I am currently co-writing an article for the University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine student magazine – “The Pulse.” I was approached by the magazine’s editor to write a reflective piece on the Faculty’s recent change in grade transcription from Honours/Pass/Fail to Credit/No Credit. Last academic year, medical students at the University of Toronto voted overwhelmingly in favour of a change in grade transcription to Pass/Fail (or Credit/No Credit using the U of T terminology)

During my research for the article, I pulled out a background paper I wrote on the issue of grade transcription. The document was entitled, “The Transcription of Grades: A Background Paper.” The paper set the tone of the debate, outlining some of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed change to the Faculty’s policies.

Up to that point, the debate surrounding grade transcription was one dominated by hearsay and personal opinions. The background paper started a consultative process which sought to identify a coherent student opinion on the subject. The paper made clear the rules of the game, a response rate of 80% and 75% in favour of the change. If the rules were not clear, or were merely made up as the process went along, gaining buy-in from the Faculty and the larger University community would have been next to impossible.

From this experience, what did I learned about transforming institutions? Make very clear the process through which change will come about and under what conditions consensus or success can be determined. Constantly measure yourself against that which you have set out to achieve. In this case, having 75% of respondents in favour of the change in grade transcription was our threshold. Once this was achieve there was a clear mandate for change and I could advocate effectively on behalf of students.

I am proud of my colleagues at the University of Toronto. They fought for change in their education and succeed.