Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
“I’m a strong, strong opponent of what Harvard is doing to say that only a fraction of students can earn A’s,” Garcia said. “I think you should have clear standards for what an A means, and then give tons of opportunity for people … to get to that A bar without lowering the standard. So everybody who’s curving is hiding that effect. It’s completely hiding that effect, and it’s pretending as if nothing’s wrong, and something is definitely wrong.”

To do this, you have to be a professor who has a strong idea of what subject mastery looks like. Not available to most.

But ... It is exactly the right idea IMO

I'm confused by Garcia's statement as well because CS@Cal traditionally uses a bell curve which is even stricter than Harvard's changes, because Harvard doesn't have the same stringent GPA requirements to declare a concentration unlike declaring an impacted major at L&S Cal.

Anyone with a pulse can declare a CS concentration at Harvard and muddle by (you actually need to try in order to get a C/C-). Of course, GPAs are calculated differently at Harvard compared to other universities, as a B- is treated at a 2.67 but most other programs treat that as a C+.

In a broad sense, this distinction between Harvard and Cal is the distinction between an old money Ivy and a flagship state school. One exists to propagate a social hierarchy, and the other aims to allow all entrants to succeed.

Ironically, the techniques of the latter yield the results of the first, but everybody gets to keep a pure heart.

Grades only matter as much as being able to transfer just to the real world.

People can use AI to outsource their learning, but if they use ai to outsource their understanding they just set themselves up to fail even more.

From what I’ve seen, how students are using ai (not that they are using ai) is making them less prepared for the real world, which unfortunately is changing faster than ever at the same time to create double impact.