Harvard Professor Concerned about Grade Inflation

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
61

<p>Here’s a proposition: Harvard can do whatever the heck it wants with its grading system.</p>

<p>I can imagine two somewhat valid institutional values that are served by the existing system:</p>

<p>First, it has long been a cherished part of Harvard College’s self-image that just being there is the most important thing of all, and whether anyone actually learns anything in formal classes is somewhat beside the point. It may serve Harvard’s institutional strategy not to help employers and graduate schools distinguish among Harvard undergraduates, at least not on the basis of something as secondary as classroom and exam performance. Knowing their concentrations, being impressed by the names on their letters of recommendation and the loftiness of their standardized test scores, and noticing what offices they held on the Crimson or other EC . . . that should be more than enough for any legitimate purpose.</p>

<ol>
<li>Second, it is probably more work than many of the faculty want to do on a regular basis, (a) to figure out, in some objective manner, the differences in academic ability among the classfull of superstars before them, and (b) to deal with the tsunami of whining that would occur if the faculty told more than a handful of a class that they were being stripped of their superstar status. Faculty at other colleges do have to do some of that, but none of them are facing a room full of Harvard students. </li>
</ol>

<p>(Semi-)Seriously, to whom does Harvard owe a duty here? Why should it make life easier for admissions staff at Yale Law School and Johns Hopkins Medical School? For recruiters and McKinsey, Bain, and Black Rock? Is there any indication Harvard students care to know more than they do about their own relative abilities?</p>

62

<p>JHS, as a Harvard graduate, I’d very strongly disagree that “whether anyone actually learns anything in formal classes is somewhat beside the point” there.</p>

<p>Harvard did emphasize “being there” when I was there, but the reason to “be there” was to benefit from the amazing professors, amazing students and amazing activities. Learning was the whole point; there more than the place I went for undergrad, there were lots of opportunities to learn outside of the classroom, but learning was essential.</p>

<p>Just sitting there in Loker Commons drinking a coffee wasn’t the point.</p>

<p>Harvard owes a duty to its students to teach them something. Grades do matter, even there.</p>

63

<p>There are even discrepancies in STEM grading at elite schools that may be unfair if you look at it between institutions. For example, I imagine the following demonstrates the common practice at Harvard (it’s from organic chemistry 1, chem 17):
<a href=“http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic633039.files/Lecture1-CourseIntroduction.pdf[/url]”>http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic633039.files/Lecture1-CourseIntroduction.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Okay, so in this particular class, the mean is curved to “B”. This is a traditional elite school large science course situation where the instructor designs exams that are extremely difficult and thus must fit grades to a curve because applying to a normal “90%=A grade” scale will result in most people failing (65 would usually be a D). So…what happens when you have other schools with extremely rigorous organic chemistry sequences such as Dartmouth, Emory, Brown (this one definitely curves higher), Northwestern, and maybe Stanford (okay Stanford may also curve to “B”) deciding to curve to “B-” and even “C+” (both in the 2s). Is Harvard’s extra bump justified because it’s students had a harder time getting in? </p>

<p>I mean, it shouldn’t matter…</p>

<p>Just take a look (for those familiar with science/chemistry courses), I went to Emory and the exams given by some instructors who curve to B- and yield about a 65 average are quite a bit more difficult than the ones for chem 17. I’ll show you (the material is different, but you’ll be able to tell by the format that the exams from Emory are conceptually more rigorous and have significantly more rigorous “curve-ball” questions whereas the Harvard exam seems to primarily problems that can easily be done if you just understood what was presented to you in class. The exam I present requires much more “luck” and “depth” because the concepts are completely foreign to the students. Exams are usually up to 3 hours long).</p>

<p>For ease of direct comparison, know that Harvard’s chem 17 is a crash course in carbonyl and what is typically second semester chemistry for pre-meds (who will go on to take chem 27 which is a “bio-organic” type of course). I will compare it to the 2nd semester of our sequence since it’s most similar (I would compare our 1st semester to chem 20, but they only have a summer coursewebsite available, and I don’t think it’s fair to compare summer to semester): </p>

<p>Harvard chem 17 Exam 3: <a href=“http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic633038.files/Exam3_2009_actual.pdf[/url]”>http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic633038.files/Exam3_2009_actual.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
Emory chem 222 Exam 3:
<a href=“https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BVVRISUFjNzd3bHc/edit[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BVVRISUFjNzd3bHc/edit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Even when the exams cover different material, it’s kind of clear which situation is more challenging, here’s a 221 exam:
<a href=“https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BRm1uQ3hkWW5WSEk/edit[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B456FmeCw42BRm1uQ3hkWW5WSEk/edit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Is a Harvard advantage really justified for this course? Uh…no.</p>

<p>The same pattern is apparently observed for Northwestern as well (it’s known to be more difficult than the sequence taken by most Harvard pre-meds…and they also tend to curve to B-)</p>

<p>Overall, I believe Harvard’s science programs are overall (organic at Emory is an exception) just far more rigorous than Emory’s. However, there are places like Chicago, Northwestern, and maybe even Duke, that are probably of similar rigor in the sciences and yet grade lower in the sciences. Unfortunately, the sciences is not a place where you can clearly say, “Harvard students deserve more A’s because they are smarter”, because, just like everywhere else, exams (in exam/quiz based courses) are made difficult enough to force curves. And then once the grades of the exams come out, the course’s mean/median can be set to something…almost arbitrary. What places like Harvard (and some other more lenient programs such as Yale and Brown) do is add an extra bump even in STEM courses. They CHOOSE to add this bump even though there is really no evidence to suggest students deserve whatever grades they got. The logic of the other schools seems to be to adjust grades to the center of the +/- scale to C+/B- region (which is relatively uninflated, and is often bell"ish"), but some schools do B/B+ in analogous courses. So while STEM is lower than social science and humanities, it is prone to inflation when you take into account the curves that occur in large courses. They choose to adopt grading practices that are moreso “political” than anything else. It’s hardly based on what people earned when grades must be curved. I mean, seriously, why doesn’t Brown, Yale, and Harvard curve these (usually the pre-med courses) courses to B- (or C+/B-) like most other schools do? Who can seriously argue that a rigorous class at a place like Harvard that has an ending average of 65 deserves a “B” or “B+” while the similarly or more rigorous courses at another school with more standard grading/curving practices give B- for the same mean? Who’s going to say “They’re just so smart at Harvard that they earn more As” when they earn a 65 on those exams? Well damn, I guess all the other schools should get with it and start curving the bad grades to B and B+ since we’re all so smart.</p>

<p>I do believe that those at elite schools will naturally perform better than a bell-curve, but I know from experience that there is inflation and/or mechanisms in place to mask differences in quality in the student body. Some schools are clearly trying harder than others to do this and perhaps have many instructors with grading practices that overcompensate for “protective” (Students’ egos, job and prof. school prospects, etc) purposes.</p>

64

<p>So this is where the thread is moved…</p>

<p>I learned from MITChris that elites enroll less than 20 percent of students based strictly on merit. Another poster, collegehelp, showed that fully 25% of Harvard acceptances score LESS than 1390 on the SAT (M+CR). (The exception seems to be Caltech where the 25th percentile is 1470). Perhaps grade inflation is there to protect these folks?</p>

<p>If Manzi is correct, some employers are catching on to this:</p>

<p>[How</a> Elite Business Recruiting Really Works | National Review Online](<a href=“How Elite Business Recruiting Really Works | National Review”>How Elite Business Recruiting Really Works | National Review)!</p>

<p>For me, a quick and dirty approach is to simply look at the major first and school brand second. Some majors are just about “fool proof”. No pun intended.</p>

65

<p>I’m sorry, but as rigorous as Harvard is, a person with less than 1390 can probably do decently there even without inflation. It’s a freaking multiple choice test. Anything higher than 1300 (or even 1250) shows a high amount of aptitude. And places like Harvard don’t probably even give as much multiple choice tests. I think the biggest correlate may be HS GPA (but unfortunately those are being inflated a lot now). 25% of Emory’s acceptances are below 1310, and the enrolled students shaves 40 points off of this, and yet the students still score the same type of score on a harder chemistry exam. Some of these people, because of a lack of arrogance, end up doing better than those with much higher scores (they tend to have better work ethic and are not as shameful about using academic resources). The point is, I don’t think people with bottom quartile entrance stats. really need protection. It’s the people who get there with nice looking entering stats and don’t perform up to the expected level that probably need protection or else the student body will be exposed for not being as great as its entering stats would suggest. Because if your bottom quartile starts at anywhere near 1300, it should be quite good and able to respond positively to a challenging curriculum. I imagine that this just simply often is not the case. When you did well in HS, perhaps easily, many students don’t know how to respond to an actual challenge without whining or avoiding it. Even STEM students always ask “will this be on the test” like it’s HS and then get upset when the professor throws questions that require higher order thinking. This is always called “they don’t test what they teach! And it’s so unfair”. Which is amazing and makes you wonder why they came to a place claiming to offer a “rigorous education” if you want to just memorize or solve problems algorithmically like in HS. Needless to say, the most GPA protective measure for STEM majors and maybe business or econ. majors (especially those pursuing med, law, and MBA programs for whom GPA is paramount) even at selective schools is to gravitate toward courses that mainly test regurgitation (even if it’s of high level content, they can memorize or apply a formula) and then choose humanities and social science courses with low workloads and expectations (as in, teacher is known to give mostly A’s). So a great deal of inflation comes from students’ course selection. This is technically the best maneuver for students as employers and prof. schools don’t know (and probably don’t care) differences between instructors/certain courses and their standards. Even if the bottom quartile in terms of entering stats. was slated to do poorly, they can always pursue this avenue (as many do. Heck many students beyond the middle even do this because they don’t want to risk taking a challenging instructor or course with students at their level, especially if it may be graded on a curve).</p>

66

<p>I’m replying while still reading on page 3 :-).</p>

<p>At my S’s school, an A+ is for the top 5% in the class (based on grades). I do not know if they are calculated and awarded automatically. I think they may be.</p>

67

<p>I am not suggesting the bottom quartile would fail if grades are not inflated; I am saying inflated grades make such students look better than they really are. That is how I see Harvard “protecting” their students.</p>

<p>In my part of the woods up in the Great White North, A grades are restricted in larger classes to 20 to 25 percent of the class. What this means is that A signifies very different things, depending on the school and even more so, on the major. I would not be at all surprised if the gap between the good A and the bad A is greater than one standard deviation in “horsepower”. The only way to quantify this difference is through standardized testing, as far as I know, at this time.</p>

<p>I wish there is a better system in place, but it would not be in the best interest of most elites to have such a system, would it?</p>

<p>As I see it anyway…</p>

68

<p>I’m arguing that those students can “hang” and that everybody is being “protected”. As in, while the SAT scores and stuff are unusually high, students don’t perform as well as those stats. would indicate. In addition, some research shows that we just work much less harder than our predecessors. I really doubt that most of these schools have simply become so easy to their current caliber of students that they work like 1/2-1/3 as much and achieve higher grades. I think a lot of these places were flat out more difficult or, if they still are difficult, grade more leniently. We can also propose with some confidence that standards in humanities and social sciences may have actually been higher decades ago. I think lower workloads (less weekly reading and less intensive writing requirements) are probably more common now. So I guess what’s worse is that their may be grade inflation along with easier academic environments. Don’t get me wrong, most elite publics and privates still have more rigorous academic environments than other places, but it’s just probably not as intense as it was before. Many elite private schools, for example softened their general ed. requirements. I’m sure this has an effect on its own as many students can easily avoid stepping out of their comfort zone. In addition, we know that there seems to be the development many service type gen. ed courses that hordes of students take purely for the req. and an easy grade (basically the opposite of the pre-med service courses rigor wise). </p>

<p>However, you are correct. It’s certainly not in the best interest for elites to expose their student bodies as intellectually imperfect. How would they continue to get so many students those Rhodes, Gates-Cambridge, Fulbright, and Marshall Scholars without the requisite high GPAs? Although sometimes I wonder if the ever increasing GPA requirements for prof. schools and awards/scholarships may simply be a symptom of the inflation (like if high GPAs are so common, why not ask for near perfection?). Seems to be a chicken and egg sort of thing. I wonder which came first.</p>

69

<p>This article by Matt Yglesias in Slate gave me pause for thought. Is the real problem here admissions not keeping pace with changed supply and demand metrics?</p>

<p>[Harvard</a> grade inflation: The real problem is admissions.](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/05/harvard_grade_inflation_the_real_problem_is_admissions.html]Harvard”>Harvard grade inflation: The real problem is admissions.)</p>

70

<p>

I don’t see this with my daughter at Yale, who is an English major–just as I was 30 years ago. Her workload seems about the same as mine was. I think it takes her a lot less time to write a paper, though, because of the technology that is available now.</p>

71

<p>The A at Harvard is for getting in, when virtually no one does.</p>

72

<p>Yes, but that’s an example of an elite English department. Emory’s English program, especially creative writing, is rising in prominence, and is known for being more rigorous than normal in comparison to other humanities (maybe even social science majors). I was generalizing across elites. Of course programs that were traditionally extremely strong will have some umphhh left in them, but a lot of humanities depts. don’t. I bet that they’ve seen the most inflation and likely a drop in standards more so than other depts.</p>

73

<p>^^I agree with you pretty much on all issues except for one little caveat: While it is true that conscientiousness is important, for some majors it is not enough, and the study by Hsu and Schombert seems to say as much.</p>

<p>My biggest concern, though, is that we do not grade like this up here, and I fear that would put our students at a huge disadvantage. As is, even our own employers don’t know the difference between an easy A and a hard A, and I suspect schools and well informed students are taking advantage of it. Most people outside of CC are not that aware of the topic, as you well know.</p>

<p>I wish I know what the solution is.</p>

74

<p>[[1011.0663</a>] Nonlinear Psychometric Thresholds for Physics and Mathematics](<a href=“http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.0663][1011.0663”>[1011.0663] Nonlinear Psychometric Thresholds for Physics and Mathematics)</p>

<p>Yes, this is interesting. Actually never read or heard of it until you mentioned it. I do indeed buy the findings and implications. Interestingly enough, it seems like math and physics (and chemistry in many cases. It’s a pre-health deterrent at many places for a reason) are more uniformly rigorous (in both grading and content) at many universities, whereas I notice that it’s honestly kind of easy to stumble or intentionally choose higher grading classes in other depts including say biology. For example, I know our biology and neuroscience undergraduate divisions have “upper division” courses that are memorization oriented, subjectively graded (may be no other assessment than a presentation or papers in some classes), or graded leniently (some classes can be curved beyond “B”). So it’s honestly not surprising that lots of pre-health biology majors have high GPAs (Beyond say, general biology, it’s easy to simply choose easier courses or ones that grade easier. The only things that can often negatively affect the GPA is the pre-med courses they take in math, chemistry, and physics). This situation simply can’t be compared to depts where most classes still willing give C’s (physics, math, and chemistry typically have course averages of B- across nearly all course coursework). The unfortunate thing is that prof. schools often treat students equally irregardless of majors (thus challenging majors or courses are discouraged unless you know for sure that you are well…perfect. Basically, whatever you’re doing shouldn’t be challenging to you). I think graduate programs are a little more aware. </p>

<p>There is no solution, grades are a commodity. The places that give the best grades, especially those with a great name already, will always have an advantage (there will always be the tendency to “trust” the Harvard A, or do things like “oh that biology course is a science course, and thus it must have been difficult, how nice for them to get an A”). I mean, it’s basically up to the students to know this stuff and they do, so that they can chart an easier path if having extremely high grades is important to their future career. The students won’t be at a disadvantage if they just play the game properly. I suppose there are ways of learning in the classroom without being challenged (I mean, there are plenty of decent low-medium workload/intellectually intense courses where you can still learn). It’s just that since many need really high grades, being challenged isn’t an integral part of the UG experience at many schools now (including elites; when you have a choice, you simply take it easy). Inflation has kind of made undergrad. experience some composite of having a good time and doing what is necessary to get to the next step (it’s like a high school 2.0). I mean, it’s the new reality and there really isn’t much one can do about it, especially when it comes to pre-prof. matters. It’s not in the best interest of schools’ administrators to intervene and students seem to enjoy it (after all, many did “slave away” in high school). The Princeton solution has gotten mixed reviews at best. Notice how no elite has followed it.</p>

75

<p>Hot off the press:</p>

<p>[Genetics</a> accounts for more than half of variation in exam results | Science | theguardian.com](<a href=“Genetics accounts for more than half of variation in exam results | Genetics | The Guardian”>Genetics accounts for more than half of variation in exam results | Genetics | The Guardian)</p>

<p>Dovetail neatly with the Hsu and Schombert study, doesn’t it?</p>

<p>Just give you two examples how we grade here: Two family members attended the same high ranking Canadian university. One studied quantitative methods and minored in physics. The other graduated from a highly competitive business program. The former has a GPA under 3.3 and graduated with distinction (GMAT: 96%tile) while the latter finished with a GPA of 2.9 (LSAT: 92%tile). </p>

<p>Neither one took a prep course; they did the questions in the booklet and that was it.</p>

<p>The joy of it all.</p>

76

<p>That sounds like me and the GRE, haha (I’m more like the former person. My GPA as a chem and biology major was around a 3.3 which is below the mean GPA at Emory and certainly below the median, but then GRE results with no prep are far higher percentile wise). </p>

<p>Also, aren’t Canadian schools tougher in grading than many US schools? They may experience inflation, but it’s not as intense as the selective universities in the US? Competitive business programs in the US typically grade on distributions that result in the core courses being curved to “B”(like a 3.15 at most) and then I know at Emory, electives can grade as high as “B+”, and the thing is, there is actually a stipulation in terms of the amount Cs and below that an instructor must give, so that it almost guarantees that those boundaries are not exceed in each course, so it may be possible to get a 2.9 at some US b-schools that curve similarly, but still unlikely.</p>

<p>And that is a really tricky situation, often students at selective institutions are just good at taking multiple choice exams whether with or without preparation. The only tests that seems to beat many of them is the MCAT. If you took easier courses or instructors that pertain to MCAT like material to boost the GPA, it often shows on the MCAT, especially if you self-study. It seems like those who had better instructors and then self-studied have a chance of doing well because better instructors tend to emphasize the thinking skills needed for the exam whereas others tend to focus on memorizing details, which won’t probably be retained. The latter group needs to relearn the content AND how to think about it conceptually/experimentally. The first group is more likely to respond less adversely to the passage based prompts because they are used to being “surprised” on exams. And needless to say, often better training and then a prep. course could have great results, however I’ve seen those without good training use the prep courses as resuscitation because they made themselves “coast” through the curriculum. Sometimes the prep course is not enough to save them because their knowledge level and work ethic is kind of poor at that point (and they still try to memorize scenarios as if it is an SAT or the easy courses they took and that is only but so helpful). Hey, but at least they have high GPAs.</p>

77

<p>Here is an article explaining how things work up here. An A is 80% and higher:</p>

<p>[Marks</a> jolt the double cohort Toronto Star](<a href=“http://occ.crescentschool.org/geography/worldissues/Articles/university.htm]Marks”>http://occ.crescentschool.org/geography/worldissues/Articles/university.htm)</p>

<p>Perhaps a bit more explanation about the 2.9 is in order. Business Administration in that school is a “limited enrollment program”. Students are admitted into Arts and Science for the first year where you have to complete certain pre-requisites with a grade of C in order to register.</p>

<p>At that time, they used a course in calculus and linear algebra specially designed for commerce students to “separate the men from the boys”. (These students had to have calculus and a second senior math course from high school as pre-requisites, so they are not your average college students by a long shot). </p>

<p>It started with a packed auditorium of about 1000 students in September, and was down to 200 by Christmas. </p>

<p>It just so happened there were 200 spots available for the second year and higher.</p>

<p>I still don’t think it is right.</p>

78

<p>Put a quota on the amount of A’s that can be earned. Let the hunger games begin.</p>

79

<p>I don’t either. Do they still have those classes? Usually, US business schools would not make students take advanced math before entering (in fact most schools let you enter directly into BBA program). My alma mater is an exception and will only admit from the college of arts and sciences after you get about 60 credits. A competitive GPA is considered 3.4-3.5 and usually they make them take some b-school pre-reqs like financial accounting and business econ or business stats. Financial accounting is usually the weedout that is graded on the distribution that most b-school core courses are graded on. It will be even harder to get in considering that the econ. dept has now implemented the same curve for it’s major courses (which most b-school bound students must take for admission). This basically means that to stack odds in your favor if you’re an average student, you must basically enroll in some b-school pre-reqs and then perhaps choose the easiest gen. ed. requirements and instructors possible to guarantee a competitive GPA (this basically assumes that an average student will receive B/B+ in their b-school pre-reqs and maybe a C+/B- in financial which will not assign the maximal amount of A’s and B’s).</p>

<p>You can see the distribution and take a look at the requirements here:
[Academic</a> Standards and Honors](<a href=“http://goizueta.emory.edu/degree/undergraduate/curriculum/standards_honors.html]Academic”>http://goizueta.emory.edu/degree/undergraduate/curriculum/standards_honors.html)</p>

<p>The weird thing about this coming from a STEM background is that there is the need for these kinds of curves. This suggests that coursework and exams are easy and then grades need to be curved downward to fit the distribution (There are some difficult instructors, but I don’t think it’s common). Coming from STEM, if there is ever a curve, it works in reverse where “low” grades are placed on a curve. This scenario seems more sensible and less demoralizing than the b-school situation. It’s kind of hard to predict that say, a 95 would put you at a B+/A-. So it’s basically, 1) You’re not being challenged by the curriculum, 2) When you technically do well in the easy courses, it’s not good enough, because some people got a 96-100 whereas you only got 95. Basically, someone is more perfect than you are, and thus you are being harmed. I kind of like the system of STEM where you are challenged and often shown not to be perfect. Often you have to solve problems with some degree of ambiguity or obscurity, and this is reflexive of actual science AND business for that matter (yes, some instructors overdo it, and it’s really sad when the instructor is of poor quality and then tries to challenge the crowd in such a way, but I do believe it’s completely appropriate for a quality instructor to do so). When a class average in a B-school is a 90-95, I’m willing to bet the assessments were looking for command of very narrow, close-ended cases that usually have one answer. It’s sketchy training for their future careers at best. Or it at least the classroom is sending an interesting message that I don’t really like. Hopefully internshops help shed light on the reality of the business world.</p>

80

<p>Yes, they still have those courses. For admission into the program you need that full year math course, a full year course in economics, 2 semesters of financial accounting, and one semester of computer science as part of a total of 10 semester courses.</p>

<p>I heard they are now using the first course in financial accounting as the weeder, this way students only have to make up a semester course and not a full year course… so nice of them. Did I tell you what you need to graduate? A GPA of 1.5 (which means that D is a passing grade).</p>

<p>So Emery can give A and A- to 40% of the business students and only 5% get Cs? That is extremely generous by our standards. We can dream, can’t we?</p>

<p>This letter to the editor generated a lot of interest in some circles when it was first published. It is the experience of a former student who attended both Harvard and a leading Canadian institution:</p>

<p>[From</a> the 2002 archives: Harvard versus U of T - The Globe and Mail](<a href=“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/letters/harvard-versus-u-of-t/article4133871/]From”>From the 2002 archives: Harvard versus U of T - The Globe and Mail)</p>

<p>An interesting read, whether you agree with it or not.</p>