On the grade reform debate

-- By AaronShepard - 04 Mar 2009

Throughout this class, one of the things I have enjoyed the most is conceptualizing how the various authors we have read would react to some present situations. I am writing this paper based on my related thoughts on the grade debate. How do you frame this issue in an overall context? Does it invoke the Holmesian ‘bad man’, where rationalization subverts the ineffective language of morality? Would Arnold merely say that grades are there to help us consciously maintain control of something that would otherwise get out of hand? How do the various options and rationalizations reflect societal values?

Differentiation

The most cited reason for maintaining the current system in favor of one more geared towards a pass/fail regime is that there would be a lack of differentiation between students in the latter schema. Employers have been extremely pro-maintaining the current system, according to Dean Schizer at a recent town hall debate. Having grades allows them to sort through applicants, and discard those who fail to meet a certain threshold. While employers might end up getting rid of terrific applicants who, for whatever reason, don’t have terrific grades, this is potentially necessary when rifling through numerous applicants for (rapidly decreasing) job slots.

What exactly do grades demonstrate though? Clearly they have an Arnold-esque aspect of controlling and sorting our organization, but do they reflect anything of substance? One of the typical responses to those who seek to keep the current system is that nowhere in the real world is one required to write about never-before-seen questions in a 3 hour time slot, without access to the gentle embrace of Westlaw or LexisNexis? Furthermore, what if one were having a bad day, or simply doesn’t perform well in an exam format? Does that mean anything?

My thoughts in response to this issue are that grades are but a limited tool to evaluate a student. Certainly, there will be a correlation between the relative abilities of a student and their grades; however, I suspect that that correlation isn’t all that strong. Furthermore, how do you define the necessary abilities when it comes to a specific job? I would additionally suspect that a very high percentage of Columbia Law School grads have the intellectual ability to succeed at job X, especially if that job is at a typical firm. When it comes to who would be the most successful at that position though, I would think that several facets of the individual student would be more correlated to success than merely his ability to successful complete a three hour exam. An anti-social, intellectually circumscribed student might be excellent at regurgitating information for three hours, but one could guess that he would be less successful working in a populated office.

The overall summation of my thoughts on this issue are that grades play too large of a role, and that while employers may like the increased differentiation, everyone (including them) would be better off by focusing on the intangibles of an applicant (such as the interview, relevant experience, etc.). Obviously at some level employers do this, and the academic successes of a student are more important in some professional fields than in others. But in most, it would seem that there are many more important and applicable standards by which to judge, and perhaps everyone would be better off by focusing more attention on those, rather than purely on grades.

Student Effort

A related aspect to differentiation is the result the lack of it would have on student effort. This would be clearly apparent in a pure pass/fail system, especially if the fail option maintained its somewhat mythical status. If everyone passes, the theory goes, no one works hard. However, while this may be true in a system on the extreme end of the spectrum, would it still be true in a modified pass/fail system, such as one that was purportedly proposed here in response to the ones instituted at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale?

I tend to think not. Virtually all of us at are law school because we want to be, and because we have at least some interest in learning about the legal system. Unlike my required Biology 101 class in undergrad, the things that I am learning here I not only find interesting, but also know that they will be helpful professionally. Understandably, I think most students would prefer to not have to work so hard; I don’t know many people who read 50 pages of property law concerning defeasible torts with vigor (although I actually very much like my current property class). Still, this is a far cry from saying that if the grading system were reformed, people would ‘go into the tank’.

Incentives

A professor brought up in the town hall meeting that if classes were made pass/fail, students would have little incentive to come to class and participate. However, even now, classes aren’t exactly a bastion of free expression and participation. I’m fairly certain I can predict with reasonable accuracy before any given class just who will speak, for how long, and whether they will actually ask a question or merely express their elongated opinion. Professors can encourage participation of course, but for the many reasons we discussed in this class earlier, students are frequently loath to do it. Hence, it does not seem to me that changing the grading system would shift opportunity cost all that much.

Conclusion

In general, there are other aspects to consider here. Would changing the grade curve reduce stress, and increase communal willingness to work together? Would students become more adventurous in their class selection? I tend to think that both of those questions should be answered in the affirmative. Still, as a professional school, Columbia has to respond to what would be best in preparing students for the professional world. In this sense, some differentiation is still required, to perhaps at least meet the managing aspects that Arnold discusses.

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AaronShepard