Harvard Law adopts pass-fail system

    Harvard Law School will abandon traditional letter grades and move to a broad pass-fail system next fall, in an attempt to expand intellectual curiosity and improve student learning.
    The new method will classify students as "Honors Pass," formerly A+ to A-; "Pass," B+ to B; "Low Pass," B- to D; and "Fail," Law School Dean Elena Kagan announced on Sept. 26 in an e-mail to students.
    According to the Harvard Crimson, the law school's faculty developed the idea for such a system in the spring and chartered a special committee, formed over the summer. In part, the system is intended to encourage intellectual curiosity. Students are more likely to explore academically, the reasoning goes, if they do not fear the effect it will have on their GPAs.
    "[Pass-fail] is a good option for a course in an area that's really unfamiliar to you. You might think it would be too hard and you're scared, but you really want to learn something," said Robert Sternberg, Tufts' dean of arts and sciences.
    The move may also curb competition in one of the most cutthroat learning environments in the nation.
    "If grades are a scarce resource and people are competing for them, then it fosters a very individualistic approach to learning because someone else's success limits your access to success," Tufts Education Lecturer Laura Rogers said. "But when grades aren't rationed, then the success of others doesn't impinge [on yours]. Instead, it enhances your own learning opportunities."
    Pass-fail classes also augment learning by allowing students to challenge professors and more thoroughly develop unique thoughts. The Harvard Crimson Staff said in an editorial about the law school's decision that letter grades pressure students "to tailor their comments and papers to satisfy the whims of their evaluators more so than their own intellectual leanings."
    Harvard's grading system will now mirror those of peer law schools at Stanford University and Yale University. Some fear that the setup will not work as effectively at Harvard because of the school's significantly larger size. In Harvard's case, this may lead to a widely undifferentiated student body in which it is harder for employers to distinguish between applicants.
    But some say this will simply force students to find other ways to bolster their academic portfolios. "There are lots of ways for people to express their areas of competence, their learning, without having to translate it into a grading system that is defined to differentiate students from each other. Students are going to have to find some other way to characterize their strengths. But then it will be more authentic," Rogers said.
    Others argue that the departure from a traditional grading system may reduce student motivation. The Harvard Crimson editorial mentioned that grades "provide a clear motivation to attend class, do the readings, and engage with the material." But Rogers disagrees. "A lot of times people who are teaching will say that there are multiple purposes of grades, and one of them is to motivate students. But when you really look into that notion, it often falls apart," she said.
    In a school as prestigious as Harvard Law, students are presumed to have enough self-motivation to succeed without the pressures of letter grades, according to Sternberg. "At the undergraduate level, [a mandatory pass-fail curriculum] is hurtful to students. But you're talking about graduate school. You're talking about Harvard," he said.
    Students and faculty members alike are waiting to see what the change will mean for the school. In the meantime, Rogers said the bold move is worth the risk. "If there are any unintended consequences, they'll find out. You have to be willing to make those moves," she said.