John Bliss (Denver) & David Sandomierski (Western), Learning without Grade Anxiety: Lessons from the Pass/Fail Experiment in North American J.D. Programs, 42 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 555 (2022):
One of the core goals of legal education is to help students learn. A conventional assumption is that hierarchical grading, as a motivator for student effort, is a key factor that promotes learning. This assumption should be rigorously assessed rather than taken for granted. Our findings, in the unique Spring 2020 context of Pass/Fail grading in North American J.D. programs, only weakly support the notion that grades incentivize effort. And, to the extent that grades do somewhat incentivize effort, our findings do not support the conclusion that extra effort is necessarily supportive of learning. Moreover, we find that grades may negatively impact student anxiety to an extent that is detrimental to learning. In sum, our analysis provides little support for the notion that hierarchical grades support learning in legal education.
In thinking through the implications of these findings, students’ reflections on learning are especially insightful. Indeed, we find that students, relative to faculty, offered far more numerous and elaborate commentaries on the quality of learning in law school. This observation contradicts the image of law students as cynical, extrinsically motivated learners. Instead, the students in this study expressed a great appetite for a more meaningful learning experience, driven by their own curiosity and a desire to understand the interconnections among assigned materials. Given the depth of insight expressed by students in this study, we recommend that law faculty and administrators consider giving students more voice in deliberations over policies that affect learning.
Such policy reforms could include reducing student workload to a level that might better support their education, both with respect to substantive learning and less tangible learning virtues. Another promising direction may be continuing Pass/Fail/Honors and optional Pass/Fail grading. These approaches may mitigate student anxiety (relating to the possibility of receiving lower grades) while still allowing some students to be recognized for high academic achievement. While faculty respondents overwhelmingly rejected this recommendation when asked whether they would support continuing alternative grading systems, our findings suggest that conventional law school grading could be improved if law schools are willing to innovate and experiment with different approaches.
Law schools should also consider continuing the novel measures that were adopted in the early COVID-19 pandemic to provide holistic support to students in their lives outside of the classroom. This included new mental health resources, financial assistance through “hardship funds” and reducing fees, special employment options in clinics, research assistantships, and micro-internship programs, and easing policies for leaves of absence, scholarship cutoffs, and dismissal. Even before the pandemic, some law schools had provided students free or low-cost food, affordable housing, assistance with childcare access and expenses, need-based financial aid, and on-site mental health supports. Expanding such efforts might tend to decrease student anxiety, which, as the findings in this article have suggested, might enhance their learning. Any of these suggested reforms could be pursued on a trial basis while gathering data about impacts on learning and well-being, as well as job prospects, inclusiveness, bar passage, and other important outcomes. Experimentation, paired with empirical assessment of what works, in our opinion, can help law schools in their efforts to produce healthy and effective lawyers. This study has aimed to take one step in this direction.
