Trial by Fire

In a school full of accomplishments diminished by their exceptional context, finishing Computer Science 50 is a rare, acknowledged standard of excellence. We witness our peers slaving for days over problem sets in the dining hall, and marvel at their commitment to one introductory class. However, in coming semesters, finishing CS 50 may become slightly less of an achievement. Lecturer David J. Malan ’99 recently proposed grading the course on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis as a default for non-concentrators and students not receiving General Education credit. We view this as a marketing strategy and believe that it will have negative repercussions on those who enroll.

In general, CS 50 students already express enthusiasm about the material. However, this grading policy change could discourage individuals from devoting energy to it—to their detriment. No matter how good their intentions, students pressed for time unavoidably prioritize work for classes in which they will be receiving a grade. Although we have no doubt that many of the students Malan hopes to attract with the policy would be intellectually motivated to learn the material, we question whether they would do so at the cost of success in their other classes. Those enrolled would undoubtedly conduct such an analysis as the term went on. CS 50’s value comes from the sheer number of hours one invests in learning the material. Thus, allowing most students to receive a satisfactory/unsatisfactory grade—thereby incentivizing them to complete less work or produce assignments at a comparatively lower standard—would irrevocably harm their class experience.

This holds true particularly in CS 50, because students spend so many weeks working on a big final project. If those taking the course switch their mentality, aiming to achieve just a satisfactory result, they will lose out on the opportunity to complete a worthwhile project of which they feel proud. We can fairly assume that a student working on two graded papers and studying for two graded midterms, while also programming her CS 50 final project, may not put in the thought and effort necessary to create a Shuttleboy.com or an Isawyouharvard.com.

That being said, we understand the sentiment behind this move. Computer programming is becoming an increasingly valuable life skill, and making CS 50 accessible to students with all levels of prior experience should be a priority. Nevertheless, the course is clearly accessible already; 72 percent of last term’s class had no previous programming background. This is largely a testament to Malan’s approach: His lecture style is engaging, and he draws teaching fellows from the pool of undergraduates who have already taken the class. Instructors offer a tremendous number of office hours, the sections are tracked, and Malan himself continually emphasizes that students of all levels can succeed in this environment.

Because the course currently seems eminently comfortable for students, it is unclear what fear or uncertainty Malan seeks to address through this change. A course’s policies alone can never assuage all students' fears—for instance, some refuse to take big lecture classes—but presumably Malan does not plan to cap the size or split CS 50 up in order to accommodate them.

We appreciate Malan's continual desire to improve his course. He is a receptive and well-respected lecturer who is known for going above and beyond the normal teaching requirements. However, we do not think that this particular policy change accomplishes the intended goal. We like CS 50 just as it is.