Rightly Popular, But Increase Transparency

CS50 has become the most popular course at Harvard, with 818 undergraduates enrolled this semester, and is taught in a style unlike that of any other class at Harvard. Each lecture is a performance, and students are treated to weekly lunches, special events, and a plethora of free items from various corporate sponsors. CS50 also holds a special place in the Administration’s rules: it is the only class that students are allowed to take at the same time as another class and watch the videotaped lectures instead of attending class.

Basic coding is a very important skill, and we support the CS50 staff’s efforts to appeal to a broad range of students and make them excited about computer science. In particular, Professor David J. Malan ’99 and his team do a remarkable job of ensuring that students who have no prior experience in computer science still feel comfortable registering for the class, despite its famed difficulty and requirement of long hours. The course’s popularity is very much deserved.

We do however feel that there should be more transparency regarding the course’s unique privileges. The administration should explain more clearly why it believes that CS50 is the online course for which videotaped lectures are an appropriate substitute for physically going to class. We especially believe that Harvard should address the issue of CS50 apparently having different rules about cheating than does any other class in the College. CS50’s policy of giving amnesty to students who admit to cheating within a short time period may have many merits, and it may be worthwhile to test that policy in one class, but consistency in academic integrity policies across the entire College should always be the goal. In order to maintain a standard set of regulations for each course the administration should delineate what exactly makes CS50 unique, and how other professors who want their classes to have this exception as well can structure their courses.

CS50 also should make public more information about its corporate funding. While we do not necessarily take issue with its seeking additional funding to create a more enjoyable experience for its students, we think that it should be clear to its students about the natures of the companies that are sponsoring events. We do not see corporate sponsorship dramatically altering the content of the course. However, CS50 is heavily based on problem sets—and problems may be seen as reflective of the nature of issues students might encounter on the job. It’s important that the teaching staff remember to give a wide variety of questions, and not simply structure them to appeal to their corporate sponsorship.

We are happy to see that CS50 has been successful in making a very important skill accessible to large numbers of students. So long as the course’s innovative methods are practiced with transparency, we laud their role in expanding students’ horizons.