Rigor and Absences: New Harvard Policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

Large parties means game nights, robotics hacking, rooms set up with DJs, etc. It does not mean frat parties.

I was at Stanford back when Stanford valued fun and creativity. Those large spaces were absolutely critical. Amherst gas systemically removed them.

+1, people here can only envision frat parties when there’s many themed parties and guest DJs and alternative style parties
that students want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Most online systems could be easily worked around. Also the systems aren't in use now.

Just install things that need to scan your id. The classes are like 300 people max, it would take no time. I’m sure they have the same technology for dorms and the library.

No point, friends would scan each other's IDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Most online systems could be easily worked around. Also the systems aren't in use now.

Just install things that need to scan your id. The classes are like 300 people max, it would take no time. I’m sure they have the same technology for dorms and the library.

No point, friends would scan each other's IDs.

I guess we should have no accountability systems since people naturally wish to cheat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Most online systems could be easily worked around. Also the systems aren't in use now.

Just install things that need to scan your id. The classes are like 300 people max, it would take no time. I’m sure they have the same technology for dorms and the library.

No point, friends would scan each other's IDs.

I guess we should have no accountability systems since people naturally wish to cheat.

People wouldn't think of it as cheating and with the repercussions being SO draconian... Also, you'd end up with tons of false negatives from IDs that didn't scan properly, etc, it would end up as a huge pain to enforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Most online systems could be easily worked around. Also the systems aren't in use now.

Just install things that need to scan your id. The classes are like 300 people max, it would take no time. I’m sure they have the same technology for dorms and the library.

No point, friends would scan each other's IDs.

I guess we should have no accountability systems since people naturally wish to cheat.

Very difficult to enforce accountability given the rampant cheating, even at Harvard.

[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.

We all know analyst work is literally mindless production of powerpoints and financial models...none of which requires knowing math above Algebra I or knowing how to write in complete sentences. There are no complex real-world problems involved...at all.

Heck, at least a McKinsey can claim that they are hired for consulting mandates to come up with original solutions to problems...and hedge funds can claim that they are trying to solve difficult mathematical problems to execute a trading strategy.

Nobody, even all the folks working in investment banking, think they are solving complex, real-world problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Those online systems can be -- and are -- gamed. Students smart or connected enough to get into Harvard aren't going to be tripped up by some attendance log in. For large classes, unless you have a several attendance monitors, you'll have students log is as 'present' from a different location. Even if the QR code changes every 5 seconds. . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Most online systems could be easily worked around. Also the systems aren't in use now.

Just install things that need to scan your id. The classes are like 300 people max, it would take no time. I’m sure they have the same technology for dorms and the library.

No point, friends would scan each other's IDs.

I guess we should have no accountability systems since people naturally wish to cheat.

People wouldn't think of it as cheating and with the repercussions being SO draconian... Also, you'd end up with tons of false negatives from IDs that didn't scan properly, etc, it would end up as a huge pain to enforce.

“False negatives” no you wouldn’t. These are made up issues to drag our feet towards actual accountability. We’ve been using scanners for decades now for access to things. This system wouldn’t have to exist if Harvard students actually respected an education.

People don’t think things are cheating is an excuse for when they get caught. Sounding a lot like Claudine gay in these replies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are entirely related. It goes to what Amherst wants out of a student body, and quirky geniuses (who value fun, because that is how they get their creativity fed) are not welcome.

I don't buy the premise that there is a connection between big parties and quirky geniuses, sorry. I think you have a different understanding of "quirky" than most.

Large parties means game nights, robotics hacking, rooms set up with DJs, etc. It does not mean frat parties.

I was at Stanford back when Stanford valued fun and creativity. Those large spaces were absolutely critical. Amherst gas systemically removed them.

+1, people here can only envision frat parties when there’s many themed parties and guest DJs and alternative style parties
that students want.

What PP is saying does not conform to current Amherst policy, including DJs. Sounds like they need to be organized and held in certain spaces. So?
https://www.amherst.edu/campuslife/aas/budgetary/fundingprocess/fundingpolicies/parties-and-powerhouse-events#:~:text=Powerhouse%20Events,a%20Party%20or%20a%20Concert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised it 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.

My DC is at large public flagship and has mix of class sizes (IMO small under 20, medium 20-50, to very large 150-300). I asked why would anyone attend the larger classes when lectures are online, says bc they have spot quizzes that could only be answered during live class. Not perfect and does not replace smaller classes but do like this as a strategy, still some students skip. But appears this is now common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Most online systems could be easily worked around. Also the systems aren't in use now.

Just install things that need to scan your id. The classes are like 300 people max, it would take no time. I’m sure they have the same technology for dorms and the library.

No point, friends would scan each other's IDs.

I guess we should have no accountability systems since people naturally wish to cheat.

Plus, students can (and do) scan in. Then they got the bathroom and never return to class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Those online systems can be -- and
are -- gamed. Students smart or connected enough to get into Harvard aren't going to be tripped up by some attendance log in. For large classes, unless you have a several attendance monitors, you'll have students log is as 'present' from a different location. Even if the QR code changes every 5 seconds. . . .

QR code changes that track your phone. They existed back when I did required colloquium for my undergrad like 15 years ago. The type of student who is technically capable enough to bypass that isn’t who you’re looking for- they want the mediocre students who actually need class time to get their butts in class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Those online systems can be -- and
are -- gamed. Students smart or connected enough to get into Harvard aren't going to be tripped up by some attendance log in. For large classes, unless you have a several attendance monitors, you'll have students log is as 'present' from a different location. Even if the QR code changes every 5 seconds. . . .

QR code changes that track your phone. They existed back when I did required colloquium for my undergrad like 15 years ago. The type of student who is technically capable enough to bypass that isn’t who you’re looking for- they want the mediocre students who actually need class time to get their butts in class

If the professors care at all about attendance, they want ALL the students to come to class, not just the the middle of the road students (and I think you are underestimating the ingenuity of mediocre students at top schools to get around regulations they don't like). They want students in class not just to learn from the professor but to learn from each other, to create a shared experience that will spark conversation and ideas, to pick up on social clues. Certainly top students can jump through exam hoops without formal classes. But few people are -- or want to be -- genuine autodidacts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how they're even going to track this unless they just mean section attendance. Plenty of popular undergrad classes have lectures of 400+ students. Traditionally, there is no attendance taken. Attendance and participation is only tracked at sections (1-2x/week per class with a TA) and typically there are already steep penalties for absence and non-participation.

There’s so many online systems they could take up. We haven’t needed a headcount for attendance in decades.

Those online systems can be -- and
are -- gamed. Students smart or connected enough to get into Harvard aren't going to be tripped up by some attendance log in. For large classes, unless you have a several attendance monitors, you'll have students log is as 'present' from a different location. Even if the QR code changes every 5 seconds. . . .

QR code changes that track your phone. They existed back when I did required colloquium for my undergrad like 15 years ago. The type of student who is technically capable enough to bypass that isn’t who you’re looking for- they want the mediocre students who actually need class time to get their butts in class

If the professors care at all about attendance, they want ALL the students to come to class, not just the the middle of the road students (and I think you are underestimating the ingenuity of mediocre students at top schools to get around regulations they don't like). They want students in class not just to learn from the professor but to learn from each other, to create a shared experience that will spark conversation and ideas, to pick up on social clues. Certainly top students can jump through exam hoops without formal classes. But few people are -- or want to be -- genuine autodidacts.

Look, I get it, it seems like the Ivy kids are some crazy bar of achievement, but no, they really aren’t that good at getting out of rules- many got to their place because they do nothing but follow rules. This isn’t about professors; it’s an institutional policy, and anything you do will end up with some students finding ways to leak through.

People had these same quarrels back when my college moved to an honor code where take home tests were normalized. The professors and students liked the honor code system a lot more and the average student followed the rules and took the test truthfully- students whose grades on exams didn’t match in class performance were questioned and often caught. Sure, there’s the very small percent of students who know how to accurately score to their performance, but there’s also the small percent of students who cheat during in person exams- doesn’t mean we throw out the exams.

Universities have gotten too lax and restructured their image as social, professional spaces not academic ones, and the repercussions are finally biting at them. You have to work to change the culture or nothing gets solved.

[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.

The attitude here is hilarious….And yet I get about 100 applications from your precious IVY little kids dying to be an idiot not wanting to solve any problems working for me….

I never said Ivy kids don't want to make money in banking. However, few think they are going to solve complex problems while doing so.

Not sure what attitude you think is hilarious. I worked in bulge bracket banking for 15 years...I would never hire anyone that came to the firm thinking they would solve complex problems, because we didn't have any complex problems to solve. We raised capital for companies that solved complex problems...and of course people/companies that know how to raise large sums of money are very well compensated.