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.

Yes there are always curves. But if everyone earns a 90%+ they should get an A. And if everyone gets between 25 and 40% that is on the prof and I'd argue they should get As and Bs.

Stem grad in curve because many profs don't teach the material. Had that many times in engineering/math at top10 college. Where the highest score was a 38, you'd take the exam and have no clue what was happening because the prof was terrible and put questions unrelated to the course (calc3, not an advanced course).

but why is it beneficial to anyone to have a class where the average class grade is a 35% and a 55% gets an A. Which can happen in some of these classes with some of these teachers in STEM. when the topic is structural engineering, we need better classes and a better way to know if a kid has learned the material. a 4.0 is meaingless if that included a lot of 55% as A finals.

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.

Yes there are always curves. But if everyone earns a 90%+ they should get an A. And if everyone gets between 25 and 40% that is on the prof and I'd argue they should get As and Bs.

Stem grad in curve because many profs don't teach the material. Had that many times in engineering/math at top10 college. Where the highest score was a 38, you'd take the exam and have no clue what was happening because the prof was terrible and put questions unrelated to the course (calc3, not an advanced course).

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: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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In most STEM and engineering courses, grading is criterion-referenced, not norm-referenced. That means an A represents a fixed level of mastery of clearly defined learning outcomes. If 30% of students meet those outcomes at an A level, that reflects instruction and student performance, not a grading problem. Raising difficulty to force a distribution doesn’t actually improve rigor; it just shifts the cutoff for what counts as “A-level” work. You’re no longer measuring mastery of the material. You’re redefining success so fewer students can reach it. That reduces the validity of the grade as an indicator of competence.

There’s also a practical issue: engineering programs (including those aligned with accreditation standards like ABET) are designed around specific competencies students must demonstrate. If students meet those competencies at a high level, artificially capping top grades creates a mismatch between actual ability and recorded achievement, imo.

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: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As crazy as it sounds, Harvard may be a bad choice for those who are pre-law. The law schools appear to be indifferent to undergraduate schools and majors and instead focused on LSAT scores and GPAs. For all of the top law schools, the median undergraduate GPA is above 3.90. This is very different from my law school experience several decades ago. I went to a top law school and well more than 25% of my class came from T10 colleges.

The majority of students at top law schools still come from top undergraduate schools. That isn’t going to change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

The idea that you deserve an A because you are competent is itself the problem that this is trying to tackle. They want to move back to a system where an A is not an expectation but a mark of exceptional good work. Theoretically it’s possible that you have a class where everybody is truly exceptional, I guess, but clearly that’s not what Harvard faculty see.

The fact that a student gets straight As in high school and a good SAT score doesn’t mean she will do exceptionally good work in a college level class. And experience suggests that, even at a place like Harvard, there’s a bell curve of achievement.

The goal is to make an A representative the right side of the bell curve again and not just the minimum level of competence.

Make the coursework even more rigorous if needed to differentiate. That's one solution. But a grading policy that polices how many students can get a certain grade is ridiculous. There should be no mandate on specific grades, but a mandate on rigor. That's on the professor and a department to decide and not a blanket one-solution policy coerced by a school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.

The idea that you deserve an A because you are competent is itself the problem that this is trying to tackle. They want to move back to a system where an A is not an expectation but a mark of exceptional good work. Theoretically it’s possible that you have a class where everybody is truly exceptional, I guess, but clearly that’s not what Harvard faculty see.

The fact that a student gets straight As in high school and a good SAT score doesn’t mean she will do exceptionally good work in a college level class. And experience suggests that, even at a place like Harvard, there’s a bell curve of achievement.

The goal is to make an A representative the right side of the bell curve again and not just the minimum level of competence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who does A work needs to get an A on their transcript. Doing otherwise means the grades are meaningless.

What grades others get has nothing to do with my grade.

Most people do not produce true A work. The average grade should be a 3.0. Only those very much above average should get a 4.0. Grade inflation is bad for everyone

What's your evidence for this? Why should an average grade be a 3.0. Clearly your education didn't teach you to make arguments coherently.

Because a B grade is historically defined as "above average" and "good" work. 90% of students can't be above average in the real world.

Your education didn't teach you the difference between an opinion or a fact either. Grades can be normative (where students receive grades relative to the performance of their fellow students) or fixed (attainment of some pre-determined learning standards.)

Both grading options have their strengths and weaknesses. Grading on a curve at Harvard is rough. Brown writes that 47% of its students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their HS class. It's probably well above that at Harvard.

+1 I hate to burst your bubble, but 90% of students at Harvard are academically "above average." If they've shown mastery of learning standards for the course, there doesn't need to be an artificial curve such that only 20% of them can get As. They shouldn't be penalized just because they're with a much smarter cohort than the average university.

Back in the day, my STEM major courses at an elite school were curved, which definitely limited the number of A's to even fewer than the 20% that Harvard is currently proposing. And all the students admitted to this university had top grades and standardized test scores. And yet, rarity of As was fine, because it was not the expectation that everyone got A's just for showing up and doing an average job compared to your classmates, even if it on a very difficult exam. The times I did earn As were noteworthy, because I knew I had accomplished something special.

Rampant grade inflation actually hurts many students. Graduate schools, law/med schools, recruiters etc. can no longer distinguish who the exceptional students are, and everyone's A average is now basically worthless. This forces students to try and stand out in other ways, all of which are even more stress inducing than working to earn good grades.

I am not disagreeing that grades should reflect actual knowledge and competency. If a student has not mastered the material, then that should not be rewarded with a high grade. What does not make sense to me is imposing a quota or forced distribution on grades because that introduces something artificial into the evaluation process. If competency has genuinely been achieved, then it should be recognized with the appropriate grade regardless of whether the neighboring student is also competent.