Letter to the editor

To the editor:

Last week’s Editorial Board piece, “An F for the A-plus” (Nov. 5, 2009) highlighted an important concern for many top humanities students, albeit a poorly founded one. Although the article is correct in its assertion that economics and science students are more easily able to attain above-4.0 GPAs, the Editorial Board failed to understand the risk-return relationship that justifies the current system.

Grade distributions in economics and science classes feature far more variability than those in the humanities. In other words, it is difficult to get an A or an A+ in a humanities class, but it is equally difficult to get a C or a D, provided that the student puts in a basic amount of effort. Conversely, science and economics classes are curved, meaning that a set proportion of the class will necessarily receive a C or lower, regardless of how much effort they put into studying the material. Moreover, whereas humanities students are usually graded on papers, which they have weeks to write and edit, science and economics students generally have 80 percent of their grade determined by two in-class exams.
As a result of these factors, it stands to reason that students who take science and economics classes face a larger risk of getting a bad grade. Thus, they should be compensated for this risk by the possibility of getting an A+ that is worth 4.33, something the current system allows.

Jon Hollander CC ’10
Nov. 7, 2009