd low-level csci courses, I would conjecture that entry-level courses in general are taught by less talented teachers, tend to be graded more sloppily due to sheer work-load, also have a high percentage of people who are absolutely whacked out of their minds than upper division courses.