Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I truly do not understand the point of this. It’s artificial. If students earn As, they should get As. If you think too many students are getting As because the material is too easy, then you should adjust the coursework to be harder.
But if you’re teaching what you’re supposed to teach, and the students are mastering it and getting As, why is this a problem?
Exactly this. I am a college professor and I think this kind of artificial cap is the stupidest thing ever. Not to mention that that instead of creating a collaborative environment among students it will just create a cut-throat setting with everyone vying for those As. I just finished grading my students' final projects (in humanities) and honestly the vast majority of them were excellent, smart and creative . I cannot imagine artificially capping the number of As.
Harvard knows most of the kids are not A material…. In the past, any top university would have about 10-20 % of students who would get As. It is absurd to think that a majority of the class would/could get As on their own merit .. we never saw this in the past.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I truly do not understand the point of this. It’s artificial. If students earn As, they should get As. If you think too many students are getting As because the material is too easy, then you should adjust the coursework to be harder.
But if you’re teaching what you’re supposed to teach, and the students are mastering it and getting As, why is this a problem?
Exactly this. I am a college professor and I think this kind of artificial cap is the stupidest thing ever. Not to mention that that instead of creating a collaborative environment among students it will just create a cut-throat setting with everyone vying for those As. I just finished grading my students' final projects (in humanities) and honestly the vast majority of them were excellent, smart and creative . I cannot imagine artificially capping the number of As.
Harvard knows most of the kids are not A material…. In the past, any top university would have about 10-20 % of students who would get As. It is absurd to think that a majority of the class would/could get As on their own merit .. we never saw this in the past.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I truly do not understand the point of this. It’s artificial. If students earn As, they should get As. If you think too many students are getting As because the material is too easy, then you should adjust the coursework to be harder.
But if you’re teaching what you’re supposed to teach, and the students are mastering it and getting As, why is this a problem?
Exactly this. I am a college professor and I think this kind of artificial cap is the stupidest thing ever. Not to mention that that instead of creating a collaborative environment among students it will just create a cut-throat setting with everyone vying for those As. I just finished grading my students' final projects (in humanities) and honestly the vast majority of them were excellent, smart and creative . I cannot imagine artificially capping the number of As.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This was common in many of my math, CSE and economics classes at Penn in the 90s. Not sure what the big deal is? The tests are really hard to differentiate amongst students. A is exemplary, B is good/great, C is satisfactory, etc. Plenty of B and C students that got their degrees and secured great first jobs. Employers manage expectations when they know the GPA is on a curve.
"Objective problem-solving" can be made more rigorous, deeper dive, more nuanced, trickier complex questions. The kids that met the bar, but weren't savants, collected their B or C and moved on with life.
The recruiters of today just filter for school AND gpa. No one gives a shit about the nuance about Harvard's grading. they want the "best."
That's not true for campus recruiters at top schools like Harvard. They visit a similar set of 20+ schools year over year, and know grading is different at Cornell vs Brown, for example.
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
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This was common in many of my math, CSE and economics classes at Penn in the 90s. Not sure what the big deal is? The tests are really hard to differentiate amongst students. A is exemplary, B is good/great, C is satisfactory, etc. Plenty of B and C students that got their degrees and secured great first jobs. Employers manage expectations when they know the GPA is on a curve.
"Objective problem-solving" can be made more rigorous, deeper dive, more nuanced, trickier complex questions. The kids that met the bar, but weren't savants, collected their B or C and moved on with life.
The recruiters of today just filter for school AND gpa. No one gives a shit about the nuance about Harvard's grading. they want the "best."
Anonymous wrote:At MIT, the median GPA is a 4.2 out of 5.0 which is equivalent to a 3.3-3.4 GPA on the 4 point scale. Does anyone believe Harvard students are meaningfully more intelligent than MIT students? Of course not. MIT just has tougher standards. No reason Harvard can't adopt similar practices.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The engineer whining on this thread is pretty hilarious. Engineering has long been famous for killer curves. Beyond that, even if they were right about engineering, not all STEM fields are "criterion based." Math and physics in particular reward brilliance and wizardry in seeing beyond the textbook. Maybe we could all learn something from pure math.
As someone who studied Physics and got a PhD in computational physics, no that is not what physics rewards. It rewards understanding the content and applying it to new situations. At the undergraduate level, there's very little "brilliance" to reward, beyond working hard to understand content. There do, however, seem to be a lot of people in math and physics who are awful at the subject, but feel some need to emphasize that it's brilliance that separates those who do well from those who don't.
You sound bitter
I don't think the physicist sounds bitter at all. As a matter of fact, I think you sound ignorant.
Ex- physicist.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The engineer whining on this thread is pretty hilarious. Engineering has long been famous for killer curves. Beyond that, even if they were right about engineering, not all STEM fields are "criterion based." Math and physics in particular reward brilliance and wizardry in seeing beyond the textbook. Maybe we could all learn something from pure math.
As someone who studied Physics and got a PhD in computational physics, no that is not what physics rewards. It rewards understanding the content and applying it to new situations. At the undergraduate level, there's very little "brilliance" to reward, beyond working hard to understand content. There do, however, seem to be a lot of people in math and physics who are awful at the subject, but feel some need to emphasize that it's brilliance that separates those who do well from those who don't.
You sound bitter
I don't think the physicist sounds bitter at all. As a matter of fact, I think you sound ignorant.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The engineer whining on this thread is pretty hilarious. Engineering has long been famous for killer curves. Beyond that, even if they were right about engineering, not all STEM fields are "criterion based." Math and physics in particular reward brilliance and wizardry in seeing beyond the textbook. Maybe we could all learn something from pure math.
As someone who studied Physics and got a PhD in computational physics, no that is not what physics rewards. It rewards understanding the content and applying it to new situations. At the undergraduate level, there's very little "brilliance" to reward, beyond working hard to understand content. There do, however, seem to be a lot of people in math and physics who are awful at the subject, but feel some need to emphasize that it's brilliance that separates those who do well from those who don't.
You sound bitter
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The engineer whining on this thread is pretty hilarious. Engineering has long been famous for killer curves. Beyond that, even if they were right about engineering, not all STEM fields are "criterion based." Math and physics in particular reward brilliance and wizardry in seeing beyond the textbook. Maybe we could all learn something from pure math.
As someone who studied Physics and got a PhD in computational physics, no that is not what physics rewards. It rewards understanding the content and applying it to new situations. At the undergraduate level, there's very little "brilliance" to reward, beyond working hard to understand content. There do, however, seem to be a lot of people in math and physics who are awful at the subject, but feel some need to emphasize that it's brilliance that separates those who do well from those who don't.
You sound bitter