Make no mistake: I didn't come to Amherst to be honored. I didn't even come to get good grades. I thought, "Hey, I'll do my best and see what happens." Hailing from the public high school scene, I honestly had no clue as to the significance of such a phrase as cum laude, let alone summa cum laude. And while it is not in my nature to care about such silliness, I must admit that I couldn't ignore the significantly flawed new system for distributing honors. Normally, I would be against any sort of honor system. It contradicts the philosophy of Amherst, a place where we are supposed to be competing against ourselves and not against each other.
Last week's article, "Faculty votes to amend honors for class of 2004," reported on the faculty's modifications to the new honors system. As the headline indicates, this new system will be in place for the current sophomore class; it is unfair that it will be implemented so early. It is ridiculous that the new system will impact current students-most of who have probably declared their majors by now-rather than for the class of 2006, leaving all current students unaffected.
I mention majors because of the negative ramifications of having thesis work required for Latin honors. It is currently the case for receiving summa cum laude, but major independent work will now be required for all three levels of Latin honors. Many students with majors like math and physics will find themselves compelled to complete independent work when their major does not lend itself nearly as well to theses as do majors like English, political science, psychology or history, thus creating an unfair baseline from which to seek graduating with honors. Many of the professors in departments like these already have more thesis-writing students than they are willing or able to review and advise. It's as if we didn't learn from our mistakes: the system that was in place before the current one coupled Latin honors to independent work and it placed an understandable burden on these departments.
I'm all in favor of self-education and independent work, but making it mandatory to receive Latin honors will result in students completing theses for the wrong reasons. I don't doubt that some will end up writing theses they would not have completed without this extra incentive. But, ultimately, this will create unenthusiastic students entrapped in their own work by the end of the year.
Amherst classes should never be a forum for competition. In addition to the inappropriateness of requiring theses, using class ranking is a grossly inapt requirement for receiving Latin and English honors. Everyone can agree that we have a problem with grade inflation here, but this is certainly not the way to deal with it. In a perfect world, we would all come through Amherst and gain a learning experience that wouldn't have to be defined by grades at all. I may be an optimist, but I also can acknowledge that yes, we're always going to have grades. And they're going to be good ones. We're just going to have to deal with it. But I can't get past the fact that the prospect of class rank here makes me have a veritable "high school tingle."
In this new system, fewer students will undoubtedly receive honors. This is certainly a philosophy that places like Harvard-where over 90 percent of last year's graduating class received Latin honors-would be well-advised to adopt. But I still think that students here, for the most part, are going to do their work and do it well. Thesis or no thesis. So why not honor them? I intend to write a psychology thesis, but incredibly intelligent and hardworking friends of mine with majors like math, physics and computer science will find themselves in a more difficult spot if they wish to receive Latin honors.
If you're going to honor a group of students, do it right. Whatever system of honors is in place is bound to exclude some people by definition. But this one is doing it for the wrong reasons.
I attended a private high school that looked down upon competition in the academic setting. We honored no valedictorian, no salutatorian; we conferred no honors on any graduating student. This system got rid of the need for weighted averages and students, in turn, took whichever classes interested them most.
I know very few people here at Amherst who worry about whether they will graduate summa cum laude as opposed to magna cum laude. I see students worried about the work they have right now. Amherst has created a similar environment to that of my high school, one in which grades do not comprise the center of our attention. I agree with such a system and I acknowledge that the implementation of an honors system completely undermines the above mentioned learning atmosphere.
The first problem of conferring honors is that not all classes are created equal. My once-a-week, two-hour seminar will never equal my organic chemistry class, which requires eight hours a week of class time. Some students have 20 class hours. Others have 12. If two people have such unequal course loads, there is no way their GPAs could be considered comparable. One's eight could easily be better than another's 12.
If there is to be an honors system at all, leave the decision up to the departments. If I perform well in the psychology department, confer honors upon me. If one of my peers performs well in physics, then confer honors upon her, too. Of course, this is contingent upon the production of a thesis. Theses represent the ability to perform independent work in the field of one's study and successful completion of a thesis attests to one's academic achievement. The research, independent thought and effort that writing a thesis requires should be demanded of all students, not just those looking for honors. But we don't require theses of everyone. Read: honor those who do choose to write one.
But what about the system with which we will all have to live? It seems that the faculty is changing the system for two reasons: because too many people have high GPAs and not everyone writes a thesis. But these two statements contradict one another. While one argument seeks to reduce the number of students receiving honors, the other serves to increase the number of students receiving honors. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens when my class graduates.
Too many people have high GPAs due to grade inflation. Perhaps we should stop all that curving and give people the grades they have earned. Fewer people with high grades equals fewer people receiving honors and more distinction for those who do receive honors. Doesn't seem so easy? I assure you, it is.
There is also the problem of class rank. How can there be class rank when everyone has an A- average? Based on the current distribution chart of cumulative averages that the College sends out with transcripts, the student body consists of 47 percent holding an A- or better. Class rank will end up being determined by differences in a hundredth or a thousandth of a point. As mentioned in last week's article, "Faculty votes to amend honors for class of 2004," professors will now be bombarded with borderline-grade students concerned with getting that extra tenth of a point.
So what do I say to this new system? Bring it on. I came to Amherst to get an education and to work and learn as much as I can, including writing a thesis. All of us are capable of working hard. Let's worry about ourselves and do what we came to do. Honors should be low on our list of priorities.
I ask myself, "Why all the changes to the College's honors system?" The answer is pretty simple: too many people receive honors, thus making honors less special and less meaningful. But what are the proposed changes going to do? Not much, if anything.