Many Harvard students don’t go to class

[Anonymous]

Any college is what kids make of it. Some are there to learn. Others may be there to focus on what they want to do for careers. But most are there to be surrounded by people who think and view the world like they do. They only spend 12 hours a week in class! The rest is around people! These kids are self-motivated, highly intelligent, and capable of picking up new concepts quickly. That’s what separates them - not inflated grades or “easy” classes.

Every degree requires a certain number of credit hours, but does anyone really believe the level of classroom engagement for a chemistry or mechanical engineering major should be the same as for an economics major? Different fields and classes have different structures and workloads. A lot of students at these top university are not learning "skills" for a job.

My daughter is now a sophomore at a top university. She actually does goes to class. Some are "worth it", some not so much. Some are mandatory; others are optional. That’s just reality.

- Intro to Computer Science: 300 students in a lecture. The professor runs through 100 slides in an hour She reviews them later and attends TA sessions to really grasp the material. She’s not a CS major and had never coded before, but she’s smart enough to learn it quickly. She will definitely get an A and could probably pass an entry-level internship interview now - though she knows she’d hate doing it as a career. For kids that are more interested or already exposed, they don’t always go come to class or TA sessions and can just submit the problem sets.
- Political Science: Class time is all discussion. Tests are open book. It’s more about engagement and critical thinking than memorization.
- Economics: Her favorite. They dive into real-world applications of concepts and formulas. She reads ahead, connects ideas on her own, and thrives - not because it’s easy, but because she’s curious and driven. And if she is quizzed on the top concepts covered over the past month or so, she can definitely ace it.
- Math: It’s a flipped classroom model. She learns concepts independently before class, and in class, they review problems. If she understands those, she’ll ace the test. And she does - because she puts in the work.

The bottom line: top students succeed because they’re motivated and capable, not because the school hands out easy As.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any college is what kids make of it. Some are there to learn. Others may be there to focus on what they want to do for careers. But most are there to be surrounded by people who think and view the world like they do. They only spend 12 hours a week in class! The rest is around people! These kids are self-motivated, highly intelligent, and capable of picking up new concepts quickly. That’s what separates them - not inflated grades or “easy” classes.

Every degree requires a certain number of credit hours, but does anyone really believe the level of classroom engagement for a chemistry or mechanical engineering major should be the same as for an economics major? Different fields and classes have different structures and workloads. A lot of students at these top university are not learning "skills" for a job.

My daughter is now a sophomore at a top university. She actually does goes to class. Some are "worth it", some not so much. Some are mandatory; others are optional. That’s just reality.

- Intro to Computer Science: 300 students in a lecture. The professor runs through 100 slides in an hour She reviews them later and attends TA sessions to really grasp the material. She’s not a CS major and had never coded before, but she’s smart enough to learn it quickly. She will definitely get an A and could probably pass an entry-level internship interview now - though she knows she’d hate doing it as a career. For kids that are more interested or already exposed, they don’t always go come to class or TA sessions and can just submit the problem sets.
- Political Science: Class time is all discussion. Tests are open book. It’s more about engagement and critical thinking than memorization.
- Economics: Her favorite. They dive into real-world applications of concepts and formulas. She reads ahead, connects ideas on her own, and thrives - not because it’s easy, but because she’s curious and driven. And if she is quizzed on the top concepts covered over the past month or so, she can definitely ace it.
- Math: It’s a flipped classroom model. She learns concepts independently before class, and in class, they review problems. If she understands those, she’ll ace the test. And she does - because she puts in the work.

The bottom line: top students succeed because they’re motivated and capable, not because the school hands out easy As.

I sure hope medical school admissions people don't think this way. I want my doctors to know their shit at a deep level. I don't want students who think they can get away with superficial instead of sustained attention to material because they believe they can "pick things up quickly." I don't want people who got A's in inflated classes and then spent a lot of time schmoozing with others to diagnose me.

And if I am to take Econ research seriously in the future, the same applies to students of economics. I'm just not that impressed if you have only engaged in your field's materials only superficially. I don't care how smart you are.

Nobody is saying that classwork is the only thing that matters. But the emphasis is drifting way too far from mastery of content. I don't care how naturally smart you are. This work should be hard and should require some grind even for the most naturally brilliant among us.

[Anonymous]

So is this true of all Ivy schools? Hard part is getting in? All Ivy and top schools have grade inflation? Everyone gets A’s without going to class? Then of course we have AI to help with HW, writing etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is this true of all Ivy schools? Hard part is getting in? All Ivy and top schools have grade inflation? Everyone gets A’s without going to class? Then of course we have AI to help with HW, writing etc.

No, they’re on a spectrum with Harvard being the easiest. In part because many professors don’t engage much with UGs and grad TAs do a lot of the grading (and are busy themselves). It’s easier to give As than explain in detailed feedback why it’s a B. Plus many H students are savvy and know how to select easier courses and coast to an A. Brown is also known to be pretty easy, Dartmouth too. Columbia tougher, professors hands off. Yale and Princeton tougher as well, but more UG engagement. Cornell the toughest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any college is what kids make of it. Some are there to learn. Others may be there to focus on what they want to do for careers. But most are there to be surrounded by people who think and view the world like they do. They only spend 12 hours a week in class! The rest is around people! These kids are self-motivated, highly intelligent, and capable of picking up new concepts quickly. That’s what separates them - not inflated grades or “easy” classes.

Every degree requires a certain number of credit hours, but does anyone really believe the level of classroom engagement for a chemistry or mechanical engineering major should be the same as for an economics major? Different fields and classes have different structures and workloads. A lot of students at these top university are not learning "skills" for a job.

My daughter is now a sophomore at a top university. She actually does goes to class. Some are "worth it", some not so much. Some are mandatory; others are optional. That’s just reality.

- Intro to Computer Science: 300 students in a lecture. The professor runs through 100 slides in an hour She reviews them later and attends TA sessions to really grasp the material. She’s not a CS major and had never coded before, but she’s smart enough to learn it quickly. She will definitely get an A and could probably pass an entry-level internship interview now - though she knows she’d hate doing it as a career. For kids that are more interested or already exposed, they don’t always go come to class or TA sessions and can just submit the problem sets.
- Political Science: Class time is all discussion. Tests are open book. It’s more about engagement and critical thinking than memorization.
- Economics: Her favorite. They dive into real-world applications of concepts and formulas. She reads ahead, connects ideas on her own, and thrives - not because it’s easy, but because she’s curious and driven. And if she is quizzed on the top concepts covered over the past month or so, she can definitely ace it.
- Math: It’s a flipped classroom model. She learns concepts independently before class, and in class, they review problems. If she understands those, she’ll ace the test. And she does - because she puts in the work.

The bottom line: top students succeed because they’re motivated and capable, not because the school hands out easy As.

Jared Kushner: so motivated, so capable.

[Anonymous]

I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with the students at Harvard. College is expensive (and if Harvard is cheap for you, then you probably come from a background where you need to be able to support your family as quickly as possible). Unfortunately, employers don't care about your "learning" and "knowledge" beyond the GPA on your transcript; the incentives to show up to class and be engaged aren't really there, so why bother?

[Anonymous]

So maybe Harvard and other schools shouldn't offer recorded lectures

[Anonymous]

My kid at a LAC never had any of her 40-person lecture classes recorded abd thus, rarely missed class. If she missed due to illness, she had to review the lecture slides on her own (made available) and ask friends or classmates for notes.

[Anonymous]

My kid goes to Harvard and goes to every class , office hours , guest speakers…..

They were a top student in high school (not a legacy , not athlete, not feeder school)

They are still working hard to make the most of this opportunity,

quant/ stem classes certainly aren’t easy

Unless you are a current student or have a current student maybe you should stop worrying about how Harvard students spend their time ?

[Anonymous]

Some classes are recorded because some kids are literal hermione grangers at Harvard and take classes that happen at the same time - this is a real thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is this true of all Ivy schools? Hard part is getting in? All Ivy and top schools have grade inflation? Everyone gets A’s without going to class? Then of course we have AI to help with HW, writing etc.

No, they’re on a spectrum with Harvard being the easiest. In part because many professors don’t engage much with UGs and grad TAs do a lot of the grading (and are busy themselves). It’s easier to give As than explain in detailed feedback why it’s a B. Plus many H students are savvy and know how to select easier courses and coast to an A. Brown is also known to be pretty easy, Dartmouth too. Columbia tougher, professors hands off. Yale and Princeton tougher as well, but more UG engagement. Cornell the toughest.

Yale has the most grade inflation ….diid you personally go to all of these schools? Any of them ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any college is what kids make of it. Some are there to learn. Others may be there to focus on what they want to do for careers. But most are there to be surrounded by people who think and view the world like they do. They only spend 12 hours a week in class! The rest is around people! These kids are self-motivated, highly intelligent, and capable of picking up new concepts quickly. That’s what separates them - not inflated grades or “easy” classes.

Every degree requires a certain number of credit hours, but does anyone really believe the level of classroom engagement for a chemistry or mechanical engineering major should be the same as for an economics major? Different fields and classes have different structures and workloads. A lot of students at these top university are not learning "skills" for a job.

My daughter is now a sophomore at a top university. She actually does goes to class. Some are "worth it", some not so much. Some are mandatory; others are optional. That’s just reality.

- Intro to Computer Science: 300 students in a lecture. The professor runs through 100 slides in an hour She reviews them later and attends TA sessions to really grasp the material. She’s not a CS major and had never coded before, but she’s smart enough to learn it quickly. She will definitely get an A and could probably pass an entry-level internship interview now - though she knows she’d hate doing it as a career. For kids that are more interested or already exposed, they don’t always go come to class or TA sessions and can just submit the problem sets.
- Political Science: Class time is all discussion. Tests are open book. It’s more about engagement and critical thinking than memorization.
- Economics: Her favorite. They dive into real-world applications of concepts and formulas. She reads ahead, connects ideas on her own, and thrives - not because it’s easy, but because she’s curious and driven. And if she is quizzed on the top concepts covered over the past month or so, she can definitely ace it.
- Math: It’s a flipped classroom model. She learns concepts independently before class, and in class, they review problems. If she understands those, she’ll ace the test. And she does - because she puts in the work.

The bottom line: top students succeed because they’re motivated and capable, not because the school hands out easy As.

I sure hope medical school admissions people don't think this way. I want my doctors to know their shit at a deep level. I don't want students who think they can get away with superficial instead of sustained attention to material because they believe they can "pick things up quickly." I don't want people who got A's in inflated classes and then spent a lot of time schmoozing with others to diagnose me.

And if I am to take Econ research seriously in the future, the same applies to students of economics. I'm just not that impressed if you have only engaged in your field's materials only superficially. I don't care how smart you are.

Nobody is saying that classwork is the only thing that matters. But the emphasis is drifting way too far from mastery of content. I don't care how naturally smart you are. This work should be hard and should require some grind even for the most naturally brilliant among us.

Harvard Medical School lectures are ghost town (IIRC <25% attendance) because the students learn more by watching lectures at 2x speed, making/doing Anki, etc than watching the lecture in person in 1x speed. The former is widely considered to be more efficient by medical students to the point where mandatory attendance is a common point of complaint.

It is, however, a grind for the most brilliant, especially as optimal evidence-based study techniques (active recall and spaced repetition as opposed to massed, passive learning) become more widely used, pushing up the curves for MCAT and STEP 2. Quite a few HMS students are also either MD/PhD students who also fit in research during med school or do research even as pure MD students, which requires them to be efficient in how they spend their study time. Rest assured, they know how to learns and regularly get excellent STEP scores.

It's also a grind for econ grad school, especially if you want to jump straight from undergrad to PhD without an predoc, although schmoozing with professors and doing research is likely higher yield than chugging away and doing all the reading in your econ course that no grad school admissions committee will care about (they care much more about how you do in real analysis, multivariable calc, diff eq, proof based linear algebra, mathematical statistics, etc, who you get a LoR from and what it says, and your research experience/publication record)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is this true of all Ivy schools? Hard part is getting in? All Ivy and top schools have grade inflation? Everyone gets A’s without going to class? Then of course we have AI to help with HW, writing etc.

No, they’re on a spectrum with Harvard being the easiest. In part because many professors don’t engage much with UGs and grad TAs do a lot of the grading (and are busy themselves). It’s easier to give As than explain in detailed feedback why it’s a B. Plus many H students are savvy and know how to select easier courses and coast to an A. Brown is also known to be pretty easy, Dartmouth too. Columbia tougher, professors hands off. Yale and Princeton tougher as well, but more UG engagement. Cornell the toughest.

Unfortunately this is nothing new, and it can’t be blamed on recorded lectures. This has been true for at least 40 years. Much of the Ivy League is like this, where the hardest part was getting in. I think a lot of them have been more comparable to grad programs where almost everyone gets an A and slackers get a B. I had a friend tell me a long time ago that she would have had to screw up royally to get a C and even then the professor would try to avoid it. Just the way it is. I understand that there are a lot of factors that go into getting a good education, so I’m not necessarily picking on these schools, but it does seem a bit wrong when kids have to compete to get into grad schools and many are coming from colleges that have no trouble issuing Bs and Cs.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I agree. The point of Harvard is to go there to get a job that pays well. It is a target school for all the top firms, still. I went there - and I remember getting to final rounds with a bunch of top companies, whereas if you go to a non-target... good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any college is what kids make of it. Some are there to learn. Others may be there to focus on what they want to do for careers. But most are there to be surrounded by people who think and view the world like they do. They only spend 12 hours a week in class! The rest is around people! These kids are self-motivated, highly intelligent, and capable of picking up new concepts quickly. That’s what separates them - not inflated grades or “easy” classes.

Every degree requires a certain number of credit hours, but does anyone really believe the level of classroom engagement for a chemistry or mechanical engineering major should be the same as for an economics major? Different fields and classes have different structures and workloads. A lot of students at these top university are not learning "skills" for a job.

My daughter is now a sophomore at a top university. She actually does goes to class. Some are "worth it", some not so much. Some are mandatory; others are optional. That’s just reality.

- Intro to Computer Science: 300 students in a lecture. The professor runs through 100 slides in an hour She reviews them later and attends TA sessions to really grasp the material. She’s not a CS major and had never coded before, but she’s smart enough to learn it quickly. She will definitely get an A and could probably pass an entry-level internship interview now - though she knows she’d hate doing it as a career. For kids that are more interested or already exposed, they don’t always go come to class or TA sessions and can just submit the problem sets.
- Political Science: Class time is all discussion. Tests are open book. It’s more about engagement and critical thinking than memorization.
- Economics: Her favorite. They dive into real-world applications of concepts and formulas. She reads ahead, connects ideas on her own, and thrives - not because it’s easy, but because she’s curious and driven. And if she is quizzed on the top concepts covered over the past month or so, she can definitely ace it.
- Math: It’s a flipped classroom model. She learns concepts independently before class, and in class, they review problems. If she understands those, she’ll ace the test. And she does - because she puts in the work.

The bottom line: top students succeed because they’re motivated and capable, not because the school hands out easy As.

How do u know all these.. I barely know what’s up with my son.. It ain’t high school!!’n