There are two things I learned in preparing this post. The first (and what initially caught my eye) was the complaint that economics, like mathematics, already in the 1880’s was considered a subject that demanded relatively hard-work to get a good grade. The second was that the Harvard reform of introducing elective courses undermined the percentile precision of the old marking system and led to the adoption of the grading system. It apparently did not occur to anyone that a grade point average (G.P.A.) based on the less granular grading bands would arise from the ashes of the marking system.
______________________
RANKS AND MARKS AT HARVARD.
AN IMPORTANT REFORM PROPOSED IN THE PERCENTAGE SYSTEM.
Cambridge, Mass., Jan. 16 [1886]. — Ever since its establishment last Fall, the conference committee, a joint organization of Faculty and students, has been steadily losing favor with the students of the university until it has at last earned the name of the “Misplaced Confidence Committee,” bestowed upon it by several of the college papers. This result, however, might easily have been anticipated. The college expected too much of the new organization and was naturally disappointed at the non-fulfillment of its expectations. It did not realize that the experiment of intrusting a certain part of the government of the college to the student members must proceed slowly and carefully. The conference committee, however, in spite of the remarks of disapproval which have been frequently bestowed upon it, has been steadily at work on the greatest evil which to-day exists in the university — the marking system. All possible information in regard to the marking systems of other colleges was obtained, and on these data the committee proceeded to work out the solution of the Harvard question of ranks and marks. Finally, after a number of meetings, the conference committee has come to a decision and has adopted the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the members of the conference committee deem the marking system, now in use at Harvard, unsuited to the elective system, and that they strongly recommend a change.
Resolved, That it is desired that by this change the inequalities of marks arising from different degrees of work required in different courses, and from different standards of marking pursued by different instructors, as far as possible, be removed.
The system which the committee recommends is what is known as the “grade system,” i.e., the students are divided up as to rank into certain classes or grades. The first grade represents those who have passed with distinction; the second those who have passed, and the third those who have failed. If necessary more grades can be easily introduced and finer distinctions made between the upper classes of marks. These changes now go before the whole faculty for final action, and although they may not be adopted in toto they will undoubtedly receive due consideration, and will at least, lead to important modifications in the present system of marking by percentage.
The question of the adoption of a grade system for a percentage system was not the only one discussed by the committee. The evil which lies at the root of the whole matter is in the inequalities of marks arising from the different amount of work required in different courses. Under the elective system there are about 200 courses from which the undergraduate is required to take four yearly. Now, it is perfectly obvious that it is impossible to make all these courses require an equal amount of work. But aside from that there are many inequalities which might be done away with. Some of the professors are notoriously hard markers, others are the very reverse. Some require extra work in their courses, others rely entirely on the examination papers to prove to them the amount of work done by the students. There are ordinarily two examinations yearly in each subject. Some of the instructors, however, hold hour examinations every month or two, and count these in as a part of the percentage for the year. Some take no account of the attendance, while others allow a constant attendance to go a long way toward making up a defective examination paper. Notwithstanding such a diversity of marking as this, the students of each class are grouped together, and comparisons are drawn as if they all stood on the same footing, as if they all took the same courses. To this the students, and to a great extent the Faculty, object. There are certain courses in college, in natural history and in the fine arts, in which an average student with very little application can easily obtain a high mark. A student of the same ability may take some of the most difficult courses, those in political economy or mathematics, and with double the application receive about half the marks obtained by this leisure-loving friend. Yet these two students are ranked together, and to the outside world the former is by far the brighter. Had the relative rank been determined by the amount of work the result would have been somewhat different.
The only distinction made by the college authorities between the courses of instruction is by dividing them into two groups — half courses and full courses — two of the former being considered equivalent to one of the latter. Of the 200 courses only a few are half courses. Thus while there is practically one grade in the courses, or at most two grades, there is no limit to the grades in the rank of the students, for the exact standing of every student to the smallest fraction can be ascertained. The names of all who obtain 70 per cent. or over in every course are printed with the per cent. attached and the list sent to every man in college. Those who receive a mark below 70 per cent. are informed privately. To lessen the evils which attend such a fine system of grading, the conference committee has recommended a substitution of broader grades. Seeing, however, that the real trouble extended beyond this, the committee has gone further, and has recommended that as the grades in marks grew broader the grades in the courses should grow finer. That both of these recommendations are in the spirit of reform seems evident. As the committee has among its members five of the Faculty, there is reason to believe that these members will be enabled to convince the rest of the Faculty of the desirability of some important changes, both in the system of marking by percentage and in the system which allows but two grades of courses.
Source: The New York Times, 17 January, 1886.
______________________
New Regulations by the Faculty.
November 24, 1886
The new “Regulations of the Faculty of Harvard College” are out and present many new and entertaining features. A hasty comparison of the last year’s “codex” with the present one may be of interest to those who have not time to make the comparison for themselves.
The first regulation on the list we find changed. Absences are no longer returned to the Dean, but to the secretary, who enters them on each student’s record. Petitions to the faculty may now be handed in up to 10 o’clock on the day of the faculty meeting. The new Rule (5) with regard to the time of changing electives, limiting such changes to Nov. 1 and March 1, are well known already. Rule 7 and 8 is new. Instructors are to report to the Dean from time to time the names of students who have failed to satisfy them in the performance of the work of the course. Any instructor, with the approval of the Dean, may exclude a student from his course for neglect of work, and the fact shall be reported to the faculty at the next meeting.
The scale of scholarship has been changed from the old percentage system to a system of five grades, A, B, C, D, E. Students who fail in a course will be assigned to E. Last year this grade was fixed at two-fifths of the maximum mark. Failure on the work of the year is changed from “failure to get one half the maximum mark,” to those who “stand below grade E.” As the regulation previously read, a student who failed on the year’s work as a whole, although he passed on all his studies, could make up the deficiency by taking one or more electives in addition to those regularly required for a degree. The marks on these courses would be substituted for the lowest marks he received in the previous year’s work. Now, a student may regain his standing “by attaining in some subsequent year such grades, that the average number of courses in which he stands below grade C is not more than three for each of the two years.”
The penalty for dishonesty in examination has been withdrawn from the rules, pending probably the invention of some more terrible scheme. Under the “Degree of Bachelor of Arts,” rule 26 reads: “above group D.” This is changed from “one half of the total maximum.” In rule 27, grade A is substituted for 90 per cent.
The magna cum is now obtained by one “who has stood in grade A in one half of his college work and has not fallen below C in any study. This is changed from the old rule of “80 per cent. for the whole college course, or 85 per cent. for the last three years.” The cum laude cannot be received by anyone who has fallen below grade C in any study.
There are some changes in the requirements for Honors in English; and the assignments of honorable mention and of Degrees with Distinction will be made through standing committees of the Faculty. Application for scholarships must be handed in before the last Monday in May. The establishment of a committee to overlook the work of special students was announced last spring, and needs no additional comment.