Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the tangible, long term negative affects of more kids getting As? Are these kids unable to find jobs? Are they unable to perform at work if they do find jobs?

Dumbing down is not good.

But what are the alternatives?

Stricter grading leads to more dropouts and more suicides.

Stricter grading also makes it harder for students to get internships and jobs, and harder for them to get into law school and med school.

Nobody likes grade inflation but nobody likes suicide, drop outs, or unemployed/underemployed alums, either.

Number of jobs and seats at law school and med school stay the same, and they will be filled with qualified students.

Under qualified students should not be admitted in the first place and should get out if not at the right place.

That's better for the whole country in the long run.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

Chicago has legacy preference, and lots of rich private school kids.

Yes every top school has lots of rich kids from private schools, and most give a legacy boost. Yet somehow only the rigorous universities as named above (and there are a few others) are derided here as being full of “strivers,” as if actually having to work hard at college is the dreaded mark of the bourgeoisie.

Anonymous wrote:At our private school that doesn't have grade inflation, ivies mostly look at the gpa as a number and don't put much weight on rigor. Kids game the system by choosing the non-rigor course to get their gpa as high as possible. The ivy admits are not nearly as smart as kids who go to MIT, Georgia Tech, CMU, JHU.

This is absolutely not true. Your private HS may have found a way to make it difficult for the AOs to distinguish rigor among classes (especially if your school does not offer APs). But for most schools, public and private, this statement is simply false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

Chicago has legacy preference, and lots of rich private school kids.

Chicago takes full pay B students from our private high school. (my kid resembles that remark - trust me, I tried to sell him on UChicago!)

At our private school that doesn't have grade inflation, ivies mostly look at the gpa as a number and don't put much weight on rigor. Kids game the system by choosing the non-rigor course to get their gpa as high as possible. The ivy admits are not nearly as smart as kids who go to MIT, Georgia Tech, CMU, JHU.

Anonymous wrote:My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

Chicago has legacy preference, and lots of rich private school kids.

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.

Anonymous wrote:My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

I had two kids - Yale and Northwestern. And Northwestern kid would say it was far easier. Yale was not a cake walk.

And MIT has one of the lowest failure rates of any university. My nephew was there. Hard, sure. But pass/fail at the beginning, which helps. Maybe all colleges should do that?

I think you have to also acknowledge that most kids at most colleges can choose an easier or harder path by looking up the professors ahead of time.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I find it baffling that Harvard undergrad is ranked as high as it is.

Ditto.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the tangible, long term negative affects of more kids getting As? Are these kids unable to find jobs? Are they unable to perform at work if they do find jobs?

Dumbing down is not good.

But what are the alternatives?

Stricter grading leads to more dropouts and more suicides.

Stricter grading also makes it harder for students to get internships and jobs, and harder for them to get into law school and med school.

Nobody likes grade inflation but nobody likes suicide, drop outs, or unemployed/underemployed alums, either.

My child goes to one of MIT/Uchicago/Hopkins/Northwestern (no point in saying which) and works so hard for As. The school uses various methods to cap the number of “top achievers,” and she was specifically told in a class this year that typically only 5% of the students leave with an A. Some people here will call them grinder/striver schools, which is just another way of saying that the non-rich, non-legacy riffraff should stay submissive and happy with their lot. But these schools and a few others seem to be so far above Harvard’s academic standards at the moment. Between the lax undergrad standards and the appalling number of Harvard and Yale Law grads who seem to have never read the Constitution, I think a drop in many Ivy League schools’ rankings and popular perception is just a matter of time.

Anonymous wrote:If Harvard really cared they’d focus more on academic strength in admissions instead of recruiting fencers and kids who started their own non-profits. Also I hate how they always imply that the lowered standards are from the poor kids and not wealthy athletes who are likely very bright but do have lower average scores.
But I don’t think Harvard cares - I think they like it just the way it is. If they wanted to change this they could force a grading curve with one memo.

Where does it imply that it's the poor kids? The suggestion is that it is systemic.

The class of ‘29 was test required.

That’s why engineering graduates or premeds from large state universities are well-respected. They suffered four years of tough classes.