The Tartan

Editorials featured in the Forum section are solely the opinions of their individual authors.

After reading “AWOL from Academics” by Aden Barton in Harvard Magazine, I felt a wave of frustration and disbelief wash over me. The article was first introduced to me during a staff meeting for the Ethics and Policy Issues in Computing class, a subject I’ve been deeply involved with as a TA for multiple semesters. Professor Michael Skirpan’s aim was to solicit our perspectives, given that the article was also a topic of discussion among other faculty members. This piqued my interest, especially since the experiences outlined in the article diverged significantly from what I’ve known and observed at Carnegie Mellon.

Barton’s article highlights a concerning trend among students at Harvard: A dramatic shift away from academic engagement towards extracurricular activities, facilitated by grade inflation and a changing cultural landscape in higher education. 

This shift is characterized by students allocating more time to activities outside of their coursework, with some extreme cases where students barely attend classes. The piece also explores the ramifications of grade inflation, where the ease of obtaining high grades has led students to minimize their academic efforts, diminishing the value placed on intellectual curiosity and genuine engagement with course material.

My initial reaction was disbelief. While Burton rightly shares his personal experiences, his narrative seems to cast a broad, generalized view on the student body, extending beyond Harvard, overlooking the reality of students who are stretched to their limits trying to meet even the basic requirements for an “easy A.” 

Over the last four years, I’ve observed students stretching their mental and physical capacities to solve programming problems or decipher complex proofs. In some courses, I’ve found myself dedicating 20 hours a week for a singular class just to scrape by with a passing grade, a sentiment echoed by the feedback in course evaluations. 

Yes, I’ve had to skip lectures — I hope my mom doesn’t find out — but often, it’s because I’m swamped with homework from another class. 

It’s not accurate to suggest that all students are failing or just scraping by, nor is it correct to assume every student is only doing the bare minimum because they lack interest in the course. Claiming either scenario as a universal truth is a fundamental logical fallacy. Yet, this perspective seemed to be missing from Barton’s article, which could have harmful ramifications if faculty at Carnegie Mellon take the article out of context and increase the difficulty of classes to compensate for perceived slacking off, despite a struggling class. 

Upon further reflection and discussion with peers from various educational backgrounds, including community colleges and other universities, my anger subsided as a more nuanced picture emerged. 

It became apparent that the article touched on a broader, more complex issue — the increasingly transactional nature of education. This phenomenon is not limited to Harvard but is pervasive across many top-tier institutions, including Carnegie Mellon, where the pursuit of academic excellence often becomes intertwined with strategic calculations about effort, grades, and future career prospects.

Barton points to the root of this transactional mindset being the changes in college admissions, moving from legacy admissions to a more meritocratic system. This shift has caused a selection of students who are brought up in a competitive environment that incentivizes impressive resumes, leading to a “resume arms race.” This environment encourages a gamification of education, where students weigh the benefits of academic efforts against their grades and potential job prospects. 

Many students, burdened by the high cost of tuition and the competitive job market, view their education as an investment. As one of the students in my recitation stated, when we are paying a quarter of $1 million to study here, there is a constant pressure to do anything and everything that can help pay off this huge investment. This perspective is particularly acute for students from immigrant families, where education is highly valued and significant sacrifices are made to ensure academic success. 

Indeed, the prioritization of extracurriculars, often influenced by a perceived expectation from future employers, raises questions about the authenticity of student engagement. The Harvard article calls for a recalibration of priorities, advocating for students to select extracurricular activities based on genuine interest rather than strategic career positioning. I agree with this.

The essence of extracurricular engagement should stem from a place of intrinsic motivation. Activities chosen out of personal interest are likely to be more rewarding, offering deeper learning and more meaningful experiences. 

When students engage with extracurriculars that resonate with their passions and interests, the skills developed are more profound and the networks formed are more significant. This approach not only enriches the student’s academic life but also contributes to their personal growth, fostering a sense of fulfillment that transcends the mere accumulation of accolades or resume padding.

However, we cannot overlook the reality that many students face: a competitive job market and the pressure to stand out. This reality often nudges students towards extracurriculars they believe will make them more attractive to employers. This strategic approach, while practical, can lead to burnout and a sense of disconnection from one’s own educational journey.

Recognizing this, the ideal path lies somewhere in the middle. Students should explore a broad spectrum of extracurriculars early in their academic careers, allowing them to discover what truly engages them. Institutions have a role to play here, by fostering an environment where a diverse range of extracurricular options is available and valued. 

Moreover, there should be guidance on how students can articulate the skills and experiences gained through these activities in ways that resonate with a variety of career paths, not just those traditionally linked to certain clubs or roles.

After serving as a TA for four semesters, I found three typical academic archetypes. 

First: a small segment of students who are indifferent to the course content, attending with the deliberate aim of exerting minimal effort. Although this attitude can be disheartening for both educators and fellow students, this group of students comprise the minority of the student body. It’s a basic truth that learning cannot be imposed on those who are unwilling.

Second: students who remain unfaltering in their prioritization of the course throughout the semester, despite shifting extracurricular interests and other courses. Oftentimes these students chose this course because it matches their areas of interest. Although they tend to stay active throughout the term, it’s unrealistic to expect every student to find a personal, deep-seated fascination in each class they enroll in. Regrettably, it’s not feasible to expect a genuine, intense interest in the subject matter among every student.

Most students belong to a third group: those who initially approach the course with commitment and genuine intention but eventually find themselves disenchanted or lacking motivation. As a result, their motivation and effort within the course begins to weaken. An analysis of these various causes is vital in designing concrete solutions beyond asking students to rethink their university priorities. 

A significant factor that was brought up repeatedly in my conversations with students was the disconnection between the curriculum and the skills and knowledge that are deemed valuable in the real world.

Students know the competitive landscape that awaits them post-graduation. When they cannot see a clear line between their studies and future careers, motivation can erode. The question of why they are learning what they are learning becomes more pronounced, and without satisfactory answers, engagement can falter.

Compounding this issue is the perception of assignments as mere busywork. Tasks that seem to lack purpose or relevance to the broader educational objectives can lead to a sense of futility among students. This feeling is further magnified when coursework appears disconnected from their primary interests, future goals, or the realities of the professional and academic worlds they aspire to enter. 

The challenge is not just to teach, but to make the learning experience resonate with the ambitions and curiosities of a diverse student body.

This calls for learning environments that are not only intellectually stimulating but also supportive and responsive to student needs and aspirations. It demands a curriculum that is flexible, interdisciplinary, and aligned with the evolving landscapes of industry and academia. 

By fostering a culture that values curiosity, encourages exploration, and acknowledges the diverse ambitions of students, we can help maintain and even reignite the enthusiasm with which they began their academic journey. In doing so, we — at both Carnegie Mellon and universities across the nation — can ensure that our institutions of learning remain vibrant spaces where every student has the opportunity to thrive, explore, and ultimately, care deeply about their educational journey.