Sketchy new graduate-level course hassles

But two November decrees left me in the familiar role of criticizing the overlords in Nassau Hall. The first was the decision to look into adding more dorms to the four-year colleges; the failings and hidden motives of this plan have already been decried on this page. The second was the decision to enforce measures making it harder for undergrads to take graduate-level courses, especially by prohibiting us from taking them Pass/D/Fail. This runs counter to the University's educational mission and cheapens the undergraduate academic experience.

Some students arrive freshman year already knowing not only their major, but also the subfields they'd like to pursue in depth. Many more students discover and develop specific academic interests over their first two years. The University offers a wide variety of undergraduate courses, but specific sub-disciplines typically have at most one undergraduate course devoted to their instruction, hence advanced undergrads' need to take graduate-level classes.

Recognizing that advanced undergrads are often as prepared for graduate-level classes as their grad student counterparts, the University did not previously restrict undergrad enrollment in graduate courses. But beginning next semester, there are three new restrictions, all of which are misguided and seem designed to reduce the number of undergrads enrolled in grad classes. Being the good bureaucracy that it is, the University created a form that needs to be signed by the student, the professor and a dean before the student can enroll in the class.

The first new restriction is that grad classes can no longer be used to replace undergrad classes on the same topic. This will result in more students taking courses that cover material they already know and is unfair to both the well-prepared students and the others in the class, who now will be graded against students who knew the material in advance.

Furthermore, undergrads are now required to submit written work for every graduate course they take, even when no written work is required for grad students. This will lead to professors having to assign and grade extra work in classes that are discussion- or presentation-based. Professors will at best be inconvenienced and at worst refuse to allow the undergrad into the class.

Finally, undergrads can no longer take graduate-level courses P/D/F. This is an affront to intellectual curiosity. P/D/Fs are so often abused, used as a way to get out of a tough requirement; why remove one of the avenues through which they can be used to legitimately pursue intellectual interests? Given the difficulty of most grad classes, it's perfectly reasonable that intellectually curious but grade-conscious undergrads would want to take them P/D/F. Disallowing this practice accomplishes no purpose that I can think of, other than reducing the number of undergrads taking grad classes.

The most ridiculous part is that undergrads must now receive a grade in grad classes that are P/D/F-only. Like the written work requirement, this could potentially lead to busy professors turning down undergrads who want to take their classes instead of promising to assign them extra graded work.

The reason behind these new restrictions, according to an e-mail sent by Whitman College Dean Rebecca Graves-Bayazitoglu GS '02 to past and present Whitman residents, is that "some students have found themselves in difficulty because graduate courses often work differently (and on a different schedule!) than undergraduate courses." While this is likely true, I don't see connections between past scheduling misunderstandings and any of the new restrictions. If anything, the new restrictions will result in increased logistical problems when professors have to create extra work for the undergrads in their classes.

Perhaps reducing the number of undergrads taking grad courses is the true - albeit unstated - purpose of the new policy. Maybe the University hopes to improve the quality of graduate classes by preventing all but the most qualified and persistent undergrads from taking them. But I suspect that many undergrads could substantively contribute to grad classes, especially required classes that grad students may not have a background in.

There's also the possibility that control-freak administrators just wanted to tighten their control of our academic choices, in line with their tightened control of partying. While there are legitimate arguments for reducing alcohol consumption, restrictions that diminish our right to pursue intellectual interests are unforgivable. Limiting access to knowledge serves no one.

Michael Medeiros is an astrophysics major from Bethesda, Md. He can be reached at mmedeiro@princeton.edu.