Harvard Report on Impacts of Grade Inflation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Harvard really cared they’d focus more on academic strength in admissions instead of recruiting fencers and kids who started their own non-profits. Also I hate how they always imply that the lowered standards are from the poor kids and not wealthy athletes who are likely very bright but do have lower average scores.
But I don’t think Harvard cares - I think they like it just the way it is. If they wanted to change this they could force a grading curve with one memo.

Harvard doesn't care, they have never cared because they have never been about peak academics at the undergraduate level. People on this thread are constantly tryin g to make them into something that they have no interest in being. They have always been about a high academic baseline plus other characteristics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

Mine goes to one of those as well and I have to "not really".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At our private school that doesn't have grade inflation, ivies mostly look at the gpa as a number and don't put much weight on rigor. Kids game the system by choosing the non-rigor course to get their gpa as high as possible. The ivy admits are not nearly as smart as kids who go to MIT, Georgia Tech, CMU, JHU.

Flat out not true. That is some serious copium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

Chicago has legacy preference, and lots of rich private school kids.

Yes every top school has lots of rich kids from private schools, and most give a legacy boost. Yet somehow only the rigorous universities as named above (and there are a few others) are derided here as being full of “strivers,” as if actually having to work hard at college is the dreaded mark of the bourgeoisie.

A little bit of striver copium happening today....sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

Chicago has legacy preference, and lots of rich private school kids.

Yes every top school has lots of rich kids from private schools, and most give a legacy boost. Yet somehow only the rigorous universities as named above (and there are a few others) are derided here as being full of “strivers,” as if actually having to work hard at college is the dreaded mark of the bourgeoisie.

Because they want their kids in at ivies through the side door, lacrosse or rowing, typically in combination with legacy.

Show me that you are an idiot without saying that you are an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I teach STEM at one of the notoriously hard universities mentioned in this thread, and I can confidently say that Harvard's struggles with underprepared students are not only Harvard's struggles. Rather, this has affected all universities and all of my colleagues universally feel the struggle. As a result, we have had to redesign our courses, and we have become more lenient, whether that is a philosophy we want to adopt or not. Mostly, we feel it is our responsibility to help students succeed as best we can, and if that means changing previously difficult content to make it more manageable to the majority of the class, that is what we have to do.

And before the people of DCUM jump to the conclusion that this watering down is all due to DEI, or URM, or FGLI, I have faced similar struggles with students who are advantaged in every way and who come in with glowing grades, awards, and national merit recognitions, etc. I honestly believe that some factor has hurt attention spans almost universally among our young people. As the parent of a high schooler, what I observe among my college students has influenced the way I parent, and I am really invested in reducing distractions, and encouraging my teen to take on challenges that involve deep work and which do not guarantee success.

The pernicious effects of cell phones and social media is rewiring brains and causing a need to develop new teaching strategies to get the most out of these still incredibly talented kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the tangible, long term negative affects of more kids getting As? Are these kids unable to find jobs? Are they unable to perform at work if they do find jobs?

Yes, my kid at BB IB says they are highly skeptical or do not hire students graduating/graduated from 2022 to 2026 due to noticeable decline in qualifications/skill set of applicants from those years.

Not likely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the tangible, long term negative affects of more kids getting As? Are these kids unable to find jobs? Are they unable to perform at work if they do find jobs?

Dumbing down is not good.

But what are the alternatives?

Stricter grading leads to more dropouts and more suicides.

Stricter grading also makes it harder for students to get internships and jobs, and harder for them to get into law school and med school.

Nobody likes grade inflation but nobody likes suicide, drop outs, or unemployed/underemployed alums, either.

If you don't like grades then don't give grades. Brown has a large pass-fail option.

Harvard of all places can lead a charge against grades, or in favor of national/global standardized skill certification exams separate from course grades.

[Anonymous]

COVID and cellphones.

This isn't a Harvard problem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harvard really cared they’d focus more on academic strength in admissions instead of recruiting fencers and kids who started their own non-profits. Also I hate how they always imply that the lowered standards are from the poor kids and not wealthy athletes who are likely very bright but do have lower average scores.
But I don’t think Harvard cares - I think they like it just the way it is. If they wanted to change this they could force a grading curve with one memo.

Harvard doesn't care, they have never cared because they have never been about peak academics at the undergraduate level. People on this thread are constantly tryin g to make them into something that they have no interest in being. They have always been about a high academic baseline plus other characteristics.

Harvard has for many decades been a mix of peak academics and special talent and leadership and decent sports and peak money. " Each student specializes in one area. "One-quarter have to be happy to be in the bottom quarter"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the tangible, long term negative affects of more kids getting As? Are these kids unable to find jobs? Are they unable to perform at work if they do find jobs?

Dumbing down is not good.

But what are the alternatives?

Stricter grading leads to more dropouts and more suicides.

Stricter grading also makes it harder for students to get internships and jobs, and harder for them to get into law school and med school.

Nobody likes grade inflation but nobody likes suicide, drop outs, or unemployed/underemployed alums, either.

Number of jobs and seats at law school and med school stay the same, and they will be filled with qualified students.

Under qualified students should not be admitted in the first place and should get out if not at the right place.

That's better for the whole country in the long run.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harvard really cared they’d focus more on academic strength in admissions instead of recruiting fencers and kids who started their own non-profits. Also I hate how they always imply that the lowered standards are from the poor kids and not wealthy athletes who are likely very bright but do have lower average scores.
But I don’t think Harvard cares - I think they like it just the way it is. If they wanted to change this they could force a grading curve with one memo.

Harvard doesn't care, they have never cared because they have never been about peak academics at the undergraduate level. People on this thread are constantly tryin g to make them into something that they have no interest in being. They have always been about a high academic baseline plus other characteristics.

Completely false. What an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the tangible, long term negative affects of more kids getting As? Are these kids unable to find jobs? Are they unable to perform at work if they do find jobs?

Yes, my kid at BB IB says they are highly skeptical or do not hire students graduating/graduated from 2022 to 2026 due to noticeable decline in qualifications/skill set of applicants from those years.

Not likely

I guess it depends on the section/unit but that is the policy for the section he is at. He said his section had hard time hiring since even many MIT/Princeton grads (from the years mentioned) display noticeable decline and cannot even pass the initial skills tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

Mine goes to one of those as well and I have to "not really".

Chicago. Sure.

[Anonymous]

Let's face it. Students don't go to HYP because the education is any different than other good schools. They go there because of connections and name recognition, although even these reasons are decreasing in importance.