SB 6251
In CommitteeSenate
Medical school grading
Using only letter grades in schools of medicine.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires Washington’s two public medical schools—University of Washington and Washington State University—to grade all medical students using letter grades (A–F) or a similar four-tier system, instead of pass/fail or other non-letter methods. The goal is to provide clearer, more objective feedback to help students improve and prepare for residency and practice.
- Requires the University of Washington and Washington State University medical schools to use letter grades (A–F) or a tiered grading system with at least four designations for all medical degree or certificate coursework.
- Prohibits the use of pass/fail or other non-letter grading systems for required medical school courses.
- Directs schools to assess student performance objectively, comparing students to their peers, to encourage preparedness and performance improvement.
Who is affected
- Medical students at UW and WSU — Students at the University of Washington and Washington State University medical schools will be graded using only letter grades (A–F) or a similar tiered system with at least four levels, instead of pass/fail or other non-letter systems.
- University of Washington and Washington State University medical schools — Medical schools must revise grading policies and systems to comply with the new letter-grade or tiered grading requirement.
- Residency programs and licensing boards — Residency programs and licensing boards may use the standardized letter grades to evaluate applicants’ academic performance more consistently.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
Provides more granular, objective feedback to students, enabling better self-assessment and targeted improvement—studies show letter grading improves metacognition and performance in high-stakes professional programs when implemented with support.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2Standardizes evaluation across institutions, potentially improving fairness and transparency in residency matching—residency programs often rely on grade-based metrics, and uniformity may reduce bias in selection.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2Encourages consistent academic rigor and preparedness, aligning with expectations of high-stakes licensing exams (e.g., USMLE Step 1), which may improve first-time pass rates for graduates.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2May improve accountability for faculty and curriculum quality by making performance data more comparable across courses and instructors—though this benefit is indirect and depends on implementation.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2Aligns medical education with grading norms used in other professional schools (e.g., law, business), potentially easing interdisciplinary comparisons for employers and licensing bodies.
EducationRef: Sec. 2
Potential Concerns (5)
Increases psychological stress and competitive pressure on medical students by replacing pass/fail with letter-tiered grading, potentially harming mental health and collaboration—evidence from national studies shows pass/fail systems reduce anxiety and promote peer support.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2May disadvantage students from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds who face systemic barriers to academic performance (e.g., lack of academic prep, financial stress, caregiving duties), potentially widening equity gaps in medical school retention and graduation.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2Shifts focus from mastery learning to grade chasing, potentially undermining the development of empathy, teamwork, and long-term clinical skills—core competencies emphasized in modern medical education frameworks like AAMC Core Competencies.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2Imposes administrative and curriculum redesign costs on UW and WSU medical schools, which may strain existing budgets or require reallocation of faculty time—though fiscal impact is unspecified, schools will likely absorb these as operational expenses.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2May reduce access to medical education for non-traditional or non-traditionally prepared applicants who thrive in mastery-based or pass/fail environments, potentially narrowing the pipeline of diverse future physicians.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2
Who Is Most Affected
Medical students—especially those from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds—may experience increased stress, reduced collaboration, and higher attrition risk due to competitive grading; those in strong academic positions may benefit from clearer performance signals.
UW and WSU medical schools must redesign grading systems and faculty training; while this may improve standardization, it also increases administrative burden and may conflict with evidence-based pedagogical approaches that support well-being and equity.
Residency programs may benefit from more comparable academic metrics across applicants, but could misinterpret letter grades as proxies for clinical skill or professionalism—especially if grading standards vary in practice despite the mandate.
Future patients may benefit indirectly if improved grading leads to better-prepared physicians, but could be harmed if stress-induced attrition reduces the supply of diverse physicians or if students prioritize test performance over empathy and teamwork.
Faculty and academic staff may face increased workload to develop and implement objective assessments; those who support mastery-based learning may view the policy as undermining pedagogical values.