Dean Jackson’s Grade Memo – UPDATE
UPDATE – I know many of you have expressed concern about this memo, about either what the curve looks like or what the results will be of explicitly releasing the information. A few of you have also asked about what the Student Government can, should, or is going to to do about it. I wanted to let you know that I am meeting with Dean Jackson this week to share this feedback with him, and to discuss potential ways to address or alleviate the concerns that have been expressed.
It is worth noting, however, that whether it seems like it or not, it took the Administration years of debate, study, and discussion to make this grade change happen, and they are not likely to make vast changes to it without at least taking a few years to really assess its effect on the students. Still, we will share this feedback, and what we can definitely hope for is to work with the Administration to either share some extra information or make some small changes that might help to address the concerns that have been expressed here and via your emails.
We’ll keep you updated.
Brian
—————–
Today (4/16), Dean Jackson released a preliminary memo on the HLS grading system and determination of latin honors. What do you think? Let us know!
David
anon
April 17, 2009 @ 12:55 am
This seems equivalent to the current grading system, with A+ replaced by Dean’s scholar, A and A- replaced by HP, B and B+ replaced by P, etc. The fact that latin honors have been retained also perpetuates the very things that a pass/fail system is supposed to curtail. The change seems to put form over substance.
Jeff
April 17, 2009 @ 1:03 am
So we went from basically receiving six different grades (B- through A+) to receiving four different grades (LP through Dean’s Scholar). It doesn’t seem like this is that big a change.
I’m graduating so this does not effect me. I’m just curious why we wasted all this time and effort to not really change much. If the goal was to make things less stressful on students, I’m not really sure you did that.
Justin
April 17, 2009 @ 1:14 am
I really appreciate that the grade breakdowns were given and the whole process was made more transparent, regardless of the changes. I generally prefer more information to less.
Michael
April 17, 2009 @ 1:26 am
8% LP seems like a lot. LP sounds worse than C, yet I never had the impression a whole 8% were getting Cs.
HA
April 17, 2009 @ 1:35 am
Making HLS more about the learning community and less about the competitiveness that surrounds grades is often cited as the major impetus behind the overhaul of the “old grading system.” Assuming that changing the grading system is the best way to do this, I think everyone agreed that HLS could not just opt for a Pass/Fail system. The law school had to tread the fine line between decreasing grade neurosis and promoting mediocrity among its student body and between increasing student satisfaction–and with it, possibly, “true” learning–and giving its many talented graduates the chance to distinguish themselves for highly selective clerkships and positions. Harvard’s class size makes this more problematic, or this problem more acute, than say Yale or Stanford. So far I think I have just stated the obvious. But we have to remind ourselves of the obvious in order to weigh the compromise: the “new grading system.” What does it change? Very little, and at significant cost for the school and the student body.
The proposal in the Dean’s email is not a Pass/Fail system, not even an Honors/Pass/Fail system. From functionally six grade categories (A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-), what HLS has done is to switch to four (Dean’s Scholar, H, P, LP). How does slashing two grade categories promote learning at HLS, I do not know. Not only that, but to retain Latin Honors perpetuates the same competitiveness and ranking dynamics, which the new system was meant to fight. The new system is the old system but with much less clarity for students, professors, and employers. I do not think that the cost of overhauling the (grading) status quo with all the effort that will entail and the confusion that will sow is justifiable if all what HLS is going to end up with is four grades instead of six and hundreds of indecipherable transcripts.
a 1L
April 17, 2009 @ 2:07 am
by publishing this, who does this benefit? no one. honors students lose out by evidence that tons of people get honors. pass students lose out by evidence that everyone gets honors. bad choice HLS. thanks for throwing your students under the bus once again.
Al
April 17, 2009 @ 2:32 am
This memo went to a fundamental question that I felt was never adequately addressed when we we discussing the change: How specifically does the pass/fail system translate to the curve? It’s flat out ridiculous that a noticeable percentage of each class is going to be given a low pass (which looks at least as bad as the C grade that apparently no one receives at HLS). If the administration is committed to keeping a clear hierarchy of grades, they should have left the system as it was. Instead we get the worst of both worlds.
Chris
April 17, 2009 @ 4:01 am
I don’t understand why they won’t release the “weighted formula” for the class of 2010. Dean Jackson has apparently decided there isn’t any reason to explain to us how our grades will be weighted for the purposes of calculating honors, which I don’t understand.
Student government should spend some time pressing the Dean for an explanation. With something people care about like Latin Honors, we should at least know how eligibility is calculated!
What’s better, 3 A’s and a B, or 3 HP’s and a P? Or are they the same? What about 3 A’s and a B+? How will they “weigh” the converted grades? I don’t understand how Dean Jackson can claim there is no benefit, the difference between magna and cum could very well turn on these small distinctions.
PK
April 17, 2009 @ 5:23 am
so…. what IS the “simple weighting formula” for determining third year gpa for the class of 210?
anon
April 17, 2009 @ 6:59 am
I would have liked to know the distribution of number of Honors earned by each student, and not just the distribution of Honors grades. So like, what percentage of students got 4 H’s, 3 H’s etc. I think that information might be useful to employers, especially if H’s were concentrated in a small group of students.
Roy
April 17, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Although a small point, the system for awarding latin honors to students who matriculated before 2008 and who will be graduating after 2010 (i.e. joint-degree students) is not clear at all. The memo basically says it will be “based on a simple weighting formula”.
Unclear whether this hasn’t been thought through enough or is being written in a deliberately opaque way so as to conceal how the administration thinks about “H”vs. “A”.
Phil
April 17, 2009 @ 8:11 am
I applaud the decision to release the curve and am unconvinced that the administration has thrown us under the bus in doing so. Folks who review our transcripts will learn soon enough what the curve is and obfuscating it did not serve any purpose that I fully understand.
That said, the retention of two superior grades to pass and the required use of low passes vitiates the entire point of a pass/fail scheme as several others have already pointed out. The fact that 37% get honors is hardly enough to motivate students to relax about grades and focus upon the other facets of the education that will lead us to personally excel. Less grades may be slightly better, but as a reform package, this was a pretty muddled idea.
TC
April 17, 2009 @ 8:27 am
I think it’s low-class that Dean Kagan said there will be no more Latin Honors at the town hall last fall. It turns out that was a false statement.
Also, this system is not superior to grades for the reasons stated above. Moreover, it places a huge amount of pressure on students to try and get Hs instead of Ps. Particularly knowing that 37% of students get Hs; that line becomes extremely important.
Finally, I think it’s crummy to designate 8% of the students to get LPs. Either save that distinction for students who failed to put forth even a minimal effort, or give LPs to a larger % of students. Why would a grading system choose to single out the 8% at the bottom but refrain from singling out the 8% at the top? That seems almost mean-hearted.
Mike
April 17, 2009 @ 8:47 am
One glaring problem with this new system is the calculation for summa cum laude. In the past, this truly remarkable distinction was achieved only every few years. Now, by making it the top 1% of the class, 5 or 6 students will get it every year. This cheapens the value of the summa cum laude distinction. It would seem to be a better system to require a certain number of High Pass credits (almost all) and a healthy amount of Dean’s Scholar distinctions (say 4 or 5). This way, the system would go on as before with some years not have anyone achieve summa cum laude.
But I do applaud the transparency of the new system, even if it seems flawed.
anon
April 17, 2009 @ 9:08 am
The administration should change the grading scheme for classes that were previously just “Pass/Fail” under the old system, to “Honors/Pass/Low Pass/Fail” under the new system (e.g. Independent Clinicals). A “Pass” in these classes will look really bad in the new system and will be confusing to weigh against other grades. Student shouldn’t be penalized for having the initiative to pursue specific subjects they are very interested in via independent study.
Tim
April 17, 2009 @ 9:11 am
With 37% of students getting Hs, the line is placed just perfectly to give everyone anxiety over their grades: the essential message to employers (and students themselves) is that a P is the bottom of the class and that anyone worth their salt is getting Hs.
Had the line for an H been higher, say 15% or 20%, then it would genuinely be an “Honors” grade. Had it been any lower, it would have been meaningless. As it is, it’s placed perfectly in reach–or so it would seem–of any student and implies that anyone with a P is an underachiever. I think the result will be tremendous student anxiety as each tries to get on the right side of the dividing line, lest they be viewed as a goat instead of a sheep.
Anon
April 17, 2009 @ 9:13 am
This is ridiculous. If we don’t know the “simple weighting formula” how do we know if they’ll legitimately determine latin honors? I mean, it could be based on alphabetical order for all we know and no one would know or be able to hold the administration to account! And we’re put at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the information the class of 2009 had. Its almost tyrannical. The 2Ls are by in large not stupid people. They shouldn’t be treating us this way.
And if I’ve learned anything at this school it’s that stupid little things like latin honors DO matter INCREDIBLY. It’s very disingenuous for them to hide behind some sort of commitment to illusory educational objectives when they must know how much jobs etc. often rely on these distinctions.
There is absolutely no rational reason why the Administration should be acting like this. These are supposed to be some of the smartest people in the world, and yet they continue to screw this transition up. The only thing that I can imagine is that they’re drunk on their own power. They should be ashamed.
Mike
April 17, 2009 @ 9:18 am
The most glaring problem with this system is the watering down of the summa cuma laude distinction. Before, the GPA standard was so high that only one student every few years was able to attain this distinction. Now, by awarding summa cum laude every year to the top 1% of the class, HLS will be giving out 5 or 6 of these distinctions every year.
It would be better to have a hard standard similar to the GPA standard currently employed under our grading system. For example, you could require that 90% of the student’s credits be obtained with an HP, and that he or she obtain 4 or 5 Dean’s Scholar distinctions. This way, perhaps only every couple of years we would see a student achieve this distinction.
bryan
April 17, 2009 @ 9:34 am
I think we should all mentally delete the notion that Dean’s Scholars is an entirely separate category of grades. Such a notion will bring us nothing but heartache.
DS is discretionary. I’m sure a transcript full of H’s with no DS will not raise any eyebrows (“hey, where’s this dude’s SuperMegaGoldStar?”). A DS is just a little bit of grace sprinkled with professorial whimsy.
I don’t really think this system throws us under the bus. That is far too gentle a metaphor. I think this system unleashes a pack of bloodthirsty wolves, who will tear us limb from limb as we beg for mercy from an unflinching, sadistic God. I think this system ejects us into the cold vacuum of space and then strips us our astronaut gear, whereupon we will swell horribly like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Total Recall before bursting and expelling our vaporized fluids to the distant reaches of the universe. Even these descriptions fail to convey to dark and nameless horror that has descended upon us all.
B
April 17, 2009 @ 9:53 am
The announcement of specifics helps no one and likely harms everyone.
Students know roughly what the curve is, but employers and others who evaluate us will assume a more strict curve from mere observation (“honors” evokes certain preconceptions that help students). Letting the cat out of the bag doesn’t really tell us more than we already know from word of mouth, but removes any obfuscation and mystery that made “honors” seem elite.
anon
April 17, 2009 @ 10:04 am
I agree that it doesn’t change much, but I think it’s a more transparent system now that the curve has been released. 8% LP is really low! I mean, come on, stop whining.
A 2L
April 17, 2009 @ 10:14 am
I appreciate the transparency, but I’m incredibly disappointed that 37% of students will received Hs! I thought the whole point of the H/P/LP system was to eliminate a lot of the distinctions between students, all of whom are incredibly talented, and put the focus on learning rather than grades. My understanding was that very few students, more like 10%, would get Hs. Knowing that so many students get Hs only puts tremendous pressure on everyone to get an H! Furthermore, the high percentage of Hs means that HLS students transcripts will still be highly distinguishable, and a transcript with all Ps will not be desirable to an employer.
What Was The Point?
April 17, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Now that the distribution has been released and we see that all we have done is gone from a system with 6 grades (A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-) to a system with 4 grades (DS, HP, P, LP). But if the school’s goal is to make life better for the students, I no longer see how this will help us. If the school really likes this distribution (I was under the impression that a pass / fail system would obviate the need for a set distribution) then they should use it with the normal grade names. If we had the same distribution, but instead of DS, HP, P, LP, we called them A+, A, A- or B+, B, it seems to me that virtually every student would be benefitted. I could be completely wrong about what other students would want, but I would much rather have a B than a LP on my transcript, I would rather have a A- or B+ than a P, I would rather have an A than an HP, so on… Am I alone on this?
Question
April 17, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
What do people think will be the cutoffs for the 2011 class for latin honors? How many classes can one afford not to get an H in if s/he hopes to get summa, magna, cum?
Incentives
April 17, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
I think that this new (and, in my opinion, ridiculous) method of calculating latin honors changes students’ incentives in a number of ways. The ones that occur to me immediately are:
1. In one sense, this discourages cross-registration for part of the student population. For a student that wants to try for latin honors despite getting an LP during 1L year, s/he will be better served to take all her/his classes at HLS so that the number of credits with H’s is higher post-subtraction. (This might not be a difference from the old system if cross-registered credits did not count then either).
2. In another sense, this system encourages max cross registration for all students. Because latin honors are based on averaging three numbers (one calculated at the end of eachc year), it will pay to take the easiest HLS classes possible and the fewest credits possible at this school in order to minimize the risk of getting below an H grade.
3. This system incentivzes students to take the maximum number of credits possible each semester so that s/he will have the chance to win any possible tiebreakers. Instead of promoting pedagogical excellence, this could lead to 3 1L years.
4. The system promotes taking large classes so that you have a chance to get DSP’s.
5. All of a sudden, LRW is a real class that counts for honors calculations.
I’m sure there are more things.
anonymous
April 18, 2009 @ 11:53 am
This is awful for students at the bottom. Despite the publication of the curve, I assume most employers will figure our low pass is similar to those given out at Yale where it’s discretionary and usually reserved for people who did absolutely nothing. These students are getting hosed.
guest
April 18, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
I have to agree with 23. I feel kind of cheated. We were sold a different grading system than the one we were given.
Anon
April 18, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
P is, for sure, less favorable than any B-range grade. Furthermore, with the publication of the percentages, any P will automatically be interpreted as below average (since that would be the best bet, as 3/4 of the students receiving Ps are now known to be in the bottom half of the class). At the same time, the relatively high percentage of students receiving Hs dilutes any distinction the mark could otherwise confer.
I greatly disapprove of the school’s decision to subject current 2Ls to both grading systems. Having heard from many sources how important transcripts are even long after graduation (whether in public interest, private firms, or academia) , students will be greatly disadvantaged. Any Ps during your 3L year will make earlier high marks seem inflated and undeserved; any Hs will be interpreted as you barely making the 37% cutoff. Mixing the grading systems lets reviewers assume the worst about your best grades (people review your transcript to make a critical evaluation about you, so why would anyone assume the best?).
There are many things I dislike about being in the class of 2010: the undeveloped LegReg and International courses for which we were the first guinea pigs, the lost opportunities of classes with Dean Kagan or other professors who have now left, the extremely long email addresses, the construction which started before we did and won’t finish until after we do…. However, the transcript matter is probably my biggest grievance because it will be the most permanent.
Professors are accustomed to giving letter grades, and under the new system, students will be ranked and classes will be curved anyway. Is it really too much to ask to have our transcripts make sense? Is one more year really too much for the school to deal with? For the rest of my career, I will have to explain why the grading system changed, and it will only bring attention to the meaninglessness of Hs and the presumed subpar quality of Ps.
T
April 19, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
My biggest objection to the new grading system is that it demeans summa cum laude honors. Now there will be several summa graduates every year, instead of one exceptional student every few years.
PK
April 19, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
Now that we’ve seen the devil in the details, it’s clear that we’ve traded a “comfortably” flawed system for a carnival of new horrors. It’s absurd to think that throwing 8% of students under the bus in every class–when no one was forced into a C before–will reduce the pressure to perform academically, and it might be even crazier to think that giving Honors grades to such a high proportion of students will signal anything more significant than dumb statistical luck in grading.
Based on every discussion I’ve heard among students, if the student body could vote tomorrow on whether to accept the new grading system, the resolution would almost certainly fail.
What steps will our Student Government take to voice these concerns?
anon
April 20, 2009 @ 1:40 am
As I read through these comments, I become more convinced that this policy is going to do more bad than good. 1Ls will be absolutely paranoid that they will be one of the 8% that gets a LP. LP is going to look devastating on a transcript, far worse than a B- does now.
Students with a little more confidence will feel stressed out to snag one of the 37% H’s. 37% is small enough to be difficult to achieve, but large enough to make students feel like they should be getting it. This is in contrast to the current system, where (my understanding is that) only about 20-25% get A/A- grades. This makes it more exclusive and students don’t feel bad about missing it.
And is it true that Dean Kagan said there would be no latin honors at the town hall? That is unfortunate.
Confused
April 20, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Why did he post percentages? What possible good could that do? We haven’t had a public curve for 200 years and seemingly worked out all right. it seems like this whole charade was intended to signal more, not less, to potential employers (and, of course, to trick perspectives into thinking it is a no grades utopia).
I feel like the victim of a bait and switch, but, of course, the administration is going to ignore any of these concerns, so perhaps we should just trudge on and not question them.
L
April 22, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
I think it’s obvious that we don’t like the new system. It doesn’t do what it was intended to do, and in fact exacerbates problems it was supposed to solve. So what is anyone doing about this? Are we just going to complain to a bulletin board? Please, Student Government, update us – are you going to do anything? Talk to anyone?
M
April 22, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
In case anyone didn’t know, firms figure out the curve. They have lots of applicants so they can figure it out. Also, one partner (after some drinks at a reception) admitted that his firm and some others actually share grade data to get a better picture of the curve.
Since they will know the curve, I’m glad I also know it.
N
April 23, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Firms never knew the curve with the exactness that they do now. It’s a very surprising about face from the administration to release the curve and to make it so student-unfriendly.
Mad about LRW
April 28, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
What is the deal with LRW? For 200 years this is not treated the same as other classes and now, with absolutely no discussion, it is. Why?
LRW is graded completely differently than any other mandatory class, is not taught by full professors, and is not anonymously graded. It should be graded credit/no credit. What is the explanation for this?