Many students are familiar with the experience of a dismally low grade — the sigh of resignation coupled with the mild but important comfort that the course will simply have to be retaken. As frustrating as such moments are, the academic hiccups that are common to most of us are usually smoothed over by the existence of a second chance. However, this may not remain so. The UCSD Academic Senate’s Committee on Education Policy is considering a rule change that would prevent students who take a course twice from replacing their original D or F grade with a second, presumably better, grade. Students could still retake the course and earn a new grade — but the GPA-lowering effect of the original D or F would remain on the transcript.
The justification for this policy is to prevent grade inflation. GPAs appear to be on the rise, and therefore the true measuring stick of academic performance is off-kilter. But whether this is a sufficient excuse for the new policy, and whether the policy will even help amend the situation, is another question entirely.
At first glance, the rule seems to be consistent with a philosophical point of view. Universities are supposed to prepare us for the “real world” — indeed, sometimes they even claim to be a part of it — and in the real world one is judged and rewarded based on performance. No second chances, no retakes. Having such a policy could, theoretically, give reward where more reward is due, granting those students who are consistently diligent with their studies a quantifiable edge over those who are not.
However, the real world is hardly theoretical. There are many second, and sometimes third chances in the perilous “real world.” People obtain connections and friendships that give them room to slip up here and there, bureaucratic rules laid down by the government make it exceedingly hard to be fired in certain professions, and the standards out there are simply less demanding than pulling off a four-year education with never a less-than-stellar grade. It seems cold to require understandably overstressed, overworked and regrettably imperfect students to wallow in their one- or two-time potholes.
Furthermore, it is dubious whether the proposed policy would even lower grade inflation. As Vice President of Academic Affairs Harry Khanna points out, the new policy would provide grade-point justice not for those who mess up, but for those who are already doing decently well anyway.
“In my opinion, the student who gets an F or a D in the beginning of their college career is not really the beneficiary of the grade inflation — it’s more the person on that B to A range,” Khanna stated.
It is often students just entering college as freshmen or community-college transfers who suffer the plight of the D or F. Most students have some discomfiture adjusting, and it seems unreasonable that the rest of their academic careers should be hampered by such growing pains.
Of course, students would still be allowed to retake the course, and therefore at least moderate the effect of their low grades — but they could not obliterate them. In addition, there already is, and still would be, a restriction on how many courses students can retake — 16 units is the limit. This protection already seems like enough to prevent serious abuse by students who are career slackers.
One thing is for certain: Such a reality would strike fear into the hearts of many a student. How many of us have been saved by the ability to retake? Things do happen in life, and a particularly stressful, busy quarter, a personal trauma or even physical illness could spell the difference between Ivy League graduate schools and mediocre ones, high-position jobs and entry-level ones, if such experiences left permanent damage on a GPA.
For example, just because a student struggles with metabolic biochemistry does not mean that he or she should be disqualified from graduate school, especially if they did well when they retook the challenging courses.
Ultimately, it is questionable whether it is even in the university’s interest to enact such a policy. The long-term result could do little to amend grade inflation but a lot to diminish the prestige and reputation of the university and its products.
Although some may argue that fairness and real-world conditions justify such a policy, ultimately it will help no one, and its reasoning is not nearly enough of a justification for the headache and trouble it will cause for students. Universities want their students to do well, yet creating an environment where being superhuman is a requirement will only decrease the quality and enjoyment of the academic experience.
