This year, the Academic Policy and Planning Committee (APPC) (a part of Faculty Council here at Osgoode), has been discussing the bell curve and its application to small classes. The scope of the discussion includes all seminars, intensive/clinical programs and classes with enrolments under thirty students. As one of your student representatives on the APPC, I would like to take the opportunity to give you an overview of the issues at hand and a chance to reach out with any of your comments or concerns.
The History of Grading Profiles at Osgoode
Since 1970, a grading profile of some form has been used at the law school. Starting that year, the grades in first year classes were subject to a profile which “floated,” meaning that it was dependent on the average of grades in all first year classes the year prior. It was non-binding and fluctuated from year to year. In 1972, the Grades Review Committee was created and was empowered with reviewing the grades instructors awarded. The first notable change to the grading system at Osgoode came in 1976, as Faculty Council approved the use of grading profiles for all classes over the size of thirty. A floating profile continued to be used in first year classes, while upper year classes were subject to a “past-performance profile.” This meant that the grading profile in upper year courses was different for each course and was based on the grades the students in each class received in their previous year. In 1988, “plus” grades were introduced. The maximum amount that could be awarded was fixed at one third of each grade strata, and this is still current practice today. In 1991, all past performance and floating profiles were abrogated and grading profiles began to be applied to seminars and small classes. The fixed profiles approved in 1991 were as follows:
| Year 1 | Years 2 & 3 | Seminars | |
| A | 10% | 12% | 22% |
| B | 42% | 43% | 54% |
| C | 42% | 41% | 23% |
| D or F | 6% | 4% | 1% |
The Current Academic Rules
In 1994, the current grading profile at Osgoode was introduced. Applying to all classes, the fixed profiles are as follows:
| All Classes | Permissible Range | |
| A/A+ | 15% | 10%-20% |
| B+/B | 60% | 55%-65% |
| C+/C | 20% | 15%-25% |
| D+/D/F | 5% | 0%-10% |
Additionally, except in the D+/D range, the number of “plus” grades awarded in a given range may not exceed one-third of the total number of grades awarded in that range. However, there is some flexibility in the application of the grading profile at Osgoode. First, instructors are permitted to deviate up to five percentage points from the grading profile in each range without the authorization of the Grades Review Committee. Secondly, the academic rules state that in classes under the size of 30, no C grades or fewer C grades can be awarded (thus increasing the amount of B grades), subject to the authorization of the Grades Review Committee.
The Issues
As mentioned above, the discussion regarding grading profiles is focused on its application to small classes. Although a very difficult and nuanced issue, the justification for debating whether a grading profile should be applied to classes of fewer than thirty at Osgoode is that the statistical rationale for having a profile arguably no longer applies. The Central Limit Theorem (CLT) asserts that the distribution of a certain characteristic (grades in this case) in a random sample will approximate a “bell-curve” where certain conditions are met. Most notably, the CLT does not apply to groups under thirty and when the group is not randomly selected. As such, the problem is that many seminars and clinical programs are under the size of thirty and consist of a group of students who selected to study a distinct area of law.
Some of the proposed alternatives to the current regime include adopting a different grading profile for small classes, applying past performance profiles for small classes, or simply not applying a grading profile to small classes at all. However, each of these alternatives raise new concerns. For example, in regards to past performance profiles, the assumption that students who did well in pervious years will continue to do well in future years is arguably flawed. Additionally, it may also be unsound to assume that a student who did very well in large classes in first year will do just as well in small classes in the upper years.
No matter what the chosen alternative turns out to be, my goal as your student representative is to listen to your concerns and make sure they are heard during the discussions. Please feel free to contact any of your Student Caucus representatives at any time regarding this or any other issue. In writing this article, I would like to thank Professor Brian Slattery for all the work he has put into the issue and for his continued openness with Student Caucus.
Jeffrey Hernaez is the Vice-Chair of Student Caucus.