A summary of some of the info from Dean Kagan’s town hall meeting:
She made a point to note that she was mainly looking for feedback about if and how to apply the new system to the existing classes. Whether or not the change will occur in the long run has been decided, and feedback on that issue was not really being sought at this meeting (it was, of course, given but she did try to steer away from that whenever possible).
The change was supported by a 100% faculty consensus in the last vote.
One of the impetuses for the change was a growing sense from the faculty that they were trying to draw too fine distinctions within the existing grading system, distinctions that “wouldn’t bear the weight that we were attaching to them.” Moving to a grading system with fewer fine distinctions would more accurately reflect the exams the professors are seeing and enable students to focus more on learning.
Dean Kagan’s main question was what to do about the 2Ls and what their feelings were. It seemed fairly clear that the 3Ls did not have a lot at stake in whether or not the changes applied to them because, at this point, it would not have a great effect on them. The majority of the 1Ls supported the changes applying to them, and Dean Kagan generally agreed, saying that since this has been determined to be a pedagogically good thing it should probably apply to those that are just getting started and can get all the benefits of the new system. She did acknowledge that over 400 1Ls have expressed agreement with that and that does play a role in her decision. (Note, there were definite exceptions to the above positions, but they tended to focus on whether or not the new system should be implemented at all which – as I said above – wasn’t really on the table.)
The Administration did talk with employers – firms and judges – and concluded “strongly” that there would be no negative effects.
Dean Kagan would not commit to indicating clearly what the scale would look like exactly. She said she didn’t want to say exactly what the breakdown of H’s, P’s, etc. would look like, saying that they’ve always been opaque about that type of thing due to an intent to play down any sense of comparison to other classmates. One important note, she did indicate that there would be – just as there is now – shared norms that the professors would be expected to adhere to, especially across classes. For example, just as each class now gives out roughly the same percentage of A, A-, B+, etc., each class would give out roughly the same percentage of H, P, LP, etc.
2Ls expressed a couple of concerns: 1) Moving to the new system may hamper the ability to demonstrate improvement on earlier grades for those students that are hoping to do so. Dean Kagan’s response – there will still be grade distinctions, just fewer of them, so people can still demonstrate improvement. 2) If we move to the new system, will there still be some sort of honors system? Dean Kagan’s response – that is not ironed out yet, but there will likely be some sort of named prize that professors could give out for truly exceptional exams on a very limited basis if they found an exam that warranted it.
A couple of things that aren’t on the table for various reasons: 1) Giving current students the individual option of whether or not to proceed under the old grade system or the new one – not really an option. 2) No altering of existing grades – if the new system applies to the 2L or 3Ls it will not do so retroactively.
As always, your feedback is sought and welcomed.