Two cumulative exams + no grades = learning for learning's sake.
Such is the philosophical underpinning of the traditional Oxford style of higher education. In many respects it is vastly superior to the American rubric of collegiate academia, for the emphasis truly lies on learning and actually retaining the material transmitted from professor to student over a three-or sometimes four-year time span.
The all-too-common ritual of completely purging all knowledge gleaned from a class immediately following the final exam does not and cannot exist at Oxford, because students take cumulative exams at the end of their first and final years and only the final exam counts toward the degree.
Thus, from the beginning of their university education, students must be absolutely committed to the idea that they must absorb themselves in their material and take an active part in the learning process. Assuming that the average student has chosen a topic that truly interests her, this really shouldn't be all too difficult a task to accomplish.
But how can one remain so disciplined, especially without the continual reinforcement of grades? First, there is the obvious pressure induced apprehension of taking Moderations-the first year final-and Finals (self-explanatory). If the former is failed, you are almost always kicked out of school. If the latter is failed, or even badly managed, your future is in jeopardy. Granted, you are still given the chance to retake your exams a few more times if you fail, but it's certainly not recommended.
Second, the students at Oxford don't have the same pre-professional pressures that Americans do. Why? Because unlike in our system, law and medicine are undergraduate courses of study. No LSAT; no MCAT; no protecting the almighty GPA; you're learning the relevant material right from the start. Imagine being a doctor without having taken organic chemistry. Oxford: where academic dreams become a reality.
But what about the students who are not pursuing a degree in medicine or law? How can they distinguish themselves among potential employers without grades or achievement indices? I seem to remember being told by President Nan Keohane while discussing the problems of grade inflation that grades are a very important yardstick by which employers and professional schools evaluate students.
This would seem to suggest that Oxford students are at an extreme disadvantage because they do not receive any grades at all, making the issue of grade inflation a trivial concern. This is certainly not the case, even if one takes into account that they are most likely competing in different (foreign) job markets. From what I understand, the skills needed for the "real world" are acquired through internships and extracurricular activities, thereby preventing academia from becoming tarnished by pre-professionalism. Sounds like an awfully familiar mantra, now doesn't it?
In a humbling way, Oxford makes us look a bunch of silly little grade-grubbing, pre-professionally oriented fools, doesn't it? Then again, maybe that's just me. My sincerest apologies.
But surely Oxford's system cannot be the ultimate educational panacea, otherwise it would be the case that more than a few other schools would adopt a similar academic philosophy. From my aforementioned descriptions, it sounds just too good to be true. Indeed it is.
In addition to its many indubitable merits, the Oxford system of learning certainly has its fair share of downsides. The most marked advantage that the American system has over Oxford is its versatility. Students who attend Oxford have to follow the same course for three years, although some courses include multiple disciplines. But what would happen, as it often does at Duke, if 80 percent of the students studying medicine (or any other subject) eventually realized that they no longer wanted to become doctors?
Oxford's system is much too rigid in this regard. Our system allows students to sample a variety of classes before having to make a decision about their major, and even once we have made this choice, we can still study many different subjects afterward. Thus, a student can take a class on Milton from Reynolds Price, even though she is majoring in a completely different subject such as physics.
Another drawback is the lack of opportunities for students to engage in independent studies with their professors. Sure, the tutorial system allows students to work one-on-one with a professor, but the curriculum can be very regimented and doesn't always allow students to pursue courses of study somewhat tangential to the standard syllabus. For example, I would not have been allowed to study with Toril Moia, a recognized expert in feminist literary theory (who ironically enough, once taught at Oxford) last year-not just because I'm majoring in economics, but because such an opportunity simply would not have existed. This lack of opportunity is especially disappointing when one realizes how many world-renowned scholars reside within Oxford's hallowed walls.
Due to obvious space constraints I have by no means been able to cover all of the bases, however it should still be somewhat obvious that there is no clear winner between the Oxford and American academic philosophy. But one thing is certain: In continuing their search for the ideal educational balance for their students, both institutions (including their administrators) still have a lot to learn about learning.
Rod Feuer is a Trinity junior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.