DOE: A Third Way—Response to “Protect Opt-In Pass/Fail”

Editor’s Note: This article is a response to Justin Drewer’s recent op-ed on the grading system debate.

Please sign the petition here: 

Yesterday, our Editor-in-Chief, Justin Drewer, wrote an article opposing alternatives to the Optional Pass/Fail of the Status Quo. While I do agree with some of the arguments he presents against Universal Pass/Fail and Double-A grading, I do not believe the current Opt-In Pass/Fail solution is an adequate one. Primarily, my issue is the inequity Opt-In Pass/Fail creates. 

However, I do not believe that Universal Pass/Fail or Double-A are the best systems for eliminating that inequity. Rather, I support a system where grades from the first half of the semester serve as a minimum, and students can only raise their grade above that point. I believe said system, in conjunction with Opt-in Pass on a per-class basis, will eliminate the gamble associated with taking courses for a grade when one has a lack of access to resources. Furthermore, this system prevents people in stable conditions from getting what amounts to a free A or A-.

So what do I mean by hierarchy in terms of grading? The best argument against Opt-in Pass/Fail is that it creates a system where students living in stable environments, like myself, can take courses for grades, while students without that luxury are forced to take them Pass/Fail. Opt-in Pass/Fail leaves behind students who need letter grades for scholarships and/or graduate school.  Students with financial, health, or any other struggles should not be forced to choose grades over their own well-being. Additionally, a classroom setting that requires Wi-Fi will inherently exclude anyone who has trouble getting a Wi-Fi connection. Due to the hierarchy the current system creates, I do not see it as the best possible solution.

On the other hand, it is important to make sure that every student benefits from the hard work they put in. A student who succeeds in difficult circumstances should be allowed to benefit from their efforts. That person should not get the same grade as someone who has the resources to work but chooses not to. This is the problem with what I term “equality” approaches to the hierarchy problem. People benefit less from their efforts and, therefore, someone who fights against the odds has little to gain. Hard work should be rewarded, and we need a system that recognises that.

Let me explain my specific misgivings with all the proposed alternative systems. Universal Pass/Fail shares the problems with my critique of Opt-In Pass/Fail. Pass/Fail is looked down upon by grad schools, and if Georgetown adopts this system, other schools may not. This puts Georgetown students at an unnecessary disadvantage as compared to students of other schools. It also harms students who wanted to use the second semester to improve their GPAs. Altogether, the lack of letter grades disadvantages all Georgetown students.

The other alternative I’ve seen gaining traction is the Double-A grading system. Under this system, every Georgetown student either gets an A or an A-. The supporters of this plan argue that it is the most equitable system possible, but I disagree. Even under a Double-A grading system there is a hierarchy. 

The assumption behind Opt-In Pass/Fail’s inequity is that someone living in difficult circumstances can not afford to maintain their grade, so they have no choice but to take a course Pass/Fail. Let’s apply that logic to a Double-A system. If someone was unable to maintain their grade under a regular grading system, how would they be able to achieve an A under Double-A?  Circumstances would leave them with an A-, which negates the purpose of the Double-A system in the first place. People facing difficulty will still be getting the bottom half of grades, and the hierarchy still prevails. 

The problem is that, in addition to the hierarchy that already exists, the Double-A standard adds new problems to the mix. How will employers and graduate institutions know who actually put effort into a course and who did not? How do we make sure students still put effort into their classes? How will teachers adjust their grading methods on such short notice? Is it fair to the Class of 2024 if all current students get a grade boost? 

This last question is why I’m concerned with the prospect of grade inflation in the future. Having this semester be a GPA boost will disadvantage later students who did not get a Double-A option. Will their grades be inflated to make up for the disparity this semester creates, or will they just be forced to just accept this injustice? If the former option is chosen and Georgetown suffers from grade inflation, organizations would be forced to use other measures to determine the aptitude of students. These other measures include unpaid internships, the kind of opportunities only the privileged can afford. Either way, the long term effects of this solution are not worth the gains, and the solution doesn’t eliminate the hierarchy either way. It just moves the hierarchy further up the grading scale.

The solution I support solves the hierarchy problem, while also not causing the long-term side effects of the Double-A system. The “Only Higher” system guarantees that a student’s grade cannot go lower than his or her grade before Spring Break. This means that students with burdens at home do not have to gamble when they decide to take a grade, because it isn’t possible to be worse off than before. This system alone solves my issues with the “equality” solutions. 

Students can increase their grade with hard work, and grades do not necessarily inflate. But “Only Higher” by itself leads me to question, “What about students who were struggling at the start of the semester and do not have the resources to raise their grade? How do they protect their GPAs?” An “Only Higher” system should also have an Opt-in Pass component to prevent low grades before Spring Break from disproportionately affecting disadvantaged students. 

I will admit, it can be argued that this system does still contain a hierarchy. Only people with the privilege to spend time on classwork can improve their grades. While this is true, the “Only Higher” option prevents grade inflation that will harm future incoming classes. And again, the same problem will appear in “Double-A,” only at a higher grading level. Some people will still be able to elevate their A- to an A.

Finally, let’s say you’re a student privileged enough to be able to attend class virtually. If you worked hard in the first half of the semester, the two “equality” proposals nullify that effort. If you didn’t put effort in before, the two “equality” proposals give you undue credit for your work. Alternatively, let’s say you lack those privileges and you did well before Spring Break. The Opt-in Pass/Fail requires you to gamble on whether you can maintain your grade in light of your circumstances, and the “equality” proposals again nullify your efforts. Only one system enables those who strived for a high grade before the pandemic to maintain their success, while also preventing people from gaining undue credit for their work. That’s why I support “Only Higher” + Opt-in Pass.

Kelvin Doe (COL ’23) is the Managing Editor for Bipartisanship.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official or personal position of the Editorial Board, Contributors, or Business Staff of The Georgetown Review.