The famous Greek philosopher Plutarch once said, “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” Socioeconomic disparity runs rampant in America, and as Wash. U. students, we should have a desire to undo structural inequalities that plague our nation and form a more equitable future. 

I have become aware of a recent push among some of the student body to abolish closed-book exams and disallow reporting failing grades on transcripts. Supporters of these policies plan “to lobby individual departments to…[abolish closed book exams]” and use certain student leadership positions to push a “No More Fs on Transcript” policy. Although it feels terrible to memorize the countless reactions for Organic Chemistry finals or to receive an ‘F’ in a class, I urge my peers to strongly consider how implementing these policies at Wash. U. would do more harm than good. At a larger scale, these policies threaten to deconstruct opportunities for upward mobility by giving wealthier students an egregiously unfair advantage over financially disadvantaged students nationwide. On a smaller note, they also are impractical because they harm the educational quality of students who will one day fulfill socially crucial professions. 

From an equity standpoint, closed note exams are commonplace in nearly every state school and community college nationwide, and failing grades are given to students who produce unsatisfactory work. How can Wash. U., a school with a median family income of $272,000 (which, by the way, is much higher than all the state school and community college median household incomes both in Missouri and nationwide), decide that the same standards don’t apply? 

As someone who attended a high school with 67% percent of students on Free or Reduced Lunch, I have friends who regularly work 40-hour weeks on top of a full course load at their state school just to pay their own tuition. If Wash. U. were to enact the proposed suggestions and ban closed-note exams and failing grades, there would be almost no way for my lower-SES friends back at home to have an equal footing with their, on average, wealthier Wash. U. counterparts. 

Trying to solve this equity issue by making a push to abolish closed note exams and failing grades in colleges nationwide will invariably fail, and for good reason. Just think: Although these policies may make our lives easier in the short run, would they really help our long-term future? Imagine the state of a medical system where doctors don’t know the names of diseases; or just think about how biochemical research could stall if no biochemists could remember their amino acids. Closed-note exams allow for the memorization of crucial details like these, and failing grades ensure that people who cannot manage to know these crucial facts reconsider their career choices.

Proponents of these policies might argue that they help SES-disadvantaged students at Wash. U., but from my experience at Wash. U., they probably hurt them more. A more privileged student has vastly more resources when completing an open-note exam; they can more easily afford paid resources such as Coursehero and Chegg; they can pay TAs to be unofficial tutors and they can reference backfiles from their fraternities. For an SES-disadvantaged student, all these resources are more difficult or even impossible to use. 

As for those who support the policy of abolishing failing grades, they might argue that Wash. U. experiences grade deflation, where grades overall are lower than one might expect of a standard distribution. They argue that with a higher level of difficulty, Wash. U. needs to institute certain college-wide GPA-boosting measures to help students of lower SES. The very premise that Wash. U. deflates grades, however, is not based in fact. In 2007, Wash. U.’s average undergraduate GPA was 3.41. Over a course of eight years, it rose to 3.53 in 2015. This upwards trend suggests that rather than deflation, Wash. U. has at least some degree of grade inflation. I fail to see how removing F’s would significantly benefit disadvantaged students in particular. Removing F’s would only heighten the preexisting phenomenon of Wash. U. grade inflation, which, as said before, disadvantages students at other schools with lower average SES levels. 

I believe that now is the time for students, student leaders and faculty to make a stand. We learn about social reproduction, structural inequalities and social theories in school so that we can stop policies that perpetuate injustice and harm our society. Therefore, we must stop these policies at every single level, not only because they will degrade the quality of our future professionals, but also because they will contribute to an unfair system where wealthy students are given the easy way out while disadvantaged students must endure insurmountable odds just to match up. I urge you, as a student body, to consider these issues and decide based on what is best for your fellow students and peers from other schools––not just yourself.