The Harvard Law School (HLS) faculty rejected a proposal on Friday to change its grading system to a pass/fail model, despite widespread student support for the change.

The reform would have made HLS' policies more like those at Yale Law School, where students are graded on a pass/fail basis throughout their three years at school.

The proposal was inspired by the results of a high-profile study conducted by the McKinsey consulting group at HLS last year. In that study, students overwhelmingly said that HLS' grading system was one of their major concerns, along with class size and faculty-student interaction.

In a faculty meeting held Friday afternoon, the proposal to change its grading policies was defeated by a vote of 30 to 19.

The vote--which occurred during HLS' reunion of black alumni--has drawn criticism from some students, who said faculty proponents were underrepresented at the meeting.

Sponsored by Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, the proposal would have created three levels of passing grades including high pass, pass and low pass.

But opponents of the plan said doing away with Harvard's traditional letter-grade system would make it difficult to adequately recognize student achievement.

"A system of using as few grades as proposed would have 60 to 70 percent of our students getting the same grade,"

said Dean of Harvard's Undergraduate Law Degree Program Todd D. Rakoff '67, who voted against the change. "The faculty thought that [the Yale system] lumped together too many people.... It would vary in too much quality."

According to Andrew Z. Michaelson, a third-year law student who is the spokesperson of Catalyst, a student reform group, many students supported the three-tier proposal because it would eradicate a perceived arbitrariness in grading.

He said many students feel there is often little justification, for example, in receiving a B grade, rather than a B+.

Second-year HLS student Arkadi Gerney said the plan would have been a significant first step in reforming the school in the wake of the McKinsey study.

"The three-tier was the most progressive proposal yet," Gerney said. "It would [have made HLS] like Yale, which is hailed by US News & World Report as the best law school in the nation."

Gerney, who was present at Friday's vote, said he felt faculty who would have supported the plan were underrepresented. He said faculty members rejected a proposal to vote on the plan at a later date.

"Most of the African American professors were at the alumni event, but they took the vote anyway," he said. "By in large, those who voted to kill the three-tier proposal also voted to not postpone the Friday vote."

But Rakoff said faculty meetings typically draw about 50 of the 79 faculty members and that Friday's turnout was not uncommon.

He said other proposals to rename the grading categories are still being considered. One such proposal would create a five-tier system, with high honors, honors/pass, pass, low pass and fail categories.

This proposal would also include a mandatory curve, in which professors would be required to use a predetermined distribution of grades.

The faculty will vote on the second plan in several weeks.

Although The Crimson could not reach Warren for comment yesterday, she told The Crimson last spring that the McKinsey report had encouraged the campus to take a new look at the issue. Warren chaired the Institutional Life Committee, which examined student issues in the McKinsey study.

"I think my committee is enthusiastic about making significant changes in the grading system," she told The Crimson in March.

Third-year HLS student Bethany Rubin said she was disappointed with the vote.

"I think it's a shame it was voted down," she said. "The three-tier system would have created a better learning environment. It was clearly what the students wanted."

Michaelson said the alternative proposal that the faculty will soon consider would only make the system more rigid.

"It proposes the same number of tiers; it just renames them," he said. "Instead of a grade of A, it would be super high honors; A- would be high honors, etc."

Michaelson said a recent poll conducted by Catalyst and administered by HLS faculty found that 72 percent of first-year HLS students oppose mandatory curves.

"The problem that Catalyst sees is that mandatory curves increase competition, because not everybody can succeed," he said.

Still, some students said they were not particularly concerned by the vote.

"[I'm] indifferent because it doesn't seem to affect most first-years," said Jiten Naran, an HLS first-year.