Rigor and Absences: New Harvard Policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Harvard is a corporation that is largely indifferent to its UGs. It sells its coveted brand name stamped on a diploma, and obviously plenty of parents are willing to pay big money for that. The huge lecture classes are not going anywhere, nor are the writing seminars taught by adjuncts. The big classes do give grad students valuable teaching experience though. Depending on the program, Harvard is a great place to go for grad academics, not so much undergrad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Harvard is a corporation that is largely indifferent to its UGs. It sells its coveted brand name stamped on a diploma, and obviously plenty of parents are willing to pay big money for that. The huge lecture classes are not going anywhere, nor are the writing seminars taught by adjuncts. The big classes do give grad students valuable teaching experience though. Depending on the program, Harvard is a great place to go for grad academics, not so much undergrad.

But, as you've indicated, that's not why most attend Harvard. Indicated by the evident number of unserious students necessitating this new policy.

[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:

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?

Not in other than small groups.

[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:

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?

Not in other than small groups.

I think the new dining hall will have flex spaces for student groups. And aren't there hallway common rooms in a number of dorms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of ivy kids are rich. Straight up. Financial aid is provided for those with need, but others are full pay.

So, rich kids from rich families being what they are, some are going to take time off to extend vacations or do things when they suit them. Academically, they'll usually be fine. But it's very disruptive. Obviously, the not-rich kids can't do this, and they largely worked hard to get there, so they're not skipping class or returning late from break because they're still in Zermatt or something. Requiring attendance was seen as anti-equity just a few years ago because people have obligations and disabilities that are invisible, but it can certainly go the other way. But as the rich vs. poor divide increases there's a lot more "above the rules" type behavior in academia.

This is of course a huge generalization, but ask me what it's based on.

It's based on the ideology that practically everything in the world can be explained by the "rich" being bad people. you will fit in great in the Ivy league!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of ivy kids are rich. Straight up. Financial aid is provided for those with need, but others are full pay.

So, rich kids from rich families being what they are, some are going to take time off to extend vacations or do things when they suit them. Academically, they'll usually be fine. But it's very disruptive. Obviously, the not-rich kids can't do this, and they largely worked hard to get there, so they're not skipping class or returning late from break because they're still in Zermatt or something. Requiring attendance was seen as anti-equity just a few years ago because people have obligations and disabilities that are invisible, but it can certainly go the other way. But as the rich vs. poor divide increases there's a lot more "above the rules" type behavior in academia.

This is of course a huge generalization, but ask me what it's based on.

It's based on the ideology that practically everything in the world can be explained by the "rich" being bad people. you will fit in great in the Ivy league!

I mean I hate the ideology too, but this really has nothing to do with it. You think someone who’s getting 90k basically subsidized per year is often taking their education for granted? It’s those who don’t care about the price of their education who skip out and don’t attend. That’s not saying all rich students don’t care, but some really don’t, they have a cushiony social safety net

[Anonymous]

Dumb decision after dumb decision

[Anonymous]

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.

+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.

Shut up Janet, nobody cares about George Glass!