Harvard faculty vote to limit A grades to no more than 20% of the class

[Anonymous]

HYP’s recent actions point to a clear trend: back to merit, less tolerance for dishonesty, and a stronger emphasis on academic integrity. I think this will eventually influence public high schools too. With grade inflation so rampant, schools may be pushed to change their policies and limit how many A grades they give out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So that's their answer to their problem with athletic, legacy and development preference?

As PP said, they should just give As to students who deserve an A. Not that hard, is it?

And they should stop welcoming in hooked students in the above categories!!!

There is no problem with preferences. You are just butthurt because you cannot access them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HYP’s recent actions point to a clear trend: back to merit, less tolerance for dishonesty, and a stronger emphasis on academic integrity. I think this will eventually influence public high schools too. With grade inflation so rampant, schools may be pushed to change their policies and limit how many A grades they give out.

Back to “merit” as in making your grade crap, because some people can’t handle that the Harvard class is smart. The latter two are bs when our country is run by Donald Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

90% of Harvard students certainly can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

delusional

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

delusional

Delusion is being unable (mostly unwilling) to look at incoming student stats at Harvard and concluding that they’re mediocre students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They began voting but have not “voted” for the changes yet. Hopefully, they’re successful.

This. Title is misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At MIT, the median GPA is a 4.2 out of 5.0 which is equivalent to a 3.3-3.4 GPA on the 4 point scale. Does anyone believe Harvard students are meaningfully more intelligent than MIT students? Of course not. MIT just has tougher standards. No reason Harvard can't adopt similar practices.

And, no reason that they have to. Harvard should decide what is best for Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As crazy as it sounds, Harvard may be a bad choice for those who are pre-law. The law schools appear to be indifferent to undergraduate schools and majors and instead focused on LSAT scores and GPAs. For all of the top law schools, the median undergraduate GPA is above 3.90. This is very different from my law school experience several decades ago. I went to a top law school and well more than 25% of my class came from T10 colleges.

The majority of students at top law schools still come from top undergraduate schools. That isn’t going to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Except that the reality is that the cohort is comprised of connected students and those that fill in the DEI gaps who are taking a “dumbed down” curriculum taught by professors who fear getting a bad review on rate my professor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Except that the reality is that the cohort is comprised of connected students and those that fill in the DEI gaps who are taking a “dumbed down” curriculum taught by professors who fear getting a bad review on rate my professor.

This is a bit of an exaggeration. I get that there will always be the kids who get in "hooked" but there are also plenty who worked hard for the opportunity. Let's not discount and cast a broad stroke on the entire university for a small handful of others. I am sure in the work place, there will be a repeat of this as well. This has been the case from the beginning of time and won't end anytime soon. And fwiw, the very few legacies I know who got in (and there were some who didn't despite great stats) were a deserving kids as well.

This forum likes to be binary, and it's hard to take either side seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At MIT, the median GPA is a 4.2 out of 5.0 which is equivalent to a 3.3-3.4 GPA on the 4 point scale. Does anyone believe Harvard students are meaningfully more intelligent than MIT students? Of course not. MIT just has tougher standards. No reason Harvard can't adopt similar practices.

These schools aren't comparable in any way and a high GPA from MIT is less important. At MIT, most people go on to be engineers where a graduate degree isn't necessary. At Harvard, the more typical path involves graduate school and it's usually law or medicine.