A Look Inside 'Justice'

Due to a printing error, the following article was not printed in its entirety in yesterday's edition.

Heroes. Michelangelo. Shakespeare. Some courses are so large and famous that they need no numbers or descriptions, just names. For example, the largest class on campus last semester: Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel's Moral Reasoning 22--a.k.a. "Justice."

But as the 930 students, 24 teaching fellows and one professor found out, with fame and size come complications for all involved. While many say the class was enjoyable, the immense enrollment at times had popular but inevitable side effects.

Harsh Grading?

Weeks before students handed in their first Justice papers in October, teaching fellows already knew how many students would receive the coveted A's or dreaded C's.

Or at the very least, they Knew how many should.

Because of the Class's huge enrollment, the evaluation of Justice's first papers was based on a target distribution of grades: 15 percent of the class should receive an A- or better, 20 percent a B+, 25 percent a B, 25 percent a B- and 15 percent a C+ or less, according to several of the Course's TFs.

The target distribution is based on the assumption that students' performances improve during the semester and that the final grades are inevitably higher, Sandel says.

And teaching fellows say the distribution is intended to ensure grading equity between the 49 sections of course whose enrollment has increased exponentially since it began 13 years ago as a 100-person government class in Boylston Hall.

But although grade distributions are not uncommon in large classes, several Justice students are concerned that the grading guidelines may unfairlydictate evaluation of their papers, exams andsection participation.

The question, they say, boils down to oneSandel has asked in his very lectures: Which ismore important, Aristotle's good or Kant'sright--the good for the whole class to have evenlydistributed grades or the right of the individualstudents to be evaluated independently of a curve.

Shara Cottam '94, who took Justice lastsemester, appears to agree with Kant. She ways shethought the grade distribution was unfair, despiteits reliance on the assumption that section have arandom composition.

"It put a lot of pressure on the class," Cottamsays. "There was a lot of competition within thesection. It was certainly not a very comfortableenvironment."

Cottam says her section was informed of thegrade distribution, but several other students saythey were not aware of the precise gradingparameters.

"I definitely think they should have told us,"Marc R. Talusan '97 says. "The only thing my TFtold me is that they make sure that some TFsaren't lax and others aren't too strict."

"It is a difficult system to distribute withina section, because there are sections with smarterpeople," Talusan adds.

But section leaders say the distribution is notso much a rule as a suggestion that is notfollowed to the letter.

"It would be wrong to interpret it as a strictgrade distribution because there was a lot offlexibility," teaching fellow Allen Ferrell says.

And others say they were flexible indetermining the students' final exam grades.

"I think the percentage for all final gradeswas raised by all section leaders," teachingfellow Craig Lerner says.

Sandel is certainly not alone in predetermininga target grading scale. For example, BakerProfessor of Economics Martin S. Feldstein '61follows a similar scheme in Social Analysis 10,which followed Justice last semester as the secondmost popular course.

But Ec 10's distribution is skewed more towardshigher grades. Between 30 and 35 percent of theclass receives an A- or A, and only 10 percentreceive a C or less, according to head sectionleader Brian J. Hall '86.

Hall says that Ec 10's distribution is based onthe average grades that students receive in theirother classes. Before each semester, theinstructors determine what students' averagegrades were throughout the College and establishthe Ec 10 curve accordingly.

"We do have a specific distribution because wehave so many students," Hall says. "We arereluctant to publicize the curve."

Justice's grade distribution is part of a morecomplex system of evaluation that has evolved overthe years to ensure fair grading to the increasingnumber of students, Sandel and teaching fellowssay.

"While I enjoy teaching the course enormously,at the same time it is a massiveundertaking...both administratively andacademically," Sandel says.

For the nearly 1000 papers that are submittedtwice during the semester, grading is a three-partprocess, which begins when all the TFs meet todiscuss standard papers.

Head teaching fellow J. Russel Muirhead '87says he distributes papers that "illustrate thingsthat are common in students' papers... theyshouldn't be outliers."

The TFs then pair off into "grading buddies" toexchange papers and compare grades before the headTF checks the distribution for each section.

Muirhead says that by the second stage, mostTFs are grading according to the same standard.But if one section's distribution is significantlyskewed, he or she reads several papers anddiscusses them with the section leader.

Although it is often difficult in a class thesize of Justice, Sandel is also involved in theclass's overall grading, holding weekly meetingswith TF's to supervise corrections and the contentof sections.

But TFs say Sandel usually reads only aselected sample of papers. "We don't usually givehim papers we find the most discouraging,"Muirhead says.

Final exams receive the same treatment, onlythere is no general meeting before the TFs begingrading.

Althought the grading distribution concernedmany students last semester, most were pleasedwith Sandel's interaction with the 930 students inand outside of class.

"Most classes include the opportunity forstudents to argue with me or with one anotherabout the issues we are discussing," Sandel says.

Lisa M. Gans '94-'95, who calls herself a"Justice junkie," says she found Sandel's teachingstyle interesting and helpful. "He leads throughthe whole intellectual process," she says. "It'ssort of like a treasure hunt."

But other students feel the open-question stylemakes for a competitive atmosphere in lecture.

"The interactive classroom was a nice idea, butwith so many people, it was kind of frustrating,"Jaana Hansen '97 says. "There were a whole bunchof people who wanted to get up and have MichaelSandel memorize their name."

Sandel says he also tries to contact studentsoutside the classroom, calling such interaction"an opportunity for me." This year, he heldregular office hours and regularly ate in studentdining halls.

Despite its size, Sandel says it has not beennecessary to institute an admission lottery forthe course because there has always been a largepool of qualified graduate students available toact as teaching fellows. Sandel says he spendsmuch of the spring and summer preceding eachJustice semester interviewing and training TFs.

Student interest in the course has neversubsided either, says Sandel, as the assignedmaterial has shifted to include issues of currentdebate.

This year, for example, Sandel replaced thecreationism versus evolution in public schoolcurricula debate for the more relevant controversyconcerning gays in the military.

This year's particularly timely debate on themorality of homosexuality between Kenan professorof Government Harvey C. Mansfield '53 and NewRepublic editor-in-chief Andrew Sullivan drew afull house to Sanders Theatre.

But for those students who like the moreintimate and personal teaching methods, Justice,or any other class that nearly reaches quadrupledigits of students, may not be the ideal course.

"I've decided never to take such a large Coreclass again," said Talusan. "The section becamereally chaotic and overwhelming, so I didn'treally learn a lot. It was so, so big."

Kevin Davis and Jennifer L. Burnscontributed to the reporting of this article.

The question, they say, boils down to oneSandel has asked in his very lectures: Which ismore important, Aristotle's good or Kant'sright--the good for the whole class to have evenlydistributed grades or the right of the individualstudents to be evaluated independently of a curve.

Shara Cottam '94, who took Justice lastsemester, appears to agree with Kant. She ways shethought the grade distribution was unfair, despiteits reliance on the assumption that section have arandom composition.

"It put a lot of pressure on the class," Cottamsays. "There was a lot of competition within thesection. It was certainly not a very comfortableenvironment."

Cottam says her section was informed of thegrade distribution, but several other students saythey were not aware of the precise gradingparameters.

"I definitely think they should have told us,"Marc R. Talusan '97 says. "The only thing my TFtold me is that they make sure that some TFsaren't lax and others aren't too strict."

"It is a difficult system to distribute withina section, because there are sections with smarterpeople," Talusan adds.

But section leaders say the distribution is notso much a rule as a suggestion that is notfollowed to the letter.

"It would be wrong to interpret it as a strictgrade distribution because there was a lot offlexibility," teaching fellow Allen Ferrell says.

And others say they were flexible indetermining the students' final exam grades.

"I think the percentage for all final gradeswas raised by all section leaders," teachingfellow Craig Lerner says.

Sandel is certainly not alone in predetermininga target grading scale. For example, BakerProfessor of Economics Martin S. Feldstein '61follows a similar scheme in Social Analysis 10,which followed Justice last semester as the secondmost popular course.

But Ec 10's distribution is skewed more towardshigher grades. Between 30 and 35 percent of theclass receives an A- or A, and only 10 percentreceive a C or less, according to head sectionleader Brian J. Hall '86.

Hall says that Ec 10's distribution is based onthe average grades that students receive in theirother classes. Before each semester, theinstructors determine what students' averagegrades were throughout the College and establishthe Ec 10 curve accordingly.

"We do have a specific distribution because wehave so many students," Hall says. "We arereluctant to publicize the curve."

Justice's grade distribution is part of a morecomplex system of evaluation that has evolved overthe years to ensure fair grading to the increasingnumber of students, Sandel and teaching fellowssay.

"While I enjoy teaching the course enormously,at the same time it is a massiveundertaking...both administratively andacademically," Sandel says.

For the nearly 1000 papers that are submittedtwice during the semester, grading is a three-partprocess, which begins when all the TFs meet todiscuss standard papers.

Head teaching fellow J. Russel Muirhead '87says he distributes papers that "illustrate thingsthat are common in students' papers... theyshouldn't be outliers."

The TFs then pair off into "grading buddies" toexchange papers and compare grades before the headTF checks the distribution for each section.

Muirhead says that by the second stage, mostTFs are grading according to the same standard.But if one section's distribution is significantlyskewed, he or she reads several papers anddiscusses them with the section leader.

Although it is often difficult in a class thesize of Justice, Sandel is also involved in theclass's overall grading, holding weekly meetingswith TF's to supervise corrections and the contentof sections.

But TFs say Sandel usually reads only aselected sample of papers. "We don't usually givehim papers we find the most discouraging,"Muirhead says.

Final exams receive the same treatment, onlythere is no general meeting before the TFs begingrading.

Althought the grading distribution concernedmany students last semester, most were pleasedwith Sandel's interaction with the 930 students inand outside of class.

"Most classes include the opportunity forstudents to argue with me or with one anotherabout the issues we are discussing," Sandel says.

Lisa M. Gans '94-'95, who calls herself a"Justice junkie," says she found Sandel's teachingstyle interesting and helpful. "He leads throughthe whole intellectual process," she says. "It'ssort of like a treasure hunt."

But other students feel the open-question stylemakes for a competitive atmosphere in lecture.

"The interactive classroom was a nice idea, butwith so many people, it was kind of frustrating,"Jaana Hansen '97 says. "There were a whole bunchof people who wanted to get up and have MichaelSandel memorize their name."

Sandel says he also tries to contact studentsoutside the classroom, calling such interaction"an opportunity for me." This year, he heldregular office hours and regularly ate in studentdining halls.

Despite its size, Sandel says it has not beennecessary to institute an admission lottery forthe course because there has always been a largepool of qualified graduate students available toact as teaching fellows. Sandel says he spendsmuch of the spring and summer preceding eachJustice semester interviewing and training TFs.

Student interest in the course has neversubsided either, says Sandel, as the assignedmaterial has shifted to include issues of currentdebate.

This year, for example, Sandel replaced thecreationism versus evolution in public schoolcurricula debate for the more relevant controversyconcerning gays in the military.

This year's particularly timely debate on themorality of homosexuality between Kenan professorof Government Harvey C. Mansfield '53 and NewRepublic editor-in-chief Andrew Sullivan drew afull house to Sanders Theatre.

But for those students who like the moreintimate and personal teaching methods, Justice,or any other class that nearly reaches quadrupledigits of students, may not be the ideal course.

"I've decided never to take such a large Coreclass again," said Talusan. "The section becamereally chaotic and overwhelming, so I didn'treally learn a lot. It was so, so big."

Kevin Davis and Jennifer L. Burnscontributed to the reporting of this article.