Should students be permitted to use the Credit/D/F grading option when taking classes to fulfill distribution requirements? Currently, the College allows this, but the policy is being reconsidered by a faculty committee. The editors of the Orient take on this question in "Conditional Credit/D/F" (October 26, 2007), and they defend the current policy: They argue that the College should allow use of Credit/D/F even for distribution requirements. But the editors' argument misses the mark, and their comments actually show why the current policy should be changed.
The editors correctly note that the purpose of Credit/D/F is to encourage students "to explore topics outside their comfort zones while avoiding the anxiety caused by the almighty Grade Point Average." But the editors fail to see that this rationale does not apply to required general education classes. Students are not merely encouraged to explore courses in the specified distribution areas; rather, taking courses in these areas is required for graduation. The purpose of Credit/D/F is indeed to entice students into courses they might otherwise be afraid to take; but when a student is taking a course to satisfy a graduation requirement, the student manifestly does not need the enticement of a lower risk grading option.
So what is the harm of allowing students to take required courses Credit/D/F? Here, the Orient hit the nail on the head: If they are taking the course for a grade, "students might work harder." Let me add the crucial corollary: Students might learn more. And keep in mind that these courses are not optional extras in your education. These are distribution requirements, and the College has these requirements precisely because educated people should have some background in these areas of inquiry.
In fact, it seems that the Orient's animus is really directed against the very idea of general education requirements. The editors worry about a "paternalistic trend," and they suggest that giving grades in these courses "punishes [students] for failing to be intellectual renaissance men and women." Personally, I don't see how getting the grade you deserve for a course should count as punishment. But the more general point is this: Yes, we on the faculty have decided that you must fulfill general education requirements in order to get a liberal arts degree with Bowdoin's name on it. Yes, to the very minimal extent imposed by our distribution requirements, we think you should be something like renaissance men and women.
Is this paternalistic? You bet. We are dictating to you the requirements for a liberal arts degree from this College. And the paternalism goes much further: We coax and help you along with classes, assignments, midterms, office hours, papers, rewrites, etc. We could change the system and make it completely non-paternalistic: make all classes and assignments optional, and then administer a rigorous series of tests at the end of four years. Those students who pass the tests would be deemed sufficiently educated to have earned the degree. Some students might thrive under such a system, but I submit that most students here are pretty dependent on the ubiquitous paternalism.
The Credit/D/F option is a good thing?it is a good paternalistic incentive to encourage exploration. But it makes no sense when applied to distribution requirements.
Scott Sehon is a professor in the department of philosophy.