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

Gems are not a new concept. In fact, they were called “guts” when Dean of Freshmen Thomas A. Dingman ’67 was an undergraduate at the College.

“There were courses that were notoriously forgiving,” recalled Dingman. “There were names for them: ‘Rocks for Jocks’ was a natural science course in the Gen Ed curriculum and Fine Arts 13, an introductory art course, was referred to affectionately as ‘Darkness at Noon,’” he said, adding that it was nicknamed for all of the students who fell asleep during its lunchtime lecture.

Dean of Undergraduate Education Jay M. Harris wrote in an email that he was “intrigued,” but not surprised that students seek out less difficult academic opportunities.

“I realize that every generation of college students thinks history begins with them, but, really, classes students identify as easy have been around a long time, at Harvard and everywhere else,” Harris wrote. “There have always been and will always be students who seek out courses they think are easier—not always correctly, I might add.”

Dingman agreed that judging a class by its perceived academic rigor is not the best way to pick classes.

“If they are assembling these lists, the effort is misguided,” he said. “It doesn’t take into account what a student is interested in.”

PANNING FOR GOLD

Nevertheless, new technologies and increased virtual communication between students has in many ways made it easier to mine for gems.

According to an athlete with a close connection to a list of “gems” circulated early this term, it was put together “strictly by looking at the Q Guide.”

“I don’t think people use [the Q Guide] as much as they should,” he said. He noted that the difficulty of a course should be evaluated within the broader context of a student’s full schedule—an easy class can be an important complement to an otherwise difficult course load.

In addition to taking account of emailed course lists that are forwarded from one student group to another, many undergraduates use the Q Guide to tailor their shopping lists and final schedule. Although students cannot filter the official Q Guide by difficulty level, resources like “Harvard Courses,” a CS50 course selection tool, can sort classes by any of the Q Guide parameters, including difficulty.

Dingman cautioned against an overreliance on past Q Guide data.

“I’ve been aware of faculty changing what they are requiring as a result [of Q Guide feedback],” Dingman said.

While many professors are aware of their course’s reputation, they do not always agree with student assessment of rigor.

Anthropology 1190: “Encountering the Conquistadors” was last taught in the spring of 2009 but ended up on a recent list of easy classes when the course was offered again this term—a point of confusion for its instructor, Matthew J. Liebmann. Liebmann, an associate professor in anthropology, said that an easy class would allow a student to produce little work and still earn a good grade, a pattern he said is inconsistent with Anthropology 1190’s grading policies.

Indeed, the course may not have been as simple as some had expected. Several students confirmed that classmates left the exam room during the midterm in March to look for answers to identification questions on their cell phones.

Liebmann declined to comment on the affair, but Holuba, who took the course, said that the final examination incorporated changes to avoid further cheating. Students could not receive the essay portion of the test until they had turned in the identification section, he said, nor could they bring cell phones to the restroom.

“I think that students’ concern about their transcript has increased over time,” said Dingman, citing economic uncertainty and pressures coming into college as potential causes for the shift. “I go back to my own experience—people were less concerned with what they would do at the end of it.”

The student with knowledge of the list of easy classes said he thinks a “minority” of students create an entire schedule based on Q scores and difficulty rating. But he acknowledged that there is a tendency to prioritize the final grade over the learning experience.

“I think the culture is that kids would rather get an A and not do a whole lot than actually challenge themselves,” he said. “The pressure gets to you.”

—Staff writer David P. Freed can be reached at davidfreed@college.harvard.edu. Follow him on Twitter @CrimsonDPFreed.

—Staff writer Steven R. Watros can be reached at watros@college.harvard.edu. Follow him on Twitter @SteveWatros.