Does GND ultimately serve the best interests of Wharton?
Prof. Ed George, Professor of Statistics - The Wharton School
Issue date: 11/17/08 Section: News
It was the single most telling moment during Thursday's panel discussion. A student pointed out that GND (Grade Non Disclosure) freed him to engage in valuable extracurricular activities because it relieved him from the pressure of grade competition. As it turns out, this self-directed and self-motivated student has in fact distinguished himself by some very impressive extracurricular service. I suspect he has made excellent choices, and I don't fault him at all for making them. However...
What this student was actually telling me is that beyond a certain threshold, albeit a high one, he has chosen to devote his extra time and energy to extracurricular activities. Of course, any student can and should be free to make such choices, but this freedom doesn't stem from GND. Rather, GND restricts the freedom of anyone (not on the director's list) who would like to distinguish themselves by their academic achievements. GND has simply made the choice of extracurriculars easier because it eliminates competition from those who would instead devote their extra time and energy to academics. I'm not saying which choice is better. Indeed, it likely depends on the individual, and would in any case be better assessed by the ultimate arbiter of such choices, the market.
This is the perverse incentive of GND, a system where extracurricular performance is visible, but academic performance is not. GND curtails the freedom of those who would like to distinguish themselves by their academic performance. But voluntary grade disclosure would not curtail the freedom of those who would prefer to distinguish themselves in other ways. Voluntary grade disclosure would simply give everyone the opportunity to be accountable for their choices. Do we honestly want to endorse a policy where a majority can collectively and coercively limit individual freedom to disclose achievements? And do we really believe the market will function better if such information is withheld?
When you think about whether you would prefer a GND policy at Wharton, you need to consider the following questions: Can GND realistically be enforced without coercing at least some students and recruiters? Does GND signal that accountability is a lesser priority at Wharton? Does GND make it easier to become disengaged from courses? Is learning how to cooperate under GND a better life lesson than learning how to cooperate without it? Does GND ultimately serve the best interests of Wharton?
What this student was actually telling me is that beyond a certain threshold, albeit a high one, he has chosen to devote his extra time and energy to extracurricular activities. Of course, any student can and should be free to make such choices, but this freedom doesn't stem from GND. Rather, GND restricts the freedom of anyone (not on the director's list) who would like to distinguish themselves by their academic achievements. GND has simply made the choice of extracurriculars easier because it eliminates competition from those who would instead devote their extra time and energy to academics. I'm not saying which choice is better. Indeed, it likely depends on the individual, and would in any case be better assessed by the ultimate arbiter of such choices, the market.
This is the perverse incentive of GND, a system where extracurricular performance is visible, but academic performance is not. GND curtails the freedom of those who would like to distinguish themselves by their academic performance. But voluntary grade disclosure would not curtail the freedom of those who would prefer to distinguish themselves in other ways. Voluntary grade disclosure would simply give everyone the opportunity to be accountable for their choices. Do we honestly want to endorse a policy where a majority can collectively and coercively limit individual freedom to disclose achievements? And do we really believe the market will function better if such information is withheld?
When you think about whether you would prefer a GND policy at Wharton, you need to consider the following questions: Can GND realistically be enforced without coercing at least some students and recruiters? Does GND signal that accountability is a lesser priority at Wharton? Does GND make it easier to become disengaged from courses? Is learning how to cooperate under GND a better life lesson than learning how to cooperate without it? Does GND ultimately serve the best interests of Wharton?
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
anon WG'08
posted 11/18/08 @ 3:28 AM EST
GND made my life hell as a first year. When I should have been concentrating on networking with companies, practicing cases, or participating in many of the Wharton extracurricular activities (Business Plan Competition to Pub) I was studying. (Continued…)
Alum
posted 11/18/08 @ 4:31 PM EST
GND for students should be abolished along with tenure for professors. Too many Wharton professors underperform in the classroom - and it shows.
Ed - I challenge you to hold yourself and your colleagues to the same standards you ask of students! Identify and fire the lowest 10 percent of professors in terms of teaching ability and I guarantee you will see an improvement in student performance and interest in classes. (Continued…)
exactly
posted 11/19/08 @ 1:01 AM EST
Agreed with alum...divide the positive (Bushee, Raju, Wessels, Franklin Allen) by the denominator (the rest); and what you get is an unsatisfactory fraction of faculty who actually care for teaching students! Additionally, people don't come to wharton to get their GPA revealed to the world in classes like stat and econ; shit meant for undergrads. (Continued…)
Post a Comment