Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Harvard driving itself off a cliff. Needs to get it together.
Result of DEI and wokeness.
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?
Anonymous wrote:
Many of us shifted from high-stakes exams to more frequent lower-stakes assignments, believing that this would help students retain the material. A number have found, however, that lower-stakes assignments are more effective at rewarding effort than at evaluating performance, giving students the false sense that they'd mastered material that still eludes them. Similarly, faculty shifted from exams and papers to alternate modes of assessment, such as creative assignments and group projects, in the hopes of increasing student engagement with their courses. A number struggled, however, to assess these assignments in a sufficiently differentiated way. Finally, some faculty have eschewed conventional grading, turning instead to ‘ungrading’ or ‘contract-based learning’ or other systems in which students earn As for completing all assigned work. There is a pedagogical case to be made for these alternate approaches, but they're fundamentally at odds with our current grading system, which relies on grades to differentiate.”
Crimson article: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/10/27/grading-workload-report/
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.
5% get an A in any given class or 5% get an A average? Because the former is insane grade deflation. Unless another 10-20% are getting A-s, I guess.
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.
Anonymous wrote: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:Anonymous wrote: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.
Harvard changing its policy will have no effect on the whole country in the long run. Under-qualified students from other schools that continue to practice grade inflation will step up to take those law school and med school seats.
Anonymous wrote: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: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!)
You are so tiresome. Not every thread has to be about you and your insane obsession. No one cares, and you are instantly recognizable. This thread is about academic rigor and grading during the college years.
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.
Anonymous wrote: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: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!)
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.
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?
You can edit this to MIT and JHU. But Chicago and Northwestern? In 2025?
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.