just curious, what's the point of saying it is pass/fail but then secretly internally ranking?
I don't know their official stance but from personal experience I can see the benefits of the system we have.
A little more background first. Baylor's pass/fail system isn't just a facade, although I can see how it comes across that way. Most people hear pass/fail and think of it in absolute terms -- that you're either 100% pass/fail (no pressure) or you're graded (full pressure). But either system has its benefits and a blend of the two can be useful. That's what Baylor has done by employing aspects of both systems.
By and large, the basic sciences curriculum is pass/fail. Only a "P" or an "F" will go on your transcript. But, invisibly in the background, your tests also count as a small fraction towards determining your rank. This contribution to rankings creates an incentive to take those classes seriously and it discourages students from lowering their standards down to the minimum of passing. But because these grades have only a small effect on ranks, the message sent is only a soft one.
This system might still sound like it could induce stress/competition, but with our high test averages and small standard deviations, there's not much room at the top to pull away from everyone else. This effectively encourages us more to "stay with the pack" than try to "beat" others. Basically, the system is set up so that meaningful separation from the class only happens when a student performs consistently poorly. Otherwise, most of the class enters into clinical rotations as a tight pack in terms of grades.
This is a pretty comfortable and non-competitive setup, a pass/fail system with a small asterisk on it.
So to your question, I think they don't talk about ranks because they don't want to emphasize it. And as a happy result, students don't focus on it either. This allows us to operate in the relaxing atmosphere of a pass/fail system, while the small effect on our rank keeps us honest.
Last edited: