An Experiment in the Redistribution of Grades, Part 2

This is a follow-up to my post last May, in which I explained a new pedagogical device I planned to introduce in my classes this semester. I called it “An Experiment in the Redistribution of Grades” and, as of two weeks ago, the experiment has begun. The basic idea is that I am giving students an opportunity to redistribute among their classmates any “extra” points that they have accumulated at the end of the semester.

As I explained in the original post (here), all my courses operate on a 1,000-points scale and, because my university does not assign pluses or minuses to letter grades, it is inevitable that students will end the semester with what I call “pointless points.” For example, a student who ends my course with 895 points will receive a B, as will a student who ends my course with 800 points, only the first student will have 95 extra (or “pointless”) points. Those pointless points more or less disappear into the ether when they are converted to letter grades, so this experiment is meant to give students a chance to reclaim them from the void and put them to some use. Or not.

This Experiment in the Redistribution of Grades has three steps, which are as follows:

I’m trying out my “Experiment in the Redistribution of Grades” (henceforth, ERG) in four sections of Contemporary Moral Issues, an intro-level moral and political philosophy course. This course is a Gen-Ed requirement at my institution, so it is mostly populated by first- and second-year non-majors, though there is always about a half-dozen upperclassmen and -women in every section. What follows is an update on ERG so far.

At the beginning of class on the first Friday of the semester, I took about 7 minutes to “set up” ERG– I talked about the problem with grades, both as as adequate assessment tools and as incentives, in higher education– and I explained the Three Steps of ERG. I think it’s important to be very brief with the set-up in order to leave students as much class-time for deliberation as possible. I instructed students to quickly choose a Moderator (to manage their discussion) and a Secretary (to record their decisions). I reminded the Moderator that the very first decision they had to make was how they were going to make decisions.

Then, I got out of the way.

All four classes decided to make decisions by majority vote. (In two of the sections, a few students wanted to insist on unanimity, but their classmates quickly persuaded them otherwise.) When they turned to the Main Decision before them, i.e., whether or not to adopt a redistribution plan, I was really shocked how quickly they reached consensus. In three of the four classes (Class A, Class B. and Class D), the initial vote was unanimously in favor, and in the other class (Class C) there was a brief debate.

One of the students in Class C asked “hey, isn’t this socialism?,” which gave her classmates pause. They had a brief discussion about merit and “unearned” rewards, which is what I was hoping would happen. Relatively quickly, though, another student realized that although adopting an ERG plan may help students who did not deserve help, it would not harm any student, since there was no iteration of an ERG plan could possibly cause a student to get a lower grade than they earned. That was a satisfactory enough explanation for the detractors in Class C to come on board.


Back in May, when I first worked out ERG, I anticipated that most classes would not opt-in. So, the first surprise of this whole endeavor is that all four classes voted “yes” on ERG by an overwhelming majority.

Now, they had to figure out how they were going to do it. And they only had about 30 minutes left.

Students had a number of things to determine in their deliberations, as I had explained in the set-up at the beginning of class: (1) how the points would be collected, (2) how the points would be redistributed, and (3) what principles would be used to explain the “justness” of the collection and redistribution plan. By way of guidance, I gave them some specific questions to consider, which you can read in more detail back in my original ERG post.

I was very impressed with the deliberations in each class. Although it was very hard for me to stay out of the way during these discussions, I only intervened when they had specific questions that only I could answer or when my intervention would not meaningfully alter their deliberations. For example, Class B asked “on average, how many students usually fail your class?.” (I answered 1 or 2 out of 25, or roughly 5%.) Class C and Class D both wanted to know if they could include a stipulation for failing students to be eligible for redistributed points if I thought they had “made an effort” or “had special circumstances.” (I answered “no”; the redistribution principles had to be determined by the class and only executed by me.) Class A asked several times throughout their deliberations whether or not I thought what they had decided was a “good idea.” (I said I could not answer that, as it would influence their decisions.) Below, I’ll summarize the final plans that each class submitted, but I want to first note a few things that surprised me.

Two of the classes (Class A and Class C) spent most of their time deliberating about their principles for collecting points, and they seemed primarily interested in finding ways to amass the largest “point pool” possible. They were very clever about this and came up with several tricks that I had not anticipated or considered in advance. For example, both Class A and Class C realized almost immediately that they could easily justify collecting all of the “extra” points from anyone who ended the class with an “A” (> 900pts) or an “F” (< 600pts). So, those two sections were able to amass a HUGE point-pool very quickly and fairly. Class B figured out the 900+pts trick as well, but they were very concerned to give near-failing students a chance to pass, so they ruled out collecting any points at all from < 600pts students. All the students in Class D seemed pretty confident about their capacity to perform well– they all assumed no one would fail– so their conversation was mostly about how to make it possible for them to move from (the dreaded!) B+ to an A.

All of the classes ended up adopting some variation on the principle that anyone with less-than-half of the points needed to reach the next-highest grade (x49pts or less) will give up their pointless points, but anyone within a half-letter-grade shot would not give up points. The only “variations” were on where to mark the cut-off point for receiving redistributed points (Class C marked that point at x75) and whether the redistribution principle would apply to students who ended the semester with an F (Class D opted for ruling out failing students).

Another pleasantly surprising development, which only happened in Class A and Class C, was that they considered the possibility that they might still have points leftover in their pool even after their redistribution principles had been executed. (These are the two sections that adopted collection principles that would amass the largest point-pool.) Class A decided that, if they had points left in their pool, those points would be “donated” to the same class next semester, but they stipulated that they would be willing to “make an agreement” to exchange extra pool-points with another class from this semester if another class decided on a plan similar to theirs. As it turned out, Class C (later that day) arrived at exactly the same point in their deliberations, and when they asked me if they could arrange some reciprocal “donation” plan with another class, I told them that Class A was game for that arrangement. Both Class A and Class C decided that if it somehow turned out that their point-pool was still not exhausted after this arrangement, the points would be donated to the same class (i.e., 9am or 1pm) next semester.

[That completely unanticipated decision on the part of Classes A and C might have restored my faith in humanity.]

So, at long last, here are the ERG collection and distribution plans adopted by each of my classes this semester:

Points will be collected as follows: Anyone with > 900pts or < 600pts at the end of the semester will donate their “pointless points” to the point-pool, as will anyone with >x50pts (i.e., anyone not within a half-letter-grade of the next higher grade).
Points will be redistributed as follows: First, to students within 5pts of the next-highest letter grade, then to students within 10pts of the next higher letter grade, et cetera, in five-point increments. The allotment of redistributed points will begin with students within 5pts of an C, then those within 5pts of a B, then 5pts of an A. (So, redistribution principles will be applied from low to high.) If the redistribution principle cannot be completed for any “group” of students, it will not be applied at all. (So, if there are enough points to move 4 eligible students up a letter-grade, but not the fifth also eligible student, then the instructor will consider the point-pool exhausted.)  If there are any points left in the point-pool after redistribution principles have been executed, they will be donated to Class C. If there are points leftover in the point-pool after the donation to Class C, or if Class C doesn’t need any of Class A’s points, the sum of the point-pool will be donated to Class A in Spring of 2019.
Principle of redistribution: The primary concern is need, with a secondary concern for merit, inasmuch as failing students are not eligible for redistributed points. These principles are to be applied universally, without prejudice, and without respect to persons.

Points will be collected as follows: Anyone with > 900pts at the end of the semester will donate their points to the point-pool, as will anyone with < x50pts (i.e., anyone not within a half-letter-grade of the next-higher grade).
Points will be redistributed as follows: First, to students within 10pts of the next-higher letter grade, then to students within 20pts of the next-higher letter grade, et cetera, in ten-point increments. The allotment of redistributed points will begin with students within 10pts of an A, then those within 10pts of a B, then 10pts of a C. (So, redistribution principles will be applied from high to low.)
Principle of redistribution: The primary concern is merit, with a secondary concern for need, excluding any students who fail the class. These principles are to be applied universally, without prejudice, and without respect to persons.

Points will be collected as follows: Anyone with > 900pts or < 550pts at the end of the semester will donate their points to the point-pool, as will anyone with < x75pts (i.e., anyone not within a quarter-letter-grade of the next-higher grade).
Points will be redistributed as follows: First, to students within 10pts of the next-higher letter grade, then to students within 20pts of the next-higher letter grade, et cetera, in ten-point increments. The allotment of redistributed points will begin with students within 10pts of an A, then those within 10pts of a B, then 10pts of a C, then 5pts of a D. (So, redistribution principles will be applied from high to low.) If the redistribution principle cannot be completed for any “group” of students, it will not be applied at all. (So, if there are enough points to move 4 eligible students up a letter-grade, but not the fifth also eligible student, then the instructor will consider the point-pool exhausted.) If there are any points left in the point-pool after redistribution principles have been executed, they will be donated to Class A. If there are points leftover in the point-pool after the donation to Class A, or if Class A doesn’t need any of the points, the sum of the point pool will be donated to Class C in Spring of 2019.
Principle of redistribution: The primary concern is merit, with a secondary concern for need, inasmuch as failing students are also included in the redistribution plan. These principles are to be applied universally, without prejudice, and without respect to persons.