|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposal to Change the P/NR Grading System
Need for Change
From informal discussions among colleagues who teach in the freshman year, we have concluded that there is uniform discontent over the second semester of grading on the pass/no record system. We have therefore undertaken to propose a change to this system, and hope that it may come before the full faculty before long for discussion and vote.
Pass/NoRecord was instituted for:
But at the same time, it is important to instill in students a sense of high standards, of excitement about learning, of intellectual curiosity, and of life-long learning. Above all, we hope that students develop a sense of responsibility for their own learning, rather than leaving it up to the faculty to motivate or direct that learning. Moreover, we hope that students are serious about their classes and do not abuse the grading system to "get through" the freshman year with as little effort as possible. Learning is hard work: it requires good study habits, a good attitude, and willingness to learn.
We have taught at MIT for many years, and spent much time talking to colleagues about their perceptions of the learning process here. We have also listened to many students discuss their educational experiences here, and we have talked to many students after they have been in the workplace for a number of years. We come away from these various conversations with a number of observations.
Clearly the first semester of P/NR is very useful and should be retained as it stands now. But the second semester of P/NR is a detriment in several respects.
First, it offers no real transition to the grading system here, so that sophomores hit a "grade wall" which can be crippling.
Second, sophomore subjects (like 5.60 and 6.001) are squeezed into the freshman year so that they can be taken on P/NR. Freshman performance is fine in these subjects, but much of the rest of the freshman curriculum suffers as a result of taking these demanding sophomore subjects at that time.
Third, students squeeze all the Science Core into the freshman year in order to take it on P/NR. This ignores one of the best recommendations of the 1988 Report on the First Year (see below) which pushed hard to have the Core distributed over 2 years, opening the first year up to more exploration.
Fourth, some students load themselves up with more extracurricular activities than they can possibly accommodate with their subjects, and allow their classes to slide since they are "merely" graded P/NR.
Fifth, that sense of high standards and love of learning alluded to above is severely undermined by P/NR since it gives to students the strong impression that the faculty itself does not value subjects which they grade so loosely.
Certainly some students use P/NR in the second semester as a means for exploring their interests, but it is not clear why grades should inhibit that exploration.
Some History
Before making our proposal we will review briefly the history of the P/NR system at MIT. In 1968, the MIT faculty voted to conduct a 4-year trial of a radical departure from the traditional grading system for first-year students. Designated PASS/FAIL, the experimental system called for transcript use of the letter P (Pass) for performance in any subject at the ABCD level, and F (Fail) for performance below D level.
Reviewing this trial in 1972, the Committee on Evaluation of Freshman Performance concluded that, in general, the new system was regarded (hugely by students, if less so by faculty) as a distinct success and worthy of indefinite extension. It eased the formidable transition-of-entry for incoming undergraduates, afforded them somewhat more flexibility in selection of subjects, and encouraged them to focus on the substance of learning rather than on grade-outcomes.
In one respect, however, the Committee found the new system defective: by allowing a recorded grade of F for any subject in which the student's work did not warrant a passing grade, PASS/FAIL lost its opportunity to provide what later came to be called "disaster insurance." In the context of increasing diversity of background and preparation among students admitted to MIT, it seemed reasonable to the Committee that, during the freshman year, non-passing performance in a subject should leave no "scar" on the transcript. The committee therefore recommended that for a two-year experimental period no non-passing grade be recorded on the transcript (and, indeed, that the transcript bear no evidence that the subject in question had ever been registered for in the first place).
Thus, in 1974, after a satisfactory two-year trial period, PASS/NO RECORD replaced PASS/FAIL as the grading system for both terms of the freshman year.
For the sake of concision, from here on, we will not narrate in detail each of the numerous occasions on which the P/NR system has been discussed by the MIT community. One, however, is distinctly worth mention. In May 1988, a specially constituted Committee on the First-Year Program, after exhaustive consideration of the freshman experience, submitted to CUP a report recommending that, in the spring term, P/NR for freshmen be replaced by an arrangement under which, in each of the seven semesters following the first of freshman year, a student have the option of designating (by Add Date) one subject to be graded Credit/No-Credit, up to a maximum of seven subjects, with limits on the number of these that could be used to satisfy various Institute Requirements.
When CUP brought this motion to a faculty vote a year later (May 1989) it was spiritedly opposed by a group (Groisser/Keyser/Meldman/Merritt/Vandiver) offering a substitute motion specifying that (1) the grade of Pass would in future denote C or better performance and that (2) freshman registration be capped at 54 units for fall and 57 for spring. The replacement motion carried, leaving the freshman grading system where it is today.
Finally, we would like to note that some of the second semester science core subjects are perceived as covering too many topics in too short a time and thus in some sense inundating the students. We hear of excessive "pace and pressure" from these subjects. We would like to discuss with the faculty teaching these subjects (in Math and Physics) the possibility of reducing that pace, and perhaps covering fewer topics in greater and more intense depth. Our students are very gifted and capable, and ultimately interested in learning things that they will need for their careers. The faculty needs to work towards making students aware of the necessity and importance of these science core subjects, and the materials which they cover.
Proposal
To address the many points above, we are recommending the following changes in the grading system.
On balance, it seems to us appropriate to create in spring term a system which allows freshmen to ramp up more gradually toward the real thing (which they will encounter as sophomores). The key to our proposed system is that, while allowing students to strive for higher grades in spring, it preserves through the entire year the disaster insurance feature. We think it is a workable compromise. Thus we propose that, starting in AY 2000-2001:
1) Freshman first semester remain graded P/NR with a 54-unit credit limit.
2) Freshman second semester be graded A,B,C/NR, with a 57 unit credit limit.
3) Starting in the Sophomore year, a student may in any term designate (by Add Date) one subject to be graded P/NR, to a possible total of 5 subjects.
The P/NR option replaces the current Junior-Senior P/D/F option, and may be used for no more than one subject satisfying a General Institute Requirement and one subject satisfying a departmental requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|