While some students shop for classes and comb the course catalogs the first week of each semester to design the perfect schedule, others look to a different authority to pick their classes: emailed lists of “gems.”

The lists—which circulate over email listservs of student organizations, athletic teams, and social clubs—cull together Q Guide data, student opinion, and faculty reputations to provide undergraduates with a comprehensive set of “easy classes,” colloquially referred to as the gems of the Harvard course catalog.

But “gem” can be a misnomer, and the concept can lead to academic distress for those who enroll in courses based on the opinions of peers rather than personal academic interest.

In the wake of the cheating scandal in Government 1310: “Introduction to Congress,” a course that had a reputation as an easy course, Harvard’s academic culture has come under fire. Among the issues at hand is the shirking of scholastic rigor, a practice that many argue is nothing new at Harvard.

SETTING PRIORITIES

One email list of easy courses compiled early this semester was forwarded to at least seven athletic teams and social organizations in less than two weeks. Classes were annotated with comments such as “infamous” and “retarded easy.”

Still, students interviewed by The Crimson said that seeking out easy courses is about figuring out how to create a manageable schedule rather than laziness.

For players in season, practice and matches can restrict the time they can dedicate to classes and may prompt student-athletes to look for a lighter workload. To get around this limitation, Jack J. Holuba ’13, an offensive lineman on the football team, took a summer school class so that he could take just three courses during the fall.

This desire for a balanced schedule is shared by athletes and non-athletes alike.

Students said they are especially drawn to gems when trying to meet Gen Ed requirements, which are often outside their preferred disciplines.

Abby L. Noyes ’16, a prospective history of literature concentrator, said that she chose Science of Living Systems 19: “Nutrition and Global Health,” which has had a Q Guide workload rating lower than 1.6 out of 5 for the last three years, over Science of Living Systems 20: “Psychological Science” because of perceived difficulty level.

“I was originally looking between the two, but SLS 19 had less requirements,” Noyes said. “I didn’t want to spend hours and hours doing something for stuff that I am not remotely interested in.”

A prospective government concentrator, who asked to remain anonymous because she did not want her personal academic practices known, added that although SLS 19 was not as easy as anticipated, those of her classmates who expected a “gem” neglected to give the class their full attention.

“Lecture was sparsely attended,” the student said. “I didn’t do any of the readings for the class, and I was actually fine.”

FROM GUTS TO GEMS