Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Ditching Final Exams?
itwbennett writes "According to Harvard magazine, Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted at its meeting on May 11 to require instructors to officially inform the Registrar 'at the first week of the term' of the intention to end a course with a formal, seated exam, 'the assumption shall be that the instructor will not be giving a three-hour final examination.' Dean of undergraduate education Jay M. Harris 'told the faculty that of 1,137 undergraduate-level courses this spring term, 259 scheduled finals — the lowest number since 2002, when 200 fewer courses were offered. For the more than 500 graduate-level courses offered, just 14 had finals, he reported.'"
If only they had 200 more undergraduate-level courses.
Usually in classes of this sort, the grade is based on Project work and assignments that are completed.
It's worth noting that it says "three-hour exams," and nothing else. There are other courses that could have other kinds of finals -- for example, engineering courses with comprehensive final projects or liberal arts courses with final papers/presentations and the like. In some ways, it makes more sense for students to work on a final project that utilizes the skills they're supposed to have learned in real-world situations -- especially for engineers.
http://www.tenjou.net/
I don't go to Hahvahd, but I have sometimes had professors count big final projects instead of a big final written exam.
Sometimes the class content just isn't amenable to written exams.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
This is in general what happens. I was a math major there, and even a couple years ago very few math classes past the freshman level had sit-down final exams. Almost all of them, though, had take-home exams which were a much more thorough test of the students' abilities and took a lot longer than three hours (usually three days or so). I think this makes more sense and is a better measure of understanding. There are issues of cheating of course, but with a well-designed exam I think this problem can be minimized.
Right, this is only formal, seated exams. My undergrad classes mostly had formal exams, but none of my grad classes did. They were all take-home exams (except for the experimental class, which had an informal oral exam). Most of them were the cruel 24-hour take-home exam.
Harvard has a variety of final course requirements. A lot of courses require final papers which take a lot more than 3 hours to write. (That includes senior theses, which take a very long time to write.) A few require oral presentations, and some require projects. Still others require passing exams during the course itself. What's been going on for years (decades?) is that Harvard would schedule classrooms and staff to support test-taking only to find that professors had other ideas (and often at the "last minute," administratively speaking). Occasionally even the students didn't get the memo, and a few stranglers might show up only to find out there's no exam. All that said, I wish Harvard would provide professors and students with more guidance on assessments. The College should try to enforce some basic standards more effectively.
Registrars are like air traffic control at universities. They keep track of where a class is being held (and make sure they don't double-book a room), who's teaching it, who's attending, what grades the students got...
When I was in school, as soon as the registrar released their schedule for final exam blocks, I e-mailed the professor to ask if this rumor the registrar was spreading was true. Many wanted to hold their finals earlier than the stated date, with the exception of the math department which wanted the last finals slot and always got it.
To me, this was critical information, I wanted to be able to tell my school break job when I'd be back in town so they could plan my work. The earlier I knew when the finals were and weren't, the better.
So, really this is a registrar reacting to a change that has already happened. Final projects have replaced the final exam in many classes, so if a professor wants to hold a memory-based final they need to alert the registrar, as that office's default assumption is changing to if they don't ask for a finals slot, they don't need it.
Whats old is new again, they really should bring back the oral exam. Not only does it make for a great name for porn movies, it actually is probably the easiest way to accurately asses the students understanding of the material and prevents cheating(for the most part). Best of all, it doesn't take 3 hours per student.
Monstar L
Easy, one is good at doing work and the other will be their manager. I'll let you figure out who is who.
i mean if you can trust the professor without testing the student, why not trust the student directly? why make the student get out of their car?
Well, I am a math professor (although at a much lowlier school than Harvard) and I've never had a great opinion of in-class testing. The simple fact is that in the short duration of an in-class test you can't give the students substantive problems to work on. Thus, in-class tests (or any other short-duration timed test) is really an exercise in "how quickly can you work lots of relatively shallow problems".
I far prefer to give my students lots and lots of really hard take-home problems. I call on them randomly in class to present their solutions at the board and explain their work. This is virtually cheat-proof... if you copy from someone, then it is obvious when I'm quizzing you at the board to prove your assertions. The only draw back of this method is that it takes a lot of effort on the professor's part, and it's only feasible on reasonably-sized classes. I can't do this when I'm teaching a 30-student class of freshman calculus.
My guess is that Harvard is the type of place where class size isn't an issue. When you've got really small classes (under 10 students) then you can really gauge the knowledge level of each student because you are engaging each one individually in every class meeting. That's the ideal learning environment, but it's expensive.
"it's only feasible on reasonably-sized classes. I can't do this when I'm teaching a 30-student class of freshman calculus."
30 students is a lot? I guess it wouldn't work with 200 then..
???? What drive thru degrees????? Many of my grad level courses involved final projects instead of exams. There's still a huge crunch at the end of semester, but it's about the project instead of the exam. Exams are useful for testing theoretical knowledge in mature fields -- such as diff eq or stochastics -- but projects are better tests of applying said theoretical knowledge in an emerging field that a seminar might cover.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
"it's only feasible on reasonably-sized classes. I can't do this when I'm teaching a 30-student class of freshman calculus."
30 students is a lot? I guess it wouldn't work with 200 then..
What's the point in teaching a 200 person class? You can't interact with them at all, you can't actually grade their papers, and you can't judge the knowledge of a student in any meaningful way. Universities that run ridiculous classes like that are just stealing the students' money and wasting the professor's time. The professor might as well just video the lectures and put them on the web... which I think is what Khan is doing.
The whole fucking point of a professor is to INTERACT with the students.
200 person classes are typically freshman, state-required (for state college board accreditation) weed-out classes. i.e. worthless classes that would otherwise require you to hire an extra six entry level professors ($400,000, plus benefits = about half a million dollars) to handle the teaching load. Assuming an average class size of 30.
If you're in a 200 person class for junior and senior level classes, you're either at a degree mill, you've pissed off your advior/dean, or both.
moox. for a new generation.
otherwise require you to hire an extra six entry level professors ($400,000, plus benefits = about half a million dollars) to handle the teaching load. Assuming an average class size of 30.
Instead they hire 6 grad students at about $50,000 (stipend + tuition) a year with no benefits to teach the classes. I'm fine with this of course, since it's paying for my education. I'm a TA for two 30 student sections of a 200 student course. It's introductory engineering, and I find it very rewarding, since I'm one of their first real contacts at the university. I'm only a few years older than them, and I think they can relate to me better than the stodgey old professor in the giant lecture hall.
That's less true at Harvard (and to a lesser extent MIT) than it has been in the past, if you're accepted they make a real effort to get you in at a cost you can afford and with minimal (or in Harvard's case, no) loans
From the page I linked:
I'm sure there are a handful of people who will have financial problems, but for the vast majority of students, the only impediment to attending Harvard is their academic performance.
No they don't. I live across the river from Harvard, where I regularly interact with students. Harvard is a good school with a great brand, nothing more, nothing less. If anything, the students at Harvard suffer from a very strong peer norming pressure, where they come to believe they deserve the ridiculous opportunities (without validation) that the Harvard brand affords them. The professional schools (law, business) are the worst in this respect; the graduate programs (ie, Arts & Sciences) are the most likely to produce a human being who produces in proportion to their consumption. I think it is a shame that the school is following the assumption "once you are accepted into Harvard, you are already successful by definition, and you no longer have to perform." Isn't the point of schooling to educate, not to certify? How can education work without performance feedback?
MIT is a different story. While there are clearly many opportunities and the MIT brand is also powerful, in general, the typical student at MIT is more interested in proving themselves rather than just taking advantage of the brand. Maybe my experience is limited, but by now, n > 100.
It just irks me that so many people perpetuate the myth that Harvard or MIT is some blessed land of the talented. Disclosure: my undergraduate degree was from a state university; my PhD was Ivy...I speak from experience.
I just started my first week of gradschool, where 90% of the people in my program, and a large percentage throughout the university are asian. We had to sit through an orientation seminar on plagiarism, which seemed to be directed specifically at international students; there was a large emphasis on cultural differences on IP, and how in America we cite our sources. I suppose if they are brought up in a society where no one owns any ideas, blatantly copying entire works doesn't seem like a wrong thing to do.
"Harvard University is the poster campus for academic prestige - and for grade inflation, even though some of its top officials have warned about grade creep. About 15 percent of Harvard students got a B-plus or better in 1950, according to one study. In 2007, more than half of all Harvard grades were in the A range. Harvard declined to release more current data or officially comment for this article."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/10/05/doesnt_anybody_get_a_c_anymore/
"Plus, tough grading makes a student less likely to get into graduate school, which could make Harvard look bad in college rankings."
and also from that article this interesting bit:
"Fewer than 20% of all college students receive grades below a B-minus, according to a study released this week by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. That hardly seems justified at a time when a third of all college students arrive on campus so unprepared that they need to take at least one remedial course."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002/02/08/edtwof2.htm
Or how about a student testimonial:
"The article reported a record 91% of Harvard University students were awarded honors during the spring graduation. Said one student, Trevor Cox, "I've coasted on far higher grades than I deserve. It's scandalous. You can get very good grades and earn honors, without ever producing quality work."
http://www.endgradeinflation.org/
Is there even such a thing as a 'classroom' that can properly accomadate 200 students, and not just be a professor in a fishtank talking to the wall?
Sounds more like a theatre, concert hall, place where attendees of a show might sleep while a suit gives a keynote, presidential address, or a church, than a classroom...
Professor: This is the gospel according to (book publisher)
Students: [eyes glazed over] Glory and praise to you oh Calculus
Professor: [canned speech]
Professor: The word of Leibnitz
Students: [barely awake] Thanks be to Math
That's not just college, it's true for life in America in general. The basic principle is that you pay for something because you want more of it. Also, tax breaks are just another type of subsidy. It seems that the government wants more unsuccessful black people, more broken families, more poverty, more women working outside of the home, and more artificially large businesses. I would have thought Harvard would be more accepting of white middle-class males than the rest of our society.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
Does anyone know the percentage of Harvard students that graduate cum laude? Magna cum laude? Summa cum laude?
(Hint: 50% graduate with these "rare" honors.)
Anyone care to guess what the average GPA is for a Harvard grad?
Why oh why did I have to go to school somewhere they didn't inflate grades? Studying makes college so much more challenging than it needs to be, apparently.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Good luck with your PhD!
Of course, I was generalizing. Different people learn in different ways. What I have observed seems to apply to most, but certainly not all, students.
One of the reasons I don't bother taking attendance is because I know that there are some students who will learn perfectly well on their own. As long as they are doing well in the class, there is no reason to force them to show up.
I chose this comment to reply to as it was your most recent.
The stuff you've been posting through this thread about your methods, insights, and experiences is really, really interesting to a fledgling PhD student, and you've put a lot of effort into composing clear, well-phrased replies to a number of questions. I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to put it into writing; people like you are what keep me coming back to this site, because by God there are honestly intelligent people out there willing to talk about interesting stuff.
Anyway. That's all I've got.
Anyone who tells you there's grade inflation at Harvard is lying. Put the best students from all of the world in a university, where most work their asses off, all of whom have fantastic educations prior to arriving, and these students are going to get good grades. There's not a single student at Harvard who got an A or an A- (they don't give out A+'s) who didn't deserve it. Granted, it's hard to get a C grade, but that's to be expected considering how fucking amazing these students are. Compare a student who has an "A" average from Harvard to a student who has an "A" average from a state school. They are both probably great students, but which one do you think is better? (Achieving a 4.0 from Harvard is almost unheard-of) How about comparing "B" students? Do you think a B student from Harvard is worse than a B student at another institution. I doubt it. And the "remedial course" you're talking about is probably Expos 10. It's not a remedial course, though most students test out of it. There aren't any other courses one can test out of (there may be department-by-department policies), besides a language, but a first-year language course is hardly "remedial". Honestly, I have no idea what that article you quoted is talking about. That student you quoted? Probably very smart but lazy, and can get by without working very hard. Good for him. Maybe he has very high standards for himself. Most Harvard students do. He was also probably bragging, in some convoluted manner. Again, most Harvard students do. Finally, your statistic on honors is out of date. Far fewer students receive honors now. I did, and I'm damned proud of it.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
"Given that most students only show up to school to get a degree to fill a job requirement line item, and will neither use the knowledge they allegedly collected nor attempt to apply it"
What are you basing this on? Let's say you want to be a mechanical engineer. Let's say I design a part for a satellite that's being launched next year. How do you determine whether or not a design I give you will withstand the forces of a launch? What do I use to damp the high frequency vibrations that the optics package won't tolerate during launch?
These are very real problems that thousands of engineers are actually working on every day. This isn't some stupid thought problem that no one has to deal with. To solve the problem you need to know calculus, mechanics of materials, statics, physics, etc. Where do they teach this info on-the-job? Name a single company that teaches you how to design satellite parts without any knowledge beyond 12th grade and I'll eat my fucking hat.
People like you assume that every single degree is worthless. Your child, or yourself, got a degree in business, or art, or history, found that no one would pay you thousands of dollars to sit around on your ass critiquing other people's work and came to the nonsense conclusion that EVERY degree is worthless. I mean, your art degree doesn't let you do anything useful, how could an engineering degree be any different? You passed all of your classes by skipping lectures and showing up drunk or stoned to every test, how could an engineering degree be any more difficult to obtain? You fucked the teacher to pass a class, how could a real college be any different?
Seriously, you need to fucking think for a little bit before deciding that "EVERY DEGREE IS WORTHLESS AND COLLEGE IS AN ENTIRELY BROKEN SYSTEM". I don't think that college is flawless and I DO actually think that there's a huge push for everyone to obtain college degrees regardless of whether or not they need them. However, you cannot assume that because there's a small set of people that have worthless degrees that no one has a real one.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Anyone who tells you there's grade inflation at Harvard is lying.
Because you said so?
Harvard administrators said they are inflating grades.
Harvard professors said they are inflating grades.
Harvard students said their grades were inflated.
Various studies have demonstrated this to be true.
Besides, use some common sense: Harvard has been a highly sought after ivy league school for a few generations... are you really arguing that the class of 2007 are really that much more "fucking amazing" than the class of 1997? Yet the class of 2007 has a lot more A students than any class in the 90s.
There's not a single student at Harvard who got an A or an A- (they don't give out A+'s) who didn't deserve it. Granted, it's hard to get a C grade, but that's to be expected considering how fucking amazing these students are.
Many of our politicians - congressmen and senators are harvard alums; do they strike you as particularly erudite? Does 'fucking amazing' leap to your mind? Harvard grads trend towards success because they come often from successful families before they ever enrolled, and they often build invaluable social networks while enrolled. The education itself is certainly good quality but its nothing special, and the students aren't really all that 'fucking amazing' either.
Not because I say so, because of the arguments I laid forth in my reply.
I wonder what percentage of administrators, professors and students at other universities also speak of grade inflation. Maybe less, maybe more, but I don't see why Harvard is getting singled out. You say "various studies have demonstrated this to be true." What studies?
I actually think the Harvard classes of late are getting even better. 20-30 years ago, they weren't nearly as competitive as they are now. Where is the proof that the class of 2007 has higher grades than the classes of 1990? What about *in comparison to other schools*? This is really the point that matters, not inflation over time. It's really the exchange rate that counts.
Finally, careful who you call a Harvard alum. I am speaking only about Harvard College, not HBS or the law school. And yes, most of our congressmen and senators are pretty fucking educated, actually.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Universities, especially big-name ones like the Ivys, hate giving out low grades. So they don't. They get most of their money from tuition and alumni grants, and pumping the grades up keeps these two groups happy and paying out. This is particularly endemic at the graduate levels.
And, seriously, you need references? Is Google broken? 5 seconds:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/10/05/doesnt_anybody_get_a_c_anymore/
In 1950, 15% of students at Harvard got a B+ or higher. In 2007, >50% were A or higher.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/2/13/c-minus-prof-to-give-more-as/
"I was very delighted that I would find out what he thinks of my true performance while not hurting my transcript,"
Well. if you think it's tough being a white middle-class male, just try being a white upper-class male with film-star good looks, a trust fund valued in the billions, a brain like Einstein's and a cock like John Holmes's.
It's a fucking nightmare, honest.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it