The grade modifier plan, debated for months last year by faculty, students, and administrators, has been accepted and readied for implementation by President Jackson. Following a vote by the general faculty with a 43.6 percent turnout that showed 74.8 percent approval for the measure, the Faculty Senate voted to recommend the plan to Provost G.P. “Bud” Peterson, who in turn recommended it to the president.
“While there was little doubt in my mind that the faculty would ultimately be supportive, I was a little surprised at the overwhelming support,” said Peterson.
Several members of the Student Senate, led by Grand Marshal Mike Dillon, attempted to delay Peterson’s recommendation by organizing an official vote of the student body, but that attempt failed at the emergency Senate meeting called by Dillon to vote on the issue.
Under the accepted plan, plus-minus grading would be phased into the system started in Fall 2005 with 1000- and 6000-level courses. In 2006, 2000-level courses will be switched, and in 2007, the 4000-level courses. The plan calls for an expanded grading system from the current A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, D=1.0, F=0 to A=4.0, A-=3.67, B+=3.33, B=3.0, and so on. There will be no A+, nor a D-. For those students that do earn an A+, a mark of achievement will be entered alongside the A in their transcripts.
The Faculty Senate had been debating the issue since the spring of 2003, and while they had collected grading data that supported their view that the change would not affect overall grading in classes, the Student Senate expressed deep concern over the impact on individual students once that body began discussing it last December.
The Student Senate offered several arguments against changing the grading system in a motion passed unanimously in March. The motion cited four reasons for opposing the system put together by Professor Christoph Steinbruchel and the Faculty Senate’s Curriculum Committee: increased impact for each assignment on students’ final grades; increased stress on students with 4.0s to perform at their usual standards; a lack of recommendations on shifting financial aid, graduation, and other requirements that depend on GPA; and limitations on “how quantized grades and grading criteria can become,” especially in classes where the grading is more subjective.
Faculty had been urged to discuss the issue with their classes and through a new “Take Your Students to Lunch” program that was introduced by the provost’s office last semester, but many professors did not follow through on this request.
The Student Senate held a forum for students to voice their opinions on the proposal and allow the faculty and administrators who would make the decision to hear directly from those who would be most affected by the issue. Turnout was low at the event, but among those who attended, opposition to the proposed changes was high. In response to the students’ concerns, the details of the plan were modified, especially on issues such as grandfathering the current students, and organizers counted the event as a success.
“I was very pleased with the exchange that occurred between the faculty and the students on this issue,” Peterson said.
