Reconsider Honors Standards

AS IF THE pre-professional presure on students to get high grades were not bad enough, the Faculty has increased the pressure by inadvertently penalizing students who opt to take courses outside their concentration pass-fail or credit-non-credit. While 10.5 full graded courses are required for graduation, the new honors standards make it unlikely that any one hoping to get departmental honors will utilize pass-fail.

The new standards for cum laude degrees require that a student get B- or above in half the courses outside his departmental requirements, while the magna standards call for at least a B in half the extra-deparmental courses. Thus any course in which a student receives no grade is lumped together with courses he fails--no one hoping to receive honors will take any pass-fail courses.

The new honors standards also affect the freshman seminar program and independent study, programs instituted to allow students freedom to explore areas with which they are not necessarily familiar. Both are now offered credit-non-credit; it seems likely that they will have to change to graded status or die of disuse.

The Faculty feels that honors degrees have been granted too easily for the past few years, as grade inflation has boosted gradepoint averages. But the pass-fail option was never under attack--at least, not explicitly so. The Faculty should reconsider the honors legislation to make non-graded courses neutral in honors calculations, so that students need not feel pressured to take an irrelevant gut where they once would have taken an interesting course pass-fail.

But the Faculty's effort to reduce the number of students graduating with honors is reactionary in more than its effect on pass-fail. Raising the honors standards can only be interpreted as a move against students, who already have a great deal of pressure on them to produce. And the Faculty's vote to accept Professor Heimert's amendment moving the effective dates of the legislation forward a year--without even asking members of the Administrative Board or the Faculty Council why both bodies voted unanimously against it--shows great irresponsibility toward those students already enrolled in the College, many of whom have already planned a course of study with the old honors requirements in mind. In effect, the legislation is retroactive, and should be reconsidered in that light.

The Faculty was clearly unprepared for the meeting last week, and had little understanding of the issues involved in the honors legislation. Many of its quirks have only been brought to light since it was passed--few Faculty members seem to have taken the time to study it carefully before they voted on it. The matter must be raised again, and this time Faculty members must take an active interest in drawing up legislation that is fair to students. The new rules cannot stay as they are.

Nor can students acquiesce passively in the Faculty's decision. The honors standards directly affects each of us, and should not be changed without student input. Students should write Dean Rosovsky regarding the honors standards demanding a return to the old standards, reconsideration of the legislation or any other changes, and send a copy of their letter to The Crimson.