4 ms·

>That shift could change economics itself, by attracting a new breed of students who are intrigued by the field’s new empiricism, not put off by its mathiness a

>That shift could change economics itself, by attracting a new breed of students who are intrigued by the field’s new empiricism, not put off by its mathiness and high theory. It could make economics departments more diverse, and more open to new perspectives from women and students of color. >He also gives Mankiw credit for moving the curve of Ec 10 to match the curves of other large Harvard classes, based on research showing that unnecessarily tough grading of economics classes disproportionately discourages women from taking them. I do not understand how attracting members of underrepresented classes benefits them when standards need to be lowered to do so. Sure, the practice opens up opportunities to a more diverse sampling of individuals in the short term, but in the long term you devalue the credentials and, as bad or worse, you risk churning out graduates who are more qualified on paper than in reality. I feel like this is a dangerous, growing trend in modern Western society and I do not understand how nobody seems to see it as a problem.

WoahNoun 7y ago
That's not what that quote implies. It implies that underrepresented demographics were less likely to enroll in classes that were known as having harsher grading curves than other classes. It doesn't imply that the standards for passing the class were lowered or the performance of underrepresented demographics was lower than non-underrepresented demographics once they enrolled in the course.
- fmajid 7y ago
  What it really implies is that minorities are more interested when the class is not an obvious rationale for the perpetuation of a status quo they know from personal experience is unjust. There's good money to be made in being an Uncle Tom, but Harvard students have more attractive options.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    Wow. What an ugly thing to say. Who do you consider an 'Uncle Tom'?
- fromthestart 7y ago
  >It doesn't imply that the standards for passing the class were lowered That's literally what it implies. The curve was relaxed. It became easier to meet the standard of a minimum pass grade for a given level of performance. > or the performance of underrepresented demographics was lower than non-underrepresented demographics once they enrolled in the course Nor do I. But lower standards (easier to pass/earn a high grade) implies poorer qualification/ability. Curves by definition bring up the grades of those who perform worse, without changing how they perform. In this example, if we peel away the euphemism, women were deterred from enrolling because the class was too hard to pass, so it was made easier to pass without changing the content. That does not necessarily mean that the women now taking the course are poor performers, but it does mean that on average the course will be graduating more students who would not have met previous standards.
  - WoahNoun 7y ago
    >That's literally what it implies. The curve was relaxed. It became easier to meet the standard of a minimum pass grade for a given level of performance. A curve can be shifted without changing the standards for passing the class. Eg the original curve allowed only for 5% of the students to get A's while the new curve allows 10%. You can get that additional 5% by shifting B's, C's, and D's upward which doesn't change the cutoff for failing with an F. >Curves by definition bring up the grades of those who perform worse Curves can also drag down students who are performing at a high level. If 10% of the class has performance deserving of A's but the curve says only 5% of the class can have an A, then some group is getting B's instead.
elliekelly 7y ago
> I do not understand how attracting members of underrepresented classes benefits them when the standard needs to be lowered to do so. I’m a woman with an undergrad economics degree. I struggled with intermediate micro and econometrics so much that I nearly lost my scholarship. The professor was known for having one of the toughest curves and certainly didn’t “lower the standards” for anyone. I was woefully unprepared for these classes. All of my classmates had taken statistics and calculus and I had only gotten as far as y=mx+b. My peers were learning econometrics. I was learning econometrics and statistics. My peers were learning micro. I was learning micro and calculus. I had always been a good student but I was really proud of those two terrible grades because I worked my ass off to get them and I learned more (and taught myself more) from those two classes than any other undergrad course I took. Not only did struggling through undergrad econ put me head and shoulders above my peers in law school where a lot of people are afraid of math, it gave me a whole lot of confidence. It was a small miracle that I managed to pass those classes. But I did. Not because the standard was lower, but because I didn’t give up or let myself feel too embarrassed by how little I knew. And now when I don’t understand something or I want to learn about something that’s completely over my head and outside my comfort zone, there’s not a doubt in my mind that I can. And that’s been pretty fucking beneficial.

WoahNoun 7y ago

That's not what that quote implies. It implies that underrepresented demographics were less likely to enroll in classes that were known as having harsher grading curves than other classes. It doesn't imply that the standards for passing the class were lowered or the performance of underrepresented demographics was lower than non-underrepresented demographics once they enrolled in the course.

fmajid 7y ago
What it really implies is that minorities are more interested when the class is not an obvious rationale for the perpetuation of a status quo they know from personal experience is unjust. There's good money to be made in being an Uncle Tom, but Harvard students have more attractive options.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  Wow. What an ugly thing to say. Who do you consider an 'Uncle Tom'?
fromthestart 7y ago
>It doesn't imply that the standards for passing the class were lowered That's literally what it implies. The curve was relaxed. It became easier to meet the standard of a minimum pass grade for a given level of performance. > or the performance of underrepresented demographics was lower than non-underrepresented demographics once they enrolled in the course Nor do I. But lower standards (easier to pass/earn a high grade) implies poorer qualification/ability. Curves by definition bring up the grades of those who perform worse, without changing how they perform. In this example, if we peel away the euphemism, women were deterred from enrolling because the class was too hard to pass, so it was made easier to pass without changing the content. That does not necessarily mean that the women now taking the course are poor performers, but it does mean that on average the course will be graduating more students who would not have met previous standards.
- WoahNoun 7y ago
  >That's literally what it implies. The curve was relaxed. It became easier to meet the standard of a minimum pass grade for a given level of performance. A curve can be shifted without changing the standards for passing the class. Eg the original curve allowed only for 5% of the students to get A's while the new curve allows 10%. You can get that additional 5% by shifting B's, C's, and D's upward which doesn't change the cutoff for failing with an F. >Curves by definition bring up the grades of those who perform worse Curves can also drag down students who are performing at a high level. If 10% of the class has performance deserving of A's but the curve says only 5% of the class can have an A, then some group is getting B's instead.

elliekelly 7y ago

> I do not understand how attracting members of underrepresented classes benefits them when the standard needs to be lowered to do so. I’m a woman with an undergrad economics degree. I struggled with intermediate micro and econometrics so much that I nearly lost my scholarship. The professor was known for having one of the toughest curves and certainly didn’t “lower the standards” for anyone. I was woefully unprepared for these classes. All of my classmates had taken statistics and calculus and I had only gotten as far as y=mx+b. My peers were learning econometrics. I was learning econometrics and statistics. My peers were learning micro. I was learning micro and calculus. I had always been a good student but I was really proud of those two terrible grades because I worked my ass off to get them and I learned more (and taught myself more) from those two classes than any other undergrad course I took. Not only did struggling through undergrad econ put me head and shoulders above my peers in law school where a lot of people are afraid of math, it gave me a whole lot of confidence. It was a small miracle that I managed to pass those classes. But I did. Not because the standard was lower, but because I didn’t give up or let myself feel too embarrassed by how little I knew. And now when I don’t understand something or I want to learn about something that’s completely over my head and outside my comfort zone, there’s not a doubt in my mind that I can. And that’s been pretty fucking beneficial.