William Bleveans: UCLA must reform grading policies to reinvigorate learning on campus

Finals week has us all stressed, and UCLA’s grading policies are to blame.

UCLA’s letter grading model is nothing novel. Students are required to take their major-required classes for a letter grade, and those in good academic standing can take a limited number of nonmajor classes as pass/no pass per quarter. A grade of C or higher constitutes a pass.

But this model has its shortcomings. Aside from making our lives generally miserable, letter grading can sometimes discourage actual learning, which strips academic records of any practical value.

To alleviate these problems, UCLA must implement a grading system that allows students to take any class pass/no pass. Doing so will reinvigorate learning on campus and provide far more comprehensive accounts of student performance.

Several academics support this change. Alfie Kohn, a well-respected educational expert, believes that letter grading causes students to lose interest in their studies. Kimberly Tanner and Jeffrey Schinske, in a comprehensive study of past, present and potential future grading policies in higher education, argue that letter grades are meaningless representations of student performance.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to Bruins. UCLA’s science and engineering students know all too well how much harder it is to earn a high grade in a south campus class than in a north campus one. In the face of such stark differences, the reliable information conveyed by traditional letter grades surely slips away from employers, graduate schools and other arbiters of student performance.

Moreover, a poor letter grade – or the possibility of one – can deter students from taking challenging classes or even pursuing a difficult major. Just ask the hundreds of students chasing after easy general education classes.

A pass/no pass model, on the other hand, leaves students free to explore new subjects and take academic risks without the threat of a compromised GPA. This enriches their academic experience and can help them become more well-rounded, as students can take classes out of genuine interest.

And an example of this kind of system can be found back east at Brown University.

Brown University students can take any course for either a satisfactory/not satisfactory grade or a letter grade. Brown’s policy reduces the inherent pressure in the current system to narrowly focus on grades. It also allows students to request a written evaluation of their academic performance, though the instructor is not required to oblige, which can get past the arbitrariness of a letter grade.

UCLA should emulate this model of student evaluation to fix its outmoded grading system. Students should be able to take all courses pass/no pass, and instructors – professors or teaching assistants – should be required to offer written evaluations of student performance so that academic records are more detailed accounts of achievement in the classroom.

UCLA clearly has the capability to implement large-scale academic reform, as it did when it inaugurated the Common Collaboration and Learning Environment system in 2008. The administration must simply leverage the funding sources, personnel and infrastructure it already possesses to make the change. Instructors and TAs are already assessing student performance in adequate detail under the current letter-grading system. To fulfill their responsibilities under a system of written evaluation, all they are required to do is put these assessments in writing.

Certainly, graduate programs may shy away from admitting or even considering grades earned by nontraditional standards, even if written evaluations are required. But the point of the pass/no pass system is to allow students the freedom to explore their interests. Students taking classes as pass/no pass to escape bad grades would be doing so at their own risks, and the administration can take steps to warn students of the possible consequences for using this system.

But motivated students would still be able to take classes for letter grades under such a system. They would, however, benefit from being able to explore subject areas – even those in their majors – out of interest without the risk of dipping their GPAs.

When it comes to grading-policy reform, UCLA must lead, rather than follow. Only four years ago, Yale University convened an Ad Hoc Committee on Grading to consider changes to its grading policies. And institutions like Sarah Lawrence College and Reed College, following Brown’s lead, have abandoned letter grading altogether.

UCLA must implement a grading system that allows students to take any class out of curiosity without the risk of lower grades, while mandating instructors offer written evaluations to provide a bigger picture of student performance.

After all, if students aren’t encouraged to take academic risks in their college education, it can hardly be called education at all.