The issue that many schools face is that companies complain the grads - even with PhDs - are not able to do anything useful in the workplace. When my wife did her PhD more than 10 years ago (in the UK) she was required to take a stack of ungraded workshops under the label “professionalizing the PhD” it was totally annoying waste of time for her. The stuff was “basics of Excel”, “Research poster making”, “ intro to Adobe suite”, etc this was done because the university had received feedback that PhD grads could literally do nothing useful when hired.
From the article.
“About 60% of the grades handed out in classes for the university’s undergraduate program are A’s, up from 40% a decade ago and less than a quarter 20 years ago, according to a report released Monday by Harvard’s Office of Undergraduate Education”
Harvard is currently under a lot of pressure from donors , courts ( loss of case on admissions), and political pressure from US administration.
Awarding 60% A’s does not help them make the case that they know what they are doing and should just be allowed to carry on.
The whole GPA thing never made sense to me. Did you grasp the material? You should get a diploma. Were you extraordinary academically? You should get a diploma with magna cum laude (high praise). Were you a top student and your peers voted you best mate / leader? You should get a diploma with summa cum laude (highest praise). That should be it.
Why should your peers have any impact on your academic rating? That should solely be on the institution. Maybe tiniest bit in group projects but that is the limit.
We have different philosophies. I believe how you treat peers and their perception of you is an important part of schooling. If you come across as an arse but do well academically, you will still get magna cum laude.
I hope the highest grade requires 100% evaluation from peers. As I think that is reasonable minimum to aim for. If single peer is reasonably only neutral or against such reward should not be given out.
Yeah, I'm graduating soon and all the jobs I'm looking at "require" a 3.8 or above. And these aren't huge rockstar companies or anything, just local/regional CRUD shops or basic web dev companies. I guess I should have played the game of taking all the easiest classes with the easiest professors rather than attempting anything with more challenge. Sorry for the rant.
Yeah, on the one hand, independence of all institutions and especially ivy-leagues is of the utmost important. But like, I've always done better in the workplace than in the school environment.
Does anyone think that a degree from Harvard says more about what you know than who you know? I suppose for certain careers, particularly perhaps research or writing/ideas/think tanks, a 4.0 GPA plus increasing distinctions / PHD work etc. is important.
if you apply to grad school, yes. Typically they want a GPA (which was a problem for me since I went to a school that didn't give you grades, just "narrative evals").
The issue that many schools face is that companies complain the grads - even with PhDs - are not able to do anything useful in the workplace. When my wife did her PhD more than 10 years ago (in the UK) she was required to take a stack of ungraded workshops under the label “professionalizing the PhD” it was totally annoying waste of time for her. The stuff was “basics of Excel”, “Research poster making”, “ intro to Adobe suite”, etc this was done because the university had received feedback that PhD grads could literally do nothing useful when hired.
From the article. “About 60% of the grades handed out in classes for the university’s undergraduate program are A’s, up from 40% a decade ago and less than a quarter 20 years ago, according to a report released Monday by Harvard’s Office of Undergraduate Education”
Harvard is currently under a lot of pressure from donors , courts ( loss of case on admissions), and political pressure from US administration.
Awarding 60% A’s does not help them make the case that they know what they are doing and should just be allowed to carry on.
The whole GPA thing never made sense to me. Did you grasp the material? You should get a diploma. Were you extraordinary academically? You should get a diploma with magna cum laude (high praise). Were you a top student and your peers voted you best mate / leader? You should get a diploma with summa cum laude (highest praise). That should be it.
Why should your peers have any impact on your academic rating? That should solely be on the institution. Maybe tiniest bit in group projects but that is the limit.
We have different philosophies. I believe how you treat peers and their perception of you is an important part of schooling. If you come across as an arse but do well academically, you will still get magna cum laude.
I hope the highest grade requires 100% evaluation from peers. As I think that is reasonable minimum to aim for. If single peer is reasonably only neutral or against such reward should not be given out.
For any college, as long as you meet your diploma requirements and graduate, will anyone subsequently really care what your grades were?
Yeah, I'm graduating soon and all the jobs I'm looking at "require" a 3.8 or above. And these aren't huge rockstar companies or anything, just local/regional CRUD shops or basic web dev companies. I guess I should have played the game of taking all the easiest classes with the easiest professors rather than attempting anything with more challenge. Sorry for the rant.
Yeah, on the one hand, independence of all institutions and especially ivy-leagues is of the utmost important. But like, I've always done better in the workplace than in the school environment.
Does anyone think that a degree from Harvard says more about what you know than who you know? I suppose for certain careers, particularly perhaps research or writing/ideas/think tanks, a 4.0 GPA plus increasing distinctions / PHD work etc. is important.
But for just like working in business?
It's a very tough job market right now. I'd rather put a 3.8 than a 2.8 GPA on my CV for job #1 out of college. For job #2, no one cares.
Scholarships for grad school can also be sensitive to undergrad GPA.
(For the non-Americans: 4.0 is a 'perfect' A+ 100% Grade Point Average. Strangely, >4.0 GPAs are possible too, with extra credit work.)
The British system has a lot less transparency here. You get:
* First * Upper Second (aka 2:1) * Lower Second (aka 2:2) * Third * Pass * Fail
Some students put module scores down but they are basically meaningless.
And then like the US a degree from a top University is worth more than a degree from another University (by a class or more)
Part of the reason they are worth less is the lack of standardisation of course content. Part of it is grade inflation. Part of it is legacy.
One interesting case is that I know Cambridge grades to a curve. There will never be more than x% of the students getting a first in a single year.
Comparitively my University just had a overall % threshold of weighted module scores.
if you apply to grad school, yes. Typically they want a GPA (which was a problem for me since I went to a school that didn't give you grades, just "narrative evals").
[dead]