@gondalineNJ
I don’t trust what people say when it comes to comparing STEM courses. That seems to be something that anyone at some school other than Harvard have said about their ochem sequence versus another school’s (literally that same string of words in that order has been uttered with some other school substituted). I have actually seen the materials from these courses at several elite schools and usually Harvard comes out near the top. It seemed that only their organic chemistry 1 course (for pre-healths, not majors-the majors course, chem 20/30 appeared quite tough. For pre-healths, 17 was “meh” but better than most but 27 is comparatively off the charts) was a little easier than schools in its tier, but the second portion (which basically mimics advanced level bio-organic courses) was significantly tougher than counterparts at most other top 25 schools or so. All students (graduate or undergraduate) love to brag about their school’s courses that way and I say “go ahead” if you can post some materials that demonstrate them to be that way, otherwise, I’m going to have to take it with large chunks of salt.
Also, Harvard has a reputation for having those who essentially rag on their own school. It is a Harvard tradition to question its standards vs. other places (that is honestly part of remaining at the top, always wanting better and asking for more…pointing out when other places may do certain things better…not complacency. Harvard undergraduates seem very aggressive in that respect as do undergrads at other tippy top schools. You can see in school publications where they are very critical and questioning of the direction that their school is going whether overall or at the departmental level). I don’t believe what I hear until I see it with my own eyes, and in general, that statement (typically made by those at Northwestern, BU, etc) just doesn’t turn out true.
And yes, Harvard students are notorious for often not caring for their large lecture courses. However, I honestly think Harvard just gets the spotlight, because such behavior in college, even at elites, is a national phenomenon. It reflects the nature of higher education and those who consume it. Sadly, not even Harvard is exceptional here. They are just harsher on themselves and more vocal about their weaknesses (perhaps because they can afford to as their reputation and prestige is set forever! Students at other schools not at the HYPMS,etc level are less likely to be as judgemental if only to protect the rising reputation of their school).
With that said, I wouldn’t say that it is impossible that Tufts has some STEM instructors that match or beat Harvard’s in certain signature courses as this has been shown to be the case at some I guess…other “surprising” places (I could start naming, but I won’t because I don’t feel like posting materials to do this right now, but I have done it on non-college specific forums before such as in one labelled “do elite schools offer better education” or something like that). The only difference is that H seems more consistent (as in you often have one large section of a major STEM course/weeder and not several, as you do at many other schools. At many other schools, you may have 1-2 instructors who rival the H instructor and many other sections that look joke-like in comparison. And the majority of the students may be taught by the jokes. You can escape the high caliber instructor if you so desire at the others).
The article is also questionable in that it kind of advocates for more test based admissions scheme. Hello! Harvard, Vandy, Chicago, MIT, Princeton, Yale, WUSTL, and Caltech are pretty much 100 points or less away from a perfect SAT average or median and all still experience issues of disengagement and poor teaching quality in some cases. Making sure that all students have 2400 isn’t going to fix this.