Harvard Law School recently announced that it will be moving to a modified pass-fail grading system starting next fall. Law School Dean Elena Kagan said that the change was motivated by a desire to "promote pedagogical excellence and innovation and further strengthen the intellectual community in which [Harvard Law students] live." Harvard's new system will closely resemble the ones used at the Yale and Stanford law schools.
While Kagan professes that "pedagogical excellence" is the major contributing factor in Harvard's decision, we suspect reasons less scholarly were also at play.
The new system, which consists of four distinctions (Honors Pass, Pass, Low Pass, Fail), would create a student body with less-differentiated grades. While the stated reasoning is that it would create a less stressful environment — and it undoubtedly would — one cannot help but think of the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences. Grades will become somewhat hollow; the difference between the top and bottom of the class will still be significant, although less so. More importantly, it will be incredibly hard to distinguish between the top students and decide who really is the best of the best. Perhaps most notable, though, is what will happen in the middle, since "Low Pass" bunches together the range from B- to D — quite a span.
Many have suspected that Harvard's decision was motivated by admissions: Apparently, a significant enough number of students began passing over Harvard in favor of other upper-echelon law schools (i.e. Stanford and Yale) that adopted pass-fail grading systems. The move seems to be Harvard's way of pandering to its prospective already-set-for-life law students.
The move undoubtedly will help Harvard's future alumni find jobs when they enter the job market. Top law firms always seem to have a preoccupation with Harvard Law students and now, in the absence of hard and distinct grades, they will have even less of a reason to seek out the inevitably more qualified graduates from Law School X. That's because more Harvard Law students will look roughly the same on paper, and absent adequate means of distinguishing between them, they will all look more appealing than their counterparts from other schools. Perhaps this is a sad commentary on law firms' attitudes in general, with their insistence on looking at brand over an actual person, but Harvard's move does nothing but encourage that philosophy.
The move is a no-brainer for Harvard. Not only does the administration please its students by creating a less-pressured environment and encouraging academic freedom, but it also eliminates the one "advantage" that the competition had.
The real problem is that, while it makes it harder for individual Harvard students to stand out, it also makes it more difficult for students from other law schools to get noticed ahead of Harvard Law graduates. Harvard Law students will probably love the new system. We, however, are not so enthralled with its potential to hurt the little guy.
