A truly collaborative task force

But in a grade-deflated world, the task force does not provide juniors with the intended experience of group collaboration. Since the University recommends that departments allot no more than 55 percent of junior independent work A-range grades, only about half the students in each task force receive A’s. Consequently, students in task forces are incentivized to be concerned about their performance relative to others. Students thus have little true incentive to collaborate, because adding value to another student’s report without the supervisor’s knowledge may decrease one’s relative ranking.

One may argue that students in task forces will transcend this incentive structure. After all, many students study together for exams, despite essentially competing for the same grades. Unlike other courses, however, the task forces are unique in that they are very small, and their size makes the relative ranking transparent and personal.

My experience in both my task forces attests to my theories. Though the expected level of collaboration in task forces is greater than in other courses, I did not experience a higher level of cooperation in my task forces. The students in both of the task forces did collaborate, but to no greater degree than in an ordinary seminar. I believe that the expected level of collaboration in task forces should encompass all the students involved, as real world task forces do.

For a true task force experience, the University must align the students’ incentives to work together. First, the students should not have to write individual reports. Instead, each student should focus on contributing a substantial amount of research and writing to the combined report. This report is currently supposed to be around 20 pages long and is compiled by “senior commissioners.” The report should be lengthened, and the students should be given a larger role. Additionally, students in the task force should not be judged in relation to each other. Instead, they should be judged based on their research and writing, as well as the effort they put into working well with their peers.

How can the Wilson School implement these suggestions while adhering to the University’s grade-distribution policy? I propose two solutions:

First, the Wilson School could rank the final reports of the task forces against each other and award half of them A’s. While this approach would increase incentives for juniors to collaborate, it will create additional problems. The school would have to judge reports on completely different topics against each other and somehow prevent the free-rider problem.

Alternatively, the school could divide each task force into two groups. The groups will write on the same topic, and only one of two will receive an A-range grade. Considering that each group will be very small (about five people), this approach will decrease the free-rider problem and substantially increase incentives to collaborate. To prevent abuse of the system, the Wilson School could build peer review and other mechanisms into the grading process. The increased transparency of the competition may induce students to produce higher-quality work than they currently would.

Of course, the University could abolish the grade-deflation policy for Wilson School task forces and let the juniors write a single report, as a real task force would. The supervising professors would then assign grades based their perception of the juniors’ efforts, without being concerned about giving out too many A’s or B’s. This could never be implemented, however, as it will give students in the Wilson School an advantage over students in other departments. Thus, in a grade-deflated world, the admittedly silly two-group approach may be the most effective method to organize the task forces.