Questions for Dean Kagan’s Grading System Town Hall?
As you all heard last week, HLS will be moving to some form of a pass/fail grading system beginning, at the latest, with the Class of 2012. Dean Kagan will be holding a Town Hall meeting this Thursday, 10/2 in Austin North from 2:30 – 3:30 to discuss how or if the new grading system will apply to any of the existing students – this means you!
The Student Government will be attending this meeting and we encourage you to do so as well. However, if you cannot, we hope you will share any thoughts or concerns you have with us. Our goal would be to solicit as much student input as possible so that we can consolidate and share your thoughts at the meeting. The Administration is honestly looking for your input about how this transition might be made. We hope you will share your thoughts directly with Dean Kagan on Thursday, or contact us so we can do it for you. This is your chance to be heard – speak up!
Ian
October 1, 2008 @ 8:12 am
I support the transition but think that it should apply to current students. I”m not sure what the reason for waiting would be. Most people I have spoken to feel the same way. One question i have is how the current system would map to the new one. For example, would an A & A- translate to honors? Would a C be a low pass? Also, will there be a curve with the new system? I think that current students will feel some resentment if they are not given the opportunity to participate.
Jeff Johnson
October 1, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Our decision to make fewer distinctions between students will not likely be met by employers with a decision on their part to use only the information that we provide them through the new, flatter grades. Instead, it seems likely they will look more heavily than they do now to other factors such as undergraduate institution and letters of recommendation to distinguish between candidates. While the current grading system is admittedly imperfect, it seems to me more meritocratic and egalitarian than the heavier use of these other factors. Insofar as meritocracy and egalitarianism are desired features of HLS’s mission, how will we mitigate the possible damage to these values stemming from the new system?
Taryn Williams
October 1, 2008 @ 8:48 am
I don’t think the H-P-LP-F grading system should apply to 2Ls and 3Ls who already have letter grades on their transcripts. I think it would be confusing to potential employers to see multiple grading systems on one transcript. Given the possible confusion, those potential employers may rely more heavily on early grades in the A-B-C format (i.e., from 1L year) thus disadvantaging those students whose grades improved throughout law school.
Dan Ray
October 1, 2008 @ 9:58 am
I’d like to second Jeff’s point; I’ve heard a lot of concern about the anti-meritocratic effect the change might have from other students as well. Like it or not, employers select students based on more than personality, and without grades, they’re going to fall back on (even) less reliable measures.
Just to show that the concern is real, apparently the effect at Yale is to deny summer firm jobs to the 1Ls who didn’t attend the most elite undergrad schools: http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_28-2008_10_04.shtml#1222706776
I’m also concerned about the transparency of the decision, especially when it might be applied retroactively. Scheduling a town hall meeting during prime OCI time (and on a day more than a few people have already rearranged their schedules to make room for Justice Scalia’s lecture!) doesn’t show a real concern for student input, especially when the change itself is already fait accompli. I know the administration doesn’t owe me anything like a Fifth Amendment duty, but if it’s going to radically reshape my transcript, I’d at least like some due process.
Ryan
October 1, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Does anyone know if success in law school translates to success in large law firms? Because I don’t. And not being on the hiring committee of a law firm means that I’m not the best judge of how law firms sift through candidates, but until we find out how the new system will map to the old one I’m not sure anyone can judge its effects.
However, it is disapointing that “meritocracy” might now be extended past law school grades to include the merits we’ve earned at institutions before law school and through extra-curricular activities. Assuming that good grades translate to success in a firm, then why should personality and creating a cohesive work environment play any factor in their decision? Interviews should be completely done away with if we are to keep HLS the “meritocracy” many of us were tricked into joining, and we should instead simply submit our numbers.
And is it set in stone that the grading system will change for current students? Even if we can’t attend the town hall meeting because of conflicts with personal events, I think we all have due process in the form of being able to transfer out anytime we want.
Dan Ray
October 1, 2008 @ 10:57 am
To Ryan: Clearly blog comments aren’t the place for detailed arguments, so I’ll limit my response to one point of fact: the grade change was on the afternoon of September 26. The OCI phase 3 drop deadline expired at 11:00pm September 25. Regardless of whether you consider my interviews on October 2 “personal events,” OCS considers them important commitments, and attending the townhall meeting “may result in the suspension of [my] interviewing privileges.” See https://internal.law.harvard.edu/ocs/jdstudents/Interviewing/OCI/Policies/Policies_Guidelines_for_Students_OCI.htm.
Neil
October 1, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Although I see the advantages of the new grading system, I wanted to write to express my strong opposition to applying it to current 3Ls. All of us have made choices about how to spend our time in law school, and we have done so taking into account the effect of grades. Altering the system now would retroactively alter this calculus by de-emphasizing grades. Relatedly, it would seem necessarily to put an end to graduation honors.
This change would produce winners and losers in both the 2009 class and the classes that come after. The difference is that students who are close to graduation have little or no opportunity to compensate for the loss. They cannot, for example, join the law review or the legal aid bureau, or put themselves on course to have strong relationships with several notable professors. If they distinguished themselves on the basis of their grades, they become less distinguished. Period.
Although there will always be a significant element of haphazardness in relative law school achievement, the administration should help to mitigate it, not add to it.
DJ
October 1, 2008 @ 11:22 am
I support the new policy, but as a 3L, I don’t think it should be applied to us. Changing things so late in the game to a policy we don’t understand is just not fair. But the other classes I think should decide separately.
FW
October 1, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Doubt that HLS would decide to have “mixed” transcripts, i.e., with both ABC and P/F grades on the same transcript, for anyone. More likely, the administration will either keep ABC for class of 2010 & 2011 or apply P/F to class of 2011 and convert the grades for the class of 2010 to P/F retroactively (which is what Stanford did).
The latter option, going with P/F for everyone except the class of 2009, makes the most sense because of the curriculum change that started with the class of 2010. Because of this change, i.e., taking 4 courses each semester instead of only 3, the ABC grades from the 1L year from the class of 2010 are not readily comparable to the 1L ABC grades from all previous graduates of HLS. Employers/judges/anyone else outside of HLS are not likely to take this curriculum change into account. Thus, it makes the most sense for the change in grading system to start with the same class that had the change in curriculum.
My vote: Class of 2009 keeps ABC grades; class of 2010 has their 1L grades converted to P/F and gets P/F from now on; class of 2011 gets P/F grades.
Kevin Hurley
October 1, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
I have a background in statistics, esp. in regards to measurement of psychological data. With such an unusually restricted range as we find here at Harvard Law School (that is, most of the students are in the top 3 percentiles of IQ), the standard error of the estimate for further discriminating between this kind of subpopulation becomes much greater–almost to the point that it retrieves no statistically significant data. I support a move to the proposed change in grading policy because it offers fewer error-prone discriminations in the data. Further, this change should apply to current 1L’s because there would be a significant drop in morale if it were not.
Ms. G.
October 1, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Three comments:
(1) I actually do not think that employers will weigh a Harvard Law student’s undergraduate school any more heavily after we switch over to the new grading system.
(2) Even if employers were to begin weighing the applicant’s undergraduate school more heavily, I actually feel that the effect of this could go either way. For example, this could have a positive effect on students who attended less prestigious undergraduate institutions, as it is more difficult to gain admittance to HLS coming from such an institution.
(3) Embrace change.
Pete
October 1, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
I propose giving each current student the option of a letter graded transcript or a pass/fail transcript. The student can choose which one he or she wants. Give honors to members of the class of 2009/2010 that are in the top 10%/40% by either criteria. Grades would convert depending on the curve set for the H/P/LP courses.
C/O 2010.
October 3, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
Pete,
I strongly second your proposal. Also think the arguments about the retroactive conversions or the mixed transcripts being “confusing” to employers aren’t too persuasive (at the risk of sounding like a law student by saying that). Employers are intelligent; if we understand what it signifies, they should too once we explain it.
Being a lawyer is about more than just how you answer a complex question in three hours. It is about how you relate to people. It is about the life experiences that you’ve had. Those factors should count for something if you want them to, and if it so happens that reducing the emphasis on distinguishing between students based on grade classifications does that, then great; a person who benefits from that reduction should have the option to present himself in the best light possible.
E.
October 4, 2008 @ 11:36 am
“I’m also concerned about the transparency of the decision, especially when it might be applied retroactively.”
I agree with Dan that this is a real issue, and something I raised in an e-mail to student government: “. . . I am disappointed by the absence of visible process prior to the announcement of the new system.”
For current 2Ls, I feel the most significant problems are these (in no particular order):
– the risk of losing out on Latin honors
– the lack of a clear criterion for determining whether the new system will apply to our class
Of course, the haphazard way in which the new system has been revealed makes it difficult to say anything with certainty. I wonder about the actual effect of our comments, and of the e-mail “votes” solicited by student government. As I wrote with my “no” vote, the adoption of a H/P/LP scale seems a poor choice for majority determination by a constituency with a year’s worth of grades in place. Predictably, something like half of students could prefer the new system. It’s not at all clear that they should have the power to determine the grading system for the rest of the class, or whether Latin honors still exist when we graduate.
Finally, to restate the concern about retroactive application mentioned above, every current 2L enrolled with awareness of HLS’ letter grades and Latin honors. It is only fair that this system continue until our graduation. After all, other significant developments enacted after we enrolled (e.g., the third-year tuition break for PI-committed students) have not applied fully to our class. Perhaps some complained in those instances, but the same considerations of fairness stand.
The administration should leave well enough alone. If most current 1Ls support the new system (though I’m not sure why – if they were better informed, they would likely be skeptical of the purported benefits, and justifiably worried about the increased significance of elite undergrad institutions), give them what they claim to want. There is no reason, though, why their choice should be thrown on our shoulders. No upper-year students asked for the new system, and whether or not some want it now, we should be allowed to graduate without being subjected to the (possibly poorly informed) judgment of 1Ls.
1L
October 6, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
I’m a 1L who doesn’t want the new grading system, but I might be subjected to it as well. Everyone currently here enrolled with the knowledge of Harvard’s current grading system, and we should all be graded by that. I wouldn’t have chose to come here if I knew they were going to do this.