Pass-fail has become the magic of educational reform. At one college after another, students are being given the option of taking a course each term in which, so long as they do passing work, they are not graded.

Its advocates, including a number at Harvard, claim that it encourages more daring course selection by students and reduces the pressure on those students to whom getting good grades is important.

At Harvard pass-fail would probably not live up to its notices. There are a number of things besides the fear of bad grades--concentration requirements, for example--which keep students from experimenting with courses in fields that are strange to them. Given the general ease with which one can get a C or even an honors B-- in any Harvard course, grades are probably not, in fact, the most important factor.

Nor is it certain how students who need top grades for graduate school would be affected by the pass-fail option. Many of them would work all the harder on their three graded courses; certainly, few of them would choose a fourth course that was completely new and time-consuming.

Pass-fail's magic is limited by the heavy emphasis that graduate and professional schools will continue to put on grades and by the large burden that concentration requirements, and the desire to do well in their major, will continue to put on many undergraduates' schedules.

But, if pass-fail is not a major educational reform, it is still worth fighting for. A student's reluctance to experiment, for one thing, may come not from a fear of bad grades or anything concrete, but a simple, instinctive reaction that certain courses are too strange, too rough for him. If pass-fail could help to break down that kind of barrier--and the number of students who have expressed interest in taking Fine Arts 13 and Music 1 pass-fail indicates it might--that alone would justify it.

It would have other small but beneficial effects. A pass-fail plan would make it easier for a student who needs good grades to concentrate on three courses instead of four, and there is no reason why he should not have that freedom. It would make it easier for other students to have some more free time--again, not a bad idea.

The Harvard Policy Committee has strenthened the case for pass-fail here by finally coming up with a reasonable plan for implementing it. Last year's HPC proposed a plan, later retracted, which would have permitted only students who were taking five courses to have one pass-fail.

At the time, it seemed like a good idea; in retrospect, its defects are more conspicuous than its advantages. It would never have reached the one group of students pass-fail is supposed to help most--those who have to work hard getting good grades in their regular courses. In effect, it would have rewarded students for doing more work, negating the very advantages it set out to create.

The new HPC plan, which would permit any student to take one of his courses pass-fail, makes much more sense. It is worthy of the Faculty's support, and it should get that support sometime within the next few months, so that pass-fail can be a reality by this Fall.