Faculty Members Confirm Gov 1 Alone Uses Quotas

The HCUA claim that Government 1's "quota system" is uncommon in large lower-level courses was verified yesterday by several professors and section men.

The head of the HCUA committee on exam grading alleged this week that Gov. 1 section men are not allowed to give more than an allotted number of honor grades without the approval of the other section men. This practice, the committee chairman said, is peculiar to Gov. 1.

Wald Terms Quota "Absurd"

George Wald, head of Natural Sciences 5, said that allotting the same number of honor grades to each section is "absurd." He said that "each section is not a fair sample of course enrollment and consequently it is possible to have far more honor grades in one section than another."

A Social Sciences 1 section man is left to "determine by himself" the number of honor grades for his section, stated Andrew G. Jameson, lecturer and head section man for the course. "We feel that by the end of the year each section man knows which of his students deserve honor grades," Jameson added.

The same philosophy of grading was voiced by Richard T. Gill, head of Economics 1, and Mark Reed, head section man in English 10. Gill noted that Economics 1 section men are informed of the number of honor grades in previous years, but other than that, he said, "sections are autonomous."

"Flexible Standard"

Spokesmen for the Government Department responded yesterday to the HCUA's recent charges by explaining that Gov. 1 bases its grading on a "broad flexible standard" and not a "rigid quota system."

Robert G. McCloskey, head of the department, said that it is merely recommended to Gov. 1 section men that they "stay close to a maximum percentage of honor grades." If a section man wants to go beyond the maximum he can almost always do so, McCloskey said.