Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this new class is the same as the old class except that it's five days a week instead of three days, the old class will continue to be taught in its present form and schedule, and the old class is identical to the ancient class from thirty years ago? Do I have that right? I think so, but let's check the Harvard Course Catalog to be sure:

MATH MA (LEC)
Introduction to Functions and Calculus I
Course ID: 111161
2024 Fall (4 Credits)
No meeting time listed
Kate Penner
The study of functions and their rates of change. Fundamental ideas of calculus are introduced early and used to provide a framework for the study of mathematical modeling involving algebraic, exponential, and logarithmic functions. Thorough understanding of differential calculus promoted by year long reinforcement. There will be required workshops Tuesdays.

MATH MA5 (010)
An In-depth Introduction to Functions and Calculus I
Course ID: 224755
2024 Fall (4 Credits)
MTWRF 1030 AM - 1145 AM
Kate Penner, Justin Hancock
The study of functions and their rates of change. Fundamental ideas of calculus are introduced early and used to provide a framework for the study of mathematical modeling involving algebraic, exponential, and logarithmic functions. A thorough understanding of differential calculus is promoted by year-long reinforcement.
Course Note: This is a version of Math MA that meets 5 days a week. The extra support will target foundational skills in algebra, geometry, and quantitative reasoning that will help you unlock success in Math MA. Students will be identified for enrollment in Math MA5 via a skill check before the start of the term.

Wait, what was in the course catalog thirty years ago? Lucky, I have one on hand:

Harvard University
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Courses of Instruction 1991-92
Mathematics Ar. Precalculus Mathematics (2050)
Deborah Hughes Hallett and members of the Department
Review of functions, graphing, logarithms, and trigonometry. Emphasizes problem solving and provides a preparation for Mathematics 1, economics, and basic science courses. Taught in small sections which begin at a point appropriate to the students in the Section.
Half course (full term, repeated spring term). Fall: Section 1, M., W., F., at 10; Section II, M., W., F., at 12; Section III, Tu., Th., 10-11:30. Spring: Section I, M., W., F., at 10. (XI)

Yeppers, that all checks! So, what's this thread about again? Wait, I know! It's nothing more than an opportunity for DCUM to, in no particular order, (i) denigrate Harvard as overrated, "too woke" (whatever that means), and anti-Semitic (not yet mentioned, but it's coming); (ii) celebrate the inherent superiority of Asian students, every single one of whom, if DCUM is to be believed, arrived in the United States four months ago, penniless, not knowing a word of English, and still managed to achieve higher SAT scores than all of their black classmates; and (iii) complain about those black classmates through coded language about "equity," "diversity," and "quotas" and whining about "TO" (which apparently means "test optional" and not NFL great Terrell Owens). Carry on, DCUM!

None of the bolded was included in the course description from 30 years ago. It doesn’t mention algebra, because it was assumed you already know it. It certainly doesn’t mention of extra support being provided for “foundational skills in algebra and geometry.”

A little context. In 1990 I took freshman calc using the Deborah Hughes Hallett preprint at my state flagship. The book hadn’t been published yet. It was referred to as Core Calculus Consortium, or Harvard Consortium. The class was honors and met daily. I still have the spiral bound copy. The concept was, graphing calculators are now commonplace, so we can re-write to reach calculus conceptually even if students have weak symbolic manipulation skills. Remediation may not be explicitly in the blurb above, but it was the reason for the course. The same group of educators went on to propose the Common Core reforms in K-12 over the next decades.

Anyway, I was a lazy HS student on to a so-so university but I placed into honors and majored in math.

And when DHH was running the Calculus sub-department, she was an advocate of the pedagogical theory that calculus should be taught like a high school class, not like a college class.
Undergrad TAs were expected to spoon-feed the homework to the students, instead of being a resource that students could come to with their own questions after attempting the work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I assume this is directed at first gen students, but still seems pretty nuts.

No, it is all the schools rushing kids through accelerated programs in the name of being the youngest ever to talk calculus. This is s no way to learn math.

Absolutely not. These are students who didn't pass AP Calculus. No one is passing AP Calculus exam (even though it's not a very hard test) and failing an Algebra 2 test prereq for a Precalc class leading into a terminal Calc 1 class. The most obvious reason is that a student who passed AP Calculus and wasnt going further in math would sit on that credit and just not take any math class at college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know plenty of MIT grads who are not writers. I'm not shocked that there are Harvard kids who are top 1% in something who are not great at calc. Not everyone can be everything.

My experience differs — I spent my career in a policy area that is highly technical, and of all the people (Ivy and non) I’ve employed, MIT grads have been the most consistently impressive and well rounded.

MIT grads were so arrogant we no longer recruit them at our company. They were terrible team players. The only thing they could do was brag they went to MIT. Couldn’t take direction or criticism. Insufferable.

We have a ton of MIT grads and some are fine, some aren't - but they are the people who name drop their school more than any other college, so much so that my colleague calls it the M-bomb. I give new grads some room to brag, but sometimes it's like, dude, you're 30.

It’s good they’re providing these kids support. When are other schools going to do the same. It’s a nationwide problem, not just an Harvard problem.

Hopefully, HS will take note and ensure BS grade inflation will go away.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I assume this is directed at first gen students, but still seems pretty nuts.

No, it is all the schools rushing kids through accelerated programs in the name of being the youngest ever to talk calculus. This is s no way to learn math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, this new class is the same as the old class except that it's five days a week instead of three days, the old class will continue to be taught in its present form and schedule, and the old class is identical to the ancient class from thirty years ago? Do I have that right? I think so, but let's check the Harvard Course Catalog to be sure:

MATH MA (LEC)
Introduction to Functions and Calculus I
Course ID: 111161
2024 Fall (4 Credits)
No meeting time listed
Kate Penner
The study of functions and their rates of change. Fundamental ideas of calculus are introduced early and used to provide a framework for the study of mathematical modeling involving algebraic, exponential, and logarithmic functions. Thorough understanding of differential calculus promoted by year long reinforcement. There will be required workshops Tuesdays.

MATH MA5 (010)
An In-depth Introduction to Functions and Calculus I
Course ID: 224755
2024 Fall (4 Credits)
MTWRF 1030 AM - 1145 AM
Kate Penner, Justin Hancock
The study of functions and their rates of change. Fundamental ideas of calculus are introduced early and used to provide a framework for the study of mathematical modeling involving algebraic, exponential, and logarithmic functions. A thorough understanding of differential calculus is promoted by year-long reinforcement.
Course Note: This is a version of Math MA that meets 5 days a week. The extra support will target foundational skills in algebra, geometry, and quantitative reasoning that will help you unlock success in Math MA. Students will be identified for enrollment in Math MA5 via a skill check before the start of the term.

Wait, what was in the course catalog thirty years ago? Lucky, I have one on hand:

Harvard University
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Courses of Instruction 1991-92
Mathematics Ar. Precalculus Mathematics (2050)
Deborah Hughes Hallett and members of the Department
Review of functions, graphing, logarithms, and trigonometry. Emphasizes problem solving and provides a preparation for Mathematics 1, economics, and basic science courses. Taught in small sections which begin at a point appropriate to the students in the Section.
Half course (full term, repeated spring term). Fall: Section 1, M., W., F., at 10; Section II, M., W., F., at 12; Section III, Tu., Th., 10-11:30. Spring: Section I, M., W., F., at 10. (XI)

Yeppers, that all checks! So, what's this thread about again? Wait, I know! It's nothing more than an opportunity for DCUM to, in no particular order, (i) denigrate Harvard as overrated, "too woke" (whatever that means), and anti-Semitic (not yet mentioned, but it's coming); (ii) celebrate the inherent superiority of Asian students, every single one of whom, if DCUM is to be believed, arrived in the United States four months ago, penniless, not knowing a word of English, and still managed to achieve higher SAT scores than all of their black classmates; and (iii) complain about those black classmates through coded language about "equity," "diversity," and "quotas" and whining about "TO" (which apparently means "test optional" and not NFL great Terrell Owens). Carry on, DCUM!

None of the bolded was included in the course description from 30 years ago. It doesn’t mention algebra, because it was assumed you already know it. It certainly doesn’t mention of extra support being provided for “foundational skills in algebra and geometry.”

A little context. In 1990 I took freshman calc using the Deborah Hughes Hallett preprint at my state flagship. The book hadn’t been published yet. It was referred to as Core Calculus Consortium, or Harvard Consortium. The class was honors and met daily. I still have the spiral bound copy. The concept was, graphing calculators are now commonplace, so we can re-write to reach calculus conceptually even if students have weak symbolic manipulation skills. Remediation may not be explicitly in the blurb above, but it was the reason for the course. The same group of educators went on to propose the Common Core reforms in K-12 over the next decades.

Anyway, I was a lazy HS student on to a so-so university but I placed into honors and majored in math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I assume this is directed at first gen students, but still seems pretty nuts.

why would you assume that?

Many Asian American students are first gen, and they score very high in math, the highest of all groups.

For the most part it’s because all they do is study.

Actually, they do lot of martial arts (Tae Kwon Do etc.) and soccer and tennis as well.

Poor first gen kids play a lot of tennis?

Yes and poor Asian children of immigrants in NYC also play a lot of soccer. Somewhere.

This is common in community colleges.

It is common to offer math basics and English writing basics.

You would not expect this at Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:It’s good they’re providing these kids support. When are other schools going to do the same. It’s a nationwide problem, not just an Harvard problem.

An elite school shouldn't have to provide a slowed down math class for remediation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know plenty of MIT grads who are not writers. I'm not shocked that there are Harvard kids who are top 1% in something who are not great at calc. Not everyone can be everything.

pre-calc is not top 1% for a college student and certainly not for a student at Harvard

Says who? This is who Harvard wants. What you want for Harvard is something else. It is your expectations that need adjustment.

I agree. This point seems lost based on many comments. What a person thinks or feels a college/university should value or prioritize does not always align to the school's values and mission. Harvard puts in place a program to educate students and people are mad it's not the right students.

It is interesting that with almost 3,000 4-year colleges, folks get worked up over this one. I mean, how many students out of their undergraduate enrollment are even taking this class? Not sure why folks care so much. Alum maybe?

I agree that Harvard can prioritize equity and diversity over academic excellence if it so chooses. The reason it’s news is because Harvard has spent most of its 388 year history emphasizing scholarship and building a reputation for choosing the “best and brightest” (even when it was a gentleman’s club). Just scan through any discussion on this board re: the value of paying Ivy League tuition vs. in state public and parents will confidently assert that it’s worth it to ensure that your bright kid will be surrounded by other stellar students. That hasn’t been their goal for some time now, but the results of test optional policies has revealed to what extent that’s true, and it’s an adjustment for some people who haven’t been paying attention.

(Also, it’s a bit of told you so after everyone was haughtily assured that these Admissions officers “know what they’re doing” and didn’t need to see test scores to select highly qualified students. Instituting an entire new program means that this wasn’t just one or two kids that needed extra support. If Harvard screwed it up, even with the quality of their applicant pool, how bad is it at every other test optional college in America?)

Yeah this isn't true. Gentleman's Club yes, Wealthy and Powerful yes,
Best and brughhtes researchers yes, best and brightest students, no.
Students are a small part of Harvard, and have always served Harvard's needs.

It’s good they’re providing these kids support. When are other schools going to do the same. It’s a nationwide problem, not just an Harvard problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I assume this is directed at first gen students, but still seems pretty nuts.

why would you assume that?

Many Asian American students are first gen, and they score very high in math, the highest of all groups.

For the most part it’s because all they do is study.

Actually, they do lot of martial arts (Tae Kwon Do etc.) and soccer and tennis as well.

But all of it is at the insistence of their parents in order to go to an Ivy. So formulaic. It’s like a “plug and chug” personality. Intrinsic motivation is completely absent.

please, that is no different that strivy white people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know plenty of MIT grads who are not writers. I'm not shocked that there are Harvard kids who are top 1% in something who are not great at calc. Not everyone can be everything.

pre-calc is not top 1% for a college student and certainly not for a student at Harvard

Says who? This is who Harvard wants. What you want for Harvard is something else. It is your expectations that need adjustment.

I agree. This point seems lost based on many comments. What a person thinks or feels a college/university should value or prioritize does not always align to the school's values and mission. Harvard puts in place a program to educate students and people are mad it's not the right students.

It is interesting that with almost 3,000 4-year colleges, folks get worked up over this one. I mean, how many students out of their undergraduate enrollment are even taking this class? Not sure why folks care so much. Alum maybe?

Sure, I mean Harvard can place more emphasis on diversity and race over aptitude and merit all it wants. But Harvard grads can't cry later as they start tanking in ratings and the Harvard name brand becomes more synonymous with slightly above mediocre rather than excellence. Employers take note and will draw less and less from less qualified Harvard candidates. What took 300 years to build in terms of name brand and excellence is going to be demolished in only 20 years because of overemphasizing race and diversity above all else. Have fun with that fallout.

Tbh, Harvard has already reached a breaking point and is past the point of no return. Grads from schools like MIT, CalTech, Rice, GAtech, CMU, Princeton, etc. are more impressive. And in terms of the world, I doubt Harvard is even top 20 anymore. Grads from Tsinghua, National University of Singapore, University of Tokyo, Oxbridge, Imperial College of London, etc. are all more impressive grads.

Many other countries in the world give zero craps about diversity at all costs. Americans would be in for a shocking eye opener if they looked at global rankings. US schools are falling fast, because they're backsliding into medicority due to identity politics. China is eating US' lunch now in engineering and STEM. US continues to go down the tubes because we do is enroll mediocre students like at Harvard who now need remedial algebra - the same class Asian students have mastered since about the 4th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I assume this is directed at first gen students, but still seems pretty nuts.

why would you assume that?

Many Asian American students are first gen, and they score very high in math, the highest of all groups.

For the most part it’s because all they do is study.

Actually, they do lot of martial arts (Tae Kwon Do etc.) and soccer and tennis as well.

But all of it is at the insistence of their parents in order to go to an Ivy. So formulaic. It’s like a “plug and chug” personality. Intrinsic motivation is completely absent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know plenty of MIT grads who are not writers. I'm not shocked that there are Harvard kids who are top 1% in something who are not great at calc. Not everyone can be everything.

My experience differs — I spent my career in a policy area that is highly technical, and of all the people (Ivy and non) I’ve employed, MIT grads have been the most consistently impressive and well rounded.

MIT grads were so arrogant we no longer recruit them at our company. They were terrible team players. The only thing they could do was brag they went to MIT. Couldn’t take direction or criticism. Insufferable.