Harvard Report on Impacts of Grade Inflation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shift needs to start in HS - there should be more of a curve. It’s ridiculous how a B has become shameful and an average C score a failure. Most A students are closer to average in ability and intellect … that’s the problem.

100%%%%%%. That’s why colleges now inflate….they get grade inflated HS kids

+1

High schools inflate, which makes good students indistinguishable from great students. If everyone has straight As and all the SAT scores have gone up (because the scoring went up overall and because more and more people take prep courses, the only way for schools to distinguish among these perfect students is through activities--which we all know can be faked.

High schools (public high schools especially) also allow kids to get away with being absolute CRAP writers because no one teaches writing in elementary or middle school and, seeing students with no foundation, high schools give up.

Also, also, to protect from cheating and AI, many high school largely focus on work produced IN CLASS, which means that students are rarely asked to make a sustained effort outside of class. Homework has become so much less relevant than it used to be and this is TERRIBLE. Homework is how students practiced discipline and sustained effort.

This story is not exclusive to Harvard, it is happening everywhere. It is good that Harvard is identifying it.

I agree AI is a problem, but policing for AI doesn’t prevent professors from assigning reading to their students and then testing them on the knowledge retained in class. I believe it was Columbia recently who also publicly discussed the inability of students to read the large volume of complex material that used to be commonplace for college students. There are Ivy League students who aren’t capable of reading novels and can only be spoon fed short excerpts of material. It’s because they’ve never done it before — the high schools have failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes this is not a H specific issue.

Today’s kids have smart phones and AIs. They don’t read as the past generations do.

Grades have increased over the past decades everywhere.

Yes today’s students are more competitive and hard working than their parents. And more international students contributed to the rising quality of students. So, grades are higher even without the inflation.

+1, I think parents need to consider what its like to be a student currently.

Let's say you're a first year at UChicago studying physics. Your coursework is pretty damned difficult, so you need to focus on that, but you also know by the end of these 4 years you need a job. Let's say you're a somewhat knowledgable student and understand that a Physics BS qualifies you for little work in your field, and you know at some point throughout your degree you would not get into a top graduate program, so you need an industry job. Well to get an industry job, you need skills; quantum mechanics and theoretical mechanics are awesome courses, but they don't help your employer, so you enroll in an intermediate stats course with some ML in the course content...except that course is entirely in R (industry wants python), and you need to work extra hard, cause stats isn't your field. Now, add a few CS courses and math courses inapplicable to physics AND add a software engineering club (good luck getting in) and work on a few technical projects, and now you got your first data science interview! Except...you need to study leetcode and consistently technical interview prep, so you can actually get a job.

Mind you, we actually haven't at all talked about the fact that you are currently enrolled in Stat Models and Methods, Quantum Mechanics III, and Experimental Physics III for this quarter as a junior, and your coursework takes up a significant chunk of time.

This is why college students are a mess, and that's without the context that they're technically with weaker foundations that previous students.

I'd say grade inflation isn't even in the top 10 issue with the current academic climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fair to say that the average Harvard student is smarter than the average student.

And I think it's fair to say that Organic Chemistry or Econ 101 etc are classes that should be covering the same material more or less no matter the university you are in.

So it makes sense to me that way more Harvard students are getting As in that class than average. I think most Harvard kids should be getting As to be honest.

Now this idea that kids are coming into Harvard unprepared is just a slam on their admissions office full stop. that's a failure.

The average GPA at Harvard has risen dramatically in the last 20 years. Are you arguing that today’s Harvard students are that much smarter than they were 20 years ago?

100%. they take 3 kids out of 100.

[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.

I agree that this generation has been harmed by factors outside academic policies, but we are witnessing a breakdown caused by a confluence of several events. COVID gave the impetus for test optional policies that were already being pushed for DEI purposes, and combined with COVID school shutdowns, which exacerbated grade inflation at the high school level (also DEI), we ended up with very little way to distinguish which students have had their attention spans completely rotted by social media and which (like your teen, God willing) have not. Academia seems to have reacted to this by lowering academic standards for everyone. Your argument is that this was all inevitable and unavoidable. I disagree — it was not inevitable that elite universities admit less qualified students. In fact, most schools have rescinded their test optional policies, indicating the failure of that experiment, whether they explicitly say so or not. But those policies were always a *choice,* and one that was criticized by many at the time. Universities have the ability to make distinctions between high schools that have rigorous grading policies and those that do not. Or simply demand that students live up to the standards of the university or leave. But that would lead to politically incorrect results, so they water down academic standards for everyone instead. It’s “too hard” to try to lift up those who need assistance, so we drag down the excellent students, instead. This is clearly a net negative for society and the academic reputation of these institutions. It sounds like there are at least some at Harvard that have not resigned themselves to the idea that this is all inevitable and would like to fight back. I wish them luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that this generation has been harmed by factors outside academic policies, but we are witnessing a breakdown caused by a confluence of several events. COVID gave the impetus for test optional policies that were already being pushed for DEI purposes, and combined with COVID school shutdowns, which exacerbated grade inflation at the high school level (also DEI), we ended up with very little way to distinguish which students have had their attention spans completely rotted by social media and which (like your teen, God willing) have not. Academia seems to have reacted to this by lowering academic standards for everyone. Your argument is that this was all inevitable and unavoidable. I disagree — it was not inevitable that elite universities admit less qualified students. In fact, most schools have rescinded their test optional policies, indicating the failure of that experiment, whether they explicitly say so or not. But those policies were always a *choice,* and one that was criticized by many at the time. Universities have the ability to make distinctions between high schools that have rigorous grading policies and those that do not. Or simply demand that students live up to the standards of the university or leave. But that would lead to politically incorrect results, so they water down academic standards for everyone instead. It’s “too hard” to try to lift up those who need assistance, so we drag down the excellent students, instead. This is clearly a net negative for society and the academic reputation of these institutions. It sounds like there are at least some at Harvard that have not resigned themselves to the idea that this is all inevitable and would like to fight back. I wish them luck.

I feel like you’re too wrapped up into the politics of these institutions rather than considering that these institutions know their students are entering wanting a job, wanting fellowships, or wanting a grad school offer by the time they leave. Faculty members were also burned out and got lazy during and post pandemic, but for some reason, that’s not brought up. Most colleges see no benefit reducing their students’ post grad opportunities to filth to win the culture war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that this generation has been harmed by factors outside academic policies, but we are witnessing a breakdown caused by a confluence of several events. COVID gave the impetus for test optional policies that were already being pushed for DEI purposes, and combined with COVID school shutdowns, which exacerbated grade inflation at the high school level (also DEI), we ended up with very little way to distinguish which students have had their attention spans completely rotted by social media and which (like your teen, God willing) have not. Academia seems to have reacted to this by lowering academic standards for everyone. Your argument is that this was all inevitable and unavoidable. I disagree — it was not inevitable that elite universities admit less qualified students. In fact, most schools have rescinded their test optional policies, indicating the failure of that experiment, whether they explicitly say so or not. But those policies were always a *choice,* and one that was criticized by many at the time. Universities have the ability to make distinctions between high schools that have rigorous grading policies and those that do not. Or simply demand that students live up to the standards of the university or leave. But that would lead to politically incorrect results, so they water down academic standards for everyone instead. It’s “too hard” to try to lift up those who need assistance, so we drag down the excellent students, instead. This is clearly a net negative for society and the academic reputation of these institutions. It sounds like there are at least some at Harvard that have not resigned themselves to the idea that this is all inevitable and would like to fight back. I wish them luck.

I feel like you’re too wrapped up into the politics of these institutions rather than considering that these institutions know their students are entering wanting a job, wanting fellowships, or wanting a grad school offer by the time they leave. Faculty members were also burned out and got lazy during and post pandemic, but for some reason, that’s not brought up. Most colleges see no benefit reducing their students’ post grad opportunities to filth to win the culture war.

Eventually the reputation of schools that have lowered standards will take a hit, and a degree will no longer be a valuable signal in the labor or grad school market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that this generation has been harmed by factors outside academic policies, but we are witnessing a breakdown caused by a confluence of several events. COVID gave the impetus for test optional policies that were already being pushed for DEI purposes, and combined with COVID school shutdowns, which exacerbated grade inflation at the high school level (also DEI), we ended up with very little way to distinguish which students have had their attention spans completely rotted by social media and which (like your teen, God willing) have not. Academia seems to have reacted to this by lowering academic standards for everyone. Your argument is that this was all inevitable and unavoidable. I disagree — it was not inevitable that elite universities admit less qualified students. In fact, most schools have rescinded their test optional policies, indicating the failure of that experiment, whether they explicitly say so or not. But those policies were always a *choice,* and one that was criticized by many at the time. Universities have the ability to make distinctions between high schools that have rigorous grading policies and those that do not. Or simply demand that students live up to the standards of the university or leave. But that would lead to politically incorrect results, so they water down academic standards for everyone instead. It’s “too hard” to try to lift up those who need assistance, so we drag down the excellent students, instead. This is clearly a net negative for society and the academic reputation of these institutions. It sounds like there are at least some at Harvard that have not resigned themselves to the idea that this is all inevitable and would like to fight back. I wish them luck.

I don’t see where I said this was inevitable and unavoidable. I certainly hope to avoid it in the future as much as possible but I think it will take a huge societal effort. I personally don’t know a single faculty member who doesn’t want to return to higher standards and it was probably due to faculty input that our university returned to test required. This is a start, but it is not going to solve the problem. The anti-DEI people don’t seem to believe me when I say that I have plenty of white and Asian non- first-gen students who are unable to perform up to standards from a decade ago. If I were to give F’s to half of these students, including yours, you parents would probably find that unfair, no? Instead I have doubled my office hour times, given additional support, tried to clarify my lectures, etc. to reflect the current reality. But I certainly hope that we can raise the standards for future generations. In my opinion, a good start for parents to start would be limiting kids’ time on brain rotting and addictive activities. At the college level, I would be in favor of returning to longer entrance exams that reward extended focus. I also like the idea of publishing class medians along with grades, or fixing number of A’s on a curve. There are downsides to this approach, and it penalizes classes where everyone is doing very well, but it may be a necessary evil to help fight inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that this generation has been harmed by factors outside academic policies, but we are witnessing a breakdown caused by a confluence of several events. COVID gave the impetus for test optional policies that were already being pushed for DEI purposes, and combined with COVID school shutdowns, which exacerbated grade inflation at the high school level (also DEI), we ended up with very little way to distinguish which students have had their attention spans completely rotted by social media and which (like your teen, God willing) have not. Academia seems to have reacted to this by lowering academic standards for everyone. Your argument is that this was all inevitable and unavoidable. I disagree — it was not inevitable that elite universities admit less qualified students. In fact, most schools have rescinded their test optional policies, indicating the failure of that experiment, whether they explicitly say so or not. But those policies were always a *choice,* and one that was criticized by many at the time. Universities have the ability to make distinctions between high schools that have rigorous grading policies and those that do not. Or simply demand that students live up to the standards of the university or leave. But that would lead to politically incorrect results, so they water down academic standards for everyone instead. It’s “too hard” to try to lift up those who need assistance, so we drag down the excellent students, instead. This is clearly a net negative for society and the academic reputation of these institutions. It sounds like there are at least some at Harvard that have not resigned themselves to the idea that this is all inevitable and would like to fight back. I wish them luck.

I feel like you’re too wrapped up into the politics of these institutions rather than considering that these institutions know their students are entering wanting a job, wanting fellowships, or wanting a grad school offer by the time they leave. Faculty members were also burned out and got lazy during and post pandemic, but for some reason, that’s not brought up. Most colleges see no benefit reducing their students’ post grad opportunities to filth to win the culture war.

Eventually the reputation of schools that have lowered standards will take a hit, and a degree will no longer be a valuable signal in the labor or grad school market.

Seen by what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shift needs to start in HS - there should be more of a curve. It’s ridiculous how a B has become shameful and an average C score a failure. Most A students are closer to average in ability and intellect … that’s the problem.

100%%%%%%. That’s why colleges now inflate….they get grade inflated HS kids

+1

High schools inflate, which makes good students indistinguishable from great students. If everyone has straight As and all the SAT scores have gone up (because the scoring went up overall and because more and more people take prep courses, the only way for schools to distinguish among these perfect students is through activities--which we all know can be faked.

High schools (public high schools especially) also allow kids to get away with being absolute CRAP writers because no one teaches writing in elementary or middle school and, seeing students with no foundation, high schools give up.

Also, also, to protect from cheating and AI, many high school largely focus on work produced IN CLASS, which means that students are rarely asked to make a sustained effort outside of class. Homework has become so much less relevant than it used to be and this is TERRIBLE. Homework is how students practiced discipline and sustained effort.

This story is not exclusive to Harvard, it is happening everywhere. It is good that Harvard is identifying it.

I agree AI is a problem, but policing for AI doesn’t prevent professors from assigning reading to their students and then testing them on the knowledge retained in class. I believe it was Columbia recently who also publicly discussed the inability of students to read the large volume of complex material that used to be commonplace for college students. There are Ivy League students who aren’t capable of reading novels and can only be spoon fed short excerpts of material. It’s because they’ve never done it before — the high schools have failed.

Returning to a problem more pressing and specific to the Ivies? What can be done about the increasing percentage of Asian admits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that this generation has been harmed by factors outside academic policies, but we are witnessing a breakdown caused by a confluence of several events. COVID gave the impetus for test optional policies that were already being pushed for DEI purposes, and combined with COVID school shutdowns, which exacerbated grade inflation at the high school level (also DEI), we ended up with very little way to distinguish which students have had their attention spans completely rotted by social media and which (like your teen, God willing) have not. Academia seems to have reacted to this by lowering academic standards for everyone. Your argument is that this was all inevitable and unavoidable. I disagree — it was not inevitable that elite universities admit less qualified students. In fact, most schools have rescinded their test optional policies, indicating the failure of that experiment, whether they explicitly say so or not. But those policies were always a *choice,* and one that was criticized by many at the time. Universities have the ability to make distinctions between high schools that have rigorous grading policies and those that do not. Or simply demand that students live up to the standards of the university or leave. But that would lead to politically incorrect results, so they water down academic standards for everyone instead. It’s “too hard” to try to lift up those who need assistance, so we drag down the excellent students, instead. This is clearly a net negative for society and the academic reputation of these institutions. It sounds like there are at least some at Harvard that have not resigned themselves to the idea that this is all inevitable and would like to fight back. I wish them luck.

I feel like you’re too wrapped up into the politics of these institutions rather than considering that these institutions know their students are entering wanting a job, wanting fellowships, or wanting a grad school offer by the time they leave. Faculty members were also burned out and got lazy during and post pandemic, but for some reason, that’s not brought up. Most colleges see no benefit reducing their students’ post grad opportunities to filth to win the culture war.

Eventually the reputation of schools that have lowered standards will take a hit, and a degree will no longer be a valuable signal in the labor or grad school market.

+1

[Anonymous]

This is reflective of the current state of US education, and Harvard is not immune. Columbia professors have been complaining for years. High school curriculum has abandoned facts/content in favor of ideology. Required reading is minimized. Assessments are light and filled with post self reflection rather than expectations of mastery of the material. Test retakes are the norm, even in advanced AP classes!. Kids now read articles and passages vs full books. It's ridiculous. Science/math are less problematic but humanities and social sciences are a big issue. US kids may have high grades/test scores, but that doesn't mean they are smart or well educated.

[Anonymous]

Grad school admission teams know what schools grade inflate and can usually separate out the posers.

Employers now routinely do their own screening and testing to weed out the truly talented students from those just handed As.

What do you expect when you have individuals rising to the presidency of Stanford and Harvard on plagiarized work or research with faulty data.

Let’s get back to a C is average, a B is above average and an A is outstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is reflective of the current state of US education, and Harvard is not immune. Columbia professors have been complaining for years. High school curriculum has abandoned facts/content in favor of ideology. Required reading is minimized. Assessments are light and filled with post self reflection rather than expectations of mastery of the material. Test retakes are the norm, even in advanced AP classes!. Kids now read articles and passages vs full books. It's ridiculous. Science/math are less problematic but humanities and social sciences are a big issue. US kids may have high grades/test scores, but that doesn't mean they are smart or well educated.

And cheating is rampant, so many kids are getting As while learning absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Why hasn’t anyone discuss the over-reliance on student evaluations and how they impact grade inflation? This is particularly harmful for non-tenured, term, and adjunct professors. The transactional model of students as customers is part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grad school admission teams know what schools grade inflate and can usually separate out the posers.

Employers now routinely do their own screening and testing to weed out the truly talented students from those just handed As.

What do you expect when you have individuals rising to the presidency of Stanford and Harvard on plagiarized work or research with faulty data.

Let’s get back to a C is average, a B is above average and an A is outstanding.

Not really. There’s no evidence for a single thing you’re saying. IB has assessments because any monkey can do the job, but they need to choose someone. The assessments are mostly just to reduce application counts. Technical interviews do not measure anything other than how much you’ve studied prior.