<p>The difference is not so much the professor but the student population. When I taught at an Ivy, I could make assumptions about cultural literacy and assign more complex readings than I can now that I teach at a fourth tier public. The content of the lecture is largely the same; the difference is the depth to which the audience member constructs their own meaning.</p>
<p>
But really, what percentage of Harvard students should fail courses, or fail to graduate? These are all kids who were top students in high schools, driven valedictorians and the like. They should all be able to produce high-quality work, if they put in the effort. Why should they be penalized if they do that?</p>
<p>“But really, what percentage of Harvard students should fail courses, or fail to graduate? These are all kids who were top students in high schools, driven valedictorians and the like. They should all be able to produce high-quality work, if they put in the effort. Why should they be penalized if they do that?”</p>
<p>Not all top high school students/valedictorians are created equal…even if they graduated from well-off suburban public or private schools. Many who excelled in the high school environment end up floundering or even failing in undergrad due to a variety of factors ranging from underpreparation to not being internally driven and thus, slacking off/exhibiting inclinations towards intellectual laziness once they were no longer under the close supervision of parents/micromanaging teachers. </p>
<p>My Yalie uncle, high school classmates at several Ivies, and I have seen plenty of such students at our respective campuses during our college years.</p>
<p>^ such will not likely get into Harvard. There are close to 90,000 valedictorians and 1600 Harvard students. Harvard would take the strongest valedictorians, and pick people with lower class ranks form top and academically strong high schools.</p>
<p>"^ such will not likely get into Harvard. There are close to 90,000 valedictorians and 1600 Harvard students. Harvard would take the strongest valedictorians, and pick people with lower class ranks form top and academically strong high schools. "</p>
<p>The friends who saw the phenomenon of top high school students/valedictorians who ended up as mediocrities or worse included several who graduated from Harvard College along with some friends who taught/TAed undergrad classes there. </p>
<p>What? You really think Harvard’s admission process never admits students who are impressive on paper in high school, but end up failing to cut the mustard once they start undergrad?? Those friends would really have a good laugh over that naive assumption…</p>
<p>
Of course this happens, but the distribution of such people is quite different from that at other kinds of schools. I think there is this idea that the “average” grade at Harvard should be a C. I don’t agree with that. The vast majority of students at Harvard were “A” students in high school, and they continue to put out the same quality of work in college. Why shouldn’t they get As? It’s not a competition, it’s an evaluation of mastery of the material. Most of them master the material.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. My brother went to Caltech. He saw students fail, and some even flunk out, despite the fact that Caltech admissions policies from a pure GPA/test-score standpoint are actually more stringent than Harvard’s, with practically every student at Caltech being a high school superstar and many being national-award winning class valedictorians. Even those who did graduate from Caltech often times did so with relatively mediocre GPA’s. </p>
<p>The same happens at MIT, such that many Harvard undergrads are notably reluctant to cross-register at MIT even within the same major because they fear MIT’s grading. For example, I can think of a number of Harvard economics students who lamented the fact that their worse grades by far were the economics courses they took at MIT. In contrast, MIT students are not shy about cross-registering at Harvard - some even doing so specifically for easier grading. </p>
<p>It therefore begs the question of why Harvard students should be accorded easier grading schemes when students at MIT and Caltech are not.</p>
<p>its funny that you picked a state university to compare to cornell because a large part of cornell is state sponsored</p>
<p>
I’d be interested in knowing more about these students who failed classes at Caltech, and those who flunked out. Why did that happen? Was it because the material was too difficult for them to master? Or was there a rigid curve in place that ensured that some students would get low grades even if everyone in the class had a good mastery of the material? If it’s the former, then that suggests that Caltech is really only a good choice for a subset of the people who go there. If it’s the latter, that’s a philosophical approach to grading with which I disagree. I think grading should be based on the degree of mastery of the material, and shouldn’t be a competition. I think it’s absurd that a person’s grades could depend on the luck of the composition of the rest of the class.</p>
<p>"Of course this happens, but the distribution of such people is quite different from that at other kinds of schools. I think there is this idea that the “average” grade at Harvard should be a C. I don’t agree with that. The vast majority of students at Harvard were “A” students in high school, and they continue to put out the same quality of work in college. Why shouldn’t they get As? It’s not a competition, it’s an evaluation of mastery of the material. Most of them master the material. "</p>
<p>According to friends who were students/TAs/instructors at Harvard, many students who were A students…even at well-reputed public/private schools ended up failing to cut the mustard when they start their undergrad careers. </p>
<p>Only thing is that with the exception of some hard sciences, the grading curve in their experiences tends to be such that even those mediocrities end up graduating with a B- or B average. It’s been one common rant and a warning from them not to “fall for the hype”. </p>
<p>While it is hard to earn As…though no impossible, it is also nearly impossible to graduate with an average below a B- average unless “you go out of your way to slack off” or “you’re braindead”…with the exception of some hard science majors. Every one of them said if Harvard was on a C curve, many of of the B-/B average students would become C-/C average students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then all I can say is, welcome to the grading policies in the technical majors at most schools (although apparently less so at Harvard). Grading is in fact very much a competition in those majors, where it doesn’t matter how much you know, but rather how much you know relative to what the other students know. </p>
<p>For example, consider the grading curve set forth *as a matter of policy * within the EECS program at Berkeley. Keep in mind that not only does the Berkeley College of Engineering impose significantly higher stringent admissions requirements than do Berkeley’s other colleges, but the EECS major is arguably the most selective of all of the majors (probably bested only by the “Engineering-Undeclared” option). </p>
<p>*
A typical GPA for courses in the lower division is 2.7. This GPA would result, for example, from 17% A’s, 50% B’s, 20% C’s, 10% D’s, and 3% F’s. A class whose GPA falls outside the range 2.5 - 2.9 should be considered atypical. (A Typical GPA for basic prerequisite lower division CS courses (CS 40, CS 41) is 2.5, with GPA’s outside the range 2.3 - 2.7 considered atypical.)</p>
<p>A typical GPA for courses in the upper division is 2.9. (This GPA would result, for example, from 23% A’s, 50% B’s, 20% C’s, 5% D’s, and 2% F’s.) A class whose GPA falls outside the range 2.7 - 3.1 should be considered atypical. A typical GPA for basic prerequisite upper division courses (EECS 104A, EECS 105, CS 150, CS 153) is 2.7 with GPA’s outside the range 2.5 - 2.9 considered atypical.</p>
<p>These guidelines do not represent a major shift down from current GPA levels, but rather they are intended to prevent inflation.
*</p>
<p>[Grading</a> Guidelines for Undergraduate Courses | EECS at UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml]Grading”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Policies/ugrad.grading.shtml)</p>
<p>Nor do I think Berkeley EECS to be particularly unusual. Engineering programs in general are noted for high stress, endless workloads… and shockingly low grade curves. I think other than the small fraction of superstar students who sat on the top of the curve, all engineers throughout the country have painful memories of working harder than most of their classmates in other majors, while being stuck with far worse grades because of the harsh curves. </p>
<p>Heck, even Harvard isn’t immune, if you include the graduate programs. For example, Harvard Business School MBA courses set a strict grading policy where, by rule, only 25% of the class can receive a “I” grade (which is probably equivalent to an ‘A’). Furthermore the bottom 10% of the class must receive no better than a “III” grade, which is a terrible grade. </p>
<p>*At the conclusion of each course, the instructor assigns one of four grades designated as Category I, II, III, and IV.</p>
<pre><code>* Category I - given to the top 15-25% of students
- Category II - given to the next 65-75% in a section. The actual number of Category II grades is subject to the number of Category I grades assigned.
- Category III - given to the lowest-performing 10% of students in an elective curriculum course section.
- Category IV - seldom assigned; designates failure of achievement and/or commitment and, therefore, failure to meet minimum standards of the course. If Category IV is used in a course, the combined number of students who receive Categories III and IV must equal the lowest 10% of the elective course section.*
</code></pre>
<p>[Registrar</a> Services - MBA - Harvard Business School](<a href=“Cross-Registration Policies and FAQ - MBA - Harvard Business School”>Cross-Registration Policies and FAQ - MBA - Harvard Business School)</p>
<p>So if you find such grading policies to be absurd, just keep in mind that you’re broadly characterizing entire swathes of the educational establishment as absurd. Like it or not, your grades at many programs are going to be determined by where you stand relative to your classmates, and so students are in direct competition with each other.</p>
<p>
Well, I myself was a student at Yale, and I say this is baloney. There are a few students at these schools who don’t do well, but it’s generally because they don’t do the work.</p>
<p>
And?</p>
<p>Here’s my opinion:</p>
<p>The material you get taught is largely the same. Electron orbital shapes are the same whether you learn them at Harvard or at Podunk CC. </p>
<p>The difference is in the work you do, and the tests. Having sat in lectures at multiple top schools, as well as seen assignments/tests from a wide variety of school prestige, I can comfortably say the work that I have here at Cornell is considerably harder than my friends’ at UT Austin. Hell, my junior year of high school I sat through a Chemistry lecture at McGill, and understood every single bit of it. McGill is a top 25 Uni in the world according to US News. (Not that I put much stock in rankings, but when talking about prestige that’s really the only thing anyone cares about, so I’m using it). I came here to Cornell two years later after having taken more Chem in high school, and when it came time for the same subject as I sat through at McGill here at Cornell, I was floored at how much more advanced things were. </p>
<p>It’s not that they’re teaching you more advanced material, it’s what they ask you to do with it. A lot of average schools are still much like high school. You memorize the crap, and tests are often just asking whether you read the material and learned it. Here, I am asked to do that, then apply that to situations/scenarios and use critical thinking to figure it out.</p>
<p>That’s where the differences lie. Every school teaches you the stuff. The top schools push you to think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And so that means that, right or wrong, your opinions seem to be distinctly within the minority. Perhaps you could convince the vast majority of other programs to stop grading people on curves. Engineering and hard science programs are particularly known for harsh curves and hence would seem to be areas of prime reform.</p>
<p>I’m happy that you were apparently able to attend a school (Yale) that does not implement harsh curves and does not grade its students relative to each other. Sadly, the rest of us aren’t that fortunate. Heck, even at Princeton, one of Yale’s close peers, the percentage of A’s that can be assigned is now strictly circumscribed.</p>
<p>"No. Prestige is a nebulous concept that doesn’t directly correlate with any measurable form of course rigor (though there may be marked differences in the quality between broader “tiers” of schools).</p>
<p>Swarthmore, for example, is a liberal arts college known for a rigorous education, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone outside of academia who has heard of it."</p>
<p>Could you explain some of the components that are taken into consideration when determining the level of a school’s prestige?</p>
<p>^ I think the title of this thread conflates “prestige” with the selectivity and academic ranking of a college. In many cases, prestige does coincide with its academic standing. However, there are many other meanings of prestige. Academic standing is only one, but a college can have prestige due to its social eliteness, academic/economic/political influence, or its public recognition. In the context of this thread, I think we’re referring to the academic quality of a college and its students.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, when the term prestige is mentioned in a CC thread, all too often, posters argue without first agreeing on the definition of the term. In this thread, the original question had to do with the difficulty of the coursework. While this may have something to do with the grading system at a particular school or in a particular major, I see the overall difficulty of coursework itself as a somewhat separate issue from how exams and assignments are graded. Even were the thread limited to coursework difficulty, different posters define this in different ways: the amount/rapidity of the coverage of a topic in class; the conceptual level at which the material is explained; the materials used (primary sources vs. textbooks); the amount of reading or number of papers; the degree to which exams ask for explanation and application of concepts vs. memorized facts, etc.</p>
<p>Does a more rigorous course equate to better knowledge of the subject matter? Yes, a class at School X has more homework and readings than a comparable class at School Y, but the depth of learning could potentially be the same. For all we know, School Y has very insightful lectures or more hands-on, in-class learning. Who knows? Everyone seems to be throwing out their own stories and experiences, but it’s not very objective at all, especially when different schools have different specialties.</p>
<p>
I’ve never found that to be a particularly persuasive argument.</p>
<p>It just seems foolish to me to go through this super-selective admissions process, and then to automatically fail some of the students, even if they master the material. I guess it makes those who get As feel great.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not using that statement as a persuasive statement, and in fact, I myself have decried the wanton use of grade curves.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that this is a far bigger battle than you may have imagined: the fact is, plenty of university programs enforce grade curves in which some students must fail. If you want to join me in having them stop that, I welcome the support. And the first battlefield in which we ought to fight is with the engineering programs, practically all of which are notorious for rough grading that serves to discourage students from studying engineering and hence will likely contribute to the weakening of the US technological base. One major reason why the US has to import so much foreign engineering talent is because Americans don’t really want to study engineering because they don’t want to risk their GPA’s, especially when compared to students in easier majors who earn higher grades for less work. </p>
<p>Consider the lamentations of Duke professor Stuart Rojstaczer:</p>
<p>*Duke is actually a good example of the loss of talent in science and technology that happens in college.</p>
<p>Unlike most colleges and universities, Duke’s undergraduate engineering school has a separate admissions office. Every year it has to oversubscribe its admissions because many students will leave the engineering school and transfer into arts and sciences after a year, typically majoring in the social sciences. When you ask students why they make this move, they often say it’s because of the workload and grading.</p>
<p>There is also significant attrition across college campuses when it comes to potential biology majors, typically those who initially wanted to go into medical fields. Again, the driver for this attrition is workload and grading.</p>
<p>There are those who argue that this attrition is a good thing, and I would agree to some extent. We don’t want mediocrity in the design of our bridges and machines, or in a hospital operating room. But some of this attrition is undoubtedly unnecessary.</p>
<p>I don’t want to dwell on Duke, but many of those who move out of engineering have the talent to excel. In conversations with them, I have heard a common story about seeing people in dorms partying away and wondering, “Why not me?”</p>
<p>That’s what I mean by unnecessary (and harmful) attrition. I don’t believe that the sciences and engineering should demand less of their students. Rather, the social sciences and humanities need to demand more.*</p>
<p>[Grade</a> Inflation: Your Questions Answered - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/grade-inflation-your-questions-answered/]Grade”>Grade Inflation: Your Questions Answered - The New York Times)</p>
<p>But I will provide a (partial) defense of engineering curves: they sometimes prevent the entire class from failing. As a case in point, I know one guy who got a 30% on an engineering exam…and celebrated. Why? Because the mean score was a 25%. He freely admitted that he had no clue what was happening on the exam - but that didn’t matter, because he knew more than the average student who knew even less, and so his 30%, as pathetic as it may have been, at least meant that he wasn’t failing. Even the highest scoring student of the class only earned something in the 50-60’s Without a curve, everybody would have failed.</p>
<p>Nor is this story - while certainly unusual - as extreme as one might think. Many engineering and science exams at most schools - likely even ones at Yale - have mean scores of around 50%. In fact, such test scoring is generally calibrated, through the allocation of partial credit, to have such a mean in order to effect an evenly distributed bell-curve with well-defined tails on both ends. Without a grade curve to accompany the 50%-centered distribution, the majority of the class who scored less than 60% would fail.</p>
<p>Even at Yale, some students in the technical majors are thankful for the curve:</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Wladimir Maracaba '09, an economics major, said that despite the fact that science students are more likely to get C’s, he is happy that classes are curved because it usually works out better for students.</p>
<p>“What other way would you grade a science class? Usually the tests are really hard, so if you don’t have a curve, everyone’s going to fail,” he said.*</p>
<p>[Classes</a> vary on grading curves | Yale Daily News](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2006/apr/12/classes-vary-on-grading-curves/]Classes”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2006/apr/12/classes-vary-on-grading-curves/)</p>