Grading Dartmouth’s Credit/No Credit System

On March 23, 2020, Provost Joseph Helble and Dean of the College Kathryn Lively announced over email that Dartmouth’s undergraduate grading system would move to a Credit/No Credit (CT/NC) system during the Spring 2020 term due to the recent coronavirus outbreak. According to the College, moving classes to an online format would put certain students at a disadvantage, particularly those without access to a stable internet connection, those affected by coronavirus, and those in different time zones who may struggle with synchronous learning. Others, however, may thrive with distance-learning, as they are given more free time and an environment with less extraneous distraction. The College decided that transitioning to a CT/NC system would be the fairest option for all undergraduate students given the remote learning format. But is that really the case?

When deciding on the grading system for this term, the College considered three main options:

1. A single system for all undergraduate courses (Credit/No Credit)
2. Grading as usual
3. Expanded student choice (non-recording option or NRO)

How would each of these systems affect the student body?

Credit/No Credit

Dartmouth’s current change to a CT/NC system—essentially a traditional ‘pass/fail’ grading method—has already heavily affected how the term plays out. Because of the change, many students have taken up a fourth class this term, as opposed to the typical three classes, due to the reduced fear of receiving an unsatisfactory grade and a surge in free time. Additionally, these students can elect a class they would not have normally taken. Taking a fourth class gives students extra leniency for subsequent terms, as they can then have an additional term with a reduced course load. This seems like a great option for students, but the net effort spent and the quality of input for each class will likely decrease without a concrete grading system. Thus, the courses no longer achieve their educational potentiality. Furthermore, students already are less motivated to take classes online; the CT/NC system only deepens this lack of motivation.

As stated by the College, a CT/NC system is necessary because many students are at a disadvantage due to the remote learning format, while others are at an advantage. A CT/NC system would then make learning “fair” for all students. It is true that the online format will affect students differently, but wouldn’t traditional in-person classes have the same effect? On campus, many must take jobs to cover their tuition costs, giving them less free time for academic work. Would this not be considered a disadvantage? Other students thrive in discussion-based classes—something that cannot be completely replicated through the dimly-lit video sessions on Zoom. No matter what the learning environment is, some students will suffer while others will prosper. 

The CT/NC system, however, does an adequate job solving many of the issues that arise for students that may have difficulties learning in a remote format—possibly the most important reason for a CT/NC system, but students who were relying on this term as an opportunity to increase their GPAs are frustrated that they can no longer do so. Whether you rejoice or lament the CT/NC grading system, it seems like we are stuck with it for the remainder of the term.

Grading as Usual

Evidently, translating ‘grading as usual’ to the remote learning format has severe shortcomings which would engender numerous repercussions for many members of the student body. Notably, the College is unable to ensure that all students have access to the same resources as they would on campus. For many, access to the College’s institutions enables their academic success and full participation in various Dartmouth offerings. Moreover, it is certain that there is not much equity to be found when comparing each students’ unique circumstances. As such, the implementation of a traditional grading system would undoubtedly place certain students at disadvantages. It would thus be unfair for students bereft of resources or with additional responsibilities to be penalized for factors they are largely unable to control. 

Given the limitations of a ‘grading as usual’ system, it is rather evident that this option was no longer feasible once the decision was made to transition to a remote learning format. Nonetheless, it is important to note the distinct benefits that such a system provides and to question whether these benefits can be replicated in another, adapted system. 

First and foremost, a traditional grading system allows professors to distinguish students based on their ability and effort. Whether one is applying to graduate school, Dartmouth programs, or any other competitive venture, the ability to differentiate oneself from one’s peers is crucial. After all, if the entire curriculum is changed to pass/fail, any sense of objectivity in the application process would be lost. One may argue that the inclusion of Citations for Meritorious Performance acts as a remedy to this issue, yet this argument seemingly fails to account for a panoptic consideration of the student body. Only a small minority of students would be able to differentiate themselves in this fashion, thereby failing to provide such mechanisms for the vast majority of individuals. 

And while certain students may have needed this term to increase their academic standing in order to be more competitive in an applicant pool, it seems as if the College subscribed to a quasi-greatest happiness principle and neglected the needs of these students. Or, at least, the College determined the needs of other students disparaged by these educational changes to be preeminent. It is certain that the CT/NC system precludes the possibility of increasing one’s academic standing. Could other methods, however, have simultaneously accounted for the needs of disadvantaged students and allowed students to receive grades if they so wanted?

Expanded Student Choice

The expanded student choice system, essentially a system of unlimited Non-Recording Options (NRO), would have been a compromise between the two aforementioned grading systems. An NRO allows a student to set a target grade. If the target is reached, the grade would display normally on the student’s academic transcript. If the target is not reached, then the student’s transcript would simply say “NRO” rather than displaying a grade, as long as the student still passes the course. This allows the student to challenge themselves with a particular course without the risk of having their GPA plummet. Each student has a limited number of NROs to elect throughout their undergraduate experience.

In essence, a system of unlimited NROs would allow students to choose whether or not they want to make the term CT/NC. Students who are at a disadvantage due to remote learning and cannot meet their target grade would simply receive an “NRO,” and their GPAs would remain unaffected. However, students that want to boost their GPAs could either choose to take their classes with usual grading or elect an NRO and reach their target grade. An expanded student choice system would solve the inequality of remote learning, allowing disadvantaged students to avoid negative repercussions while still allowing advantaged students to thrive.

There is one downside to the expanded student choice system, however. An NRO system may unduly burden students seeking to pursue graduate education, particularly those on a pre-med track. Indeed, receiving an ‘NRO’ on one’s transcript, despite not indicating which grade students set as their minimum, may reflect poorly on a student’s performance. Moreover, many medical schools require students to show their grades and failing to meet or surpass one’s elected NRO standard would preclude this from occurring. Again, this may affect certain students more than others, particularly those bereft of the resources necessary to achieve in an educational environment. Should the College enforce a Credit/No Credit system, however, this would in no way reflect poorly on the applicants. Rather, the graduate schools would simply be unable to pass judgment on a student’s performance for those specific courses. In this sense, a Credit/No Credit system ensures that there is more equity among students seeking further education after Dartmouth.

One may surely conclude that the College was posed with a difficult question concerning changes to the grading system following its decision to transition to a remote learning format. Perhaps, the fact that numerous colleges and universities across the countries have subscribed to similar grading formats is conclusive evidence that the CT/NC system is indeed the most comprehensive alternative. It is furthermore evident that each possible alternative would have left students at a comparative disadvantage. After all, even our traditional, on-campus system is unable to provide absolute equity across the student body. And while one may lament that we are paying vast sums of money for an education tantamount to that of the University of Phoenix or Devry University, at the end of the day, one may find solace in the fact that we do not have a ‘Universal Pass’ system which would truly eradicate the principles foundational to a college education.