[Update 2/7/10: Here's a write-up of the event in the PAW --BKN]

For the first time since 2006, Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel– architect of the ever-popular grade deflation policy– will be gracing the Whig-Clio Senate Debate to defend her brainchild. Hordes of deflatees await their chance to duke it out in a public forum.

Whig Hall Senate Chamber is about to get heated.

And I, your humble Giri Nathan, will be your eyes and ears. Behold.

8:35 PM

100+ students have packed into the chamber like so many dour, grade-deflated sardines. Some of said sardines are attired in snazzy suits. These are the debaters. The battle has yet to begin.

8:37

Whig-Clio President Brian Stephan introduces Dean Malkiel. He urges eager participation and proper parlimentary courtesy (read: no sleeping, no rioting). Charlie Metzger then provides a brief history of the Whig-Clio and explains the format. Just some boring adminstrative stuff before things get fiery.

8:41

Jay Parikh explains that clapping is out, “hear hear” (accompanied by hearty thigh-slapping) is in. Stephan calls the house to order.

8:42

Malkiel takes the stage. She then explains her position: “I agreed to come to provide some factual information at the outset [...] and if it’s useful, I will then answer questions. I’m not debating.”

Why deflate, dear Dean? She says:

1. Fairness. Grading across departments should be standardized for the sake of “evenhandedness.”

2. Truly recognizing the best. “There should be clear distinctions between a student’s good work and really outstanding work.”

Origin story: The policy was created when chairs of the academic departments came to her “to hold all of the departments to the same standard,”she said. Nobody had any interest in “putting our students in jeopardy,” she said.

“Princeton students continue to be highly sucessful now under the grading policy as they were before the policy was implemented,” said Malkiel.

8:52

“Why haven’t the other Ivies followed suit? This is hard work,” said Malkiel. “It takes time. A dean can’t just say, ‘Princeton has a good idea, we’re going to do it too.’ Every dean has to work through his or her own faculty,”she continued.

8:54

Stephan thanks the Dean. Dan Rauch has six minutes to address the Chamber. He argues against grade deflation.

His points:

1. People here are always striving toward perfection; we don’t need the further incentive of grade deflation. (True fact: you can deflate our grades, but it’s tougher still to deflate our egos.)

2. The playing field isn’t getting any more even. The disparity between the highest and lowest departments (sociology and physics) isn’t getting smaller in any significant way: a mere 0.04 on the ol’ GPA.

3. Students are scared away by grade deflation. “We lose as a university,” said Rauch.

4. Hard GPA cut-offs. Fellowships & jobs are more than happy to screw us over no matter how eloquent that little explanatory letter is.

9:01

Jonathan Sarnoff fires back.

1. Grading standards do need equalizing.

2. The people that matter (”Harvard Law, Goldman Sachs”) know about grade deflation.

3. The people that matter care about way more than just grades.

9:07

And now, it’s fair game: anyone can ask questions.

David Christie opposes it. “Economics says: institutions don’t have interests, people do. [...] The people that are supposed to be benefiting from this don’t.” It restricts intellectual exploration.

Michael Skiles addresses the chair as “your Majesty.” People laugh.

“65% of the students in the nation’s best university are not producing great work? I simply do not believe this,” he says.

9:14

Tiernan Kane wants to know what makes an “A.”

Malkiel: Faculty members need to decide what makes an A. If we didn’t give them the choice, “they wouldn’t be very happy, and it wouldn’t be appropriate.” It is up to the “pedagogical judgment” of each individual faculty member.

9:17

A student asks where the “barriers” are drawn. Why set the notorious 35% “A” standard?

Malkiel: “A quarter of the departments were already doing that, it seemed reasonable to have the other departments follow suit. [ ... ] That’s where the 35% came from.”

9:19

A student is concerned: we’re the only school getting owned by a formal grade deflation policy. At the end of the day, we’re suffering. How do you expect important people (jobs, fellowships) to evaluate these grades correctly?

Malkiel: We’re in constant dialogue with them. And there’s absolutely no evidence that Princeton students are suffering. “There are still hundreds and hundreds of Princeton students with 3.5’s and above. There are slightly fewer, but there are still hundreds.”

9:22

A student is concerned about apathy: students are willing to settle for the “gentleman’s B+” because they don’t seriously foresee getting A-range grades. They get lazy.

Malkiel: A student told me that his roommate had a 3.49 and was thus narrowly missing a job opportunity he was considering. “I said: ‘A 3.49 rounds to a 3.5. No one said you have to use two decimal places.” Laughs ensue.

9:26

Kamron Saniee asks: Why is uniformity among departments so hard to achieve, and why is it so important?

Malkiel: “You shouldn’t have some departments where (as used to be the case) you walk through the door, and you get an A.”

9:28

A student says: The rubric for grading standards is fuzzy, and not every faculty member follows it to a T. Also, we have to think relative to other institutions. What was going through Dean Malkiel’s mind when she instituted this policy, knowing about the difficulty of collective action. Was there optimism, hope? And based on what?

Malkiel says: “We knew this would put us in the spotlight, and we were ready to bear that. [ ... ] We hoped that, when we showed other institutions that it was possible to develop more responsible grading practices, they would follow suit. But we didn’t predicate our decision on the expectation that they would follow suit.”

9:34

Someone in the audience makes a weird noise. It appears to be unintentional. He looks embarrassed.

9:36

“The sort of rage that can get 150 people out on a Wednesday night is the sort of rage that should not be ignored.”

- Dan Rauch

9:37

A student says: I understand what the theoretical benefits of grade deflation are. But what are the tangible benefits?

Malkiel: Many departments have settled down to reasonable grading standards.

9:41

A student spits hot fire: “The people with 3.5’s aren’t the sort of people that are going to be getting those highly competitive fellowships anyway.” He is met with scattered hear hear’s and a single hiss.

9: 43

Another student says: Because the standards have changed for us, it’s impossible to make rational comparisons with the other peer institutions that we love (love, love, love) to measure ourselves against. “It’s as if Princeton is pretending to speak English, but has changed the meaning of all the words.” Raucous signs of approval– that is, as raucous as Whig-Clio can get.

9:48

A senior says: The only concrete evidence in this argument, for or against grade deflation? The fact that all love to complain about it.

9:51

Stephan puts an end to the student comments. Dan May speaks.

“The point is to educate students.” Grade deflation does so in these ways:

1. “It encourages students to work harder.”

2. It needs to be fair. He points out an error in the opposition’s analysis. Look for GPA change within a department, not between departments.

9:56

Zayn Siddique concludes for the opposition: He points out a key distinction between the sciences (plenty of big lectures) and humanities. “It should come out as no surprise that they can’t field enough large lecture classes to balance it out.”

“There are internal harms. The harms of students feeling pressure. Mutual discussion, collaboration are in danger. More gamesmanship. More course selection based on where the good grades can be found,” he said.

10:00

And that’s a wrap. Voting and food.

10:05

The vote comes in.

61 – 9 against grade deflation. Shocker.