Harvard Faculty Approves Cap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So they're going to have to make tests harder and then grade on a curve.

For the most part, they are already hard. They merely change the curve. If you saw a typical harvard or other ivy physics or math or chem test versus that of the "same course" at an above average T40-75 school, you would understand the vast difference. Those who have taught at both schools and schools in between understand the differences in how the "same" course material has to be taught and tested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that's stupid for quantitative courses, where more than 20% of the students can get everything numerically correct on their exams.

But I'm sure they'll figure it out.

I do not think you understand how quantitative exams work at ivy/elites: the problems are complex, sometimes a few will be unsolveable just to put them out there in case. Most professors enjoy putting a few problems or even half the exam that are esoteric, phd and post doc level research problems. They do it on p-sets too. This applies to calc, O-chem, physics, quantum, thermo, etc. At the highest levels there are not clear cut answers, that is why there are professors who spend their lives studying these fields. The unknowns are past the edges of current knowledge.
That is what makes attending this level of school so exciting for the brightest college students (yet also frustrating as such students were used to getting easy A+ in high school, 800 on the math SAT no big deal).
They do not expect some problems to be solved. The medians on exams for these courses are 60-75% correct out of 100, and the professors will admit readily that there is no way to get them all right. Occasionally some professors are hell bent on making the median in the 40s or 50s but they still curve it to an A- or B+ in the end.
Even on tests with median around 70, the high-scorer often gets an 85, 87, or maybe 92 out of 100. Once these students understand how college courses work, they are thrilled if they occasionally get the highest or even second or third highest score, their peers then want to be in their study groups. Others are thrilled to merely be around the median score.
Then the results are placed on a curve with a median of A or A- or B+ depending on the school. 30 years ago the medians would be B or B-. Harvard is now saying that a max of 20% or so can get a straight A(4.0), whereas in many upper levels especially, even quantitative classes, have been giving 30-40% flat A.

Thank you. This is accurate.

[Anonymous]

step in right direction, but still too inflated if the rest of the class gets an A-.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically just a technicality since most of the class can then just get A-s. Ridiculous.

I really think that's more or less how it is now. I don't think this is some kind of significant change. An A really hard to get, even now, and an a minus is not as hard. In other words, an A minus is what we would have called a B. I think it's been this way for a while and everyone knows it.

60 percent were getting flat As two years ago. 25 percent getting flat As in early 1990s.

Okay but I know kids that went to Harvard 35 years ago that would never get in there right now. The quality of students at Harvard is higher now that it was in the '90s.

Opposite for me. Today’s students are grinders; yesterday’s were truly gifted.

Both have merit of course, but grinders more common than the innate geniuses IMO (I’m neither FWIW).

Baloney. There are plenty of true geniuses at top schools, likely more than prior years because in the past it was not common for true geniuses attending high school in the south or in flyover country (or international geniuses) to try for the ivies or MIT or Stanford. Now these schools are more accessible and more affordable for the vast majority of the US population, and everyone knows about them. People did not go across the country to college nearly as much in the 80s and 90s.
There are more "grinders" for sure but that is because right below the true genius group the top college is filled with mostly unhooked 98-99%ile kids who got in by working hard in addition to being quite smart. Below that are piles of diamond in the rough types who might be 98-99%ile or might not be but are from rural or FGLI families and also worked hard to get there. The middle of the pack at these schools used to be a bunch of northeast private school white males who were bright, could be 95-99%ile, but did not have to grind because their high school was a ticket and there was a higher % of their high schools who were admitted to ivies. They merely had to be top half of their high school. Now, even the most prestigious boarding schools do not send unhooked barely top half students to ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that's stupid for quantitative courses, where more than 20% of the students can get everything numerically correct on their exams.

But I'm sure they'll figure it out.

How do they handle this. If two kids get the exact same score on the math test, how do they decide who gets the A and who gets the A minus?

Two students will not get the same score on every test. Tests will also need to also allow explanation of thinking, and not focused on "an answer."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that's stupid for quantitative courses, where more than 20% of the students can get everything numerically correct on their exams.

But I'm sure they'll figure it out.

I do not think you understand how quantitative exams work at ivy/elites: the problems are complex, sometimes a few will be unsolveable just to put them out there in case. Most professors enjoy putting a few problems or even half the exam that are esoteric, phd and post doc level research problems. They do it on p-sets too. This applies to calc, O-chem, physics, quantum, thermo, etc. At the highest levels there are not clear cut answers, that is why there are professors who spend their lives studying these fields. The unknowns are past the edges of current knowledge.
That is what makes attending this level of school so exciting for the brightest college students (yet also frustrating as such students were used to getting easy A+ in high school, 800 on the math SAT no big deal).
They do not expect some problems to be solved. The medians on exams for these courses are 60-75% correct out of 100, and the professors will admit readily that there is no way to get them all right. Occasionally some professors are hell bent on making the median in the 40s or 50s but they still curve it to an A- or B+ in the end.
Even on tests with median around 70, the high-scorer often gets an 85, 87, or maybe 92 out of 100. Once these students understand how college courses work, they are thrilled if they occasionally get the highest or even second or third highest score, their peers then want to be in their study groups. Others are thrilled to merely be around the median score.
Then the results are placed on a curve with a median of A or A- or B+ depending on the school. 30 years ago the medians would be B or B-. Harvard is now saying that a max of 20% or so can get a straight A(4.0), whereas in many upper levels especially, even quantitative classes, have been giving 30-40% flat A.

Lol, there are no open problems in math 1a exams, or even math 55 exams for that matter. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that's stupid for quantitative courses, where more than 20% of the students can get everything numerically correct on their exams.

But I'm sure they'll figure it out.

How do they handle this. If two kids get the exact same score on the math test, how do they decide who gets the A and who gets the A minus?

It's a max so they both get A- if there isn't room for both to get A's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically just a technicality since most of the class can then just get A-s. Ridiculous.

I really think that's more or less how it is now. I don't think this is some kind of significant change. An A really hard to get, even now, and an a minus is not as hard. In other words, an A minus is what we would have called a B. I think it's been this way for a while and everyone knows it.

60 percent were getting flat As two years ago. 25 percent getting flat As in early 1990s.

Okay but I know kids that went to Harvard 35 years ago that would never get in there right now. The quality of students at Harvard is higher now that it was in the '90s.

No, the number of applications isn't higher. There has always been more than enough applicants at the necessary quality level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically just a technicality since most of the class can then just get A-s. Ridiculous.

I really think that's more or less how it is now. I don't think this is some kind of significant change. An A really hard to get, even now, and an a minus is not as hard. In other words, an A minus is what we would have called a B. I think it's been this way for a while and everyone knows it.

60 percent were getting flat As two years ago. 25 percent getting flat As in early 1990s.

Okay but I know kids that went to Harvard 35 years ago that would never get in there right now. The quality of students at Harvard is higher now that it was in the '90s.

No, the number of applications isn't higher. There has always been more than enough applicants at the necessary quality level.

No. One of the two fools from my high school that went off to Harvard would not be going there now. They now have their pick of someone much more hard-working, intelligent and accomplished. They now can get a pro level athlete or an award-winning writer from my high school.... and they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically just a technicality since most of the class can then just get A-s. Ridiculous.

I really think that's more or less how it is now. I don't think this is some kind of significant change. An A really hard to get, even now, and an a minus is not as hard. In other words, an A minus is what we would have called a B. I think it's been this way for a while and everyone knows it.

60 percent were getting flat As two years ago. 25 percent getting flat As in early 1990s.

Okay but I know kids that went to Harvard 35 years ago that would never get in there right now. The quality of students at Harvard is higher now that it was in the '90s.

Opposite for me. Today’s students are grinders; yesterday’s were truly gifted.

Both have merit of course, but grinders more common than the innate geniuses IMO (I’m neither FWIW).

Baloney. There are plenty of true geniuses at top schools, likely more than prior years because in the past it was not common for true geniuses attending high school in the south or in flyover country (or international geniuses) to try for the ivies or MIT or Stanford. Now these schools are more accessible and more affordable for the vast majority of the US population, and everyone knows about them. People did not go across the country to college nearly as much in the 80s and 90s.
There are more "grinders" for sure but that is because right below the true genius group the top college is filled with mostly unhooked 98-99%ile kids who got in by working hard in addition to being quite smart. Below that are piles of diamond in the rough types who might be 98-99%ile or might not be but are from rural or FGLI families and also worked hard to get there. The middle of the pack at these schools used to be a bunch of northeast private school white males who were bright, could be 95-99%ile, but did not have to grind because their high school was a ticket and there was a higher % of their high schools who were admitted to ivies. They merely had to be top half of their high school. Now, even the most prestigious boarding schools do not send unhooked barely top half students to ivies.

PP. Maybe? But if we assume (a) that the proportion of geniuses is relatively constant, while the population of grinders has increased due to college prep strategizing (likely), (b) that it’s become increasingly difficult for admissions to differentiate between the two due to SAT prep (now common, then uncommon), etc., then you are likely to end up with a higher proportion of grinders to geniuses than in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they're going to have to make tests harder and then grade on a curve.

For the most part, they are already hard. They merely change the curve. If you saw a typical harvard or other ivy physics or math or chem test versus that of the "same course" at an above average T40-75 school, you would understand the vast difference. Those who have taught at both schools and schools in between understand the differences in how the "same" course material has to be taught and tested.

Many of the Ivy's and other schools use teaching assistants to teach... quality varies by class and professor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically just a technicality since most of the class can then just get A-s. Ridiculous.

I really think that's more or less how it is now. I don't think this is some kind of significant change. An A really hard to get, even now, and an a minus is not as hard. In other words, an A minus is what we would have called a B. I think it's been this way for a while and everyone knows it.

60 percent were getting flat As two years ago. 25 percent getting flat As in early 1990s.

Okay but I know kids that went to Harvard 35 years ago that would never get in there right now. The quality of students at Harvard is higher now that it was in the '90s.

Opposite for me. Today’s students are grinders; yesterday’s were truly gifted.

Both have merit of course, but grinders more common than the innate geniuses IMO (I’m neither FWIW).

Baloney. There are plenty of true geniuses at top schools, likely more than prior years because in the past it was not common for true geniuses attending high school in the south or in flyover country (or international geniuses) to try for the ivies or MIT or Stanford. Now these schools are more accessible and more affordable for the vast majority of the US population, and everyone knows about them. People did not go across the country to college nearly as much in the 80s and 90s.
There are more "grinders" for sure but that is because right below the true genius group the top college is filled with mostly unhooked 98-99%ile kids who got in by working hard in addition to being quite smart. Below that are piles of diamond in the rough types who might be 98-99%ile or might not be but are from rural or FGLI families and also worked hard to get there. The middle of the pack at these schools used to be a bunch of northeast private school white males who were bright, could be 95-99%ile, but did not have to grind because their high school was a ticket and there was a higher % of their high schools who were admitted to ivies. They merely had to be top half of their high school. Now, even the most prestigious boarding schools do not send unhooked barely top half students to ivies.

PP. Maybe? But if we assume (a) that the proportion of geniuses is relatively constant, while the population of grinders has increased due to college prep strategizing (likely), (b) that it’s become increasingly difficult for admissions to differentiate between the two due to SAT prep (now common, then uncommon), etc., then you are likely to end up with a higher proportion of grinders to geniuses than in the past.

The denominator has changed -- Harvard now gets far more applications from lower income kids, international kids, and kids who live outside the east coast. So if your assumption is genius is equally distributed, then far more geniuses are applying now.

[Anonymous]

princeton tried this and repealed it after it was shown to be an abject failure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well that's stupid for quantitative courses, where more than 20% of the students can get everything numerically correct on their exams.

But I'm sure they'll figure it out.

I agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Half of Harvard undergrads are valedictorian or salutatorian of their classes. But sure, let's cap As artificially at 20% with a curve even though they've learned the material.