Point: Against Mandatory Attendance

The classroom has evolved throughout the years. Handwritten notes and chalkboards have slowly changed to Google Doc tabs and PowerPoint slides. Lengthy textbooks are now available online and in condensed formats. And technologies like AI allow students to rapidly consume information. With the add/drop period behind us, most students have already learned which of their lectures are worth attending and which can be skipped. To counter increasing absences, some larger courses incorporate attendance as part of a student’s final grade.

Recently, the New York Times covered a supposed “problem” on campus: the rise of class-cutting. The author, Anemona Hartocollis ’77, argued that a classroom environment hostile to minority opinions and rampant grade inflation has led to disengagement among students.

While discomfort in class discussions or grade inflation may play a role, mandatory attendance in large lectures ultimately does not benefit students. Instead, it restricts their ability to manage their own time, forcing them to abide by schedules that may not align with their needs or learning styles.

To understand why, it helps first to clarify the purpose of college. Although there is no universal definition, most institutions emphasize preparing students for their careers, building critical-thinking and problem-solving skills, and encouraging intellectual exploration. In fact, a 2021 survey of 3,000 college graduates found that more than 80% believed their education helped them qualify for better jobs, gain essential skills, and advance professionally.

Some may argue that mandatory attendance mimics the structure of a workforce. However, college is not meant to replicate a 9-to-5 job; it’s meant to teach students how to manage their time and responsibilities independently. 

A 2020 study underscored the importance of perceived agency: people who feel in control of a situation, even if they choose not to act, become more risk-tolerant, patient, and future-oriented. Mandatory attendance removes this sense of agency by dictating how students must spend their time. College should allow students to design their own schedules and learn what works best for them. This process of self-understanding is critical to personal growth, something that rigid attendance actively hinders.

Beyond restricting personal development, mandatory lecture attendance limits students’ ability to engage in other meaningful activities. With 42 Division I sports and 450 student organizations, there are countless opportunities for involvement outside the classroom. According to Harvard’s Student Employment Office, over 80% of students also work part-time during their studies. Each of these activities, with varying levels of time commitment, alongside compulsory lecture blocks, can easily become overwhelming. 

And why should students endure that stress when so many lectures are recorded and slides are available? A disciplined student can watch recordings, absorb key points, and engage with the material without being physically present. 

Critics might argue that this method eliminates the discussion and debate that make lectures valuable. As Patton Oswalt’s character in “22 Jump Street” quips, “The professor gets into a lively conversation with the student; friction creates fire, and that leads to lessons learned.” Indeed, dialogue and debate are vital for intellectual engagement. Smaller seminars analyzing a text within a mindset or discussion-based courses naturally require students to be present to benefit, so required attendance is understandable. However, large lectures rarely provide that environment. They typically focus on distilling the facts, rather than fostering argument.

Even when a course does center on discussion, attendance should not be mandatory. The responsibility lies with instructors to make classes so compelling that students want to attend. Last fall, Michael Sandel’s course Gen Ed 1200: “Justice,” a 9:45 a.m., two-hour lecture, comparing different theories of social justice, despite having attendance requirements, was still thoroughly engaging and had students consistently interacting with presented material. Weekly discussion sections also ensured interaction while allowing students to choose times that suit their schedules. Because of this course’s structure and Sandel’s engaging lecture style—rather than the attendance requirement—students felt compelled to attend.

Finally, mandatory attendance restricts the possible areas of study that students can explore. With a large catalog of courses offered at the College, some of which are not offered every year, students must choose between fulfilling their concentration requirement or exploring a different field that interests them. Without mandatory attendance, students can take both courses provided they are up to the task. A class like Econ 10A: “Principles of Economics (Microeconomics),” which is offered asynchronously with recorded lectures, enables students to begin their economics journey and still take other courses.

Of course, some guidance is necessary, especially for first-years adjusting from the regimented environment of high school. But mandatory attendance doesn’t instill independence; it stunts it.

Well-intentioned as they may be, attendance requirements for large lectures do more harm than good. They undermine students’ autonomy, limit their personal growth, and constrain their ability to explore the full range of college opportunities. If the purpose of higher education is to cultivate critical thinking, independence, and readiness for the real world, then students must be trusted to decide how they engage with their coursework. 

Rather than relying on compulsory attendance to enforce engagement, instructors should focus on creating courses that students attend out of genuine interest—not by obligation. After all, true learning isn’t about sitting in a seat, it’s about showing up with intention and engaging deeply with the material.
Tyler Dang ’28 (tylerdang@college.harvard.edu) has missed one class this semester.