Grade inflation: What goes up must come down(thecrimson.com)
thecrimson.com
Grade inflation: What goes up must come down
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/3/barton-grade-inflation/
209 コメント
> In undergrad, the professor who taught intermediate microeconomics told us about how law and business school admissions officers knew how tough his course was (it was the weeder course), and that doing well would be a feather in our cap.
The hubris and egomania of professors never ceases to amaze.
Perhaps this could have been true for the local community, but with 2800 colleges in the US with over 100,000 professors combined, there is no way any even extremely large admissions office could keep track of the retirements and new hires let alone the quality of a particular professor. Why would any office have such a position to keep track of professor quality? How could that add to the assessment better than an interview?
The hubris and egomania of professors never ceases to amaze.
Perhaps this could have been true for the local community, but with 2800 colleges in the US with over 100,000 professors combined, there is no way any even extremely large admissions office could keep track of the retirements and new hires let alone the quality of a particular professor. Why would any office have such a position to keep track of professor quality? How could that add to the assessment better than an interview?
> The hubris and egomania of professors never ceases to amaze
You're assuming that they were unaware what they were saying wasn't true. It's possible they were fully aware it wasn't but said it anyways for professional advantage.
You're assuming that they were unaware what they were saying wasn't true. It's possible they were fully aware it wasn't but said it anyways for professional advantage.
Professional Advantage over the students?
Professional advantage over other professors who are either more scrupulous or less convincing. All else being equal, a professor with students clamoring to get into their course will have more influence than one whose course no one wants to take.
I'd say it's the opposite.
I'll speak to my experience in the US Ivory Tower and STEMy R1s mostly: Professors are ranked and gain tenure nearly entirely based on their research output as it relates to grant funding. Classes are generally seen as a cudgel to scare nontenured Professors into getting more grant money. If you slack on the grants, you have to teach classes, generally. It is a very intentional vicious cycle. A Professor with a popular class is a bad thing, as it means they'll have less time to research and apply for grants.
Professors that like to teach generally go to much smaller colleges where the above comment may be true, but I don't have experience in those kinds of places and can't confirm or deny. It does sound really nice though!
I'll speak to my experience in the US Ivory Tower and STEMy R1s mostly: Professors are ranked and gain tenure nearly entirely based on their research output as it relates to grant funding. Classes are generally seen as a cudgel to scare nontenured Professors into getting more grant money. If you slack on the grants, you have to teach classes, generally. It is a very intentional vicious cycle. A Professor with a popular class is a bad thing, as it means they'll have less time to research and apply for grants.
Professors that like to teach generally go to much smaller colleges where the above comment may be true, but I don't have experience in those kinds of places and can't confirm or deny. It does sound really nice though!
I think that may be the experience in STEM, but not in humanities or social sciences. In this particular case, teaching was seen as a very important part of the job because it was at an elite liberal arts college. But even at R1 schools, humanities professors focus on writing/teaching, not grants as much.
In this case, the school was very small (1,400 students in total), so there was no competition between professors for enrollment. This was the weeder course for the major, so all majors had to take it. One professor taught it each fall, and it was always this professor — except when he was on leave.
This also applies to high school in my experience. I had a lower GPA but took AP classes, my friends who took easy classes got into better schools.
I went to a good uni in the same city as my high school. The admissions officers told me they knew my (mediocre) grades (all tough classes) were fine cause they were familiar with my high school and this helped me get in with lower than average grades. My test scores were generally good as well. This was repeated by the other two schools. Why did I get to talk to the admissions officers? I played sports. Even D3 schools had a former admissions officer or dedicated one who gave the coaches reads on everyone pre-admission. I got these reads from them.
Even Carnegie was familiar with my highschool (5 states away from MO), I just didn't get in there as I didn't have time to re-take the basic SAT Math as I had forgotten more geometry from freshman year than I needed to get to their high bar. I did nail the SAT2 math though. Many schools took that or the ACT which I did better on.
I think it depends on the size of your college/uni and how many other kids from your school go there.
I do remember being pissed watching one of my friends go up and get national honor society honors for their senior year because they finally passed their third try at freshman Algebra and had really high marks overall their senior year, where I was pulling a class high 89% in Stats but my gpa was not high enough.
Seems to have worked out going to engineering though which definitely did not grade inflate when I was there.
Even Carnegie was familiar with my highschool (5 states away from MO), I just didn't get in there as I didn't have time to re-take the basic SAT Math as I had forgotten more geometry from freshman year than I needed to get to their high bar. I did nail the SAT2 math though. Many schools took that or the ACT which I did better on.
I think it depends on the size of your college/uni and how many other kids from your school go there.
I do remember being pissed watching one of my friends go up and get national honor society honors for their senior year because they finally passed their third try at freshman Algebra and had really high marks overall their senior year, where I was pulling a class high 89% in Stats but my gpa was not high enough.
Seems to have worked out going to engineering though which definitely did not grade inflate when I was there.
> Why did I get to talk to the admissions officers? I played sports. Even D3 schools had a former admissions officer or dedicated one who gave the coaches reads on everyone pre-admission. I got these reads from them.
How come sports have such important role in the US school system? Between this and all the scholarships I hear or read about, I feel that sports are effectively a "cheat code" for academic success - why learn anything when you can play all day and still get into the best universities because of athletic accomplishments?
How come sports have such important role in the US school system? Between this and all the scholarships I hear or read about, I feel that sports are effectively a "cheat code" for academic success - why learn anything when you can play all day and still get into the best universities because of athletic accomplishments?
Sports are name recognition advertising for the schools. They also generate an affinity in potential students while they are still children as they follow the teams games. It also creates an affinity for the schools with the general population, which is politically advantageous, especially when the school wants their state to appropriate more funding. There are also some of the smaller schools who use slots on the sports teams as a way of boosting enrollment. Some Division III schools have nearly half the students on a team. Division III schools do not provide athletics scholarships so that expense doesn't exist but they do get tuition money from the student-athletes. Many of these schools don't care if you have talent or not, they're using the lure of being a "college athlete" and the ego boost it provides the student and their family, as an enrollment tool.
To elaborate, there are 130 "D1" scholarship teams in football in the US. There are 893 (https://www.ncsasports.org/football/colleges) teams overall. This is similar for other sports. This means 12% of college sports are what people are thinking of when they say college sports (eg what they might see on tv). So a very vocal minority.
Corruption. Allows an additional non objective criteria to let the powers at be manipulate the “rules” to their favor with plausible deniability. It also inherently benefits richer people because poorer people will not have as much resources to invest in sports (for example, the kids need to help parents’ operate business).
On the high end (division 1), it is also a taxpayer subsidized training/filtering mechanism for the for profit professional sports leagues. The taxpayers, from high school to college, fund the development and resources for figuring out who the best players will be to hire for the professional sports businesses.
On the high end (division 1), it is also a taxpayer subsidized training/filtering mechanism for the for profit professional sports leagues. The taxpayers, from high school to college, fund the development and resources for figuring out who the best players will be to hire for the professional sports businesses.
A big part of this is collages have plenty of candidates with good grades and test scores it’s hard to differentiate at the high end. Writing a successful novel is a bigger boost than sports, but sports are easier.
Sound body and sound mind go together. The popular idea of jocks being dumb meatheads is not true. I have worked in the uppermost echelons of the financial markets and a lot of the big players are/were athletes.
one of the things I continue to find hilarious is how much we got recruited at my uni for work in financial industry. My school is in St. Louis, and D3 sports. Every year someone from one of the trading firms up in chicago would roll down (and started to be alumni) and talk to all of the business athletes. They'd go after the ones with good but not stellar grades. They didn't talk to engineers as they figured they had jobs already. I eventually asked... WHY do you show up every year.
Turns out they needed smart kids who could deal with pressure and who were PHYSICALLY LARGE. Why not the smartest? they already had good offers elsewhere. Why large? because they trained them up and tossed them in the pit. They loved the 6'5" kids from football and basketball. They took our football center who was 6'9" 375 and had a 7' wingspan and could box out like no body's business. He told me later it was easy once he got the math. He'd just stand in the middle of the floor, he could see everyone on the walls, and when surrounded, could make space but also just reach 3-4 levels of surround deep to other people and hear them more easily as well.
"This is their entree into a career, use what you got kid".
I don't know why but I just get a chuckle out of seeing my giant buddies in suits, but also of a place that physical attributes actually help in a mostly mental activity.
Turns out they needed smart kids who could deal with pressure and who were PHYSICALLY LARGE. Why not the smartest? they already had good offers elsewhere. Why large? because they trained them up and tossed them in the pit. They loved the 6'5" kids from football and basketball. They took our football center who was 6'9" 375 and had a 7' wingspan and could box out like no body's business. He told me later it was easy once he got the math. He'd just stand in the middle of the floor, he could see everyone on the walls, and when surrounded, could make space but also just reach 3-4 levels of surround deep to other people and hear them more easily as well.
"This is their entree into a career, use what you got kid".
I don't know why but I just get a chuckle out of seeing my giant buddies in suits, but also of a place that physical attributes actually help in a mostly mental activity.
My first job at a hedge fund, a lawyer friend asked me: "how'd you get the job"
"I think it's because I'm tall"
I literally had no explanation. As you said, not particularly smart...
"I think it's because I'm tall"
I literally had no explanation. As you said, not particularly smart...
Did you immediately get signed up for the basketball team?
My nickname in high school was shaq
Honestly my school did the math. It's division 3 non scholarship, this means people play sports for fun. Almost none play pro. Sports are there as an enrichment for the school and student, they don't earn a direct profit for the school, they're actually a loss leader the same as other student activities. But they realized that if you did extra activities in college you were 70% more likely to donate as alumni. Statistically everyone who went to the school was successful and made decent money. They realized you did 50% less activities in college than you did in HS. Most kids have one or two activities max in HS unless you count sports. I was a 2 sport athlete, ran pep rallies for student council and started the TV station, so four. I did 3 activities in college, football, TV station, and fraternity.
So I'm a school that half the applicants are valedictorians and stuco presidents, how do you decide who to bring in: you go for breadth and variety. If you were an outstanding athlete then the team would do better and everyone had a better time and more money. Also it's another bullet point to toss on the list on the brochures: we made the playoffs in X, Y, Z, Q, S, T. We have 31 national championships. Most of the sports teams there are above average. They like to be in consideration for the former Sears Trophy, now Directors' Cup, the trophy for the best overall athletics program, aka the most national championships across ALL sports in a season.
Why admissions officer access? Simple, there are 5k undergrad, about 20 admissions officers and around 400 incoming athletes across all sports. That means 2k+ applicants. With around 32k applications a year for the school more than enough to warrant a dedicated officer. However I believe they were shared with the academic scholarship intake queue as well. Why did the athletic department have an former admissions officer? Because admissions officer is an entry point job at a lot of schools. This person had been a mid level officer and then went into administration at the athletic department.
Surprising or not there were a very large number of very smart kids in athletics there. One soccer player was a Rhodes scholar. One season we had 2 burger King academic all Americans on our football team, they give out one a week across all college sports. My year in football alone graduated 4 doctor's who all had near 4.0 in engineering undergrad which had a 2.8 average.
Athletics didn't allow me to skate by. It did give me a professor who was in my court, the coach. Like having a second parent. Like your advisor is SUPPOSED to be but usually isn't. That was the only real advantage once in school. I personally did the normal college load, and did around 3600 hours of sports on top of it as did the other athletes. I also graduated with a computer science degree. My grades were actually better in season because I had negative free time. All I did was school and sports.
This isn't your Hollywood movie D1 athletic department. I actually had several teachers try and fail me for playing sports. And several very supportive teachers It's a nerdy school. One teacher tried to fail 3 of the volleyball players because they would miss their Saturday final because they were traveling for the national championship instead of just moving the exam 1 day.
The vast majority of schools are not Division 1 sports. The reason I heard from other schools on my admissions was I applied to a d3 school, a d2 school, and a several D1 schools. Two of the D1 schools told me not to waste my time playing college D1 ball, I wasn't big enough. Northwestern told me the same and told me that they'd had one person even do football and graduate from engineering in the last 30 years. They were kind enough to meet with me in person as I was at an academic summer camp there. They were more like 6k hours in sports. I was grateful for that frank advice, even though I would have had the experience of beating notre dame at notre dame and going to the rose bowl the next season (and very bad seasons thereafter) if I had gone.
But thank you for assuming I got through college by being a mediocre football player.
So I'm a school that half the applicants are valedictorians and stuco presidents, how do you decide who to bring in: you go for breadth and variety. If you were an outstanding athlete then the team would do better and everyone had a better time and more money. Also it's another bullet point to toss on the list on the brochures: we made the playoffs in X, Y, Z, Q, S, T. We have 31 national championships. Most of the sports teams there are above average. They like to be in consideration for the former Sears Trophy, now Directors' Cup, the trophy for the best overall athletics program, aka the most national championships across ALL sports in a season.
Why admissions officer access? Simple, there are 5k undergrad, about 20 admissions officers and around 400 incoming athletes across all sports. That means 2k+ applicants. With around 32k applications a year for the school more than enough to warrant a dedicated officer. However I believe they were shared with the academic scholarship intake queue as well. Why did the athletic department have an former admissions officer? Because admissions officer is an entry point job at a lot of schools. This person had been a mid level officer and then went into administration at the athletic department.
Surprising or not there were a very large number of very smart kids in athletics there. One soccer player was a Rhodes scholar. One season we had 2 burger King academic all Americans on our football team, they give out one a week across all college sports. My year in football alone graduated 4 doctor's who all had near 4.0 in engineering undergrad which had a 2.8 average.
Athletics didn't allow me to skate by. It did give me a professor who was in my court, the coach. Like having a second parent. Like your advisor is SUPPOSED to be but usually isn't. That was the only real advantage once in school. I personally did the normal college load, and did around 3600 hours of sports on top of it as did the other athletes. I also graduated with a computer science degree. My grades were actually better in season because I had negative free time. All I did was school and sports.
This isn't your Hollywood movie D1 athletic department. I actually had several teachers try and fail me for playing sports. And several very supportive teachers It's a nerdy school. One teacher tried to fail 3 of the volleyball players because they would miss their Saturday final because they were traveling for the national championship instead of just moving the exam 1 day.
The vast majority of schools are not Division 1 sports. The reason I heard from other schools on my admissions was I applied to a d3 school, a d2 school, and a several D1 schools. Two of the D1 schools told me not to waste my time playing college D1 ball, I wasn't big enough. Northwestern told me the same and told me that they'd had one person even do football and graduate from engineering in the last 30 years. They were kind enough to meet with me in person as I was at an academic summer camp there. They were more like 6k hours in sports. I was grateful for that frank advice, even though I would have had the experience of beating notre dame at notre dame and going to the rose bowl the next season (and very bad seasons thereafter) if I had gone.
But thank you for assuming I got through college by being a mediocre football player.
Unfortunately, most US colleges are more interested in making money than education, and sports is more lucrative in the US than educating people.
Most schools lose money on sports overall (especially true for D3), so this explanation seems unlikely.
“The 2020 report found only 25 Division I programs had revenues exceeding expenses. No Division II or III program had revenues exceeding expenses.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-explain-it-me/shou...
“The 2020 report found only 25 Division I programs had revenues exceeding expenses. No Division II or III program had revenues exceeding expenses.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-explain-it-me/shou...
I bombed my AP tests after a year of stress, what a waste of time and a consequential amount of money at the time
Whereas the community college classes I also took in high school were like 8 weeks long, and - like the rest of college - you really only needed to do the midterm and the final and you get the same credit
AP test score transfers credit across the country while being unnecessarily stressful and long courses. community college credits cannot be guaranteed to transfer and have more utility locally or in an adjacent school system, while being shorter semester long courses. Dollar costs are adjacent.
Whereas the community college classes I also took in high school were like 8 weeks long, and - like the rest of college - you really only needed to do the midterm and the final and you get the same credit
AP test score transfers credit across the country while being unnecessarily stressful and long courses. community college credits cannot be guaranteed to transfer and have more utility locally or in an adjacent school system, while being shorter semester long courses. Dollar costs are adjacent.
>AP test score transfers credit across the country while being unnecessarily stressful and long courses. community college credits cannot be guaranteed to transfer and have more utility locally or in an adjacent school system, while being shorter semester long courses. Dollar costs are adjacent.
That really changes if you get a degree though and AP classes are not necessarily guaranteed to meet whatever requirements some degree program specifies. Personally I had an AP CompSci class that I scored a 5 on but it counted for absolutely nothing for my CompSci degree yet the classes I took at the local Community College transferred to state college and satisfied their prerequisites. The actual college courses were easier than AP to boot. If you get an AA degree at the community college then you're probably better off transferring to another college with the degree than with AP class credits at least in my experience. I lived in a state that offered free dual enrollment so I was able to cut a bunch of core classes at the high school and get most of an AA at the same time.
That really changes if you get a degree though and AP classes are not necessarily guaranteed to meet whatever requirements some degree program specifies. Personally I had an AP CompSci class that I scored a 5 on but it counted for absolutely nothing for my CompSci degree yet the classes I took at the local Community College transferred to state college and satisfied their prerequisites. The actual college courses were easier than AP to boot. If you get an AA degree at the community college then you're probably better off transferring to another college with the degree than with AP class credits at least in my experience. I lived in a state that offered free dual enrollment so I was able to cut a bunch of core classes at the high school and get most of an AA at the same time.
If your costs for community college and an AP test were adjacent your local community college must be a bargain. AP test currently costs $97 while the local community college is $185.50 per credit hour. Our local school system actually pays for the 1st 4 AP tests a student takes so the difference is even greater.
Same though I’d say that the group who optimized for grades over challenging themselves in high school didn’t fare so well. Same in college actually. I don’t have much law school data but it seems like the folks afraid of competition when they’re young don’t grow into it when they get older.
AP classes served only to keep the hoodlums out when I took them. I still don't understand what the point is of them. Not one of them were anything like a real college course. If someone wants to shortcut some credits, I recommend memorizing some flash cards and taking a DSST/CLEP exam.
My AP classes were phenomenal and honestly much better than my undergrad courses which would have had a hundred students in them and met much less frequently. They also cut a year from my undergrad.
I went to high school in Florida so we had dual enrollment available at the local community college for free and it counted as high school credit as well as college credit. Quite frankly the actual college class was way less work, an easier grade for all of my classes, less uncertainty about if the credit would actually transfer to whatever degree program, etc. AP classes always seemed like a scam in that regard, especially with the option to take a summer class or a class outside of high school hours to free up a period for an extra elective at the high school.
At least with AP classes you get a GPA bump that affects the raw numerical calculation. That way, you can come out ahead if you get A- or better in the AP class. I recall that for some schools/purposes, they just looked at your GPA without weighting, but for most purposes they gave credit for weighted grades. This also applied to class rank, but for me all of this was a couple decades ago.
You just sparked a therapy thread about the dubious ROI of AP programs! :-)
I remember cheating was absolutely rampant among East and south Asian students when I went through undergrad (a mere 3 years ago) to the point where something like 70% of all honor cases (cheating investigations by the student council) were this demographic - multiples their proportion of the student body.
Many got away with it and had excellent GPAs as a result, no doubt a credit to their job prospects, and all it cost was their “academic integrity” (if such a thing matters at all anymore)
Many got away with it and had excellent GPAs as a result, no doubt a credit to their job prospects, and all it cost was their “academic integrity” (if such a thing matters at all anymore)
Was this among Asian immigrants or Asian American students?
Separately, the student council investigates cheating allegations? I'd think there would be confidentiality concerns that would prevent student inquiries.
Separately, the student council investigates cheating allegations? I'd think there would be confidentiality concerns that would prevent student inquiries.
Asian immigrants especially, but some 2nd generation+ students who come from Asian communities in the area who were still pretty traditional. I personally had to report 4 south Asian students blatantly cheating for an exam, and had a cheating ring of maybe 8 East Asian international students busted in my 2nd semester honors math course.
On student council: there was significant student govt at my school. Student council, but also student honor councils and student justice councils. Honor handled all cheating cases, justice handled disciplinary cases. I’m not sure how they handled confidentiality, but even as a resident advisor you can encounter some sensitive stuff and the culture was one of “student run society” with the professional staff to guide it.
This was at a “public Ivy”
On student council: there was significant student govt at my school. Student council, but also student honor councils and student justice councils. Honor handled all cheating cases, justice handled disciplinary cases. I’m not sure how they handled confidentiality, but even as a resident advisor you can encounter some sensitive stuff and the culture was one of “student run society” with the professional staff to guide it.
This was at a “public Ivy”
Very interesting! How were the students cheating? In real time on exams, or collaborating on take-home work? Do you think these demographics cheated more than other students, or got caught more?
What’s a “public ivy”? The Wikipedia entry claims this term includes UC Irvine/Riverside/etc., which seems like a stretch. Is there a tighter or more well-known definition?
What’s a “public ivy”? The Wikipedia entry claims this term includes UC Irvine/Riverside/etc., which seems like a stretch. Is there a tighter or more well-known definition?
I'm not sure on the cheating ring or other cases, but for the one I witnessed it was blatantly sharing each others exams + answers during the busy "turn in your exams" moment of a crowded auditorium.
One East Asian student I talked to said it was a cultural difference, cheating in academics just wasn't considered that big a deal and very common in competitive districts (international students from China or India for instance, or competition at top high schools like Thomas Jefferson). Basically "everyone does it and if you don't you'll be left behind".
It was a top 20 school but not ivy. Have always heard "public ivy" and it competes for "top public university", near or topping the list most years.
One East Asian student I talked to said it was a cultural difference, cheating in academics just wasn't considered that big a deal and very common in competitive districts (international students from China or India for instance, or competition at top high schools like Thomas Jefferson). Basically "everyone does it and if you don't you'll be left behind".
It was a top 20 school but not ivy. Have always heard "public ivy" and it competes for "top public university", near or topping the list most years.
At my school, we had a disciplinary council composed of several students and several faculty members, which met monthly to handle any cases of academic misconduct. Confidentiality was expected and we were reminded of this fact at the beginning and end of every meeting.
The vast majority of cases were "simple cheating" (e.g. sharing answers during a test, collaborating when collaboration was specifically forbidden). Of these, a large percent were foreign exchange students, who explained the behavior as either a difference in the nature of education (individualist in the US vs collectivist in their home country) or a claimed misunderstanding of the instructions due to language barriers (despite reasonable TOEFL scores required to be admitted).
From talking with faculty who had served on the committee for longer than me, while those were occasionally the issue, more often than not students cheated for one of two reasons: 1) external pressure for them to get a good grade (e.g. parents paid tuition proportionally to GPA, or punished for poor grades), or 2) desire for credential over knowledge or apathy towards the education itself.
The vast majority of cases were "simple cheating" (e.g. sharing answers during a test, collaborating when collaboration was specifically forbidden). Of these, a large percent were foreign exchange students, who explained the behavior as either a difference in the nature of education (individualist in the US vs collectivist in their home country) or a claimed misunderstanding of the instructions due to language barriers (despite reasonable TOEFL scores required to be admitted).
From talking with faculty who had served on the committee for longer than me, while those were occasionally the issue, more often than not students cheated for one of two reasons: 1) external pressure for them to get a good grade (e.g. parents paid tuition proportionally to GPA, or punished for poor grades), or 2) desire for credential over knowledge or apathy towards the education itself.
Then they become research professors and make up data in their "research". There is a crisis where the papers cannot be replicated. Probably because they are all lies.
I dont understand why there isnt some institution who just sits and replicates papers all day.
I dont understand why there isnt some institution who just sits and replicates papers all day.
Hm, I wouldn't be so categorical. I remember sitting at the class council in a somewhat selective post-highschool school in France, and the teachers knew very well that in highschool A, a student with 16/20 average grades in math from professor X was likely to be as good as a student with 12/20 in highschool B with professor Y, and used this info for admission. They didn't know this for every highschool/prof, but still for many of the good ones in southern France (I remember discussions ranging from Perpignan to Nîmes)
You're talking about school distinctions, which doesn't have anything to do with what the person you're responding to is saying. They're talking about taking the class elsewhere, and transferring the credit, so the end transcript would not materially distinguish. They'd still have the cachet of the institution that they're graduating from, not where/who took each class.
Doesn't work like that in France.
> Hm, I wouldn't be so categorical.
The Lycee -> Grande Ecole track in France isn't comparable (smaller, specialized, local.)
0. US business/law schools are singular, professional degrees with way more variety in the applicant funnel.
1. Program rankings/prestige are "everything"
2. Rankings are heavily weighted on quantitative acceptance/matriculation profiles by GPA and entrance exams (GMAT/GRE/LSAT).
3. As a result, GPA handicapping (for difficulty) doesn't really happen for top MBA/JD programs.
The Lycee -> Grande Ecole track in France isn't comparable (smaller, specialized, local.)
0. US business/law schools are singular, professional degrees with way more variety in the applicant funnel.
1. Program rankings/prestige are "everything"
2. Rankings are heavily weighted on quantitative acceptance/matriculation profiles by GPA and entrance exams (GMAT/GRE/LSAT).
3. As a result, GPA handicapping (for difficulty) doesn't really happen for top MBA/JD programs.
Interesting! My experience is with US colleges and law schools, of which there are a lot more. I think that’s why there’s not a lot of detailed knowledge.
It is a matter of principle that no course or program should be easier than another. Of course, this principle does not match reality. But as an academic in a management position, I try hard to level the playing field at a course level.
You can't level a playing field where students can just buy all the answers online and get the same degree. At this time a university does not function as proof of education. It's proof of elitism. That one is not too poor, and will take on a lot of debt and follow orders.
Any course that does not hand make its materials should not be accredited.
Any course that does not hand make its materials should not be accredited.
Almost completely agree.
I have put a vast amount of energy and time into raising the bar of our course material.
I have put a vast amount of energy and time into raising the bar of our course material.
University and education has always been a certification game.
What matters is that an institution has approved you and certified what you know.
What matters is that an institution has approved you and certified what you know.
>It is a matter of principle that no course or program should be easier than another.
It makes no sense and I don't think there's solid reasoning behind this concept
like... why?
It makes no sense and I don't think there's solid reasoning behind this concept
like... why?
Why?
Simple…
1. Students would flock to easy courses and avoid hard ones. Students can be very mercenary, especially when they are choosing electives. They want the degree, not the learningf experience (some of them anyway).
2. Lecturers would make courses deliberately easy in order to purchase good student feedback. One of my first tasks as manager of my program was to put a stop to lecturers who were giving an average grade percentage of 98 (I kid you not... 98 freakin percent). FYI student feedback is one metric of tenure.
I am not saying that all subjects are of the same difficulty. I am simply saying that it is perfectly possible to package domain-specific knowledge/skills in approximately demand-equal lumps.
Simple…
1. Students would flock to easy courses and avoid hard ones. Students can be very mercenary, especially when they are choosing electives. They want the degree, not the learningf experience (some of them anyway).
2. Lecturers would make courses deliberately easy in order to purchase good student feedback. One of my first tasks as manager of my program was to put a stop to lecturers who were giving an average grade percentage of 98 (I kid you not... 98 freakin percent). FYI student feedback is one metric of tenure.
I am not saying that all subjects are of the same difficulty. I am simply saying that it is perfectly possible to package domain-specific knowledge/skills in approximately demand-equal lumps.
Hmm, in my world like 95% of the courses are mandatory and you cannot change it (or maybe it's very tricky to do, so I've never heard about it), so first point is not as relevant "here".
Second point I think should be solved by standardized tests which have other benefits.
>I am simply saying that it is perfectly possible to package domain-specific knowledge/skills in approximately demand-equal lumps.
but why? some concepts are easier than the other and for some courses people are... let's call it more likely to be prepared
for example "here" people have english classes (as a second/n-th language) since elementary school, then in middle school, then in high school and once again when attending higher edu institution
so when they've been learning english for something like 14 years then of course they're going to have easier time when comparing to some compiler construction class or something like that
Second point I think should be solved by standardized tests which have other benefits.
>I am simply saying that it is perfectly possible to package domain-specific knowledge/skills in approximately demand-equal lumps.
but why? some concepts are easier than the other and for some courses people are... let's call it more likely to be prepared
for example "here" people have english classes (as a second/n-th language) since elementary school, then in middle school, then in high school and once again when attending higher edu institution
so when they've been learning english for something like 14 years then of course they're going to have easier time when comparing to some compiler construction class or something like that
Yes… most of a program is core. However, in more than one case I dealt with, there was different content and wildly different grading practices in different classes of the same course. Clearly unfair practice.
> Second point I think should be solved by standardized tests which have other benefits.
In a design program the course content is defined generally but a lot of leeway is allowed as to how it is delivered.
The general point I am making is that fairness should be maintained. In my experience, students care almost more about fairness in grading than they do about their grade.
> Second point I think should be solved by standardized tests which have other benefits.
In a design program the course content is defined generally but a lot of leeway is allowed as to how it is delivered.
The general point I am making is that fairness should be maintained. In my experience, students care almost more about fairness in grading than they do about their grade.
Purposefully avoiding academic challenge sounds like a poor strategy for grad school success! From my experience, the best students take classes based on interest rather than ease, and they are more prone to overload their schedules (rather than optimize for high GPA).
The strategy is about optimizing admissions rather than success. Probably because the fear of "not getting passed this important checkpoint" is baked into school. That teaches to optimize for the checkpoints. And people can really take those lessons to heart.
Reading this makes me appreciate the preparatory school / competitive exams / Engineering school system.
You could have some hard teachers netting you some 5/20 average grade and it would have no bearing on your school entry exam score.
You could have some hard teachers netting you some 5/20 average grade and it would have no bearing on your school entry exam score.
The French system has issues too, just different ones.
The system is extremely disingenuous. It looks fair if you take a casual glance at it but it’s actually completely rotten. Administrators from the education ministry mercilessly impose on most high schools in the country a strict adherence to the official curriculum and disallow any form of selection but as always in France a few select high schools are above the rule and start preparing selected students years in advance. If you look at the official statistics, you will see that a clear funnel to the top schools exist at least from middle school. When you consider where you get your engineering degree still significantly impact your career in your fifties (I’m not kidding), it’s all kind of a joke actually.
My main advice to prospective French students is generally to just go study abroad and then never come back and before I’m taxed of just being bitter I do have a degree from one of the prestigious Parisian schools.
The system is extremely disingenuous. It looks fair if you take a casual glance at it but it’s actually completely rotten. Administrators from the education ministry mercilessly impose on most high schools in the country a strict adherence to the official curriculum and disallow any form of selection but as always in France a few select high schools are above the rule and start preparing selected students years in advance. If you look at the official statistics, you will see that a clear funnel to the top schools exist at least from middle school. When you consider where you get your engineering degree still significantly impact your career in your fifties (I’m not kidding), it’s all kind of a joke actually.
My main advice to prospective French students is generally to just go study abroad and then never come back and before I’m taxed of just being bitter I do have a degree from one of the prestigious Parisian schools.
> When you consider where you get your engineering degree still significantly impact your career in your fifties (I’m not kidding), it’s all kind of a joke actually.
No true in CS, and not true in biology. I'm now 28k above the average (not median) pay for CS engineers in France at 31, nobody asked me for a diploma i don't have anyway (i did not validate my bachelor in math and did not really finish my CS school as i was hired during my last internship and couldn't find the time to validate it) and no questions were ever asked about my school years.
Only stuff they asked is previous experience, experience with technologies and amazon architect certification (that i didn't have).
For biology (and geology, and probably physics too but i lost touch with my friends in those areas), the thing that really matter is which professor and/or which lab did you work for. Even if you get an biology engineering degree, you can follow through with a doctorate if you went to the right labs. As for geology, you can come from a rural area and be good at one of the worst highschool in the departement, then go to a university ranked 10th and still be the only French astrogeologist doctor in years and work directly with Curiosity teams.
No true in CS, and not true in biology. I'm now 28k above the average (not median) pay for CS engineers in France at 31, nobody asked me for a diploma i don't have anyway (i did not validate my bachelor in math and did not really finish my CS school as i was hired during my last internship and couldn't find the time to validate it) and no questions were ever asked about my school years.
Only stuff they asked is previous experience, experience with technologies and amazon architect certification (that i didn't have).
For biology (and geology, and probably physics too but i lost touch with my friends in those areas), the thing that really matter is which professor and/or which lab did you work for. Even if you get an biology engineering degree, you can follow through with a doctorate if you went to the right labs. As for geology, you can come from a rural area and be good at one of the worst highschool in the departement, then go to a university ranked 10th and still be the only French astrogeologist doctor in years and work directly with Curiosity teams.
[deleted]
So true, local accolades are simply unknown in the wider realm. Big name brand travels farther than niche ranks of stellar departments in smaller known universities.
One thing I actually really like about the big tech companies is they will ignore low grades if you interview well. I had a semester where I failed almost every class due to a life event and was too proud to admit to my parents I should probably just withdraw. This dropped my gpa from a 3.3 down to a 2.6. Two years later when I graduated my GPA was still below a 3. I remember I was sitting at an interview with John Deere and they told me that someone with my academic failings probably wouldn’t do well at John Deere. Broad rejections from General Motors, ford, Boeing, many others. But Microsoft and Google did not seem to care at all. I was told I got a solid yes from all my Microsoft interviewers and was actually able to negotiate a level bump up and a larger signing bonus. For me it showed that Microsoft/google are thinking holistically in their HR decisions, and only use GPA as a signal. I hope my success at Microsoft since then is an indication that they made the right call.
It's not just the big companies. I've not heard of anyone rejected from a dev / it job for grades. I'm sure it does happen, especially in highly competitive, exam driven Asian countries. But otherwise? Not a single company even asked me about my grades in the first place. If you're doing a practical interview, they're not relevant.
And if I happen to somehow live in a bubble because I've not heard of those - in that case, keep in mind there's enough positions/companies to create that bubble.
And if I happen to somehow live in a bubble because I've not heard of those - in that case, keep in mind there's enough positions/companies to create that bubble.
I took my GPA off my resume as soon as I graduated, since it lost me so many interviews prior to that. I literally had recruiters at job fairs (which had not listed a minimum GPA in the requirements) hand me my resume back and say I should save this copy for a company that will call me back.
About a month after I graduated, I interviewed with a company (white board and actual coding); it went well, we were talking when I could start and salary range. Then someone from HR showed up with forms to fill out:
"Are you from industry or straight out of school?"
"School"
"Okay we'll need your GPA"
As soon as I told them my GPA, the interview tone changed and I never heard from them again.
At the company I did get hired at, they said they normally ask for GPA and it was an oversight in my case. They would not have flown me out for an interview had they known what it was.
Also, while on this topic the recruiters at CAT are incredibly rude about this; I didn't even go to their table at the job fair since they did list a 3.5 minimum GPA. However, I overheard them yelling at someone with a 3.4 GPA for wasting everybody's time for daring to show up with something below the minimum requirements (as if other companies don't use the "minimum requirements" as a "wish list" field).
About a month after I graduated, I interviewed with a company (white board and actual coding); it went well, we were talking when I could start and salary range. Then someone from HR showed up with forms to fill out:
"Are you from industry or straight out of school?"
"School"
"Okay we'll need your GPA"
As soon as I told them my GPA, the interview tone changed and I never heard from them again.
At the company I did get hired at, they said they normally ask for GPA and it was an oversight in my case. They would not have flown me out for an interview had they known what it was.
Also, while on this topic the recruiters at CAT are incredibly rude about this; I didn't even go to their table at the job fair since they did list a 3.5 minimum GPA. However, I overheard them yelling at someone with a 3.4 GPA for wasting everybody's time for daring to show up with something below the minimum requirements (as if other companies don't use the "minimum requirements" as a "wish list" field).
All the old school companies (GM/Boeing/GE/etc) had a cutoff of 3.0-3.2 GPA to interview. So my GPA was a major issue.
And recruiters at companies that didn't list a minimum (e.g. Cisco, HP, MS, Amazon, Google) told me not to bother applying with my GPA.
Company I did get hired at, which is definitely a software company, told me later I only got hired because nobody thought to ask me my GPA.
Company I did get hired at, which is definitely a software company, told me later I only got hired because nobody thought to ask me my GPA.
Sure, that's why I mentioned dev/it companies specifically. Those old school companies are automotive/aviation engineering with dev/it related departments, which is not the same.
It’s a good distinction and I haven’t noticed dev/it companies caring about GPA. I went to school at Penn State where the engineering career fair was dominated by old school companies which cared a lot about GPA.
Yes. But you did your part to keep the education/licensing industry going!
Investment Banks, Management Consulting, Big Law, not so much either...granted, a Harvard grad with 3.5 will get more slack than a kid from Random State School with similar grades and major.
But still, many of the companies mentioned above still just look at the GPA - not so much at the actual content. Career coaches for places like that will advise college students to focus on maximizing grades, at the cost of intellectually demanding classes (or anything, really!) because in the end - recruiters don't care whether you took Introduction to Theater, or Math 55 at Harvard.
So yes, at least big tech - even though the technical interviews can be tough - are indeed making the opportunities more accessible. You're not getting blanket rejections based on your freshman grades.
But still, many of the companies mentioned above still just look at the GPA - not so much at the actual content. Career coaches for places like that will advise college students to focus on maximizing grades, at the cost of intellectually demanding classes (or anything, really!) because in the end - recruiters don't care whether you took Introduction to Theater, or Math 55 at Harvard.
So yes, at least big tech - even though the technical interviews can be tough - are indeed making the opportunities more accessible. You're not getting blanket rejections based on your freshman grades.
> Career coaches for places like that will advise college students to focus on maximizing grades, at the cost of intellectually demanding classes (or anything, really!)
At MIT, some undergrads could get hired as research assistants for professor's projects (usually working under the direction of one of the professor's grad students). But MIT undergrads can have punishing courseloads, and it wasn't unusual for students to get overwhelmed with classes, and ghost the research side job. I'd hear grad students say that it seemed silly for one of their undergrad assistants to trade a recommendation from a well-connected professor, for only a slightly better GPA. But, in hindsight, I suppose that the undergrads knew what they were doing.
At MIT, some undergrads could get hired as research assistants for professor's projects (usually working under the direction of one of the professor's grad students). But MIT undergrads can have punishing courseloads, and it wasn't unusual for students to get overwhelmed with classes, and ghost the research side job. I'd hear grad students say that it seemed silly for one of their undergrad assistants to trade a recommendation from a well-connected professor, for only a slightly better GPA. But, in hindsight, I suppose that the undergrads knew what they were doing.
> I suppose that the undergrads knew what they were doing.
Based on what evidence?
Based on what evidence?
Even this terminology is ridiculous (I know it is paraphrased). Academic 'failings' for having a B average.
Having good grades across the board is great, but not having interest or success in the narrowly tested and unrelated subject is just silly.
The main metrics that matter when evaluating someone is how they are now and how fast they progress(ed).
Having good grades across the board is great, but not having interest or success in the narrowly tested and unrelated subject is just silly.
The main metrics that matter when evaluating someone is how they are now and how fast they progress(ed).
The most bizarre part about the John Deere interview is after all those derogatory remarks, they emailed me a week later asking me to fly to headquarters for another round of interviews. Despite having no offers, I turned down the interview. Was pretty upset about the way the interviewer had treated me.
I would have asked why that was. Do they lock employees in a room alone, and force them to solve problems without help or any outside interest? If not, then GPA is not relevant. If so, I will be shorting your stock.
> I had a semester where I failed almost every class due to a life event
Sadly, that's exactly what the universities here (not US) seem to measure: your ability to cope with an unmanageable mess called life. They overload you with schoolwork and those who are either gifted enough or able to cope with it will graduate.
Sadly, that's exactly what the universities here (not US) seem to measure: your ability to cope with an unmanageable mess called life. They overload you with schoolwork and those who are either gifted enough or able to cope with it will graduate.
A "life event" sounds something like a death or major illness of a loved one, an unexpected loss of financial support, a health problem, car accident, or some other third-party issue external to one's schoolwork. Penalizing these people doesn't filter for those who can cope; it sorts for those whose "life events" happen to occur after they graduate.
Agree. It sounds like that joke where HR randomly put half of applications to the bin because they don't want to hire the unlucky ones.
It all makes more sense if you stop looking at it as a "system" and just look at how it empirically works. Nobody is optimizing for anything, not even their own self-interest. We're just doing what we're doing because that's what we do.
Google didn't allow imperfect grades until after Marisa Mayer lost power.
She demanded perfect grades like she got.
She demanded perfect grades like she got.
> One thing I actually really like about the big tech companies is they will ignore low grades if you interview well.
The question is, are you getting an interview if you have low grades?
The question is, are you getting an interview if you have low grades?
Generally yes. I've been interviewing people in tech for about half a decade, and it never occurred to me to ask about their grades. It is irrelevant compared to testing how well the applicants know what they need to know for work.
Besides, partially thanks to grade inflation and partially due to arbitrary syllabi, universities grade students very unreliably. I can imagine a scenario where a recruiter or an interviewer would bother to work out what grades mean in one or two local universities if they recruit most of their employees from there. But in large tech companies that recruit regionally or globally, there is simply no way I, as an interviewer, will spend the time investigating how some professor in a college or university I have never heard about tends to grade their students and on what subject matter. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds.
The universities do not prepare people for work in tech anyways. There are tremendous practical knowledge gaps fresh graduates have compared to anyone who has been in tech for barely a year. A dropout candidate genuinely interested in the practicalities of work in their tech segment will easily outperform a 4.0 GPA BSc graduate who fails to engage with the subject matter.
More and more candidates are skipping BSc degrees and instead spending time building their portfolios targeting specific companies (using the appropriate frameworks, programming languages, and tools). They tend to be good hires and often want to prove themselves more than university grads. This works out for the team (the employee shows more engagement with work and more effort) and the employee (higher work satisfaction).
I am not saying that a university degree or your GPA is meaningless. I am sure some companies care about the latter, and many still care about the former. But compared to actual know-how, just undergrad degrees and 4.0 GPAs do not stand a chance.
Besides, partially thanks to grade inflation and partially due to arbitrary syllabi, universities grade students very unreliably. I can imagine a scenario where a recruiter or an interviewer would bother to work out what grades mean in one or two local universities if they recruit most of their employees from there. But in large tech companies that recruit regionally or globally, there is simply no way I, as an interviewer, will spend the time investigating how some professor in a college or university I have never heard about tends to grade their students and on what subject matter. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds.
The universities do not prepare people for work in tech anyways. There are tremendous practical knowledge gaps fresh graduates have compared to anyone who has been in tech for barely a year. A dropout candidate genuinely interested in the practicalities of work in their tech segment will easily outperform a 4.0 GPA BSc graduate who fails to engage with the subject matter.
More and more candidates are skipping BSc degrees and instead spending time building their portfolios targeting specific companies (using the appropriate frameworks, programming languages, and tools). They tend to be good hires and often want to prove themselves more than university grads. This works out for the team (the employee shows more engagement with work and more effort) and the employee (higher work satisfaction).
I am not saying that a university degree or your GPA is meaningless. I am sure some companies care about the latter, and many still care about the former. But compared to actual know-how, just undergrad degrees and 4.0 GPAs do not stand a chance.
You don't sound like "Big Tech", where HR prevents the interviewers from making hiring decisions.
That is not true at either Meta or Google. Final hiring decisions are made by either hiring managers directly or by a committee of senior engineers/managers if the interviewee is not placing directly into a team.
HR is there to make sure you’re not making biased decisions against protected classes or to flag if the candidate said something inappropriate in an interview or something, but they have no say in evaluating the candidate’s ability to actually perform the job. That evaluation is based almost entirely on the interview feedback; once a candidate is in the interview loop, grades make very little difference.
HR is there to make sure you’re not making biased decisions against protected classes or to flag if the candidate said something inappropriate in an interview or something, but they have no say in evaluating the candidate’s ability to actually perform the job. That evaluation is based almost entirely on the interview feedback; once a candidate is in the interview loop, grades make very little difference.
For Microsoft and Google the answer was yes. Which was kind of funny because those were my top two choices.
This was almost 20 years ago, but both MS and Google recruiters took my resume but told me I wasn't getting a callback with my GPA.
One of the most skilled and talented guys I ever worked with was hired without a degree, while he was still a teenager. This was at a big tech company.
He'd been hacking on various projects for years in his free time and had an exceptionally well written blog that detailed these. And he blasted through our interview loop like a guy with decades of experience. I feel he was one of these rare genius types that any hiring manager would be crazy to reject.
He'd been hacking on various projects for years in his free time and had an exceptionally well written blog that detailed these. And he blasted through our interview loop like a guy with decades of experience. I feel he was one of these rare genius types that any hiring manager would be crazy to reject.
In a similar vein, I had good grades, but from a non-cs background (I studied engineering physics). A lot of recruiters were turned off immediately when they heard "physics" and not pure CS or ECE. Google was interested, though.
Did you try Oracle? It's famous to use GPA to drop people afaik.
I went to a university in South Africa which had the opposite problem, grade deflation. The engineering school was masochistic in its obsession with lowering grades and failing students. Despite working extremely hard I went from 90%s to 60%s. But I was considered lucky because most students failed (and by most I mean +90% of the class) and repeated years. I did not. The lecturers repeatedly blamed the students but if even A students are failing I think it's not the students fault, it's the school's.
My university teamed up with an American University, Embray-Riddle, to offer a joint masters. Embray-Riddle required a minimum average grade of 80%; my university came back to them and said no one in the last 10 years qualified for the masters. Eventually they lowered the requirements just so they could have students.
Later I did my masters in the Netherlands. The university made me do extra courses to compensate for my low grades. But I ended up doing reasonably well with an 8/10 average and was the top student in a few subjects.
Grade inflation sounds bad but I can positively say that grade deflation is worse. It badly demotivates students and robs them of years of their life as they repeat courses.
My university teamed up with an American University, Embray-Riddle, to offer a joint masters. Embray-Riddle required a minimum average grade of 80%; my university came back to them and said no one in the last 10 years qualified for the masters. Eventually they lowered the requirements just so they could have students.
Later I did my masters in the Netherlands. The university made me do extra courses to compensate for my low grades. But I ended up doing reasonably well with an 8/10 average and was the top student in a few subjects.
Grade inflation sounds bad but I can positively say that grade deflation is worse. It badly demotivates students and robs them of years of their life as they repeat courses.
> My university teamed up with an American University, Embray-Riddle, to offer a joint masters. Embray-Riddle required a minimum average grade of 80%; my university came back to them and said no one in the last 10 years qualified for the masters. Eventually they lowered the requirements just so they could have students.
They just shows the US university has no idea how universities based on the UK system work. At Trinity College Dublin the standard was that 70%+ was a first class honours, the highest rank of degree awarded. Getting 80% would be like getting a started first at Oxford. Most years no one gets one in any partial particular faculty.
They just shows the US university has no idea how universities based on the UK system work. At Trinity College Dublin the standard was that 70%+ was a first class honours, the highest rank of degree awarded. Getting 80% would be like getting a started first at Oxford. Most years no one gets one in any partial particular faculty.
It's almost as if universities should devise a decent curriculum with the proper goals for the program, then design courses to properly teach those, and then design tests to measure to what degree a student actually meets the curriculum's goal. But hey, who am I kidding?
I went from a grade-inflating US university to a semester in Spain where 50% was passing, passing was the goal, and the grades reflected that.
It was all fine until a computer networking course with a policy of not returning tests or test grades until the midterm, when we discovered that no one was doing better than 29%, and median was probably 20%. The whole section pretty much freaked out, and for a week no learning happened until the professor finally implied that, due to his poor English skills, only near-verbatim reproductions of the book's answer key were awarded any credit.
It was all fine until a computer networking course with a policy of not returning tests or test grades until the midterm, when we discovered that no one was doing better than 29%, and median was probably 20%. The whole section pretty much freaked out, and for a week no learning happened until the professor finally implied that, due to his poor English skills, only near-verbatim reproductions of the book's answer key were awarded any credit.
Ugh that's terrible. The College I went to the professors seemed to have the attitude of this program is hard and our students need all the help we can give them. I think half the students dropped out.
Grade inflation always seems weird to me since they stamped it out in my program 40 years ago by enforcing grading on a curve and not allowing students to drop out and retake classes after the first two days. Grading on a curve was real. I once got a B with a score of 13/50.
Grade inflation always seems weird to me since they stamped it out in my program 40 years ago by enforcing grading on a curve and not allowing students to drop out and retake classes after the first two days. Grading on a curve was real. I once got a B with a score of 13/50.
I loathe strict curve grading, as it measures relative ability within a cohort with no predictive value of real ability.
A professor can make a test as hard or easy as he wants. So just because you got 100% right means nothing at all in and of itself. And that you got everything right is a really hard tell your test wasn't hard enough. Which also perhaps means the class isn't either.
The problem not stated with grade inflation is it's a good indication that the classes are being targeted towards the lower 1/3 of the class. Which means really you're wasting the upper 2/3rds of the classes time.
The problem not stated with grade inflation is it's a good indication that the classes are being targeted towards the lower 1/3 of the class. Which means really you're wasting the upper 2/3rds of the classes time.
My question is, why wouldn’t it be this way? For two equivalent students from equivalently prestigious schools, if one has a 3.5 GPA and the other has a 3.9 due to grade inflation, of course the second student will have more opportunities. And more opportunities means higher pay, and higher pay means more donations back to the school. Goodhart's law and all that.
Grade inflation and the grading idiosyncrasies between schools make it such that GPA is fairly meaningless as a metric to me when I’m conducting interviews. I simply don’t care.
I worked my butt off in undergrad to barely get a 3.1 at one school, and in grad school it was hard to not get an A in a course.
Instead, I care about what you as an interviewee know. Not what school you went to, not what contrived number you scored.
Grade inflation and the grading idiosyncrasies between schools make it such that GPA is fairly meaningless as a metric to me when I’m conducting interviews. I simply don’t care.
I worked my butt off in undergrad to barely get a 3.1 at one school, and in grad school it was hard to not get an A in a course.
Instead, I care about what you as an interviewee know. Not what school you went to, not what contrived number you scored.
Do you also not care if the interviewed didn't go to any school at all/didn't finish?
I don’t personally care. I’m not the first filter though, so HR might be rejecting those candidates.
That said, if anyone without any degree got to me I’d love to give them a shot. My thought process is, they must be smart as hell to make it this far without the signaling that a degree provides.
That said, if anyone without any degree got to me I’d love to give them a shot. My thought process is, they must be smart as hell to make it this far without the signaling that a degree provides.
I think the premise of this article is flawed — aside from the (imo very valid) “who cares!” argument with regards to grades not actually mattering for really anything anymore except when it comes to some grad programs, the implicit assumption of this analysis is that the grade system will exist in its current form in the future.
I think it’s more likely Harvard does away with the traditional letter system altogether. Aside from the fact Harvard operated just fine without it for the first 2-3 centuries it operated, let’s take a step back and try to remember what the grades were to track in the first place: students’ absorption of the material (i.e. “learning”). This type of grade system is better for measuring things that have right/wrong answers— math, memorization of dates, anything mechanical, etc. Yet with calculators and the internet making things like historical timelines and formulas etc accessible even to payment, graders’ job of even grading these “objective” becomes more subjective— if you arrive to the wrong math question, but did all the right high level steps and made a small but cascading error in the beginning, I’d posit that student likely knows the material well and would avoid that error were it pointed out. But from a grading perspective, what is that? 7/10? Same situation to a history student laying out the historical context leading up to some event and mixing up some dates. Things get even more muddled when it comes to humanities.
In fact, off the top of my head, Pomona College and Brown University, both well-regarded schools within academia (and Pomona with I believe the highest undergrad acceptance rate into Harvard grad programs), have the option for every class to be taken as Pass/Fail, except when it comes to later-stage major requirements. Graduation accolades are awarded by professor recommendation, which fosters getting to know your professors out of the classroom better than grades. Anything that needs to be GPA-gated could instead be (likely better) gated by a placement test.
Knowledge is not a 0 sum game. Maybe instead of trying to adapt our current education circumstances to to an old grading system, it’s time to think of a new system altogether.
I think it’s more likely Harvard does away with the traditional letter system altogether. Aside from the fact Harvard operated just fine without it for the first 2-3 centuries it operated, let’s take a step back and try to remember what the grades were to track in the first place: students’ absorption of the material (i.e. “learning”). This type of grade system is better for measuring things that have right/wrong answers— math, memorization of dates, anything mechanical, etc. Yet with calculators and the internet making things like historical timelines and formulas etc accessible even to payment, graders’ job of even grading these “objective” becomes more subjective— if you arrive to the wrong math question, but did all the right high level steps and made a small but cascading error in the beginning, I’d posit that student likely knows the material well and would avoid that error were it pointed out. But from a grading perspective, what is that? 7/10? Same situation to a history student laying out the historical context leading up to some event and mixing up some dates. Things get even more muddled when it comes to humanities.
In fact, off the top of my head, Pomona College and Brown University, both well-regarded schools within academia (and Pomona with I believe the highest undergrad acceptance rate into Harvard grad programs), have the option for every class to be taken as Pass/Fail, except when it comes to later-stage major requirements. Graduation accolades are awarded by professor recommendation, which fosters getting to know your professors out of the classroom better than grades. Anything that needs to be GPA-gated could instead be (likely better) gated by a placement test.
Knowledge is not a 0 sum game. Maybe instead of trying to adapt our current education circumstances to to an old grading system, it’s time to think of a new system altogether.
I agree the premise of these sorts of pieces is very flawed, and I'm surprised in these discussions the assumptions are put forth so matter-of-factly.
Grades don't necessarily exist to maximize some spread and produce a nice normal distribution. They could be constructed that way, but the way they tend to be used is in communicating level of mastery with material, and if a course is well-constructed, the instructor teaches well, and the students are engaged and learning, they should generally mostly get "good grades."
The weird thing is, how do you know that Harvard students aren't basically all understanding the material in their courses well? Wouldn't you expect that?
Think about it another way. Let's say universities tried hard to improve their educational effectiveness over decades, and were successful at it. More and more students were understanding the material in courses better. Why shouldn't that be reflected in improved grades?
At some level as you point out what really matters is whether or not a student basically grasped the material well enough, and the grading system in some ways punishes risk taking by grappling with difficult material.
I was a professor for many years, and there were certain universities that were known to have extremely low GPAs (yes this still happens), so we had to factor that into graduate admissions decisions. It did nothing but hurt applicants. Those students had the benefit of coming from schools that were well-known enough to be on people's radars, and for word-of-mouth to afford admissions committees knowing about grading practices. Students from smaller schools wouldn't be so lucky.
On the other hand, GPA might be more predictive of outcomes than standardized tests (https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-...) so this discussion might be moot. It doesn't mean that something couldn't be improved about grading but it's odd to level these kinds of critiques at GPA if it's outperforming the biggest alternative available).
Grades don't necessarily exist to maximize some spread and produce a nice normal distribution. They could be constructed that way, but the way they tend to be used is in communicating level of mastery with material, and if a course is well-constructed, the instructor teaches well, and the students are engaged and learning, they should generally mostly get "good grades."
The weird thing is, how do you know that Harvard students aren't basically all understanding the material in their courses well? Wouldn't you expect that?
Think about it another way. Let's say universities tried hard to improve their educational effectiveness over decades, and were successful at it. More and more students were understanding the material in courses better. Why shouldn't that be reflected in improved grades?
At some level as you point out what really matters is whether or not a student basically grasped the material well enough, and the grading system in some ways punishes risk taking by grappling with difficult material.
I was a professor for many years, and there were certain universities that were known to have extremely low GPAs (yes this still happens), so we had to factor that into graduate admissions decisions. It did nothing but hurt applicants. Those students had the benefit of coming from schools that were well-known enough to be on people's radars, and for word-of-mouth to afford admissions committees knowing about grading practices. Students from smaller schools wouldn't be so lucky.
On the other hand, GPA might be more predictive of outcomes than standardized tests (https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-...) so this discussion might be moot. It doesn't mean that something couldn't be improved about grading but it's odd to level these kinds of critiques at GPA if it's outperforming the biggest alternative available).
Oh, I completely agree that nationwide general-knowledge placement tests are likely not the best way to measure achievement -- especially the SAT/ACTs. Within US high school education, I expect the grade system to continue to exist for a while.
But when it comes to higher education, I think specialized placement tests applicable to a program are definitely useful. The LSAT and MCAT clearly have some value, at least, though they should not be considered the end-all-be-all by any means, either.
But when it comes to higher education, I think specialized placement tests applicable to a program are definitely useful. The LSAT and MCAT clearly have some value, at least, though they should not be considered the end-all-be-all by any means, either.
You can tell this was written by a student who doesn't really understand grades or what the problem is.
> You may have gotten a C in Math 55 but your potential employer could see the average grade was a B+.
This never happens. No one cares if you were a C student at Harvard or an A student. All they care about is the degree. With one exception: grad school. Bad grades can shut off doors for more education.
From he point of view of people who give grades:
1. High grades are free, low grades are expensive.
I can mint as many As as I want. No one will ever complain.
Give a student a B or a C? I have had students flip. Their parents can call. They can appeal. Some people just cause endless problems.
2. I don't need people posting hate about me online
When you give students good grades they say great things about you on ratemyprofessor and on surveys. When you give bad grades.. they say bad things. No thanks.
This has even resulted in lecturers losing their jobs.
3. Cheating distorts grades anyway
Can you imagine the disaster when you catch most of a class cheating? In my experience a significant fraction of students cheat. Guess how many hours of your life you will waste if you pursue every clear cheater?
With that in mind, if you grade on a curve and set a low average grade, you're just punishing the honest stuents.
4. Who cares!?
So what if everyone gets an A? What's the point? Given that no employer cares and that your wealth is largely a function of your parent's wealth, why are we wasting so much time on this. Any reasonable effort should merit an A and then we leave people alone. Students who want to excel will go on to do research, side projects, etc. regardless.
> You may have gotten a C in Math 55 but your potential employer could see the average grade was a B+.
This never happens. No one cares if you were a C student at Harvard or an A student. All they care about is the degree. With one exception: grad school. Bad grades can shut off doors for more education.
From he point of view of people who give grades:
1. High grades are free, low grades are expensive.
I can mint as many As as I want. No one will ever complain.
Give a student a B or a C? I have had students flip. Their parents can call. They can appeal. Some people just cause endless problems.
2. I don't need people posting hate about me online
When you give students good grades they say great things about you on ratemyprofessor and on surveys. When you give bad grades.. they say bad things. No thanks.
This has even resulted in lecturers losing their jobs.
3. Cheating distorts grades anyway
Can you imagine the disaster when you catch most of a class cheating? In my experience a significant fraction of students cheat. Guess how many hours of your life you will waste if you pursue every clear cheater?
With that in mind, if you grade on a curve and set a low average grade, you're just punishing the honest stuents.
4. Who cares!?
So what if everyone gets an A? What's the point? Given that no employer cares and that your wealth is largely a function of your parent's wealth, why are we wasting so much time on this. Any reasonable effort should merit an A and then we leave people alone. Students who want to excel will go on to do research, side projects, etc. regardless.
This is spot on.
The people who do care are the exchange students, transfer students, and students applying to graduate school, assuming grades transfer (which they often don’t). Schools with unusual grading policies often include a letter alongside transcripts to explain away why a student’s grades may not match what you expect. For example, Wellesley College includes a letter explaining that grades are NOT inflated at Wellesley, so a B in a class at Wellesley corresponds to an A at a more typical school. Evergreen College includes no grades at all and provides a thick packet explaining everything.
Maybe Harvard should include a letter in its transcripts explaining that students at Harvard are graded in an extremely lax fashion, and any credits transferred from Harvard should be transferred as if the course were taken pass/fail. (Half joking.)
The people who do care are the exchange students, transfer students, and students applying to graduate school, assuming grades transfer (which they often don’t). Schools with unusual grading policies often include a letter alongside transcripts to explain away why a student’s grades may not match what you expect. For example, Wellesley College includes a letter explaining that grades are NOT inflated at Wellesley, so a B in a class at Wellesley corresponds to an A at a more typical school. Evergreen College includes no grades at all and provides a thick packet explaining everything.
Maybe Harvard should include a letter in its transcripts explaining that students at Harvard are graded in an extremely lax fashion, and any credits transferred from Harvard should be transferred as if the course were taken pass/fail. (Half joking.)
You missed one more social aspect: give too many students an F in a course (for example, for cheating), and the instructors in the following year will let you know what they think.
> You missed one more social aspect: give too many students an F in a course (for example, for cheating), and the instructors in the following year will let you know what they think.
Give too many Fs and the administration is going to be breathing down your neck. They've got graduation rate targets to hit, not gonna happen if you fail too many people.
Give too many Fs and the administration is going to be breathing down your neck. They've got graduation rate targets to hit, not gonna happen if you fail too many people.
to quote a professor I had in uni: "if they want me to stop failing students, they should stop assigning me classes and let me do my research"
To your professor: If you want to do research then what are you doing at a school?! Take a tip from E.O. Lawrence and get a large funder to fund a research institute for you.
> So what if everyone gets an A? What's the point?
What's the point of university then? If "any reasonable effort should merit an A" it seems like there is zero point in university existing. A degree has no signal at that point.
And even if it's true that a degree has no signal anymore, you can't operate like that in the real world because a lot of people still operate under the assumption that degrees and GPA do carry signal. You'd most likely end up losing out on a lot of opportunities.
What's the point of university then? If "any reasonable effort should merit an A" it seems like there is zero point in university existing. A degree has no signal at that point.
And even if it's true that a degree has no signal anymore, you can't operate like that in the real world because a lot of people still operate under the assumption that degrees and GPA do carry signal. You'd most likely end up losing out on a lot of opportunities.
Hopefully the point of university is to learn
You may think so but this would be going against the facts. In reality, there are two major goals each US university has:
1. attracting funds (in the form of tuition, grants, etc)
2. improving educational statistics for the state
The second goal is related to the first and, in the case of a public school, dominates. The more diplomas the university awards, the more funding it usually gets (since it improves 'retention').
Universities certainly have great facilities for learning and if a student wants to learn, s*he certainly can but this is irrelevant from the point of view of the administration.
Lest you think this is another conspiracy theory, I have heard these two exact statements in every faculty meeting we had at the university level. How can I care about grade inflation (as a faculty) if I am penalized for the excessive number of withdrawals from my classes. Think about it: the students have realized that they were not ready for the class early, and decided to save themselves the headache and take a lower level class. This is counted against the faculty. Now what incentive do I have to give objective grades?
Universities certainly have great facilities for learning and if a student wants to learn, s*he certainly can but this is irrelevant from the point of view of the administration.
Lest you think this is another conspiracy theory, I have heard these two exact statements in every faculty meeting we had at the university level. How can I care about grade inflation (as a faculty) if I am penalized for the excessive number of withdrawals from my classes. Think about it: the students have realized that they were not ready for the class early, and decided to save themselves the headache and take a lower level class. This is counted against the faculty. Now what incentive do I have to give objective grades?
Damn, that's a bummer of a state of affairs
Agreed. But also, there's no point in giving grades if they don't mean anything. If you expect everyone who puts in nominal effort to get an A, then the class should be pass/fail.
I wonder if an explicit policy that grades are for internal purposes only would help. That is, grades are useful feedback on how well you're learning, but they aren't comparable between classes and aren't intended to judge or rate students. So the uni would refuse to calculate GPAs or report grades to outside parties.
Maybe they could even give more flexibility on how grades are calculated and reported. Like they could be whatever combination of pass/fail, letters, percents, notes etc that the prof wants, because by policy you're not calculating with them.
I wonder if an explicit policy that grades are for internal purposes only would help. That is, grades are useful feedback on how well you're learning, but they aren't comparable between classes and aren't intended to judge or rate students. So the uni would refuse to calculate GPAs or report grades to outside parties.
Maybe they could even give more flexibility on how grades are calculated and reported. Like they could be whatever combination of pass/fail, letters, percents, notes etc that the prof wants, because by policy you're not calculating with them.
Yeah, and I also like your idea of every class being pass/fail. I'm sure I've heard of some colleges doing it but I haven't looked into whether it's considered to be an improvement. Also I wonder what the results would be in terms of norm-setting if this was done at Harvard or something next?
There’s a reason why despite MIT putting their courses online for free, people still attend the university.
Learning is not the only reason to go to university, and it’s probably not even the primary one anymore.
Learning is not the only reason to go to university, and it’s probably not even the primary one anymore.
Would pass/fail be a better fit?
A couple of year ago I applied for a graduate position at a prominent Canadian university, and was accepted, based in numerous factors (like publication history, work experience, and academic program). But a few months later, I got a notification that I had been cut: my GPA was too low. My university in Australia didn't even have GPAs back then 1990s-2000s), and it was a very hard marked program (maybe 5% of the class would get over 90%). H3 was a solid pass. But I was competing with people who had just finished undergraduate and master's studies in North America, all of whom had almost perfect A+ GPAs.
The worst part is that it reveals that universities believe their own bullshit. In fact, believing the bs seems to be a strategy for career success.
The worst part is that it reveals that universities believe their own bullshit. In fact, believing the bs seems to be a strategy for career success.
Was this McGill by any chance?
It wasn't but they too have a minimum GPA because they insist they only have the top students.
"Harvard students, who can be very risk-averse and afraid of failure..."
An interesting statement, which seems worthy of its own article.
An interesting statement, which seems worthy of its own article.
Not really. The current admission system is such that students with slightly lower grade would likely not make it. So, only those who make it are the ones who haven't taken much risks, focused on their grades, kept taking the subjects where it's comparatively easier to get a higher grade, and then the curriculars which are standard and augment the profile. Tests/SATs are also standard ones, and since top Ivy-leaguers only focus on a handful of things, it's important to maintain high score in that. Many students who experimented with a tough (but interesting) course in high school/undergrad, and got bad grades in 1-2 subjects will likely not make it.
This results in a higher proportion of admitted students who are risk-averse and afraid of failure. If that is the input, very improbable that it would be much different with them once they are in college.
This results in a higher proportion of admitted students who are risk-averse and afraid of failure. If that is the input, very improbable that it would be much different with them once they are in college.
Is it? The coincidence of risk aversion and status grubbing seem quite strong.
In many ways, status grubbing is the safest meta strategy in contemporary society.
[ascii shrugface]
In many ways, status grubbing is the safest meta strategy in contemporary society.
[ascii shrugface]
(Giving some context into this as founder in edtech -- running a 4 yr CS undergraduate program at kalvium.com)
One reason for grade inflation is that this is currently the only filter provided to the industry, who would like to filter students they review. This has ended up as a perverse incentive, and students and the university want to be above the "cutoff" GPA.
One of the solutions we're going with is to provide a 5 point grade per course, and provide this full breadth of data as a filter to the industry during the placements/internships season. Our bet is that the industry will have more diverse options to go by and we end up with better match-making.
Another solution is to have publicly verifiable artifacts of coursework (plagiarism is a significant problem in higher education).
I'd also like to hear HN's recommendations on this topic.
One reason for grade inflation is that this is currently the only filter provided to the industry, who would like to filter students they review. This has ended up as a perverse incentive, and students and the university want to be above the "cutoff" GPA.
One of the solutions we're going with is to provide a 5 point grade per course, and provide this full breadth of data as a filter to the industry during the placements/internships season. Our bet is that the industry will have more diverse options to go by and we end up with better match-making.
Another solution is to have publicly verifiable artifacts of coursework (plagiarism is a significant problem in higher education).
I'd also like to hear HN's recommendations on this topic.
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but is one advantage of a 5 point system that the resulting point are highly and interpreted favourably by review systems that assume a 4.0 maximum? I'm guessing a lot of them don't bother to read the data you provide.
The big change is a grade per course, with publically available artifacts of project work.
In the UK, at the university level, grade inflation is often related to the high annual cost of tuition.
Students are increasingly treating university as a paid service with universities treating students as customers.
Failing too many students is a failure in the service provided - bringing the university into some sort of liability.
Further, students are working hard for the £50,000+ worth of student debt they accumulate. Which wasn't the case generations prior.
Students are increasingly treating university as a paid service with universities treating students as customers.
Failing too many students is a failure in the service provided - bringing the university into some sort of liability.
Further, students are working hard for the £50,000+ worth of student debt they accumulate. Which wasn't the case generations prior.
Same problem here in Australia, but honestly I don't blame the students - unis have turned themselves into businesses selling a service, students are just responding to that. And if I'm paying for a course, and I do all the coursework and make a reasonable good faith attempt at the assessment, I think it's reasonable to expect I'll pass. If the content was too hard for a significant portion of students are those student getting anything for their money?
Grade inflation is never the fault of students as they don't set the conditions of the course. They merely participate
While I agree it's not their "fault," they pick which schools to go to and which classes to take, so it's not correct to say that they "merely participate"
All universities in the UK operate under the same conditions. The choice of the student makes little difference.
Other countries may differ
Other countries may differ
The main problem isn't liability, it's that failing too many students shows up in the league tables that prospective students use to choose a university.
Also a strong factor.
Someone has tried to sue Oxford university for failig to attain a first-class degree.
Luckily the courts disagreed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-42974641
Someone has tried to sue Oxford university for failig to attain a first-class degree.
Luckily the courts disagreed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-42974641
At my uni the grade transcript from the university includes the grade distribution for the course next to each grade. So it's easy for a company to see that "a B in this course was comparatively good" for instance. It was almost always a curve. Where about 10% got an A, and the median of course was a C etc.
I've always found it so weird how in the US the scale isn't used. By doing all course work you're often assigned enough credits to guarantee a B (the challenge is having enough time to do it all, I guess), and by doing some more you'll get a A- or whatever. I've had friends that wee C/D students here take a year in the US and get straight A's.
I've always found it so weird how in the US the scale isn't used. By doing all course work you're often assigned enough credits to guarantee a B (the challenge is having enough time to do it all, I guess), and by doing some more you'll get a A- or whatever. I've had friends that wee C/D students here take a year in the US and get straight A's.
That proves how nonsensical grades are. Your grade is based on what other people in a biased sample do?
Grades should be pass only, and be finer-grained than current semester long courses. I don't care what you can't do. I care what you can do.
Grades should be pass only, and be finer-grained than current semester long courses. I don't care what you can't do. I care what you can do.
I'm not saying they're grading on a curve or adjusting each exam. Just that on average it turns out the average student is a C student.
But yeah, the whole point of grades is actually to use them to compare others. So even grading on a curve is better than giving everyone an A.
But yeah, the whole point of grades is actually to use them to compare others. So even grading on a curve is better than giving everyone an A.
I hear this a lot but… I just didn’t see it. Very few students got straight A’s at any of my academic institutions. I would say only 10% or so of students would get majority As. Many classes were easy As for sure, so many students would have several As. But if you looked at things like the honor roll cutoffs (determined by GPA), it would be a selective subset.
Anecdotally I think some gpa inflation is related to modern course design.
What was the design and pedagogy (workload too) for a biology course at harvard in the 1920s versus today? Without this info the graph tells us less than it might.
What classes were being offered in 1920s harvard?
At my university we dont offer classes that were at one time considered essential
Want to learn about virgil? Well, theres the internet
What was the design and pedagogy (workload too) for a biology course at harvard in the 1920s versus today? Without this info the graph tells us less than it might.
What classes were being offered in 1920s harvard?
At my university we dont offer classes that were at one time considered essential
Want to learn about virgil? Well, theres the internet
Grade inflation is always and everywhere an admission rate problem.
The US college-applying population has grown (a lot). The Harvard class size remains the same. Harvard continues to be a (the?) top tier school. This means that Harvard classes are probably getting better year after year. Even if Harvard is evaluating performance exactly the same (no new cushiness), if the admitted are better, they’ll be getting better grades on average, and those grades will be more compressed.
The US college-applying population has grown (a lot). The Harvard class size remains the same. Harvard continues to be a (the?) top tier school. This means that Harvard classes are probably getting better year after year. Even if Harvard is evaluating performance exactly the same (no new cushiness), if the admitted are better, they’ll be getting better grades on average, and those grades will be more compressed.
I don't think this tracks;
The argument seems to be that there are more and more students, and the number that can go to Harvard is fixed, so Harvard is selecting for the "best and the brightest" which when they were less picky was a smaller percentage of the class but now they only get really bright and talented students. Does that more or less capture it?
If so consider that grades are against the class, not the student. If grades did not inflate, and the quality of the students had risen, then the effort to get an A would go up commensurately with the quality of the student and those who weren't up to that standard would continue to get the B's and C's.
What the article is saying is that by not grading on a curve (or letting the curve parameters creep up) the median GPA goes up and the standard deviation goes down (compression). Rather than having a consistent distribution with what ever students happen to be admitted currently.
The argument seems to be that there are more and more students, and the number that can go to Harvard is fixed, so Harvard is selecting for the "best and the brightest" which when they were less picky was a smaller percentage of the class but now they only get really bright and talented students. Does that more or less capture it?
If so consider that grades are against the class, not the student. If grades did not inflate, and the quality of the students had risen, then the effort to get an A would go up commensurately with the quality of the student and those who weren't up to that standard would continue to get the B's and C's.
What the article is saying is that by not grading on a curve (or letting the curve parameters creep up) the median GPA goes up and the standard deviation goes down (compression). Rather than having a consistent distribution with what ever students happen to be admitted currently.
If exam grades follow some absolute standard, then throwing better students at them would result at more As, up tp only A grades for an entire class. This is without any grade inflation: the absolute level of knowledge to get an A stays the same, but the absolute level of knowledge demonstrated by students goes up.
To the contrary, to have any B or C grades in a class full of the brightest students, one needs to either increase the absolute expected level, or to give the class grades relative to its strength, which again means raising the expected level for an A.
Exam questions from Harvard can be easily tracked 100+ years back. A researcher who'd give current Harvard graduates some of the older questions could find out if the toughness of the exams went up, down, or stayed.
To the contrary, to have any B or C grades in a class full of the brightest students, one needs to either increase the absolute expected level, or to give the class grades relative to its strength, which again means raising the expected level for an A.
Exam questions from Harvard can be easily tracked 100+ years back. A researcher who'd give current Harvard graduates some of the older questions could find out if the toughness of the exams went up, down, or stayed.
> then throwing better students at them would result at more As
Also, the Flynn effect: "the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that were measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
> A researcher who'd give current Harvard graduates some of the older questions could find out if the toughness of the exams went up, down, or stayed.
I strongly suspect this wouldn't be informative. The base knowledge of what we expect students to know has shifted.
Some might be topical: "How did Harding conduct his campaign?" "Name the primary components of a steam locomotive."
100 years ago I believe there was still an expectation that students knew Latin. The 1869 Harvard entrance exam at https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvard... has two pages of Latin and two of Greek.
(Most of the student then would have come from an upper-class prep school, where they would have a training that let them be able to answer "Bound the basin of the Po, of the Mississippi, of the St. Lawrence." and "Supply the two names left blank in the following passage from the Oration for the Manilian Law.")
Consider how calculus is now regularly taught in high school, while pre-war high school ended with solid geometry.
Or, consider how an English literature course 100 years ago (and its tests) would have focused on the literature of England and the US, while the equivalent modern English literature course would likely have drawn from the much larger Anglo-sphere.
Also, the Flynn effect: "the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that were measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
> A researcher who'd give current Harvard graduates some of the older questions could find out if the toughness of the exams went up, down, or stayed.
I strongly suspect this wouldn't be informative. The base knowledge of what we expect students to know has shifted.
Some might be topical: "How did Harding conduct his campaign?" "Name the primary components of a steam locomotive."
100 years ago I believe there was still an expectation that students knew Latin. The 1869 Harvard entrance exam at https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvard... has two pages of Latin and two of Greek.
(Most of the student then would have come from an upper-class prep school, where they would have a training that let them be able to answer "Bound the basin of the Po, of the Mississippi, of the St. Lawrence." and "Supply the two names left blank in the following passage from the Oration for the Manilian Law.")
Consider how calculus is now regularly taught in high school, while pre-war high school ended with solid geometry.
Or, consider how an English literature course 100 years ago (and its tests) would have focused on the literature of England and the US, while the equivalent modern English literature course would likely have drawn from the much larger Anglo-sphere.
How would you determine if the toughness of an exam from a hundred years ago matched a modern day one? The pedagogy, tools, and knowledge base differed dramatically in the past century. A question might look difficult but be intended as a take-home, be graded differently than binary right-wrong, rely on a trick of an outdated tool (ex. slide rule).
> Exam questions from Harvard can be easily tracked 100+ years back. A researcher who'd give current Harvard graduates some of the older questions could find out if the toughness of the exams went up, down, or stayed.
Agreed!
Agreed!
People often can't answer these question today because the answers are now misleading or irrelevant, except to historians.
Even math has advanced in the last 100 years. Students today would be taught pertinent math, not how to use a slide rule. Throw a question asking for manipulations of a slide rule and 98% of today's students aren't going to be able to answer it. And most of those few who can are going to have a crotchety grandparent. The remaining few will be mathematical historians.
Even math has advanced in the last 100 years. Students today would be taught pertinent math, not how to use a slide rule. Throw a question asking for manipulations of a slide rule and 98% of today's students aren't going to be able to answer it. And most of those few who can are going to have a crotchety grandparent. The remaining few will be mathematical historians.
A while ago someone mentioned an old test from an American high school somewhere. One of the questions on that test was "name the organ responsible for purification of the blood".
This question is impossible to answer because there is no organ uniquely responsible for that. It's an important function served by several organs. Most prominently:
1. The kidneys are responsible for filtering certain toxins out of the bloodstream and ultimately getting them excreted in urine.
2. The liver is responsible for filtering other toxins out of the bloodstream and ultimately getting them excreted in urine.
3. The spleen is responsible for filtering defective blood out of the bloodstream and ultimately getting it excreted in feces. (Which is why feces is brown, incidentally.)
Without having attended a 19th-century anatomy class, there's no way for me to know what the person who wrote that test was hoping I would say. It seems pretty likely that I know more than he did, but that won't get me a good score on his test. Was that an easy question? Hard?
This question is impossible to answer because there is no organ uniquely responsible for that. It's an important function served by several organs. Most prominently:
1. The kidneys are responsible for filtering certain toxins out of the bloodstream and ultimately getting them excreted in urine.
2. The liver is responsible for filtering other toxins out of the bloodstream and ultimately getting them excreted in urine.
3. The spleen is responsible for filtering defective blood out of the bloodstream and ultimately getting it excreted in feces. (Which is why feces is brown, incidentally.)
Without having attended a 19th-century anatomy class, there's no way for me to know what the person who wrote that test was hoping I would say. It seems pretty likely that I know more than he did, but that won't get me a good score on his test. Was that an easy question? Hard?
Engineers are taught how to use a slide rule. Mathematicians don’t need one!
(Just look at the engineering / math departments of today. Engineers make heavy use of calculators, spreadsheets, Matlab, etc. Math majors don’t.)
(Just look at the engineering / math departments of today. Engineers make heavy use of calculators, spreadsheets, Matlab, etc. Math majors don’t.)
Don't math majors use Mathematica, Coq, or other such symbolic computation tools instead?
Not if you want peer acceptance and not be dismissed as a mere CS student.
It's acceptable to download your brilliance into something such as, say, CAYLEY/MAGMA [1], [2] but, obviously, once you start grinding the organ [3] and using it algorithmically for computation you're just another monkey . . .
[1] http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/conferences/london93.html
[2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-15582-6_...
[3] http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/
It's acceptable to download your brilliance into something such as, say, CAYLEY/MAGMA [1], [2] but, obviously, once you start grinding the organ [3] and using it algorithmically for computation you're just another monkey . . .
[1] http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/conferences/london93.html
[2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-15582-6_...
[3] http://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/magma/
Tools don't often help you understand maths, but obviously help you to solve problems.
There are plenty of areas where tooling is rudimentary or unfashionable, like programming, where the tools are like chisels and saws used by artisans.
There are plenty of areas where tooling is rudimentary or unfashionable, like programming, where the tools are like chisels and saws used by artisans.
Agreed!
This would be great! My guess would be in 2022 the math is harder but literature easier.
This would be great! My guess would be in 2022 the math is harder but literature easier.
It would need to be done both ways.
A 1923 student is not going to have read "The Gulag Archipelago" or "Things Fall Apart" or other works published after 1923, so would fail any modern questions which require having read those works.
But even if you look to contemporaneous 1923 literature, I strongly suspect a modern Harvard student is more likely to have read black literature from 100+ years ago than a 1923 student. (For examples see https://histlit.fas.harvard.edu/files/histlit/files/america_... with "Sample Oral Exam Questions" from a modern Harvard exam section on "Being Black After Reconstruction".)
If the 1923 student didn't have to read 75% of what modern literature courses cover, and instead read a different 75%, perhaps with a stronger emphasis on British literature, then of course a 2023 student won't test so well on a 1923 test. But then, a 1923 student wouldn't test so well on a 2023 test.
Even math has some issues. Here's a Harvard entrance exam from 1869: https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvard...
You can see the math part requires details that aren't taught now:
"Find the amount of £50 12s. 5d. at simple interest at 8 per cent., at the end of 5 years 2 months and 3 days."
"From 1 sq. rod 5 sq. ft. subtract 7 sq yd. 139 sq. in."
The Brits decimalized a half century ago, so kids aren't taught there are 20 shillings in a pound and 12 pennies in a shilling. Only surveyors use rods these days, and it's defined as 16 1/2 US survey feet - which is slightly smaller than the international foot defined in 1959.
Or, "Find the cube root of 0.0093". By hand. We no longer consider that something worthwhile to teach.
They aren't hard, but without that small bit of knowledge or training, modern students are very unlikely to get the right answer.
Or, "State and prove the proportion which exists between the parts of two chords which cut each other in a circle. State what proportion exists when two secants are drawn from a point without the circle." I don't know about you, but my plane geometry isn't good enough to answer that question.
That's due to post-war educational policy changes that de-emphasized classical geometry in favor of calculus.
A 1923 student is not going to have read "The Gulag Archipelago" or "Things Fall Apart" or other works published after 1923, so would fail any modern questions which require having read those works.
But even if you look to contemporaneous 1923 literature, I strongly suspect a modern Harvard student is more likely to have read black literature from 100+ years ago than a 1923 student. (For examples see https://histlit.fas.harvard.edu/files/histlit/files/america_... with "Sample Oral Exam Questions" from a modern Harvard exam section on "Being Black After Reconstruction".)
If the 1923 student didn't have to read 75% of what modern literature courses cover, and instead read a different 75%, perhaps with a stronger emphasis on British literature, then of course a 2023 student won't test so well on a 1923 test. But then, a 1923 student wouldn't test so well on a 2023 test.
Even math has some issues. Here's a Harvard entrance exam from 1869: https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvard...
You can see the math part requires details that aren't taught now:
"Find the amount of £50 12s. 5d. at simple interest at 8 per cent., at the end of 5 years 2 months and 3 days."
"From 1 sq. rod 5 sq. ft. subtract 7 sq yd. 139 sq. in."
The Brits decimalized a half century ago, so kids aren't taught there are 20 shillings in a pound and 12 pennies in a shilling. Only surveyors use rods these days, and it's defined as 16 1/2 US survey feet - which is slightly smaller than the international foot defined in 1959.
Or, "Find the cube root of 0.0093". By hand. We no longer consider that something worthwhile to teach.
They aren't hard, but without that small bit of knowledge or training, modern students are very unlikely to get the right answer.
Or, "State and prove the proportion which exists between the parts of two chords which cut each other in a circle. State what proportion exists when two secants are drawn from a point without the circle." I don't know about you, but my plane geometry isn't good enough to answer that question.
That's due to post-war educational policy changes that de-emphasized classical geometry in favor of calculus.
In the History and Geography section of the 1869 test I'm struck by the emphasis on rivers. Rivers are still important for transportation of commodities, but not nearly as much. I can't see them being emphasized in a college entrance exam today. I might be able to bound the basin of the Mississippi, and state the source of the Amazon and Ganges (if I guess correctly, and have a labeled map). The rest, no chance.
Geography seems to have been a more important topic then. The Sandhurst exam, 1890-ish, included "draw from memory a map of some country or other", quoting Churchill from https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.76347/page/n27... :
> I also succeeded in passing the preliminary examination for the Army while still almost at the bottom of the school. This examination seemed to have called forth a very special effort on my part, for many boys far above me in the school failed in it. I also had a piece of good luck. We knew that among other questions we should be asked to draw from memory a map of some country or other. The night before by way of final preparation I put the names of all the maps in the atlas into a hat and drew out New Zealand. I applied my good memory to the geography of that Dominion. Sure enough the first question in the paper was: ‘Draw a map of New Zealand.’
I can well imagine that a military officer may need to have that knowledge at hand faster than consulting a map. ("I am the very model of a modern major general!" and all.) For upper-class U.S. Harvard students, trade knowledge may be more important, thought that doesn't explain needing to know the source of the Amazon.
> I also succeeded in passing the preliminary examination for the Army while still almost at the bottom of the school. This examination seemed to have called forth a very special effort on my part, for many boys far above me in the school failed in it. I also had a piece of good luck. We knew that among other questions we should be asked to draw from memory a map of some country or other. The night before by way of final preparation I put the names of all the maps in the atlas into a hat and drew out New Zealand. I applied my good memory to the geography of that Dominion. Sure enough the first question in the paper was: ‘Draw a map of New Zealand.’
I can well imagine that a military officer may need to have that knowledge at hand faster than consulting a map. ("I am the very model of a modern major general!" and all.) For upper-class U.S. Harvard students, trade knowledge may be more important, thought that doesn't explain needing to know the source of the Amazon.
In any day and age, education for the elites is only in part about what's actually useful. The other part is there to segregate itself from the hoi polloi - and it actually makes more sense for it to be something not immediately useful precisely so that it's a clear marker of status: "I have time and money to learn this, of all things".
Good point, thanks!
Though of course it needs to be the right "this".
Though of course it needs to be the right "this".
- Harvard has a legacy admission policy.
- Even if Harvard didn’t have a legacy admission policy, the ability to select the best possible students is limited (admissions is full of mistakes).
- Incoming students often know that they can get a near equal education at other schools, even if they are admitted to Harvard.
- Anecdotes from Harvard graduates suggest that performance of students at Harvard is not significantly different from other good schools.
- Grade inflation affects nearly all US schools.
Travel back in time to 1960 or earlier. You’ll find that the A grade in the US is reserved for the highest performing students, the top 15% or so. 30-35% would get a B, another 30-35% would get a C, and the remainder would get Ds and Fs.
Today, more than 40% of all students get an A.
If you think the explanation for why this happens at Harvard is different for the explanation for why this happens to most of the rest of the US, then you would want to explain what makes Harvard different.
- Even if Harvard didn’t have a legacy admission policy, the ability to select the best possible students is limited (admissions is full of mistakes).
- Incoming students often know that they can get a near equal education at other schools, even if they are admitted to Harvard.
- Anecdotes from Harvard graduates suggest that performance of students at Harvard is not significantly different from other good schools.
- Grade inflation affects nearly all US schools.
Travel back in time to 1960 or earlier. You’ll find that the A grade in the US is reserved for the highest performing students, the top 15% or so. 30-35% would get a B, another 30-35% would get a C, and the remainder would get Ds and Fs.
Today, more than 40% of all students get an A.
If you think the explanation for why this happens at Harvard is different for the explanation for why this happens to most of the rest of the US, then you would want to explain what makes Harvard different.
I'd argue that an equivalent education isn't that meaningful of a statement though. Top schools come with a lot more opportunities. Connections is a big one. My undergrad didn't do research and several top schools require a publication for admission to graduate school. An opportunity I never even had (a common lack of opportunity for many university students. There's only so many R1 unis). I definitely agree that you'll get a similar education at a large number of schools (after all, there are only so many professorships available and it is extremely competitive), but I think it would also be a mistake to believe that there is an equal outcome between schools. Prestige may be a confounder, but it is unfortunately a meaningful metric and students know this.
Grades don’t measure opportunities.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here—should Harvard students get better grades because they are getting a better value out of their education than peers who are performing at the same level? I don’t think that’s a reasonable way for grades to work.
If you’re not talking about grade inflation, if you’re just talking about whether it’s meaningful to compare education—I’d still say that it’s meaningful to compare the education you get at different universities. There’s plenty of room for cynicism, but I think people are sometimes too cynical about the value of the actual education that college provides. It’s well-known that people who are knowledgeable in a particular subject overestimate how easy the subject is to learn and overestimate the general public’s knowledge of that subject. In short, a chemistry major will think that chemistry is not so hard, and maybe conclude that they didn’t get much of an education in college. You can think of this as the flipside to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Ignorant people overestimate their abilities, and knowledgeable people also overestimate the abilities of ignorant people. Rephrased—smart people undervalue knowledge!
I’m not going to try and make the case that the world is some kind of meritocracy, but I’d still place my bets on a 10% better student than on a student going to a 10% more prestigious school.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here—should Harvard students get better grades because they are getting a better value out of their education than peers who are performing at the same level? I don’t think that’s a reasonable way for grades to work.
If you’re not talking about grade inflation, if you’re just talking about whether it’s meaningful to compare education—I’d still say that it’s meaningful to compare the education you get at different universities. There’s plenty of room for cynicism, but I think people are sometimes too cynical about the value of the actual education that college provides. It’s well-known that people who are knowledgeable in a particular subject overestimate how easy the subject is to learn and overestimate the general public’s knowledge of that subject. In short, a chemistry major will think that chemistry is not so hard, and maybe conclude that they didn’t get much of an education in college. You can think of this as the flipside to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Ignorant people overestimate their abilities, and knowledgeable people also overestimate the abilities of ignorant people. Rephrased—smart people undervalue knowledge!
I’m not going to try and make the case that the world is some kind of meritocracy, but I’d still place my bets on a 10% better student than on a student going to a 10% more prestigious school.
I would guess the point of the other poster might be that even if students accepted to Harvard know that they can get an equivalent education elsewhere that they would still be motivated to go to Harvard over the other schools regardless. Unless there was a specific reason to go to the other schools (such as Cal Tech being a better science and engineering school than Harvard).
Perhaps an inference which could be drawn from this is that Harvard, as an institution itself, doesn't need to inflate grades in order to get and retain students. It could more harshly grade to no ill effect to itself. Whereas most other schools can't.
Harvard can also afford to annoy a significant number of the legacy donor class. Why they don't is not fully explained by comparison to other schools (who often actually need the money to stay open). A guess as to why they avoid annoying the donor class is camaraderie and opportunities (for themselves, and possibly also for students). The opportunities is a reason they would mostly share with other schools, the camaraderie, less so.
"If you think the explanation for why this happens at Harvard is different for the explanation for why this happens to most of the rest of the US, then you would want to explain what makes Harvard different."
Edit to add: On a tangent I would guess that harsh grading at Harvard (and other elite schools) would be net beneficial to students. I've read of students who made it all the way through elite structures and then, when hit with a failure or blowback in the real world, either can't cope (suicide), or cope poorly (FTX/Alameda Research). School seems seriously serious when you're a young student, but it's primary purpose is to train for the adult world. Schools need to follow this policy of training, and they need to let their students know that failure is expected, and okay, even if it can't be 'pivoted' away from.
Perhaps an inference which could be drawn from this is that Harvard, as an institution itself, doesn't need to inflate grades in order to get and retain students. It could more harshly grade to no ill effect to itself. Whereas most other schools can't.
Harvard can also afford to annoy a significant number of the legacy donor class. Why they don't is not fully explained by comparison to other schools (who often actually need the money to stay open). A guess as to why they avoid annoying the donor class is camaraderie and opportunities (for themselves, and possibly also for students). The opportunities is a reason they would mostly share with other schools, the camaraderie, less so.
"If you think the explanation for why this happens at Harvard is different for the explanation for why this happens to most of the rest of the US, then you would want to explain what makes Harvard different."
Edit to add: On a tangent I would guess that harsh grading at Harvard (and other elite schools) would be net beneficial to students. I've read of students who made it all the way through elite structures and then, when hit with a failure or blowback in the real world, either can't cope (suicide), or cope poorly (FTX/Alameda Research). School seems seriously serious when you're a young student, but it's primary purpose is to train for the adult world. Schools need to follow this policy of training, and they need to let their students know that failure is expected, and okay, even if it can't be 'pivoted' away from.
Yes, this is more in line with my thinking. To put part of what you said more simply: businesses care more about the Harvard name than the Harvard grade. Meaning you could have lower grades than other people you're competing with in the job market (especially if Harvard publicized that they were reducing grade inflation).
Here in EU the solution we have is to simply have formal rules that a university can only give 10% As, 25% Bs, etcetera.
This isn't enforced per class, but should prevent grade inflation. It might get weird in competition with people from US schools though, when someone with straight As is found to be a C+ student.
This isn't enforced per class, but should prevent grade inflation. It might get weird in competition with people from US schools though, when someone with straight As is found to be a C+ student.
This was reasonably common about three generations ago in the US, and the one thing I can say for certain, is that such a system is bad pedagogy.
The purpose of grades should be to inform students of their performance relative to expectations / benchmarks. It should not be used to rank students against each other.
The purpose of grades should be to inform students of their performance relative to expectations / benchmarks. It should not be used to rank students against each other.
Yes, but in the US grades are used for selection, so it seems reasonable to keep them comparable.
Since we in the EU have the Bologna system French and Italian students will come to Sweden and Swedish students go to French universities, and if some universities are just handing out As or others grade properly it will become strange.
I think it's actually useful to be able to see the people able to perform at the 10% level in hard classes. For example, suppose that a student in a less prestigious subject takes a hard class in a more prestigious subject, and performs at the top 10% level-- it seems reasonable that he should be able to show that off with a grade that is genuinely high.
Furthermore, top 10% performance is something to strive for. Top 40% performance, it's not very good. It means you've maybe understood most of the course, but it doesn't mean the ability to creatively apply the material, which top 10% in fact can.
Since we in the EU have the Bologna system French and Italian students will come to Sweden and Swedish students go to French universities, and if some universities are just handing out As or others grade properly it will become strange.
I think it's actually useful to be able to see the people able to perform at the 10% level in hard classes. For example, suppose that a student in a less prestigious subject takes a hard class in a more prestigious subject, and performs at the top 10% level-- it seems reasonable that he should be able to show that off with a grade that is genuinely high.
Furthermore, top 10% performance is something to strive for. Top 40% performance, it's not very good. It means you've maybe understood most of the course, but it doesn't mean the ability to creatively apply the material, which top 10% in fact can.
Legacy grows at least as linear tho.
Maybe the problem is the way we average grades to get a GPA. If your course scores were 3.98, 3.99, 3.99, 2.10, the linear average of ~3.5 doesn't capture the obviously high ability. Perhaps taking the average like:
4.01 - exp(avg(log(4.01 - x_i)))
[deleted]
You could just take best 3 out of 5 etc
Article doesn't explain why it "must come down" only offers a few side effects of it being high.
I mean, they explained why there's a hard cap and that eventually everyone will have a grade within a range of like 3.99 to 4.00 regardless of performance.
But yeah, I didn't see anything about why it would necessarily come down. Personally I'd sooner see numerical grades eliminated, but they serve a purpose in making things a little more objective with large numbers of people.
I can't really see them coming down unless every university agreed to do it simultaneously, there's too much advantage to be gained by not cooperating.
But yeah, I didn't see anything about why it would necessarily come down. Personally I'd sooner see numerical grades eliminated, but they serve a purpose in making things a little more objective with large numbers of people.
I can't really see them coming down unless every university agreed to do it simultaneously, there's too much advantage to be gained by not cooperating.
I've been always talking that grades are irrelevant because there's too much external factors (easy/difficult profs, biases) and standardized tests are the way to go
Grades could at best be proxy for effort, but still grades talk about the past, not what's now.
If somebody takes grades seriously then for me that's huge red flag and I think that person is naive and focuses on not really important things.
I wish there were standardized exams after graduation, so you could compare students from top schools and bottom more easily, that would allow students from bottom schools to bootstrap themselves purely on their skills and knowledge
Grades could at best be proxy for effort, but still grades talk about the past, not what's now.
If somebody takes grades seriously then for me that's huge red flag and I think that person is naive and focuses on not really important things.
I wish there were standardized exams after graduation, so you could compare students from top schools and bottom more easily, that would allow students from bottom schools to bootstrap themselves purely on their skills and knowledge
The problem with standardized tests is that they tend to be very brief slices of time in a very limited format, with no documentation of actual work. They have the advantage of being, well, standardized, but that's also their weakness (think, for example, about the legal requirements that tests be adapted for medical conditions, and then generalize accordingly).
You might think actual work shouldn't matter, it's the endpoint, etc. but think about it this way: tests are subject to cheating problems, and randomness in scores. Let's say you have a choice of two surgeons: one who has passed a standardized written test, and one who has been certified by a panel of expert surgeons as reaching a certain level of proficiency by means of graduated practice exercises over the course of a year. Which would you prefer? This is an extreme contrived example, but it illustrates a broader point, which is the reason why traditional grades exist is because they reflect a long-term process and documentation of actual time in activity, which is important to learning.
You might think actual work shouldn't matter, it's the endpoint, etc. but think about it this way: tests are subject to cheating problems, and randomness in scores. Let's say you have a choice of two surgeons: one who has passed a standardized written test, and one who has been certified by a panel of expert surgeons as reaching a certain level of proficiency by means of graduated practice exercises over the course of a year. Which would you prefer? This is an extreme contrived example, but it illustrates a broader point, which is the reason why traditional grades exist is because they reflect a long-term process and documentation of actual time in activity, which is important to learning.
It's hard for me to talk about med school cuz that's not my world, I'm talking from CS perspective.
>tests are subject to cheating problems
I think official tests/exams are way, way more cheating resilient than "normal" approach. Think of ceremony similar to school leaving exam
>tests are subject to cheating problems
I think official tests/exams are way, way more cheating resilient than "normal" approach. Think of ceremony similar to school leaving exam
The problem with standardized tests as they are implemented in nearly every case is that they only test how well the students have been taught the test, not the topic the test is on. This makes them just as pointless as GPA at being an indicator of capability.
The real problem is that universities have become degree mills. Pretty much all jobs require a university degree even when the actual degree often only demonstrates that the person can learn an arbitrary set of courses which have zero relevance to the job being performed and all the practical skills are learned on the job.
The real problem is that universities have become degree mills. Pretty much all jobs require a university degree even when the actual degree often only demonstrates that the person can learn an arbitrary set of courses which have zero relevance to the job being performed and all the practical skills are learned on the job.
>The problem with standardized tests as they are implemented in nearly every case is that they only test how well the students have been taught the test, not the topic the test is on. This makes them just as pointless as GPA at being an indicator of capability.
I'm hearing this argument very often, yet I don't see anyone easily scoring high score on advanced math exam in my country without being somewhat decent at those topics.
>This makes them just as pointless as GPA at being an indicator of capability.
I disagree. GPA is fundamentally flawed, test exams are flawed if it is just ABCD that you can guess
I'm hearing this argument very often, yet I don't see anyone easily scoring high score on advanced math exam in my country without being somewhat decent at those topics.
>This makes them just as pointless as GPA at being an indicator of capability.
I disagree. GPA is fundamentally flawed, test exams are flawed if it is just ABCD that you can guess
The GPA system has been a bit of a mystery to me since I discovered its existence. As a European from a country that has no such system, it seems like a bit of a rat race, where people giving grades have bad incentives to pad them. Where I'm from, you graduated from a program or you didn't ; the only distinction was "with merit", or "valedictorian" and that's it. Your distinction comes from the institution you receive the sesame from, and the ranking it receives from random industry rankings and simple reputation. Not a perfected system, but a bit more straight forward.
Now in Canada, I receive resumes from new grads who have either >3.8 or no GPA posted. I'm yet to see a correlation between those GPA numbers and superior performance, but the university they come from is a stronger predictor of fit and effectiveness. Therefore I tend to ignore the GPA (or worse, consider the boasting as a negative) and put emphasis on university. I'm dubitative what the value of the score actually is.
Now in Canada, I receive resumes from new grads who have either >3.8 or no GPA posted. I'm yet to see a correlation between those GPA numbers and superior performance, but the university they come from is a stronger predictor of fit and effectiveness. Therefore I tend to ignore the GPA (or worse, consider the boasting as a negative) and put emphasis on university. I'm dubitative what the value of the score actually is.
[deleted]
It's certainly no use in recruitment. I would look more at the curriculum content and project work, and use that as a basis to ask interview questions.
> When grades weren’t as inflated, a stray C+ or B- was to be expected. As A-’s become the new default and grades stabilize at the upper end, any lower grade is seen as a failure. Because most students receive consistently high scores, the cost of experimenting with hard classes or new subjects substantially rises.
Not if the hard classes or new subjects have the same level of grade inflation. On the contrary, if students have nothing to fear about hard classes messing up with their grades, they are more likely to take them.
Most kind of grading schemes are subject to manipulation. Students always find ways to game the system. Teachers are often biased toward giving grades that are correlated with past performance of students.
Its better to have harder courses with pass/fail. The top students will have more motivation to pursue subjects they are interested in. Grades are not great motivators for students at the top. Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein (or insert your favorite physicist here) were never motivated by getting grades that look better than their classmates.
Only major issue is that how to make the admission process fair when there are no grades. Despite all their downcomings, standardized tests solve this to a large degree. When grades are not standard, students who come out of a fairer grading system suffer compared to the ones with inflation. Good luck trying to explain this to the admission committee or whoever else.
Not if the hard classes or new subjects have the same level of grade inflation. On the contrary, if students have nothing to fear about hard classes messing up with their grades, they are more likely to take them.
Most kind of grading schemes are subject to manipulation. Students always find ways to game the system. Teachers are often biased toward giving grades that are correlated with past performance of students.
Its better to have harder courses with pass/fail. The top students will have more motivation to pursue subjects they are interested in. Grades are not great motivators for students at the top. Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein (or insert your favorite physicist here) were never motivated by getting grades that look better than their classmates.
Only major issue is that how to make the admission process fair when there are no grades. Despite all their downcomings, standardized tests solve this to a large degree. When grades are not standard, students who come out of a fairer grading system suffer compared to the ones with inflation. Good luck trying to explain this to the admission committee or whoever else.
I've pondered this for a while. One solution would be, imo:
1. Maintain a large set of questions that are mechanically markable (e.g. no room for bias/teacher choice in marking). You can expand this set by a small percentage each year.
2. Randomly assemble each student's exam every year by sampling questions without replacement.
3. Use trueskill to simultaneously estimate question difficulty and student skill.
4. Report skills as the primary metric.
I think this would work, although of course writing many questions is challenging.
1. Maintain a large set of questions that are mechanically markable (e.g. no room for bias/teacher choice in marking). You can expand this set by a small percentage each year.
2. Randomly assemble each student's exam every year by sampling questions without replacement.
3. Use trueskill to simultaneously estimate question difficulty and student skill.
4. Report skills as the primary metric.
I think this would work, although of course writing many questions is challenging.
What about the 90% of skills that are not testable in multiple-choice form?
who said anything about multiple choice?
One question is whether you want to use grades for validating knowledge or for ranking.
You can say that A or B means pass (much easier for professors), or that 8/20 means pass and you have the whole spectrum from 0 to 20 to rank candidates if needed.
Nowadays, with international recruiting, I think grades becomes insignificant (graduates come from too many institutions, and grades aren't comparable) and companies need their own ranking metrics (hence the infamous leetcode questions).
You can say that A or B means pass (much easier for professors), or that 8/20 means pass and you have the whole spectrum from 0 to 20 to rank candidates if needed.
Nowadays, with international recruiting, I think grades becomes insignificant (graduates come from too many institutions, and grades aren't comparable) and companies need their own ranking metrics (hence the infamous leetcode questions).
I think this hits the nail on the head. Education seems to have two aims - educating students, and ranking them. I've always strongly believed that those aims are mutually defeating. I'd rather have external measurements of ability (such as the SATs or technical tests or whatever) and just let schools teach.
The one thing that annoys me the most about modern grading is the fact that so many courses heavily weight homework and projects. You can do exceptionally well on tests and quizzes and objectively understand the material in the course but still get a terrible grade not based on knowledge but based on how much busy work you did. Grades are supposed to be just that, grading someone's understanding of the knowledge of the course. That should be the guiding principle for any kind of grading policy and yet it's so rarely the case when courses have 40% of the grade made up of tests and quizzes and then 60% based on homework, reading assignments, group projects, even attendance. I've had courses where a student could get a failing grade on every single test and quiz and still walk out with a B. Effort !== Knowledge and GPA should not just boil down to a measure of participation.
One of my favorite classes back in university had a pretty good take on this: your grade would include two exams, then the higher of your homework scores or another exam.
It rewarded hard work, but not at the expense of demonstrating that you'd actually learned things. If you were confident that you understood things, you could skip all the homework and get a perfect score.
Likewise, if you'd demonstrated good understanding in the first two exams and were repeating that trend for the third, you could skip that third exam altogether.
The grades people got in that class were some of the most reflective of actual understanding within my cohort (admittedly, through my lens as a fellow student)
It rewarded hard work, but not at the expense of demonstrating that you'd actually learned things. If you were confident that you understood things, you could skip all the homework and get a perfect score.
Likewise, if you'd demonstrated good understanding in the first two exams and were repeating that trend for the third, you could skip that third exam altogether.
The grades people got in that class were some of the most reflective of actual understanding within my cohort (admittedly, through my lens as a fellow student)
This also seems like a great way for Harvard to colonize as many institutions with graduates easily. If employers don't know about the compression at the top and they do value GPA and the reputation of the school, it likely creates a situation where a Harvard graduate gets employed at a company even when doing poorly on the interview because "Hey, we'd be stupid to not employ a Harvard graduate with a 3.8 GPA. They're top of their class from a very reputable institution."
Over time this puts enough Harvard people in institutions and Harvard people have a reputation for alma mater nepotism (that I've personally observed multiple times).
Almost all major US institution from media companies to banks to government have their upper ranks colonized by Harvard grads.
Over time this puts enough Harvard people in institutions and Harvard people have a reputation for alma mater nepotism (that I've personally observed multiple times).
Almost all major US institution from media companies to banks to government have their upper ranks colonized by Harvard grads.
As echoed before in the discussion, I suspect for most jobs the GPA one receives is not relevant not even disclosed in job applications. It might matter for folks going for graduate degrees / law / med though. A 180 on the LSAT or 528 on the MCAT speaks quite a bit, too.
[deleted]
At West Point, until 2020 the big thing was class rank. Graduates could request their three top choices of branch of service (infantry, artillery, logistics, intelligence, etc.). Graduates with the highest class rank got their first choices. (This has changed a bit recently.[1]) So only the order of grades matters, not the values. Especially since everyone takes roughly the same set of courses.
[1] https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/09/13/west-poi...
[1] https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/09/13/west-poi...
That's interesting to know. Annapolis got rid of of 'service selection' in favor of 'service assignment' way back in 1995. I don't know what the final straw was in that case, but I can imagine either submarines weren't getting their due, or all lowest grads were unacceptably dead weight and piling up in one undesirable community...
This is a serious problem that I think is more widespread than just Harvard or the US. Schools giving higher votes necessarily compress the variance with mean toward the high bound. The real problem is that everything becomes too much sensible to noise: getting a vote a bit higher or a bit lower than the mean doesn't reflect how much I know more, but may make a significant change in society, i.e. who gets ahead in academics or jobs (thus perpetuating this high grading mechanism, probably).
What the article doesn't mention, and that I have only anecdotical evidence for, is classes becoming easier. What may cause what is unclear, but probably it's a system so complex that pinpointing a single cause is hard
In that case a solution may be dropping grades altogether, exchanging them with some kind of written comment. This way "grades" can't be compared. Ultimately if you think about it, grades imply that knowledge can be measured, which isn't really something proven, and intuitively I'd say that knowledge can't be measured
Add to this that professors seeking tenure benefit from high enrollment in their classes, and nothing spurs enrollment like the reputation of an easy A.
The only solution I can think of to all of this is to maintain a second number along with GPA, which is a weighted average of averages in every class the student took.
Earning an A- in a course where the average is a 2.5 becomes more valuable than getting handed an A in a course where the average is a 3.9.
The only solution I can think of to all of this is to maintain a second number along with GPA, which is a weighted average of averages in every class the student took.
Earning an A- in a course where the average is a 2.5 becomes more valuable than getting handed an A in a course where the average is a 3.9.
Over time, the competition to get into these schools have gotten tougher and competition is now on a global scale for schools such as Harvard. If you don't grade on a curve, would it not be normal to see students do better? There are more past exam papers, more prep before you even join the school and more onus on the students to do well because they attend such a great school.
i don't think I've ever understood the point of letter grades and especially of GPA. what is it even meant to measure? clearly not mastery over material since we can see from this article we've seen a steady increase (while i don't think anyone is claiming students have gotten that much better). relative rank, then? again no because of the change over time.
i believe we should have two separate measures. one, did you pass the class? and two, what was your percentile within that course? of course percentile isn't necessarily relevant to employers. but then I would argue that should already be the case with GPA.
at least the benefit with percentile is it can't experience inflation like this, and gives you a comparable value across colleges. one would be able to make judgements on, would i want a 95th percentile state school candidate or a 5th percentile ivy? with the current system this is impossible.
i believe we should have two separate measures. one, did you pass the class? and two, what was your percentile within that course? of course percentile isn't necessarily relevant to employers. but then I would argue that should already be the case with GPA.
at least the benefit with percentile is it can't experience inflation like this, and gives you a comparable value across colleges. one would be able to make judgements on, would i want a 95th percentile state school candidate or a 5th percentile ivy? with the current system this is impossible.
I think it transitioned from being targeted at relative rank to being targeted at mastery over the years, just not everyone reviewing resumes has shifted at the same time.
The UK has grade inflation in secondary schools (11-18yrs) to the point where year-on-year results kept 'improving' (because each year was more intelligent than the last, clearly) then we introduced A* above an A (because too many kids were getting As...), and finally, replaced that with 1-9.
sooo theres no possibility students are trying harder these days or are just plain better students? The acceptance rate at harvard in 1969 was around 20%, compared with 4.6% today. It kinda makes sense that if you're accepting people who are better students, they're gonna get higher GPAs.
Even if it were true that everyone is smarter today, it’s not helpful. GPAs are used to compare students if similar cohorts, no one is seriously picking between a 21 year old and a 70 year old based on GPA. There’s no value in reflecting increased cohort ability. Theoretically Roughly you just want a distribution via which good students can be differentiated. In reality Harvard just wants to pretend all it’s students are extraordinarily good so that they can apply for a job with a GPA that looks better than Yale. And Yale returns the favour.
I mean, that's the argument these schools make.
I've been considering applying for Georgetown/nyu law.
What is the acceptance rate like? Do they consider your actual grades or your references or both or neither?
What is the acceptance rate like? Do they consider your actual grades or your references or both or neither?
I graduated high school in 2009 and the top schools definitely weren't taking in students with a 3.6 GPA. In fact, I'm not aware of any school in the top 50 that asked for anything under a 4.0 (AP/IB programs enable GPAs above 4.0). Right now I see sites saying that the average Harvard GPA is 4.18. Berkeley is lower but I know plenty of people that got rejected with high GPAs (I know two people that had a 4.8 -- the top you could get in my school -- that were rejected from several top schools).
I say this because two things. First, it is clear that there are things other than GPA that admissions are accounting for. It is a bit unclear what these things are. It would be nice to know how they are extracting signal from noise (and it is clear that this is a very noisy system, though we often don't admit this). Second, if these are actual averages, there's clearly some other aspects that are heavily weighted in that process. The four that would be the most obvious to me are legacy, affirmative action, sports, and students who don't have access to AP/IB programs. These are clearly not meritocratic aspects (lack of access to better programs like AP/IB would imply that these signals aren't meritocratic because meritocracy isn't exactly equitable in accessibility. Or do all these schools know exactly how good each high school is and their inflation rates and variance rates?).
I really think as we're learning more about how people learn that we learn that the signals are extremely noisy and may not even exist. Students from poorer backgrounds may need extra care[0] but they still do pretty well[1]. So how do you measure someone that has potential from a poor school? How does this differentiate from measuring someone that has potential but not the opportunities from median or rich schools? (environment is a big factor in success)
I really just have a lot of questions here and I really do think we should be discussing how noisy this system is. A question I want to ask is: if I randomly select a person from the population and give them a Harvard (or top tier) education, will they be more successful than if they went to a college they could have gotten into based on their merits? If the answer is "yes" (and I think there's good reason to believe this is true) then maybe all these measurements don't really mean much and we're just reading tea leaves. (I think there's some signal but I just don't know how much. I'm also not an expert. Thanks for listening to my ted talk)
[0] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/16/klapper-privil...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
I say this because two things. First, it is clear that there are things other than GPA that admissions are accounting for. It is a bit unclear what these things are. It would be nice to know how they are extracting signal from noise (and it is clear that this is a very noisy system, though we often don't admit this). Second, if these are actual averages, there's clearly some other aspects that are heavily weighted in that process. The four that would be the most obvious to me are legacy, affirmative action, sports, and students who don't have access to AP/IB programs. These are clearly not meritocratic aspects (lack of access to better programs like AP/IB would imply that these signals aren't meritocratic because meritocracy isn't exactly equitable in accessibility. Or do all these schools know exactly how good each high school is and their inflation rates and variance rates?).
I really think as we're learning more about how people learn that we learn that the signals are extremely noisy and may not even exist. Students from poorer backgrounds may need extra care[0] but they still do pretty well[1]. So how do you measure someone that has potential from a poor school? How does this differentiate from measuring someone that has potential but not the opportunities from median or rich schools? (environment is a big factor in success)
I really just have a lot of questions here and I really do think we should be discussing how noisy this system is. A question I want to ask is: if I randomly select a person from the population and give them a Harvard (or top tier) education, will they be more successful than if they went to a college they could have gotten into based on their merits? If the answer is "yes" (and I think there's good reason to believe this is true) then maybe all these measurements don't really mean much and we're just reading tea leaves. (I think there's some signal but I just don't know how much. I'm also not an expert. Thanks for listening to my ted talk)
[0] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/16/klapper-privil...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
The obvious choice at this point seems to be just abandoning grades at Harvard. Any reason not to?
Perfect timing, make it harder. I’ve done graduated and moved on from the hustle and bustle.
Paging George P. Burdell, paging George P. Burdell.
never had a company look at my highschool grades...
Graduate schools will look at rec letters and take the professor's praise into account, but they haven’t the slightest notion of whether a class you took is hard or not. Students who want to optimize their future prospects know this, and select their courses accordingly. Oh, and employers know/care even less than graduate schools.