On the Grade Reform Debate

-- By AaronShepard? - 04 Mar 2009

Would changing the grade curve reduce stress, and increase communal willingness to work together? Would students become more adventurous in their class selection? To both questions the answer is yes. But our administration seems to think that ridding the school of a grading system would lead to students working “less hard” and difficulty for employers to determine which students meet a “certain threshold.” A change in grading system will not be as drastic as the administration presumes. Students will still work hard and employers will still be able to differentiate students. The only change will be that students will feel less anxious and become more adventurous in their class selection. A modified pass/fail system will achieve these goals.

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 among students. Employers, according to Dean Schizer, have strongly supported the current system. 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.

But what exactly do grades demonstrate? Clearly they have an Arnold-esque aspect of controlling and sorting our organization, but do they reflect anything of substance? Our current grading system simply illustrates how “student A” performed amongst students in “group X” and where “student A” lies amongst those students. However, it is almost certain that “student A” is likely to end up with different standing when compared against students in “group Y” or even when graded by a different professor. So are grades really a reliable indicator of success? How much do arbitrary letters on a sheet of paper really tell you about the ability of a person to perform a specific job function? To me it would seem that several facets of an individual student would be more correlated to success than merely his or her ability to successfully receive a high mark.

Obviously, at some level the academic successes of a student may be an accurate indication of their ability to perform a job function. At the same time, in the legal field it is often admitted that you learn what you need to know on the job. So how relevant are grades in property and torts to one’s ability to close a corporate deal? It seems that experience related to research, writing and analysis would be more pertinent to success in the legal field. Perhaps everyone would be better off by focusing more attention on those experiences, rather than purely on grades.

Student Effort

The preference for a grading system that differentiates students is premised on the theory that students will work less hard if not threatened by bad grades. This could be true in a pure pass/fail system, especially if the system remains vague. 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 the one proposed here in response to the systems instituted at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale? At Yale for instance, the system is honors, pass, low pass, and fail. In a system such as the one used at Yale, students will still be motivated to work hard in order to 1) ensure they pass the class and 2) distinguish themselves from their peers.

In addition, virtually all of us are in law school because we have some interest in learning the legal system. Unlike the required courses that many of us were forced to take in undergrad, here we are learning things that we find interesting and will prove helpful to our chosen professional career. So it seems unlikely that students will not work as hard. The only real difference will likely be a decrease in anxiety level.

Incentives

During the town hall meeting, a professor mentioned 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. Professors can encourage participation of course, but for the many reasons we discussed in this class, students are frequently loath to do so.

Hence, it does not seem that a change in grading system would do much to alter the dynamic of classroom discussion. Instead a modified pass/fail system would at least differentiate us on less arbitrary lines, provide us with substantive feedback on our progress, and give us guidance on how to best learn the information that will prove helpful to our careers.

Conclusion

In the end, Columbia is still a professional school and must respond to what best prepares students for the professional world. So some differentiation is still needed. However the traditional grading system is not the only means by which differentiation can be achieved. For the reasons stated above, the differentiation that some professors and employers say is needed can be achieved through a modified pass/fail system. And with this approach we can be assured that a decrease in anxiety levels and increased sharing of information will follow.

A Suggestion for Regrading our Grades

--By AaronShepard - 17 Apr 2009

One of the major points of discussion in this course, both in class and on the wiki, has been about how CLS should grade its students. Despite a vigorous discourse, there has been relatively little disclosure by the administration. For the most part, the only information students have received has been via the town hall meeting earlier this year, where the main point could be summed up as ‘employers like our current system, so we’re keeping it.’ I found this unsatisfactory, especially since this dramatically oversimplifies the issue. Without any other information from the school, I will advocate in this paper for a middle of the road approach, similar to the ones recently adopted by the law schools at Harvard and Stanford. I believe that this approach would provide significant pedagogical and overall professional benefits, while simultaneously meeting the needs of employers.

Grades with meaning

Furthermore, student effort would likely be affected by such a system. If everyone passes, there is little incentive to work harder, or participate in class. This is not to say that effort would completely vanish; a few students would likely work hard because it is in their nature, while others would likely focus similarly on those classes in which they had a strong interest. Still, overall effort would almost certainly decline. This was an observation put forth by several faculty members at the town hall, when discussing the ability for students to take individual classes pass/fail.

Different differentiations

Unfortunately, the ‘meat grinder’ mentality of employers, specifically law firms, must be taken into account by the Dean. The bottom line is that big law firms are the initial employer of a significant number of CLS grads, and as the head of a professional school, it is part of the Dean’s job to maximize students’ professional prospects. Alternatively, one could argue that in the long run, students would be better off if such a hiring system were not used; hence, switching to a different grading methodology could be more beneficial if it eventually influenced the overall system.

Conclusion

This type of scale would also fix a byproduct of the grading system, which is that professors must allocate specific grades to students in a course largely based on exam results which are, for the most part, incredibly similar. This leads to artificial mechanisms for evaluating students, which places significant emphasis on merely meeting a rubric that the professor must create. Furthermore, because of the curve, such minor differentiations can lead to dramatically different results for students whose exams are fairly similar. Ideally, grading would be more individualized, and hence able to fit within the current scheme. However, because most classes are based on an anonymous exam, it seems unfair to force such a practice to lead to such a specific result. This is not to damn differentiation; the system I propose would give similar results as to what we currently get. However, I believe it would functionally make student life better, while simultaneously forcing employers who want to superficially evaluate students to dig a little deeper. If the administration truly has confidence in our students, then they should welcome a holistic evaluation of CLS graduates. A moderated system wouldn’t go as far as some may like, but it would balance out competing interests, while establishing some progress away from the mechanical evaluations that are currently the norm. Eventually, a complete reformation of student evaluations is desirable; given the current state of the legal world, this might be imminent. The pragmatist in me though says that the time for this is not yet here.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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?

• This is not a good beginning to an essay, because it's sterile. You want to begin with a proposition that engages the reader's attention. Talking about why you like hearing the sound of your own voice on the current subject is anything but.

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.

• That would be "among students." And why do you need the pompous but unhelpful "in the latter schema" at all? It adds nothing but weight.

Employers have been extremely pro-maintaining the current system,

• Why do you need a horrendous construction like that? How about "Employers strongly support the current system, according to the dean."? That says everything in fewer words that don't break rules against mistreatment of the reader's grammar.

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.

• Bullshit. The fewer the lawyers you need and the more you know about why you need them the less purpose is served by "differentiation" on the transcript. I hire lawyers every season, and I am almost entirely unconcerned with their grades. I know what skills I need them to have, and I can winnow the CVs for myself on that basis, then test on those skills directly through the interviewing process. It's when you're hiring a commodity in bulk that you need bulk rating attributes. But it is not in the student's interest to be hired as bulk labor, so whether that type of employer prefers commodity standards (like "Prime" and "Choice") when buying its meat is of no concern to you.

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?

• Now you are asking whether exams are a good form of evaluation, not whether grades are a good way of reporting the results of evaluation. The confusion should be cleared up, because no reader will miss it, and you discredit what you have to say by apparently thinking in a muddled manner.

My thoughts in response to this issue are that grades are but a limited tool to evaluate a student.

• Then your thoughts are a resounding truism. Nothing less jejune to offer at this point is a sign of real trouble.

Certainly, there will be a correlation between the relative abilities of students and their grades';

• Being gender-neutral is a good goal. But nothing requires you to destroy English grammar in order to achieve it. Don't EVER make an agreement mistake, which looks illiterate, in order to achieve a general social purpose.

however, I suspect that that correlation isn’t all that strong.

• You want us to accept your suspicion as some form of evidence in support of an argument?

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.

• Your suspicion here is even more ludicrous than your suspicion above. I can tell you what skills and qualities I want in each individual lawyer I hire, as well as the general intellectual and social requirements for successful incorporation in our existing team. Once again, you are confusing the question of how to select a lawyer with the problem of how to hire commodity laborers in a sweatshop.

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.

• This again confuses the issue of how to evaluate with how to report the results of evaluation. You can't succeed in your analysis if these are constantly conflated.

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.).

• So this "overall summation of [your] thoughts on this issue" is again the pompous presentation of a truism.

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.

• But this confuses how hiring staff in law firms should work with how teachers should report the evaluation of their students. Unless we have somehow resolved the intermediate question in favor of the conclusion that education is primarily carried on for the benefit of purchasers of canned skilled meat. You didn't show how you reached that intermediate conclusion, probably because you didn't really think about it.

Student Effort

A related aspect to differentiation is the result the lack of it would have on student effort.

• This should have been written in English rather than Bureaucrat. How about "It is often suggested that students will work less hard if not threatened by bad grades."?

This would be clearly apparent in a pure pass/fail system, especially if the fail option maintained its somewhat mythical status.

• It wouldn't be apparent unless one accepted the premises, in which case I suppose it would be apparent elsewhere too.

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?

• Huh?

I tend to think not.

• "Tend to think" is like "suspect." You cannot persuade us on the basis of your thinking's tendency.

Virtually all of us at are law school because we want to be,

• What does "virtually" mean? Usually it means "not really."

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’.

• What is the argument of the previous graf? And did you mean "defeasible fees" rather than "defeasible torts"?

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.

• Confusion on confusion. If work were unevaluated, would people have reduced incentives to perform it? Perhaps. But whether to evaluate is a different question than whether to report the results of evaluation through letter grades.

Conclusion

In general, there are other aspects to consider here.

• That's a CONCLUSION?

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.

• No conclusion at all. And a last sentence that throws some Arnold back in, for no reason other than to vindicate the first paragraph's claim that all of this was supposed to hook up to the reading through your imaginative reapplication of Arnold and Holmes. But you did no such thing, and probably shouldn't have been trying. It would have been enough to write a clear and well-focused argument about grades. That you can achieve in a second draft, which will be quite different from this one, I suspect.