The discussion centered around the importance of grades and independent work in awarding honors and the possible return to a prior system, which awarded honors based primarily on the quality of independent work.
Professor of English and Russian Dale Peterson expressed his displeasure that, currently, some honors can be awarded regardless of whether or not a student has done independent work. "I am appalled that the designation of magna cum laude is attached to less-than-distinction in general studies," he said.
Under the system in place now, students can receive cum laude and magna cum laude distinctions based on their grade point averages, regardless of whether or not they write a thesis. To earn the distinction of summa cum laude, however, a student must submit a thesis, along with maintaining a grade point average of 12 (A-minus).
Professor of History Fredric Cheyette echoed Peterson's desire for a return to emphasis on independent work. "Isn't it time that we return to where we were, when there was a way to induce, to promote, to suggest to students that a very important part of their education is to learn how to do independent work?" Cheyette said.
However, some faculty members disagreed with the assertion that the old system of assigning honors was necessarily better than the current one. "It is a remarkable thing to suggest that, without going back to the old system ... students will not have the opportunity to think independently," said Associate Professor of Economics Daniel Barbezat.
Professor of Philosophy Jonathan Vogel said that honors should be about a student's performance across departments, rather than "hitting a home run on a thesis."
Associate Professor of Philosophy Alexander George pointed to the fact that the change to the current system had been approved by the faculty for a reason, citing two specific factors. He described that, at the time the change was made, there was a "perception that there was a disparity in the level of honors across departments."
"I don't think we should just go back to the old system. We'll be faced with all those same problems again," George added.
Other concerns regarding the current system included the role of the College's liberal arts committment in honors distinctions. "I do not believe the present system encourages students to show promise across the full range of the College," said Professor of English and American Studies Allen Guttmann.
Members of the faculty also expressed disapproval over the the numbers of honors handed out. "An Amherst College degree is a great achievement, but now if you get a diploma without Latin honors attached to it, it's a door prize," said Professor of Economics Geoffrey Woglom.
According to Professor of English Barry O'Connell, the number of magna recipients has risen steadily from the inception of the new system, up from 31 percent at the time of the change to 44 percent last year, a change he said is linked to the fact that most honors are based solely on students' GPAs. "The new system reflects and rewards grade inflation ... [there is] every sign that [the] rise will continue with the upward inflation of grades," O'Connell said.
"There is a significant drop in the number of students taking on honors, when they probably could and should have," said Professor of Russian Jane Taubman. "In compensation, they are electing to take special topics courses."
Others welcomed the advantages created by the drop in the number of thesis writers. "I no longer have students who want to write third-rate papers because their parents want them to," said Associate Professor of English and Women's and Gender Studies Michele Barale, in support of the current system.