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:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Students nowadays are definitely not smarter. My partner went to HYP in the 90s and he was reading 500-700 pages a week and nowadays students struggle to read a book. Students have more tools and resources nowadays and can solve problems better, but their stamina and critical thinking are not as strong as they were a generation ago.

Rather than imposing an artificial scale change, wouldn’t it make more sense for faculty to go back to assigning large readings? I really don’t understand why they have moved away from this. This would be better academically than the lazy way of just putting a 20% cap on a class.

LOL. You would be shocked to find that even HYP kids these days could never do large readings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Look at AMC or f=ma exam from the 90s vs today, the competition is on a whole 'nother level.

People specialize more fiercely today, and starting at younger and younger ages. This is evident in competitions for math, science, sports, music, chess, etc. The result is some really amazing competitors in these domains, but I don't think that means people are becoming overall more intelligent. If anything, I fear we may be losing the generalists who can think creatively and make interesting connections between domains. Some of these kids are never have time to think about random things freely, read broadly, or discover their own intellectual passions because they are busy spending almost all their free time at ballet, soccer, skating lessons, or whatever their parents signed them up for since age 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

On what basis are you saying this? According to the PISA, students today are definitely NOT as capable and scores are in serious decline. Professors everywhere are complaining about unprepared students. Are you saying students today are smarter based on SAT scores? Because if so, you should really know that they redesigned the SAT to be easier to prep (for equity reasons). This is why high SAT scores are more abundant today, not due to some massive increase in IQ. Neuroscientists have even pointed out that gen Z is less cognitively capable compared to previous generations. This has been all over the news lately.

But if by "more accomplished" you mean more hothoused by parents and strategically packaged by college counselors, then yeah, I am willing to agree with that.

average =/= top tier. The best students are continuously getting better as information and material becomes easier to access and act upon at younger and younger ages.

See my post right above about early specialization. I don't think this equals more intelligent.

[Anonymous]

This will unravel once they see the disparate impact of their grading policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Students nowadays are definitely not smarter. My partner went to HYP in the 90s and he was reading 500-700 pages a week and nowadays students struggle to read a book. Students have more tools and resources nowadays and can solve problems better, but their stamina and critical thinking are not as strong as they were a generation ago.

Rather than imposing an artificial scale change, wouldn’t it make more sense for faculty to go back to assigning large readings? I really don’t understand why they have moved away from this. This would be better academically than the lazy way of just putting a 20% cap on a class.

LOL. You would be shocked to find that even HYP kids these days could never do large readings.

My son is at Harvard and had to read a book a week for a philosophy class, approx 600-700 pages. I agree that in general kids don’t have the stamina to read but there are classes requiring it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Students nowadays are definitely not smarter. My partner went to HYP in the 90s and he was reading 500-700 pages a week and nowadays students struggle to read a book. Students have more tools and resources nowadays and can solve problems better, but their stamina and critical thinking are not as strong as they were a generation ago.

Rather than imposing an artificial scale change, wouldn’t it make more sense for faculty to go back to assigning large readings? I really don’t understand why they have moved away from this. This would be better academically than the lazy way of just putting a 20% cap on a class.

LOL. You would be shocked to find that even HYP kids these days could never do large readings.

Yes, due to DEI and test optional. Fortunately, we are moving away from that disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Students nowadays are definitely not smarter. My partner went to HYP in the 90s and he was reading 500-700 pages a week and nowadays students struggle to read a book. Students have more tools and resources nowadays and can solve problems better, but their stamina and critical thinking are not as strong as they were a generation ago.

Rather than imposing an artificial scale change, wouldn’t it make more sense for faculty to go back to assigning large readings? I really don’t understand why they have moved away from this. This would be better academically than the lazy way of just putting a 20% cap on a class.

LOL. You would be shocked to find that even HYP kids these days could never do large readings.

Yes, due to DEI and test optional. Fortunately, we are moving away from that disaster.

Even though I don't agree with test optional policies, there are clearly declines in student ability that have nothing to do with DEI or test optional. I am a prof and my white and asian students are not as capable as they used to be. There may be many national merit finalists among them, but their conceptual reasoning and attention span are weak compared to the cohort 10 years ago. And cheating is on the rise as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Students nowadays are definitely not smarter. My partner went to HYP in the 90s and he was reading 500-700 pages a week and nowadays students struggle to read a book. Students have more tools and resources nowadays and can solve problems better, but their stamina and critical thinking are not as strong as they were a generation ago.

Rather than imposing an artificial scale change, wouldn’t it make more sense for faculty to go back to assigning large readings? I really don’t understand why they have moved away from this. This would be better academically than the lazy way of just putting a 20% cap on a class.

LOL. You would be shocked to find that even HYP kids these days could never do large readings.

Yes, due to DEI and test optional. Fortunately, we are moving away from that disaster.

Even though I don't agree with test optional policies, there are clearly declines in student ability that have nothing to do with DEI or test optional. I am a prof and my white and asian students are not as capable as they used to be. There may be many national merit finalists among them, but their conceptual reasoning and attention span are weak compared to the cohort 10 years ago. And cheating is on the rise as well.

Is it the special needs like 40% at Stanford causing this?

[Anonymous]

I'm no Harvard grad but capping As is not a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Harvard should look at other colleges with a curve, such as NYU Stern...do they want that pressure cooker environment. I dont like grade inflation but a strict, narrow curve has its own problems

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Students nowadays are definitely not smarter. My partner went to HYP in the 90s and he was reading 500-700 pages a week and nowadays students struggle to read a book. Students have more tools and resources nowadays and can solve problems better, but their stamina and critical thinking are not as strong as they were a generation ago.

Rather than imposing an artificial scale change, wouldn’t it make more sense for faculty to go back to assigning large readings? I really don’t understand why they have moved away from this. This would be better academically than the lazy way of just putting a 20% cap on a class.

LOL. You would be shocked to find that even HYP kids these days could never do large readings.

Students tend to arise to the challenge you give them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Students nowadays are definitely not smarter. My partner went to HYP in the 90s and he was reading 500-700 pages a week and nowadays students struggle to read a book. Students have more tools and resources nowadays and can solve problems better, but their stamina and critical thinking are not as strong as they were a generation ago.

Rather than imposing an artificial scale change, wouldn’t it make more sense for faculty to go back to assigning large readings? I really don’t understand why they have moved away from this. This would be better academically than the lazy way of just putting a 20% cap on a class.

LOL. You would be shocked to find that even HYP kids these days could never do large readings.

Wrong: https://directedstudies.yale.edu/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Look at AMC or f=ma exam from the 90s vs today, the competition is on a whole 'nother level.

People specialize more fiercely today, and starting at younger and younger ages. This is evident in competitions for math, science, sports, music, chess, etc. The result is some really amazing competitors in these domains, but I don't think that means people are becoming overall more intelligent. If anything, I fear we may be losing the generalists who can think creatively and make interesting connections between domains. Some of these kids are never have time to think about random things freely, read broadly, or discover their own intellectual passions because they are busy spending almost all their free time at ballet, soccer, skating lessons, or whatever their parents signed them up for since age 3.

Talk about "having [your] head in the sand". Now let's see you bring your evidence for this new claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Look at AMC or f=ma exam from the 90s vs today, the competition is on a whole 'nother level.

People specialize more fiercely today, and starting at younger and younger ages. This is evident in competitions for math, science, sports, music, chess, etc. The result is some really amazing competitors in these domains, but I don't think that means people are becoming overall more intelligent. If anything, I fear we may be losing the generalists who can think creatively and make interesting connections between domains. Some of these kids are never have time to think about random things freely, read broadly, or discover their own intellectual passions because they are busy spending almost all their free time at ballet, soccer, skating lessons, or whatever their parents signed them up for since age 3.

It's been a while to see such an excellent response in DCUM. Thank you. I have the same fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

On what basis are you saying this? According to the PISA, students today are definitely NOT as capable and scores are in serious decline. Professors everywhere are complaining about unprepared students. Are you saying students today are smarter based on SAT scores? Because if so, you should really know that they redesigned the SAT to be easier to prep (for equity reasons). This is why high SAT scores are more abundant today, not due to some massive increase in IQ. Neuroscientists have even pointed out that gen Z is less cognitively capable compared to previous generations. This has been all over the news lately.

But if by "more accomplished" you mean more hothoused by parents and strategically packaged by college counselors, then yeah, I am willing to agree with that.

I went to Stuyvesant with some really smart kids. But all you needed was a high GPA, stellar SAT scores and normal ECs to get into pretty much any school.
My kid went to HYPSM from TJ pre-COVID and he was way smarter and harder working than I ever was. His friends in high school and in college were the same.\

I don't know how much of this is engineered but my kid was not engineered, just trying to keep up with the Joneses. It was clear in 9th grade that the resumes were insane. A kid was a gold medal winner at the international math olympiad, a few regeneron semifinalists, people helping entire school systems in third world countries, just insane.

this just makes them sound like they were super busy, not necessarily smarter. How mentally and emotionally healthy can it be to never have any downtime/unstructured time, but always have to be doing something to pad that resume? And for what, to become a doctor “provider” that’s going to be on I’m saying this as a someone with Ivy undergrad and grad degrees. The amount of activities that kids chasing top schools nowadays do sounds exhausting and a recipe for burnout. i knew the guy who won second place in