<p>
[quote]
"How do you how out-of date I am?"
[/quote]
[/quote]
<p>This leaves you as an alumni who graduated prior to 2002.</p>
<p>To stand up for Marite, whom I know every little about :):</p>
<ol>
<li>Someone can be up to date without being a professor or having graduated recently (NSM and Byerly, for instance).</li>
<li>I use phrases like "if I remember correctly" even at times when I am sure that I remember correctly. Sometimes it is useful so as to not sound arrogant, overbearing, or combative.</li>
</ol>
<p>Ginny:</p>
<p>I find your speculation very amusing. I was in college in the 60s. But what does this say about my subsequent career? I won't go into it in order to preserve my privacy. But let me illustrate my point re: Douthat, which is the more important issue. Here are the names of a few current Harvard profs who have received tenure from within Harvard in the last few years. It is by no means an exhaustive list.</p>
<p>Sven Beckert, Director of Undergraduate Studies, History (received tenure while Douthat was at Harvard)
Ann Blair (History, also received tenure while Douthat was at Harvard)
Michael Puett (Chairman, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, as above).
Virginie Greene, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Romance Languages, received tenure 2005.
Eugene Wang, History of Art and Architecture, received tenure 2005.
Michael Mitzenmacher, Computer Science, received tenure 2005.</p>
<p>As I said, the list is not exhaustive even for 2005, much less for the period when Douthat was an undergraduate at Harvard (1998-2002). You should not rely on Douthat to get an accurate picture of what is happening at Harvard, or even happened there while Douthat was an undergraduate.
The trend to promote from within started even before Larry Summers became president. It's easy to understand. The days when Harvard could whistle and people (usually male) dropped everything and brought their families to Cambridge to take up a job at Harvard are long gone. Nowadays, the profs, both male and female, are in dual careers. Local universities are no longer willing to create jobs for the spouses. The children are in school and not so easily moved, either. Harvard and other universities spend a huge amount of time not only recruiting faculty but finding housing, identifying jobs for spouses, etc.... It's become much easier to promote from within. And that's what Harvard has been doing for perhaps the last 10 years.</p>
<p>Corranged:</p>
<p>Thanks for standing up for me!</p>
<p>Corranged, it would be nice if all graduate and professional schools were intimately familiar with the grading of each institution, and adjusted their evaluations accordingly. This is indeed true for many graduate schools, where selection is done on a careful and holistic basis.</p>
<p>But for law school? Med school? These tracks, especially med school, evaluate applicants on a sickeningly formulaic basis. Caltech, for instance, destroys its pre-meds by giving them lower gpas, even though a 2.8 at Caltech owns a 4.0 at your average state university. It's an unfortunate situation, but I think Harvard's approach is better than the downright sick "center around B-" policy apparently in vogue at Dartmouth.</p>
<p>Any educated person on this planet knows that it is harder to get As at Caltech than at Misc. State. For grades to mean anything, they need to remain true indicators of work done and success had compared to other students with the same opportunities (i.e. kids in the same class). </p>
<p>Congrats, Marite, on the 4000th post! I was excited to reach #400 day, but that seems rather weak, now. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any educated person on this planet knows that it is harder to get As at Caltech than at Misc. State. For grades to mean anything, they need to remain true indicators of work done and success had compared to other students with the same opportunities (i.e. kids in the same class).
[/quote]
Medical school admissions offices surely know this, but that doesn't mean that they properly incorporate it into their decisions. Their evaluation of candidates' academic credentials is absurdly numbers-driven. If you want proof, talk to any Caltech premed - you'll probably get more information than you asked for. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want proof, talk to any Caltech premed
[/quote]
Haha. I am sure this is the case. I am not so sure that what the kids affected say would qualify as proof. :)</p>
<p>Corranged:</p>
<p>I am afraid that randomperson is correct on the issue of med school applications. There are threads dealing with med schools that address this very issue. Law school admission may be very similar in the way GPAs are handled. Ariesathena has posted on this topic in the past.</p>
<p>I must admit, I know next to nothing about med school admissions. I do know that many law schools take into account where the student went to undergrad, but I am not sure how precisely that factors into GPA evaluation. It could simply be a 'noted factor,' as seems to be the case with college admissions: they put all the GPAs on the same scale, but they notice whether a kid went to Misc High or, I don't know, Andover. </p>
<p>If they do in fact take no notice of where an applicant went to college, then the system sounds like it needs some serious re-evaluation. It also makes me happy that I hold absolutely no med school aspirations!</p>
<p>I still hold to the fact that inflating grades in order to make students look better to med/law schools is ridiculous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still hold to the fact that inflating grades in order to make students look better to med/law schools is ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It may be ridiculous, but sadly it works. </p>
<p>Certain scholarships exhibit the same fixation on GPA. For example, there are certain universities, most notably certain state universities, that will endorse your candidacy for major awards like the Rhodes Scholarship or the Marshall Scholarship only if you have a certain GPA, regardless of the fact that certain majors at that school are harder than others. For example, Berkeley requires that its endorsed Rhodes Scholarship candidates have a 3.6. No inquiry into what major you're in or how difficult your coursework was. The rule at Berkeley is simple. You either have a 3.6, or you don't. I suspect that this is a big reason why relatively few engineering students win Rhodes Scholarships, because it's hard for them to get that high GPA.</p>
<p>Outside scholarships also exhibit the same tendency to fixate on GPA. I know one guy at Berkeley who got an outside scholarship from his father's employer that effectively gave him a full ride provided that he maintain a 3.0. Again, no inquiry into how difficult his major is or how difficult his coursework is. The rule is simple. As long as he kept a 3.0, no matter how he did it, he kept his full ride alive. So if that meant loading up on easy classes in an easy major, so be it. That's exactly what he did. He thought about being an engineer. He actually said that he thought engineering was really interesting and in a perfect world he might have majored in it. But at the end of the day he choose to major in something easy because he feared not being able to pull that 3.0 in engineering and therefore losing his ride. There are a LOT of engineers who have less than a 3.0, and he didn't want to risk being one of them. </p>
<p>A similar thing happens with sports. Many athletic scholarships carry the stipulation that you have to maintain at least a 2.0 in order to remain eligible to play, and ineligibility often times means a loss of scholarship. It doesn't surprise me to then find that lots of student-athletes choosing to study easy majors if, for no other reason, that they fear getting under a 2.0 and therefore losing their scholarships. </p>
<p>The point is, as long as there are certain rules and certain organizations that fixate on the GPA without inquiring into the difficulty of the courses that comprise that GPA, you will always have people who will choose to take the path of least resistance in order to survive that GPA hurdle. These rules and organizations effectively reward academic cowardice. Sad but true.</p>
<p>Even if Douthat is out of date, there is no doubt that Mansfield is not, and any google search of his name will produce all the required results on grade inflation at Harvard.</p>
<p>As to whether it exists, absolutely. 50% of all grades issued, if I recall correctly, are A's, with the next 25% being A minuses, if that tells you anything. To address the idea that Harvard students "are just brilliant and that's why it happens," this is not accurate for numerous reasons, but Mansfield puts those more eloquently than I can. Besides, even if all Harvard students WERE brilliant (which, sadly, many are, but not ALL are), there is such a thing as an average Harvard student, which is probably a valedictorian at another, less selective school, but nevertheless, it does exist. The argument against grade inflation is that it destroys the meaning of the grades, since it's like Siskel and Ebert giving everything "two thumbs up" in that it destroys the concept of success by getting rid of the fear of failure. </p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>
<p>Personally, what disturbs me most is not even the grade inflation that happens on an INTER-school basis. No, the most disturbing grade inflation to me is the INTRA-school grade inflation. </p>
<p>For example, no matter what school you're talking about, why is it that majors like physics, mathematics, and engineering always inevitably seem to be the most harshly graded of all the majors at that school? Why is that? Why is it that, no matter what school you're talking about, bad grades always inevitably seem to be more common in certain majors at those schools than in other majors? Why is it that you have to work so much harder, on average, to get an A in a Harvard Physics class than to get an A in a Harvard humanities class?</p>
<p>Corranged:
Grade inflation began in the late 60s. There are different theories as to why it happened. Harvey Mansfield has claimed it was due to Affirmative Action. Others have suggested that it was due to the draft--profs were unwilling to flunk students and thereby expose them to being sent to Vietnam; in order to raise the grades of mediocre students, they had to raise the grades of all. Jay Parini's argument (made in the mid 1990s, I believe) is different insofar as he explained that he wanted to give parity to his students with those of other profs (whether at his home institution, Dartmouth, or more generally). </p>
<p>Canaday Madman:
Here is a quote from randomperson on another thread that addresses your point:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gradeinflation.com has some statistics on the matter, although they are limited and somewhat out of date. Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to say that Harvard is the most egregious offender here. Let's look at the most recent average GPA statistics provided at the site for top universities:</p>
<p>Brown: 3.47
Stanford: 3.44
Princeton: 3.40
Harvard: 3.39
Duke: 3.37
Columbia: 3.36
Dartmouth: 3.33
Penn: 3.32</p>
<p>How can anyone infer that Harvard has the most serious grade inflation problem?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Grade inflation is not specific to Harvard, but Harvard, by publicly debating the issue, is receiving the lion's share of criticism.</p>
<p>good post with hard numbers. I doubt they will silence the usual group of Harvard bashers, but at least they will have to find something else.</p>
<p>By the way, how is Math 55 working out for your son? Does it live up to its awesome reputation as the hardest undergraduate math course in America?</p>
<p>Math 55 is my S's favorite course. It's been a lot of work and he expects that the second semester will be even tougher (gulps a little at the thought, but he is really looking forward to it). An aspect of Math 55 that he had not considered before taking it but makes it very enjoyable is the camaraderie. The students in the class are really supportive of one another. As for being the hardest undergraduate math course in America... he's only attended one college, so could not possibly compare ;)</p>
<p>I don't have time to give anyone a full response, but some things that have occured to me. </p>
<p>Sakky, just because engineers have lower GPAs (harder classes, too, perhaps) doesn't mean that the GPAs should be artificially raised. It is a shame that the boy needed to maintain his scholarship by majoring in something other than his true desire. He needed to make the choice between being an engineer and risk having a lower GPA and losing his scholarship and majoring in something easier and keeping a higher GPA. I do not think that this is an adequate reason for purposeful grade inflation.</p>
<p>I think that you have also made some statements that aren't very backed up. Athletes may or may not choose easier majors (I know and know of many D1 athletes majoring in "normal" majors). Those who do probably have many reasons, not limited to: fear of losing their scholarship--as you said, not being prepared for the tougher majors (due to relative ease at being accepted), true interest in 'easier' subjects (such as sports related majors), not having time for the 'tougher' majors due to game and practice schedules, etc. </p>
<p>As for Rhodes Scholars, I do not know a great deal about their studies, but I have talked briefly with a Rhode Scholar who is a dear family friend, and from what I've heard they focus mainly on economics and political science. Those are the types of students they are interested in getting, and those are generally the types of students who take on the role. Engineering is simply not the type of subject that Rhode Scholars study, so the foundation is not generally interested in giving the position to such a person. (They also tend to not give them to the poets and dreamers of society.)
[quote]
requires that its endorsed Rhodes Scholarship candidates have a 3.6. No inquiry into what major you're in or how difficult your coursework was. The rule at Berkeley is simple. You either have a 3.6, or you don't.
[/quote]
According to your website, Berkley does not require students to have a 3.6 in order to be endorced for the scholarship. It is stated as being the "typical" GPA, meaning that although they generally take students with 3.6, there are and can be exceptions. I must also state that I would be in favor of those being considered for the Rhode Scholarship to have high GPAs; this is a very prestigious scholarship for the most talented students. I do not think that a GPA 'typically being' 3.6 or above is very unreasonable.</p>
<p>Strict GPA requirements are needed in some circumstances (such as scholarship consideration). There are simply not enough time or resources to analyze each applicant's course schedule and corresponding grades. I must also point out that many scholarships for high school students require a minimum SAT score. There needs to be a cut off. Yes, some deserving students do not make that SAT cut off point and do not get scholarships. This does not mean that SAT scores should be inflated in order to allow more kids eligibility for the scholarship.</p>
<p>GPAs tend to be lower in numbers based courses (physics, math, other classes based mostly on testing) than humanities courses because numbers based courses usually have a curve of some sort. (Say a chem testh has a mean number score of 66; this will be scaled up to even out the grades along a curve shape, as I'm sure you know.) Humanities courses are evaluated paper by paper, while science and math classes are usually evaluated on the basis of some type of curve on each test. If those in the major are still evaluated on a curve, there must still be students to fill the bottom of the curve. Conversely, in a philosophy class each paper can be evaluated on its own individual merit, meaning that the philosophy majors who are mastering the subject can earn high grades, while there still must be physics majors (also mastering the subject) on the bottom of the curve.</p>
<p>Marite, I am sure there are many reasons grade inflation began to develop, some legitimate and some not-so-legitimate. I think it is great that Harvard (and many other schools) are taking steps to fight senseless grade inflation. </p>
<p>May I also ask, how much math background did your son have before starting Harvard?</p>
<p>...That ended up being quite a long post! Sorry! :)</p>
<p>corranged:</p>
<p>I'm sending you a PM.</p>
<p>Someone mentioned that Dartmouth courses tend to curve the mean to a B-. At Harvard, I believe my science core curves the mean to a B+. My intro chem class isn't curved, 80-90 is a B, 90-100 is an A, pluses and minuses are at the TF's discretion. My psychology class is paper based, and probably will have a majority of A grades. I'm not taking Ec10, but I think it's curved so that the average is a B+.</p>
<p>That's a small sampling though.</p>
<p>Maybe it depends on the class, then. All of my sisters math and science classes have been curved at B-, I believe.</p>