4 ms·

The teaching standards at Harvard have been declining remarkably steadily for many years now. https://www.chartr.co/stories/2023-12-08-2-grade-inflation-at-har

The teaching standards at Harvard have been declining remarkably steadily for many years now. https://www.chartr.co/stories/2023-12-08-2-grade-inflation-at-harvard https://www.chartr.co/stories/2023-12-08-2-grade-inflation-a... Apparently teachers' standards have declined for themselves too. Some of that would be a result of being trained at Harvard, a vicious circle.

IceHegel 3y ago
They thought it would never catch up to them, they thought grade inflation didn’t matter because it was still hard to get in.
- gonzo41 3y ago
  "Hard to get in" is relative. I only recently learned about legacy admissions.
Gustomaximus 3y ago
Could this be because Harvard is increasingly desirable & hard to get into? From this, the average standard of students + their dedication to their work/GPA may well have steadily grown too. From a quick google, the acceptance rate to Harvard was 20% higher in the 70's. In 1940 it had an absolute acceptance rate of 85%. I dont actually know the answer, but from that graph only, the rising rate could be as much from a higher standard of student as lowering standards of marking.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  In the past a university education was 100% optional - as was high school for that matter, and so the only people pursuing such tended to be exceptional academic/intellectual outliers. The pool of people interested was very low, and standards were exceptionally high. For instance, this [1] is a Harvard entrance exam from 1869! [1] - https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvard...
  - smogcutter 3y ago
    > so the only people pursuing such tended to be exceptional academic/intellectual outliers. That’s an odd way to put “wealthy and privileged”
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Well no. Being wealthy doesn't make you an academic outlier, and education used to be extremely affordable for anybody so interested in pursuing such. Consequently, many of the greatest minds of the past came from very humble beginnings. For instance Harvard's first black graduate graduated in 1870 [1] (meaning he would have passed a test near to exactly like the one shared), and he was a remarkable man. He was left supporting his family as a teenager after his father ran away for the Gold Rush, and was unable to attend public school due to his skin color. Yet, he persevered and lived one amazing life far above and beyond becoming Harvard's first black grad. But people like him are far and few between - and those were the sort of people applying. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Theodore_Greener https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Theodore_Greener
      - DoughnutHole 3y ago
        > and those were the sort of people applying. Those were a tiny minority of the people applying. Nothing in that entrance exam requires an academic outlier. All it requires is a classical liberal arts education (Latin, Greek, classic literature, history, geography, geometry) Most people who attended higher education could do so because wealthy children received such an education above and beyond what the poor received (and because the could also afford college thanks to that wealth).
        somenameforme 3y ago
        In the early 19th century Harvard cost a total (everything from tuition to clothes, housing, vacations, and servant) of about $8,400 inflation adjusted. [1] And in times before we turned the money printer on, inflation was very stable - even occasionally dipping into deflation, so that's going to be quite close to what it would have cost in the late 19th century as well. And there was no opaque system for admission. If you passed that test, you were in. Well at least until the early 20th century when Harvard decided too many Jews (who were anything but elite/rich at the time) were being admitted, so they created a racial quota system. The only requirement was academic excellence. And on that note of excellence, that test is going to completely destroy most of anybody, let alone high school grads. The breadth of knowledge demanded paired with the extensive depth of such is something very few are practically capable of obtaining without an absolutely obscene amount of effort. Keep in mind this wasn't some sort of a take home exam or whatever, these exams were done on the spot - in an 8 hour window. [1] - https://money.com/what-college-cost-200-years-ago/ https://money.com/what-college-cost-200-years-ago/
asylteltine 3y ago
Going to schools like Harvard is 90% about networking and 10% education. Harvard dudes hire Harvard. It’s gross
whatyesaid 3y ago
Grade inflation has been happening at literally every institution. So you can't point just to Harvard. But a middle rated school can't take a stand, only the very top schools can start to, and they'd have to do it slowly to give employers and students time to adjust. There are apparently advanced classes like Math 55 that had huge dropout rates that had to be cleaned up though. So those courses have been completely changed instead of just awarding higher marks I'd imagine.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  There are plenty of 'middile rated schools, and even top 50' that have things like target average grades. It's also not uncommon across the world for entire programs to have dropout rates around 50%, it's just rare in reputable anglophone schools.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
WhitneyLand 3y ago
Grade inflation is a statistic not a cause. It could be caused by lowered standards or more competition or better student performance.
tjpnz 3y ago
The publishing record of their former president speaks volumes. I wonder what it takes to be a lecturer there.
burningChrome 3y ago
I've had several HS friends go to Harvard. They all said the same thing - its for networking post graduation, the education itself is all smoke and mirrors. My buddy said he had to take a botany class as a filler for some academic requirement for graduation. He said the entire class was to pick a tree out on campus and then describe how it changed over the course of the semester. He maintained he had more rigorous classes in HS then he had at Harvard and said the progressive politics were so pervasive, that as long as you towed the ideological line, then you got favorable grades. It would appear not much as changed since he was there in the early aughts.
- ajcp 3y ago
  [flagged]
andirk 3y ago
Oregon (kind of) dropped requirements for very basic reading, writing, and arithmetic to graduate high school because such skills were deemed racist. I'm not a big fan of standardized tests, but they can identify serious issues to address especially as it pertains to geographical, ethnic, etc. groups and allocate funding accordingly. If we keep lowering bars instead of addressing the issues, this is going to get very bad. https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/10/oregon-again-says-students-dont-need-to-prove-mastery-of-reading-writing-or-math-to-graduate-citing-harm-to-students-of-color.html https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/10/oregon-again-sa... https://www.opb.org/article/2021/09/20/examining-oregon-decision-to-drop-high-school-essential-skill-requirements/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/09/20/examining-oregon-deci...
- wsc981 3y ago
  > Oregon (kind of) dropped requirements for very basic reading, writing, and arithmetic to graduate high school because such skills were deemed racist. It’s ironic that this stance is actually racist, since it implies certain races perform worse.
  - daseiner1 3y ago
    Welcome to the world of striving for equity over equality. Lots of blame levied at a strawman white culture. If only there’d be a concomitant critique of the problematic groups at hand. Alas, that’s verboten under the current regime. Lowering expectations for those under their patronage only makes advantage easier for me and mine. Good luck to them and their token positions.
  - lemmsjid 3y ago
    It is not racist to make an observation about race. It is racist to believe that one race is superior to another and act accordingly. For example, it is not racist to acknowledge the frequently measured metric that African Americans on average score lower than other races on scholastic aptitude tests. It is what one does with that observation that can lead to racism. It is useful to define terms. Merriam-Webster has what I believe is a quite useful definition of racism: "a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". That is a useful definition because it helps to separate a racist interpretation of test scores from a non-racist interpretation. The racist interpretation is to jump to a conclusion of fundamental inferiority in academics. The non-racist interpretation is to acknowledge and emphasize the environmental factors that can lead an historically oppressed/displaced/enslaved minority to underperform academically, to acknowledge that African-born immigrants do quite well on standardized testing, and also to understand that standardized tests are normed on academic success, which creates a causality issue when measuring groups that have historically not been allowed in academic institutions. Perhaps all of those arguments don't hold water: or at least the pitcher holding them has holes of its own. But it is quite erroneous to jump to a conclusion of racial biological determinism, and that is what the racist conclusion would be. There is a particular kind of fallacy where a person can, seemingly unconsciously, take what are perfectly valid observations, like the test-taking disparities, and spin them into non-evidential overarching beliefs. This happens all too commonly when it comes to scientific (or at least metrical) observations and racism. People were all too eager to embrace phrenology, IQ testing, evolutionary biology, etc. when it confirmed their cultural preconception that their race was superior. All of those areas, even phrenology, had some scientific merit to them (and still do in the case of IQ testing and evolutionary biology), but that merit is lost when the conclusions get spun into non-evidential belief systems like racist ideology. Seemingly (I can't peer into their heads, really) skepticism is lost in a chase for the personal gratification of a belief of fundamental superiority. Discussions around academic standards are a case in point. Academic standards change quite frequently. The Oregon requirement we're discussing was only instituted in the early 2010's. When race is not part of the discussion, it is entirely normal for educators to say that a new standardized test doesn't really have evidence it serves the population and to remove it. There is a very lively debate amongst educators about how excessive measurement, i.e. standardized test taking, can interfere with the normal give-and-take of teaching. But, if the evidence is that non-native-English speakers are underserved, or that African-Americans are underserved, suddenly it is 'racist' to remove a requirement or hurdle. What I saw in the two articles is that those in favor of removing the requirement saw a lack of evidence it was beneficial, and saw evidence that it was not beneficial; while those opposed had no evidence other than it would graduate 'dumber' students; ignoring the fact that presumably dumber students were being graduated before the 2010's when the program was instituted. In short, it is often a smokescreen to say that observations about race are racist, because that makes it impossible to act against inequality, or sometimes even to act at all. Once again, racism is the belief of one race's inherent superiority over another.

IceHegel 3y ago

They thought it would never catch up to them, they thought grade inflation didn’t matter because it was still hard to get in.

gonzo41 3y ago
"Hard to get in" is relative. I only recently learned about legacy admissions.

Gustomaximus 3y ago

Could this be because Harvard is increasingly desirable & hard to get into? From this, the average standard of students + their dedication to their work/GPA may well have steadily grown too. From a quick google, the acceptance rate to Harvard was 20% higher in the 70's. In 1940 it had an absolute acceptance rate of 85%. I dont actually know the answer, but from that graph only, the rising rate could be as much from a higher standard of student as lowering standards of marking.

somenameforme 3y ago
In the past a university education was 100% optional - as was high school for that matter, and so the only people pursuing such tended to be exceptional academic/intellectual outliers. The pool of people interested was very low, and standards were exceptionally high. For instance, this [1] is a Harvard entrance exam from 1869! [1] - https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvardexam.pdf https://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/education/harvard...
- smogcutter 3y ago
  > so the only people pursuing such tended to be exceptional academic/intellectual outliers. That’s an odd way to put “wealthy and privileged”
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Well no. Being wealthy doesn't make you an academic outlier, and education used to be extremely affordable for anybody so interested in pursuing such. Consequently, many of the greatest minds of the past came from very humble beginnings. For instance Harvard's first black graduate graduated in 1870 [1] (meaning he would have passed a test near to exactly like the one shared), and he was a remarkable man. He was left supporting his family as a teenager after his father ran away for the Gold Rush, and was unable to attend public school due to his skin color. Yet, he persevered and lived one amazing life far above and beyond becoming Harvard's first black grad. But people like him are far and few between - and those were the sort of people applying. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Theodore_Greener https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Theodore_Greener
    - DoughnutHole 3y ago
      > and those were the sort of people applying. Those were a tiny minority of the people applying. Nothing in that entrance exam requires an academic outlier. All it requires is a classical liberal arts education (Latin, Greek, classic literature, history, geography, geometry) Most people who attended higher education could do so because wealthy children received such an education above and beyond what the poor received (and because the could also afford college thanks to that wealth).
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        In the early 19th century Harvard cost a total (everything from tuition to clothes, housing, vacations, and servant) of about $8,400 inflation adjusted. [1] And in times before we turned the money printer on, inflation was very stable - even occasionally dipping into deflation, so that's going to be quite close to what it would have cost in the late 19th century as well. And there was no opaque system for admission. If you passed that test, you were in. Well at least until the early 20th century when Harvard decided too many Jews (who were anything but elite/rich at the time) were being admitted, so they created a racial quota system. The only requirement was academic excellence. And on that note of excellence, that test is going to completely destroy most of anybody, let alone high school grads. The breadth of knowledge demanded paired with the extensive depth of such is something very few are practically capable of obtaining without an absolutely obscene amount of effort. Keep in mind this wasn't some sort of a take home exam or whatever, these exams were done on the spot - in an 8 hour window. [1] - https://money.com/what-college-cost-200-years-ago/ https://money.com/what-college-cost-200-years-ago/

asylteltine 3y ago

Going to schools like Harvard is 90% about networking and 10% education. Harvard dudes hire Harvard. It’s gross

whatyesaid 3y ago

Grade inflation has been happening at literally every institution. So you can't point just to Harvard. But a middle rated school can't take a stand, only the very top schools can start to, and they'd have to do it slowly to give employers and students time to adjust. There are apparently advanced classes like Math 55 that had huge dropout rates that had to be cleaned up though. So those courses have been completely changed instead of just awarding higher marks I'd imagine.

sudosysgen 3y ago
There are plenty of 'middile rated schools, and even top 50' that have things like target average grades. It's also not uncommon across the world for entire programs to have dropout rates around 50%, it's just rare in reputable anglophone schools.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

WhitneyLand 3y ago

Grade inflation is a statistic not a cause. It could be caused by lowered standards or more competition or better student performance.

tjpnz 3y ago

The publishing record of their former president speaks volumes. I wonder what it takes to be a lecturer there.

burningChrome 3y ago

I've had several HS friends go to Harvard. They all said the same thing - its for networking post graduation, the education itself is all smoke and mirrors. My buddy said he had to take a botany class as a filler for some academic requirement for graduation. He said the entire class was to pick a tree out on campus and then describe how it changed over the course of the semester. He maintained he had more rigorous classes in HS then he had at Harvard and said the progressive politics were so pervasive, that as long as you towed the ideological line, then you got favorable grades. It would appear not much as changed since he was there in the early aughts.

ajcp 3y ago
[flagged]

andirk 3y ago

Oregon (kind of) dropped requirements for very basic reading, writing, and arithmetic to graduate high school because such skills were deemed racist. I'm not a big fan of standardized tests, but they can identify serious issues to address especially as it pertains to geographical, ethnic, etc. groups and allocate funding accordingly. If we keep lowering bars instead of addressing the issues, this is going to get very bad. https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/10/oregon-again-says-students-dont-need-to-prove-mastery-of-reading-writing-or-math-to-graduate-citing-harm-to-students-of-color.html https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2023/10/oregon-again-sa... https://www.opb.org/article/2021/09/20/examining-oregon-decision-to-drop-high-school-essential-skill-requirements/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/09/20/examining-oregon-deci...

wsc981 3y ago
> Oregon (kind of) dropped requirements for very basic reading, writing, and arithmetic to graduate high school because such skills were deemed racist. It’s ironic that this stance is actually racist, since it implies certain races perform worse.
- daseiner1 3y ago
  Welcome to the world of striving for equity over equality. Lots of blame levied at a strawman white culture. If only there’d be a concomitant critique of the problematic groups at hand. Alas, that’s verboten under the current regime. Lowering expectations for those under their patronage only makes advantage easier for me and mine. Good luck to them and their token positions.
- lemmsjid 3y ago
  It is not racist to make an observation about race. It is racist to believe that one race is superior to another and act accordingly. For example, it is not racist to acknowledge the frequently measured metric that African Americans on average score lower than other races on scholastic aptitude tests. It is what one does with that observation that can lead to racism. It is useful to define terms. Merriam-Webster has what I believe is a quite useful definition of racism: "a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". That is a useful definition because it helps to separate a racist interpretation of test scores from a non-racist interpretation. The racist interpretation is to jump to a conclusion of fundamental inferiority in academics. The non-racist interpretation is to acknowledge and emphasize the environmental factors that can lead an historically oppressed/displaced/enslaved minority to underperform academically, to acknowledge that African-born immigrants do quite well on standardized testing, and also to understand that standardized tests are normed on academic success, which creates a causality issue when measuring groups that have historically not been allowed in academic institutions. Perhaps all of those arguments don't hold water: or at least the pitcher holding them has holes of its own. But it is quite erroneous to jump to a conclusion of racial biological determinism, and that is what the racist conclusion would be. There is a particular kind of fallacy where a person can, seemingly unconsciously, take what are perfectly valid observations, like the test-taking disparities, and spin them into non-evidential overarching beliefs. This happens all too commonly when it comes to scientific (or at least metrical) observations and racism. People were all too eager to embrace phrenology, IQ testing, evolutionary biology, etc. when it confirmed their cultural preconception that their race was superior. All of those areas, even phrenology, had some scientific merit to them (and still do in the case of IQ testing and evolutionary biology), but that merit is lost when the conclusions get spun into non-evidential belief systems like racist ideology. Seemingly (I can't peer into their heads, really) skepticism is lost in a chase for the personal gratification of a belief of fundamental superiority. Discussions around academic standards are a case in point. Academic standards change quite frequently. The Oregon requirement we're discussing was only instituted in the early 2010's. When race is not part of the discussion, it is entirely normal for educators to say that a new standardized test doesn't really have evidence it serves the population and to remove it. There is a very lively debate amongst educators about how excessive measurement, i.e. standardized test taking, can interfere with the normal give-and-take of teaching. But, if the evidence is that non-native-English speakers are underserved, or that African-Americans are underserved, suddenly it is 'racist' to remove a requirement or hurdle. What I saw in the two articles is that those in favor of removing the requirement saw a lack of evidence it was beneficial, and saw evidence that it was not beneficial; while those opposed had no evidence other than it would graduate 'dumber' students; ignoring the fact that presumably dumber students were being graduated before the 2010's when the program was instituted. In short, it is often a smokescreen to say that observations about race are racist, because that makes it impossible to act against inequality, or sometimes even to act at all. Once again, racism is the belief of one race's inherent superiority over another.