After an Ad Hoc Committee report, a Student Government report and 10 months of debate, the University’s Faculty Senate voted 26-14-4 in favor of a plus-minus grading scale Tuesday during its monthly meeting.
Introduced into the Faculty Senate in November 2011, the resolution calls for a grading system that would change the way students’ grade point averages are calculated. For example, a student that receives a B plus would receive a 3.3 instead of a 3.0.
Despite its passage, a few more steps are necessary before the grading scale may be implemented. The resolution now heads to the Office of Academic Affairs, according to T. Gilmour Reeve, vice provost for Academic Programs, Planning and Review.
“Now that the bill has passed, we will consider all of the stakeholders before making a decision,” Reeve said. “There is another level of review before it is officially implemented.”
Don Chance, finance professor and the resolution’s author, said the grading scale could be implemented in two years, but Registrar Robert Doolos estimated that current students “probably won’t see the new grading scale before they graduate.”
Chance opened the discussion during the meeting by giving an overview of the bill before addressing criticism.
“The grading scale is more accurate in terms of grading how well students understand the material,” Chance said. “The best part is that it provides students with more opportunities.”
Some senators questioned if the grading scale would cause students to go on academic probation because of the added divisions.
“Currently if a student gets a C minus, it is a 2.0,” said biology Professor William Stickle. “With this system, would a student that gets a C minus go on academic probation because a C minus is a 1.7?”
Chemistry Professor Linda Allen also expressed her confusion about the bill.
“I don’t know about this resolution; there are just too many shades of gray,” Allen said.
Chance dismissed criticism, instead saying professors could change the grading scale to fit their classes.
Senators also raised questions about the cost of implementation, but Doolos said the greatest cost will not be noticeable.
“I am concerned that you don’t really understand the human cost of implementing the grading scale,” Doolos said. “Departments are going to have to take time to look and decide if they want to change their requirements.”
Senators aren’t the only ones opposed to the resolution. Student Government members have been vocal in their opposition — releasing their own report to counter the Ad Hoc Committee report by the Faculty Senate — but they aren’t done yet. Thomas Rodgers, Student Government’s director of Academic Affairs, said he plans to stay in touch with Academic Affairs as they evaluate the resolution.
“The important thing is to make sure they know our stance,” Rodgers said. “There wasn’t a single student on the Ad Hoc Committee. We feel that we haven’t had enough input in the process.”
