Faculty Group Calls for Grade Scale Changes

A report recommending the College radically change its numerical grading scale and overhaul its honors system to combat grade inflation was debated in a closed meeting of the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE) yesterday.

After months of debate and discussion among the Faculty, the Educational Policy Committee (EPC) drafted the report based on the reviews of grading practices that each department had submitted in February.

The recommendations—which include possibly eliminating honors tracks in concentrations and adding statistical information to student transcripts—will likely be discussed by the entire Faculty at a meeting in late May.

Dean of Undergraduate Education Susan G. Pedersen ’81-’82 called the proposal a “draft” last night.

“I expect there to be further changes. We wanted the CUE to look at it so that we could gather some views” she wrote in an e-mail.

The recommendations include reducing the current 15-point grading scale to an eight-point scale, with equal numerical differences between each grade. The plan would eliminate C-minus, D-plus and D-minus grades.

This change aims to remove the “skip” between an A-minus and a B-plus, which represent a 14 and a 12, respectively, on the current grading scale.

Since there would be less of a numerical difference between an A-minus and a B-plus, this change would make professors more willing to give students B-range grades, the report argues.

“The bulk of student work should be graded in the B-range,” the report said.

According to the report, eliminating lower range grades would better define each remaining grade “and communicate more effectively with students the shortcomings of their work.”

The report also recommends that the percent of A-range grades earned by all students in a course be included in a student’s transcript alongside the student’s grade in the class.

With this addition, the transcript would “provide greater transparency in our grading practices and allow for others independently to asses the value of a given grade,” according to the report.

Students and Faculty on the CUE declined to comment on the report yesterday.

But in the past, the Faculty has been divided over whether the College has a responsibility to inform potential employers and graduate schools of the relative worth of a Harvard grade.

Pedersen has said in the past that changing information included on transcripts fails to address the sources of grade inflation.

The report also addressed the issue of honors, which has been one of the most hotly-debated topics in the Faculty this semester.

The EPC’s report also explicitly criticized the oft-proposed solution of raising the GPA cutoff for honors.

According to the report, raising the cutoff would “discourage ‘average’ students from attempting a more challenging program...and may simply increase the pressure [on professors] to give magna-level grades and thesis readings.”

Instead, one of the proposals the committee recommended no longer designates concentrations as honors-only and eliminates honors tracks. Under the new system each concentration would define one set of standards that all concentrators would have to meet.

Departments would recommend candidates for honors and the Faculty would then award honors based on GPA cutoffs and distribution requirements.

Under the proposal, each department would decide whether to require a thesis of all or none of its concentrators—although this would “involve additional Faculty time and would likely increase the number of unsuccessful or indifferent theses.”

A second proposal for honors reform would further separate departmental honors from honors awarded by the Faculty. Faculty and department-awarded honors do currently compose two separate categories, but under this proposal, they would be distinct in both name and practice—Faculty-awarded honors would no longer take departmental recommendations into consideration.

For any of these recommendations to go into effect next fall, the full Faculty would have to vote in favor of it by the end of May.

And in the past, administrators have cited Faculty autonomy as a major setback to change.

“This isn’t a Faculty that anyone imposes anything on,” Pedersen said earlier this semester.

—Staff writer Jessica E. Vascellaro can be reached at vascell@fas.harvard.edu.