Academic freedom will be victim of grade proposal

Regarding 'Felten analysis refutes grade inflation claims' (April 23):

The grade inflation proposal is a dagger in the heart of academic freedom. When faculty are hired at Princeton, it is assumed that the faculty member will be a leader in scholarship and teaching. The faculty member is accorded every freedom to conduct the scholarship that interests him or her. Neither a dean nor a committee can tell a faculty member what to research nor what percentage of his or her research must be on certain topics. Imagine the outcry if we were told that no more than 35 percent of our research could be on public policy or on the scientific study of the brain.

Academic freedom also applies to teaching. It is assumed that we know how to teach, how to decide on a curriculum for our class and how to evaluate our students. Having us adhere to a quota of evaluations is a restriction on academic freedom just as surely as any restriction on our speech and our scholarship.

The proposal that my colleagues will vote on is also replete with doublespeak. It stresses that it will not restrict any faculty member's evaluative judgment but rather will ask academic departments to arrive at a system to make grades consistent with the quota. Nonetheless, it establishes a committee to oversee what we are doing and discusses what to do with a faculty member who "refuses" to follow the guidelines. Moreover, it is patently clear that any system that restricts grades within a department is placing a restriction on all faculty members within that department. Joel Cooper Professor of psychology

Loss of grades' information content is not trivial

Regarding 'Felten analysis refutes grade inflation claims' (April 23):

Professor Felten's analysis uses a quantity, information content, that is somewhat technical in nature. We want to point out that a 11 percent loss of information is, in fact, a lot.

Imagine that we can assign eight grades — from A+ to F — and we use them all equally (not exactly true, but good enough for an example). If we do away with the F, we are down to seven steps (a 6 percent loss), and if we do away with C and F then we are down to six steps (a 14 percent loss). An 11 percent loss, as Prof. Felten has calculated, is intermediate between these cases.

In other words, an 11 percent loss is, in a sense, like doing away with C's and F's. Brief contemplation leads to two conclusions: -This is indeed a significant loss of information. -It's not so far from what has happened in real life.

It's always good to interpret quantitative analysis in terms of everyday experience. In this case, grade inflation amounts to asking instructors to remove from their grading vocabulary two words out of eight. Sam Wang and Michael Berry Assistant professors of molecular biology

View from Princeton: Rutgers looks pretty good

Regarding 'From Beirut to Beer Pong' (Street, April 22):

It's no wonder Princetonians are viewed as snobs who consider anything outside of Princeton "sketchy." Thursday's article on the Rutgers party scene is simply an elitist rant about how great Princeton is and how the rest of the world needs to be like us.

I just hope that any Rutgers students reading that article realize that the article isn't representative of all Princeton students, and I'd hope that more students here would open to new experiences and adventures off campus and not resort to insulting anything that is different.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

In fact, the article made me want to visit Rutgers Frat Row and escape from DJ Bob and the flamingo-pink polos Rusli eagerly returns to. Casey Passmore '05