Harvard Faculty Approves Cap

[Anonymous]

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

Agree with this. Things will shift now so that 80% will get A-s instead of As.

[Anonymous]

What a cop-out way of adding rigor back.

[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.

Most of my exams at a well known stem institution were solvable and difficult, but there was always a decent amount of students who got near perfect scores.

I don’t get this popular narrative of impossible to solve questions- if anything, that IS grade inflation, because the professor will have to give you pity points for any attempt. This doesn’t sound like STEM majors, but maybe some other schools just have very poor pedagogical practices.

[Anonymous]

I can’t wait for this era to end. A bunch of professors jacking themselves off about how intellectual they are and how they cannot possibly handle this generation. If you’re a tenured professor (as most of these professors are in op-Ed’s and making big decisions) talk to your chair and enact the standards you want to see. The chair should be able to work with admin so you can make your classes as demonically difficult as you desire.

On the other hand, if the goal is actual education, we should look towards more feedback and less reliance on grades. We’ve spent decades trying to quantify what an A or B or C is, and it has done almost nothing for us. Nonetheless, the qualitative nature of A as “Excellent” has stuck around, so people have some conception of why these qualitative descriptions are useful. Instead of spelling out every way to get an A in your course with insanely detailed rubrics, eschew from that model of cattle-like education. Actually connect with your students and the evaluations and scores will come naturally.

[Anonymous]

I find the STEM folks are heavily interested in categorizing and forcing everyone into certain castes until you mention the idea of ending their practice of curving scores. How many incompetent students are getting by with B scores or even A-, because their peers are just as incompetent. Give the students their raw grade and we’ll see how long people keep encouraging grade deflation.

[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.

This is how the top UCs do it. They go farther in limiting much further down than a straight A. It has advantages and disadvantages.

The disadvantage is that your performance is really dependent on whether your classmates do better or worse than you. It creates as stress for students because they can’t always predict where they will fall. My DS freaked out when he got a 69 on a midterm, almost dropped the class but ended up with an A. He did every practice problem, lived in his TAs office and ended up near the top. His friend just wanted to pass, thought she failed, wouldn’t look at her final grades and was so convinced that she failed she tried to register/add the course the following semester. She was shocked when she couldn’t register for the course because she had earned a B- in the course. The flip side can occur with deflationary curves. It’s not uncommon for a kid going into a final with an A or B and fail the course or see their final grade drop one or two letters due to a deflationary curves.

At some schools, the curve incentivizes and rewards intense cheating. Curve killers are a well known term and some groups take it to a professional level. Sabotaging occurs in labs, kids can’t trust members of their study groups and it creates a toxic environment. Kids who could have succeeded in their chosen field see their pathway to that career close as they get kicked out of their major. Suicides occur.

[Anonymous]

Really disappointed that Harvard chose this approach to solve grade inflation. I think many of us agree that students who don't deserve A shouldn't get A's.

Instead of having admin and professors step up to solve the problem of rigor and mastery in the class, they solve this problem with an uncreative broad stroke that pit students against students, and discourage collaboration. What a terrible way to encouraging students to take risks and test their curiosity.

I don't have a kid at Harvard, so no skin the in the game here.

[Anonymous]

The issue for most of these colleges is size.

DS’s lac has eliminated a lot of the problems talked about here. Curves are eliminated for the most part and if students do very poorly on an exam as a cohort, they have to meet 1-on-1 for corrections and then take a harder retake exam. Instead of freaking out about Ai and cheating, homework has become often supplementary to the course, and in person exams take focus as most of the course grade; these exams are oral. DS’s professor got sick of just evaluating problem sets, so now they do a weekly problem presentation where a student is assigned a graduate quantum mechanics problem and they’re expected to present the background concepts to start the problem, their solution to the question, and if it’s a lab-based problem, how they’d improve it. Classmates evaluate their explanation and professor evaluates accuracy and their ability to navigate complex content. You can’t do that in a class of 100 students.

[Anonymous]

One thing noteworthy is that 70% faculty members voted YES to cap As, and rejected opt-out courses. The vast majority of faculty felt that this is what needs to be done!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing noteworthy is that 70% faculty members voted YES to cap As, and rejected opt-out courses. The vast majority of faculty felt that this is what needs to be done!

Meh just means 70% voted in favor. Needs to be done is very dramatic phrasing. It’s a pretty lazy solution to a problem they’ve been studying for decades. To me, this is an indictment on who Harvard is bringing in for faculty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 20 percent plus 4 cap on flat As has passed. Notably there is no cap on the grade of A minus. Goes into effect fall of 2027 for a three year pilot.

This brings Harvard back to the grading metric of the early 1990s.

Where are all the dcum moms who said this would never pass at Harvard?

Next is Yale.

[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.

It is harder to get into Harvard now but that does not mean the ability of students to do academically rigorous work is higher.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 20 percent plus 4 cap on flat As has passed. Notably there is no cap on the grade of A minus. Goes into effect fall of 2027 for a three year pilot.

This brings Harvard back to the grading metric of the early 1990s.

Where are all the dcum moms who said this would never pass at Harvard?

Next is Yale.

Yale is going to chart its own waters. It said it was keeping a close eye on Harvard and Princeton, but Princeton has already done the grade deflation thing, and they’re not going back. Hopefully, Yale faculty are smarter than Harvard and can figure out a rigorous solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for this era to end. A bunch of professors jacking themselves off about how intellectual they are and how they cannot possibly handle this generation. If you’re a tenured professor (as most of these professors are in op-Ed’s and making big decisions) talk to your chair and enact the standards you want to see. The chair should be able to work with admin so you can make your classes as demonically difficult as you desire.

On the other hand, if the goal is actual education, we should look towards more feedback and less reliance on grades. We’ve spent decades trying to quantify what an A or B or C is, and it has done almost nothing for us. Nonetheless, the qualitative nature of A as “Excellent” has stuck around, so people have some conception of why these qualitative descriptions are useful. Instead of spelling out every way to get an A in your course with insanely detailed rubrics, eschew from that model of cattle-like education. Actually connect with your students and the evaluations and scores will come naturally.

That's not what they are saying. They are saying that there is such a disparity of needs in the class (due to TO and woke stuff) that they cannot effectively teach. That's fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 20 percent plus 4 cap on flat As has passed. Notably there is no cap on the grade of A minus. Goes into effect fall of 2027 for a three year pilot.

This brings Harvard back to the grading metric of the early 1990s.

Where are all the dcum moms who said this would never pass at Harvard?

Next is Yale.

Yale is going to chart its own waters. It said it was keeping a close eye on Harvard and Princeton, but Princeton has already done the grade deflation thing, and they’re not going back. Hopefully, Yale faculty are smarter than Harvard and can figure out a rigorous solution.

Wait for a few more days and you will find out. A big slap on your face.