Rigor and Absences: New Harvard Policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual link: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/12/4/fas-leaves-of-absence-entrepreneurs-athletes/

This is for optics and a few egotistical professors who like having a crowd. Students watched recorded lectures decades ago.

Faculty is jealous that the school admits hard working go-getters who don't have time to sit in a hall with 300 students to hear something they already have on YouTube.

The policy says that class is 3hd lecture and 9hr homework. Missing 2 weeks of class doesn't mean missing homework. If there was actually an academic problem, it would show up in grades, and the kids would be on leave for a academic probation, not for hurting admin's feelings.

At top worldwide Universities, as long as you pass your final exam/paper, you can do whatever you want all semester. Student aren't children.

A) that's absurd. Don't have time? Wtf are they doing, curing cancer? B) Attendance isn't taken in huge lecture classes. This refers to the section meetings where the teaching actually happens.

They’re managing the totally legit nonprofits they started all by themselves in junior year of high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual link: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/12/4/fas-leaves-of-absence-entrepreneurs-athletes/

This is for optics and a few egotistical professors who like having a crowd. Students watched recorded lectures decades ago.

Faculty is jealous that the school admits hard working go-getters who don't have time to sit in a hall with 300 students to hear something they already have on YouTube.

The policy says that class is 3hd lecture and 9hr homework. Missing 2 weeks of class doesn't mean missing homework. If there was actually an academic problem, it would show up in grades, and the kids would be on leave for a academic probation, not for hurting admin's feelings.

At top worldwide Universities, as long as you pass your final exam/paper, you can do whatever you want all semester. Student aren't children.

A) that's absurd. Don't have time? Wtf are they doing, curing cancer? B) Attendance isn't taken in huge lecture classes. This refers to the section meetings where the teaching actually happens.

They’re managing the totally legit nonprofits they started all by themselves in junior year of high school.

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe that is because you do not learn anything anyway….

I hire an avg of 8 kids from t10 schools every year for the last 15 years at an IB in NYC.
I’m yet to hire one who has learn enough. None of them know anything. I could care less if they took Class A, B or C. But if I give them a very complex real world problem, can they solve it? that is all I care about. I will teach them everything else I need them to know.

Investment Banking isn’t known for solving “complex real world problems”. If kids want to do that, they go work for companies trying to create nuclear fusion energy or DNA-based computer chips.

You know…actual complex real world problems. It’s laughable that you would combine that phrase and IB in the same sentence.

So, "trying" to do something that essentially no one actually does is the only "solving" complex real world problems? OK chum. Obviously IB work is super easy and that's why all the work is done for $7/day in Bangladesh slums.

Why is your English so bad?

[Anonymous]

I can say anecdotally, professionally the caliber of graduate students I've seen coming out of Harvard is a joke. I'm not sure what is going on at the school but their reputation is not based on the now that's for sure. I wouldn't let my kid even consider applying there that's how terrible of an impression we have of these students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised there is a school who lets students miss 2 weeks of classes without a significant, valid, issue. But I’m old school and the LAC I went to took attendance and missing too many classes impacted your grade. Good for Harvard, I guess.

Participation is still a thing at my LAC alma mater, and the typical rule is you drop a letter grade if you miss two classes. Obviously there’s exceptions to the rule, but profs want you there and want to see you stumble and improve.

Two classes? That can’t be right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can say anecdotally, professionally the caliber of graduate students I've seen coming out of Harvard is a joke. I'm not sure what is going on at the school but their reputation is not based on the now that's for sure. I wouldn't let my kid even consider applying there that's how terrible of an impression we have of these students.

What’s your field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised there is a school who lets students miss 2 weeks of classes without a significant, valid, issue. But I’m old school and the LAC I went to took attendance and missing too many classes impacted your grade. Good for Harvard, I guess.

Participation is still a thing at my LAC alma mater, and the typical rule is you drop a letter grade if you miss two classes. Obviously there’s exceptions to the rule, but profs want you there and want to see you stumble and improve.

Two classes? That can’t be right

No it’s 2. Exceptions are given for interviews or sickness (basically excused absences), but LACs, unlike universities, often do not record lecture. Some profs might post lecture notes, but questions are done in class and your grade will drop not attending and answering them.

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe. I know a few law school students who showed up on the first day for the syllabus and the last day for the exam. They seemed to do well.

I’m not in the legal field at all, so mind my ignorance, but I thought the classroom was a pretty important part of law school (cold calling and such)

It's important if you want professors to like you, but the only grades I ever had were finals and papers both of which were always graded blind

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe. I know a few law school students who showed up on the first day for the syllabus and the last day for the exam. They seemed to do well.

I’m not in the legal field at all, so mind my ignorance, but I thought the classroom was a pretty important part of law school (cold calling and such)

It's important if you want professors to like you, but the only grades I ever had were finals and papers both of which were always graded blind

It's very important for recommendations, which are very important if you want to clerk or pursue legal academia. Not important for final grades.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid at another Ivy. Friends from HS that are at Harvard, “are never there”. Skiing now (break), or in Florida a lot on the fall or traveling to London. It’s definitely a thing. Most unintellectual experience of all the kids who went Ivy.

Weird.

I'm also mystified by what Harvard is doing. The number of applicants to Harvard has been declining for years. It's known as a school that is indifferent to the undergrad experience. Its undergrad students are largely hooked or Z list or wealthy. Very few are admitted for their smarts. Students glide for four years. Maybe they attend class. Maybe they don't. Employers have all noticed a significant decline in the quality of Harvard grads over the past thirty years. I guess mandating that students actually attend classes is a start to addressing the problems at Harvard undergrad. But it's pathetic that it's come to that.

I have two kids at T20 universities. Among their cohort, it was only legacies and the offspring of prominent names that applied to Harvard. The genuinely smart and accomplished kids didn't even look in Harvard's direction. It does have the reputation for being a country club school these days. I'm referring to undergrad. Grad school is different.

agree with all of this from what I've seen.
non-DMV private.
Sends 2-3 kids to harvard every year.

[Anonymous]

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.

That was not my impression of Amherst all. I got a happy nerd vibe. Kids seemed content, not grim at all.

[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.

The two statements appear to be unrelated.

That was not my impression of Amherst all. I got a happy nerd vibe. Kids seemed content, not grim at all.

Harvard seemed pretty happy, too. A mix of true nerds and future 'master of the universe' types. Agree with a PP that Harvard shoots for a mix. They want the latter because they are strategically cultivating the next generation of leaders and big donors. It's necessary to keep the corporate machine well-oiled. Harvard is very much what you make of it, from the student perspective. If courses are selected well, can be an incredibly enriching academic experience or one can coast and learn little.