The issue of whether Credit/D/Fail should be applicable to distribution requirements is one that has been extensively debated for much of the past year. While the venues have varied, the content of such talks has remained largely the same. As these discussions continue, we find ourselves concerned with a number of issues.
Much of these worries start at a philosophical level. Both Credit/D/Fail and distribution requirements were put in place, as the College Catalogue states, to "encourage exploration and broaden students' capacities to view and interpret the world from a variety of perspectives." If both practices share the goal of encouraging exploration, does Credit/D/Fail not further the aims of the distribution requirement system?
Admittedly, the fact that these courses are "requirements" means that the addition of an incentive to explore is not altogether necessary; people have to take the courses regardless. This, however, breaks down to a question of using the metaphorical carrot or stick. Why use a stick to force people in a certain direction when a positive incentive would accomplish the same end?
This is another place where the Grade/Credit/Fail policy explored last year could come into play. This policy achieves several goals at once: encouraging exploration, rewarding students for academic success, and maintaining a high level of engagement and effort in the classroom.
Additionally, allowing Credit/D/Fail to apply to distribution requirements would encourage students to take more challenging courses within a specific division. Instead of taking a sub-100 level class, for example, the student could feel comfortable taking a class that was more challenging, more interesting, but also riskier.
Equally troubling in these debates is the assumption that a CR grade represents an unsatisfactory understanding of the course material. Again consulting the College Catalogue, if we assume that a CR grade is at worst equivalent to a C, then "the student has demonstrated a thorough and satisfactory understanding of the material of the course." If a professor believes a student has not demonstrated a satisfactory understanding of the course material, the professor should not award the student a passing grade.
Similarly, under the current College policy, a D fulfills the distribution requirement. There seems to be a logical flaw in allowing a D to fulfill a requirement and simultaneously creating a policy that says a CR is not sufficient.
As this conversation goes forward, it would be great to see dialogue beyond the pages of the Orient. Bowdoin prides itself on its sense of community; this is, after all, a residential college. How can we as a college community begin to address issues such as Credit/D/Fail and academic advising if students and faculty?the two constituencies these policies affect?are unaware of each other's expectations and beliefs?
We would encourage any interested students, faculty, or staff to follow up on this by contacting any of us in student government via e-mail or by attending our weekly meetings. This is an issue that we care deeply about and we would certainly welcome increased dialogue.
The authors are members of the Bowdoin Student Government Academic Affairs Committee.