{shortcode-356c763ce92519bdbe2ad2605cb6ed8d4c55197d}

We all know the feeling. Whether we sheepishly open Canvas with just one eye open or check with extreme palpitations the “Grades” tab on my.Harvard, there’s no question that college students are anxious about grades.

To alleviate this overwhelming pressure, some Harvard students opt to take one of the four required General Education courses pass-fail, but, thanks to a new proposal by the Standing Committee on General Education, this option may no longer be available. Under the guise of bolstering academic rigor, with this move, Harvard would do a disservice to its already-hardworking students. Instead, the College should recognize the benefits of a lower-stress, more flexible system and do the opposite, replacing letter grades with pass-fail altogether.

To its credit, Harvard College already allows students to take quite a few classes pass-fail. Of the 128 credits required to graduate, only 84 must be taken for a letter grade. While these figures can vary depending on a student’s concentration, this baseline is commendable, allowing individuals greater freedom in their academic life.

This flexibility is the essence of a liberal arts education. So why stop at 11 courses?
Broadening the scope of pass-fail could meaningfully encourage Harvard students to explore classes outside of their primary field of study without fearing that their GPA might dip. Under such a system, a Molecular and Cellular Biology concentrator could feel infinitely more comfortable taking a medieval studies class, while an English concentrator might try their luck with an artificial intelligence seminar. Although these left-field courses are unlikely to feature in students’ future career, they’ll challenge them and broaden their horizons without unduly increasing their level of stress.

Universal pass-fail isn’t radical. Institutions around the country have shown that the system works. For example, in the first phase of their time at Yale Medical School, students are not given grades, but instead take anonymous qualifying exams for self-evaluation. In the second phase, students take anonymous exams graded on a pass-fail basis. This system assumes — correctly — that medical students are “mature individuals, strongly motivated to learn” and can be trusted to bear personal responsibility for their own education.

This sentiment is shared by a wide range of U.S. graduate schools, with fewer than 20 medical schools using letter grades in the first phase of medical school and top law schools like Harvard Law and Stanford Law following some form of a pass-fail system. These elite institutions realize that removing competition for top grades creates room for learning to actually take place. Simply put, a pass-fail culture ensures that meaningful learning prevails over any grade a student may receive.

It is time for Harvard College to follow suit.

In addition to encouraging intellectual exploration, a universal pass-fail system at the College would allow students to focus on extracurricular activities and real-world experiences. Instead of worrying about grades, students can focus on invaluable opportunities like internships and deepening their involvement in clubs and other student organizations that could make a significant impact on their future.

There are, of course, concerns that a pass-fail system would prevent students from putting the time and effort into their courses. While this may describe the experiences of some students, Harvard College can and should look for new, creative ways to ensure students become fluent in course material without the arbitrary anxiety and gamification that come with grades. For example, it could raise the threshold for passing a course from a C- to a C+ or implement an honors-pass-fail system to distinguish students who do exceptional work.

These changes could not take place overnight. Careful planning and study regarding how to foster students’ interests would be essential to the success of a universal pass-fail system. But the University should not allow the difficulty of the task to distract from the worthiness of the goal.

With this proposal, I envision a new Harvard — one where the terms “liberal arts education” and “intellectual vitality” have real, concrete meaning. Let’s chart a new way forward, Harvard. Take the leap. Make pass-fail universal.

Dalevyon L.J. Knight ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Adams House.