If anyone doubted the validity of C.P. Snow's division of academic people into two non-intersecting cultures, watching the recent discussion of the Achievement Index proposal in the Arts and Sciences Council should have removed those doubts.
Although the swing voters in the 19 to 14 rejection of the proposal were largely from the social sciences, the representatives from the humanities voted solidly against it, while the scientists were nearly as solidly for it. Some people from the humanities who rarely attend council meetings showed up for this vote.
One humanities faculty member gave a set speech which was among the most vituperative I have sat through in any faculty meeting, heaping scorn on the thoughtful work of the Academic Affairs Committee, on statistical analysis and on the use of numbers in general.
Since my own support for the AI scheme has been based entirely on the conviction that it provides a fairer method for determining class rank-a less-than-vital matter of direct importance only to some students in some circumstances-I was surprised by the intensity of the opposition. Upon reflection I think I understand it.
A few weeks ago I posted the data presented in the graphic below, on the percentage of A's and B's given last fall by department or program for those giving at least 100 grades, on a local internet news group.
The main differences here are in the use of the grade of C, since less than 3 percent of all grades are D's or F's. Now, roughly half of the departments and programs, including nearly all of those in the humanities, now hardly use C's at all. Over the last 20 or so years, faculty in these areas have quietly changed their grading system while faculty in other areas more or less retained the old system.
That is the main source of the inequity the AI was designed to redress. Since those who use the more generous grading think it gives them certain advantages-just what those might be is an interesting topic for another time-they saw the AI as threatening and wanted it squelched decisively.
No regulations require the faculty to use all the available grades. But to have significantly different systems in use is obviously unfair to some of the students. I and others cited that unfairness in asking members of the Arts and Sciences Council to support the AI as a method of compensating for it. Clearly our appeal failed. Equally clearly the faculty in departments where C's rarely occur do not intend to return to the older grading system
So what to do ? In a case like this, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. Those of us in the sciences and other areas whose students are being unfairly penalized by our use of the C grade should cease and desist.
Who needs C's anyway? Without them one still has six acceptable grades, from A+ through B-. Along with D and F this gives eight grades, which is more than enough to sort out the performance of any class. I see no need for D+ or D-; one unacceptable but not failing grade is enough to send the intended message.
Of course, students in any class have a right to know up front what the grading system is; therefore I intend to announce on the first day in my next classes that I will use only A's, B's, D and F in my grading. I urge my colleagues to do the same. We owe it to our students to replace our obsolete grading with the modern C-free system.
If we eliminate C's, perhaps the next step for those seeking advantages from giving higher grades will be to stop using B's. That would leave us with five grades, which is still probably enough, but at that point perhaps we should change the designations of the grades to avoid confusing the general public.
Lawrence Evans is a professor in the physics department.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.