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.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Okay perhaps we do agree on some things. I do not in principle agree about artificial quotas either. If class one is full of Einsteins and Curies and class two is incompetent, then I would be happy with class one getting all As and class B getting all Fs. I hope we can agree, though that 60% of As as a statistic means that As have really lost their status as a signal of excellence. I think guidelines rather than firm quotas are the answer here. Assuming typical classes I think it makes more sense to assume that only a minority of these students are producing unusually outstanding work, rather than assume that the majority are. But it should be up to the discretion of the prof to decide to ignore the guidelines if they actually notice an unusually number of excellent students in the class. This should be an infrequent occurrence, though.

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.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Yes, it's called standards based grading as opposed to normative based grading (grading against your peers). Not sure why people are insisting that all test scores are curved--that's not true at all. Look at the distribution of AP test scores. The highest level physics AP has some of the highest percentages of students with a 5. It's not because it's an "easy" AP--it's because these are nationally published criticism with clear criteria as to what constitutes a 5. The best students take the highest level AP physics--and correspondingly more earn 5s than "easier" APs where the student cohort probably isn't as strong.

Similarly, if you take the Bar exam, you don't pass only if you do better than your peers, you pass because you hit the minimum threshold score to be a lawyer.

I have no issue with Harvard students being more likely to get As--they're probably doing better work than most of their state school level peers (apart from those in honors colleges.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Without a school-wide policy, it is very difficult for any individual professor to grade rigorously. Professors who give fewer As will see fewer students in their classes and get worse student reviews. I realize that there are marginal cases where artifically capping As could produce unfair results, but the current system has resulted in all professors having to drop their stnadards to give most student As. That's not tenable either.

Professors have full autonomy of grading. If they were dropping their standards, why do full professors and associates also give out “lollipop” grades? No one is stopping them from giving everyone Fs.

The PP just told you: declining enrollment in their classes, and people like to be liked. Also it feels terrible to torpedo the future of a promising student who you think is full of potential, and that is what it means to give a student a B nowadays.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Without a school-wide policy, it is very difficult for any individual professor to grade rigorously. Professors who give fewer As will see fewer students in their classes and get worse student reviews. I realize that there are marginal cases where artifically capping As could produce unfair results, but the current system has resulted in all professors having to drop their stnadards to give most student As. That's not tenable either.

Professors have full autonomy of grading. If they were dropping their standards, why do full professors and associates also give out “lollipop” grades? No one is stopping them from giving everyone Fs.

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.

This line is so played out. Yes you can. Literally all of these processes require essays, extensive interviews, and recommendations. Law/Med school requires an exam! Graduate school requires research experience.

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.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Without a school-wide policy, it is very difficult for any individual professor to grade rigorously. Professors who give fewer As will see fewer students in their classes and get worse student reviews. I realize that there are marginal cases where artifically capping As could produce unfair results, but the current system has resulted in all professors having to drop their stnadards to give most student As. That's not tenable either.

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.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

Actually, I think both of us agree on the fact that an A should be meaningful.

What I disagree with is artificially putting a quota on any grades. A teacher should be able to give B's or C's or fail the entire class, if deem the case.

Let's say the engineering professor gives what she believes is a very difficult exam where she expects most students to get 50% correct. However, if 30% rise to the occasion and got 90%+ on this exam, then I don't think I need to give B's to some of these students. I believe this group of kids deserve an A's. It is on me, as the faculty member, to provide an exam that is rigorous enough to challenge the students and delineate their understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

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


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

I have a feeling parents want only A for their students even if their students rarely go to class and learn nothing. They tend to blame the faculty.

Another problem of this is that the truly outstanding students feel their efforts are not really awarded and they are surrounded by slackers. Also grad school admission can’t rely on grades anymore.

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


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

I have a feeling parents want only A for their students even if their students rarely go to class and learn nothing. They tend to blame the faculty.

I went through engineering school (top 10) in the 90s. And while I think most engineering programs won't have an issue with this, I suspect lots of 1st year core classes having to figure out a more subjective test program in order to truly limit As to 20% of the class. Back in my day, almost everyone in my nearly 500+ Calculus 1 class had already taken AP Calc in high school and came in with a 5 on the test, so like 50%+ of the class routinely got As in most of the tests. There were quite a few who couldn't get there but the majority of the group easily got A in the class. And that was the whole point for most of us to redo calc in college--to get that easy A!

Interesting and odd. My ds is at a large public university and in some classes getting an A is easy, in others very rare and difficult. I think needing to make this into an arbitrary rule for all classes ignores the fact that not all course content is equally challenging, or easy to grasp. Metrics to evaluate performance are also not the same across the board in all disciplines.

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.

90% of college students aren't taking Harvard's classes

Even Harvard professors are dumbing down their classes to accommodate what are generally more mediocre students compared to 30 years ago and this generation's expectations of As.

Things are different today compared to what they were in the 90s. Harvard's admitted classes today are academically weaker. And a B is devastating for these students. They've never had one before. Whereas 30 years ago, most Harvard students were pretty smart and a B was a perfectly good grade. I think Harvard and Yale and others are trying to go back to the way things were in the 90s - smart kids in an environment where a B is pretty good and the As are reserved for truly exceptional.

But I can see why professors might not like dictates from above dictating how they grade, especially in the more quantitative majors where there is usually a right answer and a wrong answer. However, grading everywhere has lost the plot in recent years. If everyone is exceptional, no one is. And schools like Harvard and Yale have the influence to restore balance in academic grading. There should be nothing wrong with getting a B. And an A should be regarded as pretty awesome.

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.

DP. Are today’s Harvard students a much smarter cohort than Harvard students from 25 years ago?

If not, how do you explain the fact that today’s cohort receives many more “A” grades than their predecessors?

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.

I think we disagree about whether an A should mean competency vs excellence. I expect everyone with a college degree to be competent. But I still want a way to reward unusual excellence. When an A simply means "competent" you completely lose the ability distinguish or reward those students who are remarkable.

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.

90% of college students aren't taking Harvard's classes