At Harvard, the term “gems” is used by students to describe courses that, like a gemstone, are desirable to all: minimal work for an easy A. With a hungering survival instinct to maintain the highest possible GPA, it is no wonder that Harvard students might prefer the easiest classes.
Often, students turn to General Education (Gen Ed) courses—part of the graduation requirements—to find this. Beyond concentration-specific courses and electives, every student must fulfill a language requirement, expository writing, quantitative reasoning, three divisional distributions, and four general education courses. Because Gen Eds must be taken by every student, regardless of class or concentration, they have garnered a reputation for being on the easier side, and, eventually, have become associated with being some of the “gemmier” classes that students take. So to get the requirement “over with,” students generally choose to take a “gemmy” Gen Ed, with no regard to the class subject.
However, the question of whether or not to take gems isn’t as simple as it seems. It calls into question: Is there more to education beyond the rigor of the course? Or is taking a class that fails to test your limits essentially wasting your precious time at Harvard?
Tyler: Before we tackle why taking gems is acceptable, we should attempt to define the purpose of higher education. Should college prepare students for their ability to take tests? Maybe introduce them to the hassle of hundreds of assignments? Or perhaps actually give students the proper foundation necessary for an educated opinion on a variety of topics?
The degree that an undergraduate finally walks out with is not just a stepping stone to a well-paying job (though obviously, it very much helps). Instead, a Harvard degree represents an understanding of the liberal arts curriculum. Forcing oneself to take only the hardest known courses in an attempt to buff one’s transcript fails to take advantage of the vast range of topics offered at Harvard.
Rather, students should take advantage of the opportunity to branch into various subjects and form a strong knowledge base regardless of their intended concentration. While a mechanical engineer may not need Kant or Rawls to build machinery, understanding the basic philosophies allows that person to broach those topics and still have beneficial, educational discussions.
Other than the required courses one must take for their concentration, classes should be taken based on interest, not rigor. If a student is curious about a physics course on string theory, they should take the course, regardless of how many problem sets are assigned. Coursework one is passionate about can be more fulfilling than a class that looks good on a transcript, even in the face of potentially strict grading. A “harder” class does not equate to better. Larger course load classes prove one’s work ethic but may not be intellectually stimulating.
Often, learning to learn is exalted as the primary motive behind education—understanding one’s own processes and methodology for achieving success. While self-discovery and discipline are a must in education, they cannot completely replace creating a diverse foundation of knowledge and vice versa. Challenging classes are respected because they indicate a student’s mental fortitude and work ethic. Working through assignments that were made to distill some understanding of the material, students identify the limit of what they can accomplish (if there is one). These developments are just as significant. Taking only gems may remove the self-actualization gained from college. However, taking only difficult courses to prove one’s resilience may restrict them from accessing expansive education. Gems that offer insight into a new subject should be taken alongside more difficult and focused courses.
There is another argument for gems: making life easier. It is no secret that Harvard has many amazing opportunities, ranging from joining an acapella group to writing for a certain purple newspaper. Making time to comp every club or student organization is not easy when taking four problem-set heavy classes, but having even one slightly easier class can be freeing for the busy and work-ridden student. The pathways that may open from joining Harvard’s different communities or networks outweigh the stress of overloading one’s schedule.
The student body is made of people from diverse communities, backgrounds, and levels of preparation. Some were fortunate enough to have received an education that focused on preparing them for college course expectations. Others simply were not. Expecting all students to have the same proficiency in a class alongside a packed schedule is to unfairly penalize those who did not have access to the same level of preparation. Gems allow students to find their own balance while still engaging in extracurricular activities.
Certain pre-professional clubs offer excellent resources to gain experience and make connections that may lead to summer internships or jobs. These same clubs may also be substantial time commitments. Some organizations even offer financial aid since students may be unable to work a job in tandem with the workload. Making use of Harvard’s opportunities would see students extending beyond just graduation requirements as they take advantage of the alumni connections or the ability to gain experience. If taking a gemmy course increases one’s chances of gaining a prestigious internship, then utilizing that opportunity should not be seen as misusing one’s education.
Some may argue that the option to take classes pass/fail is enough to lighten the load. However, a student without worrying about the grade (beyond achieving a C) may not properly engage with the material. There would be no guarantee that the student pays attention; instead, they may just do enough to scrape a passing grade. While gems may be easier than other courses, there is still work to do to confirm that the student understands the concepts.
Raina: The discussions surrounding gems at Harvard endorse the idea that classes should be taken simply because they’re easy. Are they genuinely substantive and engaging classes? Well. That comes second.
But it shouldn’t. Tuition costs $56,550 this year, which is $7,068.75 per class.
Especially with tuition this expensive, education should not just be about grades. There is far too much emphasis and dialogue placed on GPA and not enough on the quality of education. While this is unfortunately unavoidable for some students—pre-meds, I sympathize—hyperfixation on grades can create unnecessary stress and pressure for students. However, the solution shouldn’t be to create easier classes so that people can “balance out” their schedules.
Students looking for a class to balance their rigorous concentration requirements can take an elective course pass/fail. Under Harvard’s pass/fail policy, students can take 44 credits—eleven 4-credit classes—pass/fail, which is more than enough for one pass/fail class per semester for all four years. If alleviating the stress and pressure of maintaining a near-perfect GPA is the concern, the problem should not be addressed by systemically upholding this category of “easy-A” courses. Instead, students should opt to individually take classes pass/fail if they want a less stressful semester; Harvard gives undergraduates the option to take courses pass/fail for this reason.
The existence of gems was not always this controversial. In fact, gems were initially meant to represent classes that are both easy and provide intellectual stimulus. The best gems would be classes that have a light workload, but also have an amazing teaching staff, engaging learning activities, and are well-structured—think of CS 196 taught by Professor Karen Brennan. According to the anonymous QGuide, it’s a “guaranteed A” with a “warm, engaging, creative, relaxed, [and] fun” classroom environment. Students wrote that they felt free to explore their interests and were inspired by the teaching staff and community as a whole.
While gems may have started with this intention, the discussion around these courses has evolved to primarily refer to the easiest of the easiest Gen Eds—those that require no work, even for a good grade. Originally, General Education courses were designed to be just as rigorous as any other class, and they were meant to have at least 12 hours of work a week—class time included. That calculates to around eight hours of work outside of class a week, which is way more substantial than the two to four hours of work-outside-of-class time.
The culture around taking gems has evolved to prioritize the wrong things when it comes to taking classes, as demonstrated by the existence of platforms with the sole purpose of finding a class with minimal work and a guaranteed A or A-. Some argue that this shows Harvard’s education has deteriorated and classes have become too easy. To remedy this, Harvard does not necessarily need to “degemify” courses. It’s not the existence of easy classes that is the problem, but the culture of taking a class just because other people report it being a “gem.” For example, how many people took “Gen Ed 1038: Sleep,” thought it would be easy, and then got blindsided?
With Harvard’s academic deans cracking down on gems and requiring Gen Eds to meet the standard 12 hours of work a week, the discussion around gemmy courses becomes all the more pertinent. For example, the heart disease Gen Ed that I took last semester enforced a strict attendance policy. If a student were absent from class (either lecture or section) more than one time, the highest grade they could receive would be a C. The professor insinuated at the end of the semester that this policy was intended to make up for the easy grading, since too many students were getting high grades in his class. This, compounded with the culture around gems, where students can report “success stories” about classes they’ve determined to be easy, indicates that Harvard students aren’t taking classes as seriously as expected.
It makes sense that the administration is trying to enforce a stricter standard, especially when it comes to Gen Eds, which have earned a reputation for being gemmy. I know from my own experience last semester that the statement from the QGuide rings true, and many students, shamefully myself included, rarely put in the work outside of class to do readings, which led to a worse experience in discussion sections. So the issue isn’t the existence of friendly professors who assign easy classwork; it’s students thinking they can get away with not putting in the effort and still receive a high grade.
Far be it from me to tell you, or anyone, not to take an easy course—or not to take a gem, for that matter. I’m not so hardcore that I don’t believe in easy classes; I just don’t believe that we should take classes just for the sake that they’re easy. So when March rolls around, and the stress of course selection hits me once again, you’ll find me on Q-guides, Sidechat, and crowd-sourcing from upperclassmen, as expected, but if there’s any mistake I won’t repeat from freshman fall, it’s taking a class only because it’s “gemmy.”
Tyler and Raina: The debate regarding gems arises not from their lack of difficulty but from the reputation they have earned for being a guaranteed A, like a participation medal. Students scour forums and QGuides for gems to achieve the easiest course load, not because they have an interest in the course or hope to gain a foundation in that subject. In this sense, gems are not utilized correctly. Taking a course simply because it is easy is just as bad as avoiding an interesting one because it is considered a joke.
Harvard is more than just education. There are too many opportunities on campus outside the classroom to justify spending all four years in the library. However, the many avenues of subjects that one can travel through should not be wasted. Gems should act as the bridge between these two extremes: offering a balanced course schedule to explore the many extracurricular offerings while still providing students with an opportunity to engage with topics that they otherwise would not explore.
Tyler Dang ’28 (tylerdang@college.harvard.edu) is a stat concentrator considering taking “Sleep” pass/fail. Raina Wang ’28 (rainawang@college.harvard.edu) was advised by a senior to take any class that Professor Phil Deloria teaches.