The University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science and the Arts is trying out something new this coming term: a dual grading system in which professors give students ordinary letter grades based on the quality of their work, but what shows up on the student’s transcript is either a “pass” or “no credit”.

The initiative applies just to first-semester students.

The idea, it seems, is to bring about the benefits of both graded and ungraded systems, without some of the costs of each.

A benefit of grades is that they are a relatively practicable way for instructors to inform students about how well they’re learning the relevant material and skills, at least insofar as that’s demonstrated on course assignments. A benefit of having no grades (or ungrading) is that students might be more encouraged to explore new subjects, less concerned that their unfamiliarity might put them at a disadvantage, grade-wise. And perhaps liberating students from a significant pressure to instrumentalize their learning might help some of them develop better attitudes about the value of their own education. Furthermore, instructors might be less susceptible to grade inflation pressures and less targeted by grade grubbers, and may be able to provide students with more honest feedback about their work.

The University of Michigan isn’t the only school to try out a grade-covering program. MIT has long had one for students during their first year (switching to first-semester-only a few years ago), and California Institute of Technology, Swarthmore College, Wellesley College, and others have had similar programs, according to news reports.

The university, in announcing its policy, also discusses grades and the mental health of students, along with some other reasons for it:

We believe that covering grades will help students start strong and curb the mental health crisis unfolding among college-aged individuals. Our goal is to help first-year students acclimate to the demands of college and allow intrinsic motivations to guide personally meaningful academic journeys—core elements of a liberal arts and sciences education. For example, they can explore a subject that may not come easily to them or take a course in a new field without the fear that a low grade may have long-term consequences. LSA is investing in students’ well-being and growth by fostering a culture of connection and collaboration—rather than competition. 

Of course, the risk with any measure like this is that you get the worst of both worlds, not the best: students use the grade-free term to fulfill as many of what they think will be their most difficult required core courses, in essence prioritizing their eventual GPA over their present learning (some evidence for that effect at Wellesley College, here). Or they basically check out for the term. Meanwhile, since, according to The Hill, “the university will maintain final grades internally for athletic eligibility, compliance reporting, and students’ eligibility for financial aid, among other purposes,” there is a question of just how liberated from grading some students will feel.

Those who are familiar with how such experiments have worked elsewhere are welcome to share what they know.

One question we might ask is whether a grade-covering policy like Michigan’s would be good for philosophy programs. Philosophy courses often fulfill some core requirements, and also seem to be perceived as more difficult than other humanities courses. So perhaps students would have an increased interest in taking philosophy courses during one’s first semester. And perhaps the tremendous potential of philosophy courses to interest students in the subject who previously were unacquainted with it will be given a boost by the grade-free context, with the result being more students choosing to major or minor in philosophy. Wishful thinking? Is there data on whether the implementation of grade-covering policies led to changes in the numbers of students majoring in particular fields?