Harvard faculty vote to limit A grades to no more than 20% of the class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Okay perhaps we do agree on some things. I do not in principle agree about artificial quotas either. If class one is full of Einsteins and Curies and class two is incompetent, then I would be happy with class one getting all As and class B getting all Fs. I hope we can agree, though that 60% of As as a statistic means that As have really lost their status as a signal of excellence. I think guidelines rather than firm quotas are the answer here. Assuming typical classes I think it makes more sense to assume that only a minority of these students are producing unusually outstanding work, rather than assume that the majority are. But it should be up to the discretion of the prof to decide to ignore the guidelines if they actually notice an unusually number of excellent students in the class. This should be an infrequent occurrence, though.

Have you not seen his transcript?

[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:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Without a school-wide policy, it is very difficult for any individual professor to grade rigorously. Professors who give fewer As will see fewer students in their classes and get worse student reviews. I realize that there are marginal cases where artifically capping As could produce unfair results, but the current system has resulted in all professors having to drop their stnadards to give most student As. That's not tenable either.

Professors have full autonomy of grading. If they were dropping their standards, why do full professors and associates also give out “lollipop” grades? No one is stopping them from giving everyone Fs.

The PP just told you: declining enrollment in their classes, and people like to be liked. Also it feels terrible to torpedo the future of a promising student who you think is full of potential, and that is what it means to give a student a B nowadays.

There isn’t declining enrollment in economics, computer science, mathematics, etc and grades are as high as ever!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

90% of college students aren't taking Harvard's classes

No one said they did. Reading comprehension issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Okay perhaps we do agree on some things. I do not in principle agree about artificial quotas either. If class one is full of Einsteins and Curies and class two is incompetent, then I would be happy with class one getting all As and class B getting all Fs. I hope we can agree, though that 60% of As as a statistic means that As have really lost their status as a signal of excellence. I think guidelines rather than firm quotas are the answer here. Assuming typical classes I think it makes more sense to assume that only a minority of these students are producing unusually outstanding work, rather than assume that the majority are. But it should be up to the discretion of the prof to decide to ignore the guidelines if they actually notice an unusually number of excellent students in the class. This should be an infrequent occurrence, though.

We likely agree more than we disagree.

One thing I will say, though: I think professors need to be protected from undeserved student evaluations. Otherwise, there’s pressure to make courses easier or avoid rigorous exams out of fear of being penalized. That kind of academic rigor has to be supported institutionally. It shouldn’t come at the cost of taking away professors’ agency to assign grades and uphold standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Yes, it's called standards based grading as opposed to normative based grading (grading against your peers). Not sure why people are insisting that all test scores are curved--that's not true at all. Look at the distribution of AP test scores. The highest level physics AP has some of the highest percentages of students with a 5. It's not because it's an "easy" AP--it's because these are nationally published criticism with clear criteria as to what constitutes a 5. The best students take the highest level AP physics--and correspondingly more earn 5s than "easier" APs where the student cohort probably isn't as strong.

Similarly, if you take the Bar exam, you don't pass only if you do better than your peers, you pass because you hit the minimum threshold score to be a lawyer.

I have no issue with Harvard students being more likely to get As--they're probably doing better work than most of their state school level peers (apart from those in honors colleges.)

+1 That some people on this thread "feel" that no more than 20% should get As or that no more than 33% should get Bs is just that...a feeling, or rather a personal opinion. There's nothing wrong with standards based grading--it's more objective and fairer to students in talented cohorts.

[Anonymous]

Wow. How entitled you people could be!

Academically Harvard students are not better than Hopkins’ students. Most likely Hopkins’ students are smarter as a whole. Why Harvard can’t have a curved grading while this is the norm at Hopkins. This is wild.

[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:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Okay perhaps we do agree on some things. I do not in principle agree about artificial quotas either. If class one is full of Einsteins and Curies and class two is incompetent, then I would be happy with class one getting all As and class B getting all Fs. I hope we can agree, though that 60% of As as a statistic means that As have really lost their status as a signal of excellence. I think guidelines rather than firm quotas are the answer here. Assuming typical classes I think it makes more sense to assume that only a minority of these students are producing unusually outstanding work, rather than assume that the majority are. But it should be up to the discretion of the prof to decide to ignore the guidelines if they actually notice an unusually number of excellent students in the class. This should be an infrequent occurrence, though.

Have you not seen his transcript?

Not sure I see your point. If anything that only illustrates how bad grade inflation is today, if even the great minds didn’t always earn As back in their day and this was absolutely fine. Perhaps Einstein was an occasional slacker. Even a genius shouldn’t get a good grade if the work doesn’t show it. I’m also sure he wasn’t good at all subjects. I believe he admitted to not being the greatest at math or languages even if his physics intuition was beyond amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. How entitled you people could be!

Academically Harvard students are not better than Hopkins’ students. Most likely Hopkins’ students are smarter as a whole. Why Harvard can’t have a curved grading while this is the norm at Hopkins. This is wild.

Hopkins is entitled to run things however it sees fit. My sister went there and really disliked how uncollaborative the environment felt and perhaps this was why.

[Anonymous]

It's bizarre anyone thinks class results should be exam based at a place that claims to educate future world leaders.

[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:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Okay perhaps we do agree on some things. I do not in principle agree about artificial quotas either. If class one is full of Einsteins and Curies and class two is incompetent, then I would be happy with class one getting all As and class B getting all Fs. I hope we can agree, though that 60% of As as a statistic means that As have really lost their status as a signal of excellence. I think guidelines rather than firm quotas are the answer here. Assuming typical classes I think it makes more sense to assume that only a minority of these students are producing unusually outstanding work, rather than assume that the majority are. But it should be up to the discretion of the prof to decide to ignore the guidelines if they actually notice an unusually number of excellent students in the class. This should be an infrequent occurrence, though.

We likely agree more than we disagree.

One thing I will say, though: I think professors need to be protected from undeserved student evaluations. Otherwise, there’s pressure to make courses easier or avoid rigorous exams out of fear of being penalized. That kind of academic rigor has to be supported institutionally. It shouldn’t come at the cost of taking away professors’ agency to assign grades and uphold standards.

I completely agree. While I definitely see some need for student evaluations, they’ve also played a huge role in grade inflation and undermining rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. How entitled you people could be!

Academically Harvard students are not better than Hopkins’ students. Most likely Hopkins’ students are smarter as a whole. Why Harvard can’t have a curved grading while this is the norm at Hopkins. This is wild.

Why can’t institutions be different? Why does everyone have to run the same model? And, especially, why does that model have to be what Johns Hopkins is doing? The last type of elite college id want to go to is 50% Asian, extremely competitive, everyone is premed, and there’s very little student culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. How entitled you people could be!

Academically Harvard students are not better than Hopkins’ students. Most likely Hopkins’ students are smarter as a whole. Why Harvard can’t have a curved grading while this is the norm at Hopkins. This is wild.

Hopkins is entitled to run things however it sees fit. My sister went there and really disliked how uncollaborative the environment felt and perhaps this was why.

Harvard is also entitled to change its grading policy however it sees fit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand the issue - is the average Harvard kid getting a B in a econ 101 more or less impressive than an average Penn State getting an A in econ 101. there's no way of knowing and it's unfair to both.

There could be a national testing program on the college level, like a Bar Exam/AP mash up. For every major, there's a big two-day exam. And while it doens't matter for your graduation - the colleges decide who graduates. It would be a separate data point for students or employees.

So a kid could write their GPA from harvard was a 3.4 or they could write they got a 1600 (or whatever) on their chemistry major comprehensive exam. And an Ohio State kid would also have the opportunity to also get a 1600.

We already have the LSAT, MCAT, and GRE, including GRE subject tests. Plus plenty of professions require a test.

I agree with those saying that setting grade quotas makes no sense. How do you know that each class with have 20% (& only 20%) who are “exceptional”? If most of the class isn’t earning a decent grade, that’s on the professor. The goal should be learning, not artificial constraints to turn everything into a cut throat competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the issue - is the average Harvard kid getting a B in a econ 101 more or less impressive than an average Penn State getting an A in econ 101. there's no way of knowing and it's unfair to both.

There could be a national testing program on the college level, like a Bar Exam/AP mash up. For every major, there's a big two-day exam. And while it doens't matter for your graduation - the colleges decide who graduates. It would be a separate data point for students or employees.

So a kid could write their GPA from harvard was a 3.4 or they could write they got a 1600 (or whatever) on their chemistry major comprehensive exam. And an Ohio State kid would also have the opportunity to also get a 1600.

We already have the LSAT, MCAT, and GRE, including GRE subject tests. Plus plenty of professions require a test.

I agree with those saying that setting grade quotas makes no sense. How do you know that each class with have 20% (& only 20%) who are “exceptional”? If most of the class isn’t earning a decent grade, that’s on the professor. The goal should be learning, not artificial constraints to turn everything into a cut throat competition.

Strongly disagree. This takes all responsibility away from the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. How entitled you people could be!

Academically Harvard students are not better than Hopkins’ students. Most likely Hopkins’ students are smarter as a whole. Why Harvard can’t have a curved grading while this is the norm at Hopkins. This is wild.

I have taught at Harvard and Hopkins. Hopkins students work harder but Harvard students can handle slightly more abstraction. Depending on the subject, this extra layer of abstraction may be anything from a "nice to have" to a "qualitative edge."