Rigor and Absences: New Harvard Policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Maybe that is because you do not learn anything anyway….

I hire an avg of 8 kids from t10 schools every year for the last 15 years at an IB in NYC.
I’m yet to hire one who has learn enough. None of them know anything. I could care less if they took Class A, B or C. But if I give them a very complex real world problem, can they solve it? that is all I care about. I will teach them everything else I need them to know.

Investment Banking isn’t known for solving “complex real world problems”. If kids want to do that, they go work for companies trying to create nuclear fusion energy or DNA-based computer chips.

You know…actual complex real world problems. It’s laughable that you would combine that phrase and IB in the same sentence.

The attitude here is hilarious….And yet I get about 100 applications from your precious IVY little kids dying to be an idiot not wanting to solve any problems working for me….

I never said Ivy kids don't want to make money in banking. However, few think they are going to solve complex problems while doing so.

Not sure what attitude you think is hilarious. I worked in bulge bracket banking for 15 years...I would never hire anyone that came to the firm thinking they would solve complex problems, because we didn't have any complex problems to solve. We raised capital for companies that solved complex problems...and of course people/companies that know how to raise large sums of money are very well compensated.

Np, The complex problems are being solved over in quant finance! Just make sure you did math Olympiad and have a near 4.0 at MIT and they’ll take you- super easy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Those online systems can be -- and
are -- gamed. Students smart or connected enough to get into Harvard aren't going to be tripped up by some attendance log in. For large classes, unless you have a several attendance monitors, you'll have students log is as 'present' from a different location. Even if the QR code changes every 5 seconds. . . .

QR code changes that track your phone. They existed back when I did required colloquium for my undergrad like 15 years ago. The type of student who is technically capable enough to bypass that isn’t who you’re looking for- they want the mediocre students who actually need class time to get their butts in class

If the professors care at all about attendance, they want ALL the students to come to class, not just the the middle of the road students (and I think you are underestimating the ingenuity of mediocre students at top schools to get around regulations they don't like). They want students in class not just to learn from the professor but to learn from each other, to create a shared experience that will spark conversation and ideas, to pick up on social clues. Certainly top students can jump through exam hoops without formal classes. But few people are -- or want to be -- genuine autodidacts.

Look, I get it, it seems like the Ivy kids are some crazy bar of achievement, but no, they really aren’t that good at getting out of rules- many got to their place because they do nothing but follow rules. This isn’t about professors; it’s an institutional policy, and anything you do will end up with some students finding ways to leak through.

People had these same quarrels back when my college moved to an honor code where take home tests were normalized. The professors and students liked the honor code system a lot more and the average student followed the rules and took the test truthfully- students whose grades on exams didn’t match in class performance were questioned and often caught. Sure, there’s the very small percent of students who know how to accurately score to their performance, but there’s also the small percent of students who cheat during in person exams- doesn’t mean we throw out the exams.

Universities have gotten too lax and restructured their image as social, professional spaces not academic ones, and the repercussions are finally biting at them. You have to work to change the culture or nothing gets solved.

It's a terrible idea to set up rules that won't be enforced. It helps the cheaters and hurts the honest. Even schools with strong/ long cultures of honor codes report that they are breaking down.

Schools could enforce attendance rules in large classes, but it would be VERY expensive. Assigned seats with multiple human monitors to ensure the butts remain in the seats. Most rational people would say it's not worth the investment.

Attendance for MBA-style classes, with assigned seats, is relatively easy to monitor. Anything above 100 is dicey and technolgy won't solve the problem. I speak from experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Those online systems can be -- and
are -- gamed. Students smart or connected enough to get into Harvard aren't going to be tripped up by some attendance log in. For large classes, unless you have a several attendance monitors, you'll have students log is as 'present' from a different location. Even if the QR code changes every 5 seconds. . . .

QR code changes that track your phone. They existed back when I did required colloquium for my undergrad like 15 years ago. The type of student who is technically capable enough to bypass that isn’t who you’re looking for- they want the mediocre students who actually need class time to get their butts in class

If the professors care at all about attendance, they want ALL the students to come to class, not just the the middle of the road students (and I think you are underestimating the ingenuity of mediocre students at top schools to get around regulations they don't like). They want students in class not just to learn from the professor but to learn from each other, to create a shared experience that will spark conversation and ideas, to pick up on social clues. Certainly top students can jump through exam hoops without formal classes. But few people are -- or want to be -- genuine autodidacts.

Look, I get it, it seems like the Ivy kids are some crazy bar of achievement, but no, they really aren’t that good at getting out of rules- many got to their place because they do nothing but follow rules. This isn’t about professors; it’s an institutional policy, and anything you do will end up with some students finding ways to leak through.

People had these same quarrels back when my college moved to an honor code where take home tests were normalized. The professors and students liked the honor code system a lot more and the average student followed the rules and took the test truthfully- students whose grades on exams didn’t match in class performance were questioned and often caught. Sure, there’s the very small percent of students who know how to accurately score to their performance, but there’s also the small percent of students who cheat during in person exams- doesn’t mean we throw out the exams.

Universities have gotten too lax and restructured their image as social, professional spaces not academic ones, and the repercussions are finally biting at them. You have to work to change the culture or nothing gets solved.

It's a terrible idea to set up rules that won't be enforced. It helps the cheaters and hurts the honest. Even schools with strong/ long cultures of honor codes report that they are breaking down.

Schools could enforce attendance rules in large classes, but it would be VERY expensive. Assigned seats with multiple human monitors to ensure the butts remain in the seats. Most rational people would say it's not worth the investment.

Attendance for MBA-style classes, with assigned seats, is relatively easy to monitor. Anything above 100 is dicey and technolgy won't solve the problem. I speak from experience.

This is an extreme amount of defense for students not attending class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Maybe that is because you do not learn anything anyway….

I hire an avg of 8 kids from t10 schools every year for the last 15 years at an IB in NYC.
I’m yet to hire one who has learn enough. None of them know anything. I could care less if they took Class A, B or C. But if I give them a very complex real world problem, can they solve it? that is all I care about. I will teach them everything else I need them to know.

The phrase is I couldn’t care less; that along with the other grammatical errors makes your post not believable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Maybe that is because you do not learn anything anyway….

I hire an avg of 8 kids from t10 schools every year for the last 15 years at an IB in NYC.
I’m yet to hire one who has learn enough. None of them know anything. I could care less if they took Class A, B or C. But if I give them a very complex real world problem, can they solve it? that is all I care about. I will teach them everything else I need them to know.

The phrase is I couldn’t care less; that along with the other grammatical errors makes your post not believable

They work in IB, not Penguin publishing house. Get out of the Proust sometime, okay?

[Anonymous]

It's the reality. It's impossible to make students attend lectures of 100 plus without instituting a lot of expensive monitoring. Rather than invest in such monitoring, schools should reduce class sizes to 75 max. The student experience improves massively, but that's a lot more expensive.

The lecture for 200-400, if not dead, should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

Large parties means game nights, robotics hacking, rooms set up with DJs, etc. It does not mean frat parties.

I was at Stanford back when Stanford valued fun and creativity. Those large spaces were absolutely critical. Amherst gas systemically removed them.

+1, people here can only envision frat parties when there’s many themed parties and guest DJs and alternative style parties
that students want.

What PP is saying does not conform to current Amherst policy, including DJs. Sounds like they need to be organized and held in certain spaces. So?
https://www.amherst.edu/campuslife/aas/budgetary/fundingprocess/fundingpolicies/parties-and-powerhouse-events#:~:text=Powerhouse%20Events,a%20Party%20or%20a%20Concert.

This is exactly the problem. In order to have an event that’s more than a few people, it has to be organized and approved. There is no support for casual gatherings that aren’t blessed by an official.

When top schools were optimizing for creativity and genius, they (unconsciously and consciously) designed their campus third spaces to facilitate the sort of serendipitous casual meetings and social events that led to those outcomes. But many schools, Amherst included, have systemically made the existence and use of third spaces something formal and organized. It was well-intentioned (for Amherst, fire safety was a legit concern for instance) but it’s also had the outcome of removing creative and unstructured spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the reality. It's impossible to make students attend lectures of 100 plus without instituting a lot of expensive monitoring. Rather than invest in such monitoring, schools should reduce class sizes to 75 max. The student experience improves massively, but that's a lot more expensive.

The lecture for 200-400, if not dead, should be.

Have them tap on a Kahoot/Blooket during class.

Have students sign in to an signin sheet their TA holds.

Take attendance orally for a random sample of the class.

We had tech for in class live quizzes in my college 30 years ago, with custom hardware before everyone had phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

Large parties means game nights, robotics hacking, rooms set up with DJs, etc. It does not mean frat parties.

I was at Stanford back when Stanford valued fun and creativity. Those large spaces were absolutely critical. Amherst gas systemically removed them.

+1, people here can only envision frat parties when there’s many themed parties and guest DJs and alternative style parties
that students want.

What PP is saying does not conform to current Amherst policy, including DJs. Sounds like they need to be organized and held in certain spaces. So?
https://www.amherst.edu/campuslife/aas/budgetary/fundingprocess/fundingpolicies/parties-and-powerhouse-events#:~:text=Powerhouse%20Events,a%20Party%20or%20a%20Concert.

This is exactly the problem. In order to have an event that’s more than a few people, it has to be organized and approved. There is no support for casual gatherings that aren’t blessed by an official.

When top schools were optimizing for creativity and genius, they (unconsciously and consciously) designed their campus third spaces to facilitate the sort of serendipitous casual meetings and social events that led to those outcomes. But many schools, Amherst included, have systemically made the existence and use of third spaces something formal and organized. It was well-intentioned (for Amherst, fire safety was a legit concern for instance) but it’s also had the outcome of removing creative and unstructured spaces.

There are no lounges or classrooms where students can gather? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Those online systems can be -- and are -- gamed. Students smart or connected enough to get into Harvard aren't going to be tripped up by some attendance log in. For large classes, unless you have a several attendance monitors, you'll have students log is as 'present' from a different location. Even if the QR code changes every 5 seconds. . . .

My office has badge scanners. Why don't schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Those online systems can be -- and are -- gamed. Students smart or connected enough to get into Harvard aren't going to be tripped up by some attendance log in. For large classes, unless you have a several attendance monitors, you'll have students log is as 'present' from a different location. Even if the QR code changes every 5 seconds. . . .

My office has badge scanners. Why don't schools?

Exactly. People here are acting like it’s impossible to get students to be held accountable. It’s and scanners work. Also stop giving our lecture notes and recordings. These are students, not children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the reality. It's impossible to make students attend lectures of 100 plus without instituting a lot of expensive monitoring. Rather than invest in such monitoring, schools should reduce class sizes to 75 max. The student experience improves massively, but that's a lot more expensive.

The lecture for 200-400, if not dead, should be.

Have them tap on a Kahoot/Blooket during class.

Have students sign in to an signin sheet their TA holds.

Take attendance orally for a random sample of the class.

We had tech for in class live quizzes in my college 30 years ago, with custom hardware before everyone had phones.

I'm telling you: I've taught a large lecture in the past two years, and these tech tools are too buggy or annoying to work as effective attendance checks. Kahoot? Anyone can have two devices and log on with someone else's name. People can -- and do -- sign others' names on sheets that are passed around the room. Do you really want me, or the TAs, to become handwriting experts to check those signatures? Not what I signed up for. More importantly, it's not efficient or effective. Students in large lectures have also managed to take pop quizzes remotely.

All the new tech is awesome and I use it to enhance learning and engagement, but it's not an effective check for attendance in a large lecture. I've discussed this with the learning tech team at my university (who follow all the recent edtech developments) and they are also stumped. Smart, motivated, experienced people are working on this problem every day. From your answers, it does not appear that you are one of them.

Taking oral attendance for a random sample of the class seems like it would work, but then I need to see the student's features well enough to make sure they match the stamp-sized photo of the student I just called. That's both a waste of precious class time and it introduces a 'gotcha' element (and public shaming) into the classroom. Not worth it.

Students opt not to attend large lectures for various reasons. I'm sure some of them find me boring, but attendance at even the most charismatic professors' lectures is spotty. Refusing to record lectures at all would help, but with Covid and other contagious illnesses, there remains institutional pressure against this.

The best answer to this problem is to reduce class size, which allows the professor to get eyes on individual students. When students feel seen, they show up. That's better for learning but a lot more expensive.

[Anonymous]

Does Harvard not have sufficient funds to cap out at 50-70 person lectures? I can’t imagine paying as much as people do for elite schools and not getting the service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Perhaps at Harvard those majors are not rigorous. At many other universities they are. I know many smart kids from those majors (not from H).

Harvard has long been known as the hardest Ivy to get in, easiest to graduate from. Opposite of Cornell.

Like PP says, it matters very little. I need employee who are equal parts collaborative, analytical, quantitative and creative. Good luck finding these people in the most rigorous programs. Most of them lean anxious/rigid non collaborative.

That’s what the entire T30 student body is these days, now. That is what this admissions process heavily selects towards. The days of the quirky friendly geniuses are long gone.

They're at flagship honors colleges and LACs.

Not at the top LACs. You want me to believe there is a single quirky, friendly genius anywhere on the Swarthmore, Williams, or Amherst campuses these days? Please. Have you been on those campuses lately?

State schools — not even necessarily flagships — yes. That’s where the quirky friendly geniuses are.

Yeah, I've been to all three and the culture was noticably more chill and friendly than the Ivies we visited. Maybe not Williams so much, but yes at Amherst and Swarthmore. But I also agree plenty of brilliant kids at state honors colleges these days.

Amherst redesigned their campus residences on purpose so no large parties could happen. It is unquestionably grim, and intolerant of the quirky genius kids.

+1 Williams is literally isolated from society with nothing to do but study. The students there have been depressingly studious since I was a child.

Swarthmore doesn’t even have parties. The students compete with one another on how many classes they’re taking and how difficult each one is.

What’s left? Pomona ? Same intensive social culture but now you have to shelter from wildfires and poor air quality. Mudd sucks the soul out of anyone. Reed id just as depressing, but now everyone is queer.

There are still LACs where students have a love of learning for learning's sake, if that's what you mean by quirky genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The writers seem to blame it on careerism when really it’s just a lower quality student who doesn’t care about education. A lot of students are in it for the jobs, and don’t care at all about what they learn, shown by the rise of Econ and CS majors everywhere.

Maybe that is because you do not learn anything anyway….

I hire an avg of 8 kids from t10 schools every year for the last 15 years at an IB in NYC.
I’m yet to hire one who has learn enough. None of them know anything. I could care less if they took Class A, B or C. But if I give them a very complex real world problem, can they solve it? that is all I care about. I will teach them everything else I need them to know.

The phrase is I couldn’t care less; that along with the other grammatical errors makes your post not believable

They work in IB, not Penguin publishing house. Get out of the Proust sometime, okay?

lol +1