Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/harvard-students-furious-over-plan-061700240.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD1z6z1tIcGmU6fPqnH5QWV3uhzTpM1vKxuoDMfgIee8pKP5-5Jb2PVaqz2ABIctsxhvgX_k7FT1BF1tMxd7scdKqylNQ9MyzBHFXhXce8vi81WmCLoE2DHUFETMwEofazciWuf8_94YZ2pbZPSP7FJSzRoXpo3Jc13EklHRFRj-

The proposal under consideration would limit A grades in undergraduate courses to no more than 20% of the class plus four additional students. Roughly 60% of grades were an A in the academic year ending in mid-2025 at Harvard, more than double the rate in 2006. That fell to 53% in the fall semester after Harvard urged faculty to be more disciplined.

the Harvard vote has the potential to be a catalyst for wider changes. If one of the country’s best known and most prestigious universities declares grade inflation a problem, it could inspire other schools to do the same

A strict cap on A grades is especially harmful to STEM and engineering classes because these courses are often designed around objective problem-solving rather than subjective evaluation. In many STEM courses, it is entirely possible for a large portion of the class to genuinely earn an A by correctly solving problems and mastering the material. Artificially limiting A grades means students could be penalized even when they meet the standard for excellence.

This is different from many discussion, or writing-based classes, where grading can be more comparative and subjective. In STEM, there is often a clear right answer. If 40% of a calculus or engineering class demonstrates mastery, forcing half of them below an A makes grades less accurate, not more meaningful.
The policy would punish success in rigorous technical courses instead of reflecting actual understanding.

Then the engineering problems should be more difficult and varied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Students nowadays are definitely not smarter. My partner went to HYP in the 90s and he was reading 500-700 pages a week and nowadays students struggle to read a book. Students have more tools and resources nowadays and can solve problems better, but their stamina and critical thinking are not as strong as they were a generation ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

On what basis are you saying this? According to the PISA, students today are definitely NOT as capable and scores are in serious decline. Professors everywhere are complaining about unprepared students. Are you saying students today are smarter based on SAT scores? Because if so, you should really know that they redesigned the SAT to be easier to prep (for equity reasons). This is why high SAT scores are more abundant today, not due to some massive increase in IQ. Neuroscientists have even pointed out that gen Z is less cognitively capable compared to previous generations. This has been all over the news lately.

But if by "more accomplished" you mean more hothoused by parents and strategically packaged by college counselors, then yeah, I am willing to agree with that.

I went to Stuyvesant with some really smart kids. But all you needed was a high GPA, stellar SAT scores and normal ECs to get into pretty much any school.
My kid went to HYPSM from TJ pre-COVID and he was way smarter and harder working than I ever was. His friends in high school and in college were the same.\

I don't know how much of this is engineered but my kid was not engineered, just trying to keep up with the Joneses. It was clear in 9th grade that the resumes were insane. A kid was a gold medal winner at the international math olympiad, a few regeneron semifinalists, people helping entire school systems in third world countries, just insane.

The real question is what are those students doing now. Are they doing anything extraordinary or just regular people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

On what basis are you saying this? According to the PISA, students today are definitely NOT as capable and scores are in serious decline. Professors everywhere are complaining about unprepared students. Are you saying students today are smarter based on SAT scores? Because if so, you should really know that they redesigned the SAT to be easier to prep (for equity reasons). This is why high SAT scores are more abundant today, not due to some massive increase in IQ. Neuroscientists have even pointed out that gen Z is less cognitively capable compared to previous generations. This has been all over the news lately.

But if by "more accomplished" you mean more hothoused by parents and strategically packaged by college counselors, then yeah, I am willing to agree with that.

I went to Stuyvesant with some really smart kids. But all you needed was a high GPA, stellar SAT scores and normal ECs to get into pretty much any school.
My kid went to HYPSM from TJ pre-COVID and he was way smarter and harder working than I ever was. His friends in high school and in college were the same.\

I don't know how much of this is engineered but my kid was not engineered, just trying to keep up with the Joneses. It was clear in 9th grade that the resumes were insane. A kid was a gold medal winner at the international math olympiad, a few regeneron semifinalists, people helping entire school systems in third world countries, just insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

On what basis are you saying this? According to the PISA, students today are definitely NOT as capable and scores are in serious decline. Professors everywhere are complaining about unprepared students. Are you saying students today are smarter based on SAT scores? Because if so, you should really know that they redesigned the SAT to be easier to prep (for equity reasons). This is why high SAT scores are more abundant today, not due to some massive increase in IQ. Neuroscientists have even pointed out that gen Z is less cognitively capable compared to previous generations. This has been all over the news lately.

But if by "more accomplished" you mean more hothoused by parents and strategically packaged by college counselors, then yeah, I am willing to agree with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

On what basis are you saying this? According to the PISA, students today are definitely NOT as capable and scores are in serious decline. Professors everywhere are complaining about unprepared students. Are you saying students today are smarter based on SAT scores? Because if so, you should really know that they redesigned the SAT to be easier to prep (for equity reasons). This is why high SAT scores are more abundant today, not due to some massive increase in IQ. Neuroscientists have even pointed out that gen Z is less cognitively capable compared to previous generations. This has been all over the news lately.

But if by "more accomplished" you mean more hothoused by parents and strategically packaged by college counselors, then yeah, I am willing to agree with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Colleges have gotten crazy selective. However, the students admitted are not actually more intelligent. Anyone who believes the current generation of students is more capable than previous generations has their head in the sand and is avoiding unpleasant realities. Whether it is because of screens or something else, the kids are not alright and need help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

+1. One of my graduate school higher level stats problem sets was looking at selectivity and qualifications of admitted students over time. Anyone who thinks it was harder and more selective in the 1990s is willfully blind or shockingly ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop whining! Harvard is entitled to change its grading policy however it sees fit! If you don't like it, simply don't apply.

This comment was surprisingly pathetic and unnecessary

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students at Harvard are no smarter than they were in the 90's, and back then the average GPA was below 3.5.

Standards have gotten softer. There should be corrective measures to fix this issue. However, I do fear that lowering GPAs will hurt Harvard students seeking medical and law school admissions.

To be fair, they are absolutely smarter than they were in the 1990s. The kids are just smarter these days. More accomplished at a young age. I doubt half the class of 1992 would be able to get in these days.