The Student Senate hosted an open forum in the McNeil Room of the Rensselaer Union Tuesday in order to gather student input on the proposal concerning grade modifiers that is currently being debated by the Faculty Senate. Organized by Mike Goldenberg, chair of the Student Senate’s Academic Affairs and Services Committee, and moderated by Senate Parliamentarian and Chair of Judiciary and Student Rights Committee Peter Naccarato, the event was aimed at gathering suggestions from students on how to best implement a plus-minus grading system, if the proposal is passed in a faculty-wide vote in April.
Goldenberg began the event with an explanation of the pros and cons of the system in what he tried to make a “completely unbiased” presentation. He explained how many of the proposal’s supporters feel that it will offer “more fair and more precise” grading, and give students an incentive to work harder. In addition, he said many feel that a system of modified grades may be preferred by recruiters from both corporations and other schools.
The proposal’s critics, however, feel that it will inevitably lead to increased stress as students strive to push into the next category. Also, Goldenberg explained that many have said to him that it will lead to each assignment having a greater emphasis on the final grade, as a few points could make the difference between the new categories that didn’t exist before. Everyone agrees that the proposal, which includes an A- grade but no A+, would adversely affect 4.0 students, while many are concerned about the transition between the current system and that proposed. Lastly, Goldenberg said people are concerned that the grading in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, which is more often than not subjective, could not be helped with this greater accuracy.
The proposal, which was submitted to the Faculty Senate by the Curriculum Committee last fall, would change the current grading system at RPI to include pluses and minuses on final grades. The GPA system would then be altered to make an A=4.0, A-=3.67, B+=3.33, B=3.0, and so on. There will be no A+, nor a D-. Christoph Steinbruchel, chair of the Curriculum Committee, explained at the forum that were a student to earn an A+, a mark of achievement would be entered alongside the A in their transcript.
Many students spoke at the forum on their opinion of the modifier system, with one saying that it will be an incentive for students to work toward the grade rather than learning, and another citing concerns that the increased stress and workload will lead to decreased involvement in extracurriculars. Ryan Wetmore, greek representative on the Student Senate, informed those gathered at the forum that his experience in both the Senate’s greek storming campaign, in which senators visited fraternities and sororities, and in the IFC, students are for the most part opposed to the system. In addition, he said that at a recent IFC meeting, chapter presidents had voted 21-2 against the proposed system.
The bulk of the event consisted of students voicing their opinions on how to best implement a modified grading system. Many students spoke in favor of “grandfathering” currently enrolled students and only starting the plus-minus system with the freshmen. One student recommended that the year, the system is implemented, only 1000-level courses are graded with modifiers, then 2000-level the next year, and so on in a phasing in system. However, Provost G.P. “Bud” Peterson said he was not fond of the phasing in, particularly by class year as it could lead to two students in the same course earning the same numerical grade but different letter grades.
Several students offered alternatives to that of the Curriculum Committee’s proposal. The first to be suggested had A=4.0, B+=3.5, and B=3.0, with no “minus” grades. A straw poll of students at the event showed that it was supported 16-4 over the originally proposed system. The second suggestion was A=4.0, B+=3.67, B=3.33, B-=3.0, with no A-. Another straw poll found that students preferred this system 19-2 over the original. Yet another poll showed that students supported the latter system over the former 14-3.
Those present found the forum to be a success.
“I think the students who showed up had good ideas, some new, some that we’ve already expressed to the faculty,” said Goldenberg. “I think I am in a position to say that a majority of students are opposed to the current proposal.”
“I think it was very beneficial for the students to have an opportunity to share their thoughts with each other and the faculty representatives,” said Peterson after the forum. “They came up with a number of interesting suggestions, particularly related to the transition process.”
“I think it was useful,” said Christoph Steinbruchel, chair of the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee. “The suggestion to have two steps [A, B+, B] is something we didn’t consider in the Curriculum Committee. It’s something to consider, and we will definitely do that.”
Peterson said the next step students should take is speaking to their professors in class next week. The Faculty Senate has asked every professor to take some time in each of their classes to discuss the matter, and gauge student response to the issue, so that they might be better informed when the faculty vote on the proposal in April. While voicing their opinion was important, Peterson said, he felt that “it’s very important for students to communicate to faculty why they feel the way they do, for or against.”
