Proposed Resolution on Grade Change Policy

3 thoughts on “Proposed Resolution on Grade Change Policy”

1. With the proposed UFC changes to the faculty handbook, this resolution does not seem necessary. I would ask one question though, regarding this statement in the UFC pending resolution: “faculty must be afforded the opportunity by the relevant college authorities to discuss the protocols that were followed if the change leads to a retroactive W or an expunging of the record”. Why does this only apply to a retroactive W or an expunging of the record? Should this not apply to all change of grades that are not done by the faculty? I understand the expunging or a change to a retroactive W based on extenuating circumstances, but the recent college admission scandal showed that wealthy donors can lobby administrations (successfully) for a positive change in their children’s grade. We all assume this will never happen at Cornell (probably quite rightly) but making the revised policy more general will be more transparent and give faculty more oversight under change of any grade.

   Reply

2. I thank the resolution sponsors for endorsing the collaboration plan that we set in motion last May when we created the current grade change policy. That plan is playing out nicely.

   There have been discussions with the college registrars and others about how we can inspire confidence that the proper protocols are followed when extenuating circumstances prompt a request for a retroactive W or an expunge.

   The UFC has developed a proposal that addresses this issue and it is posted on the Senate’s Pending Legislation website.

   In addition, a special Working Group has been convened by the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education that will also look into the issue. Dialogs can be expected at the December and February meetings.

   In the meantime here are two comments on the resolution itself. Instead of

   “The University has been changing course grades without notifying the instructor of record and, thus, without the consent of the instructor.”

   it would be more accurate to say

   “There have been isolated instances of the colleges expunging courses grades and changing course grades to “W” without notifying the instructor of record.”

   Second, until we took action at the May meeting, there were no required inform-the-instructor protocols in place. Thus, the second whereas does not make sense; there was no existing policy to modify.

   The whole idea is to go from a no policy/no guidance scene to a system of low-overhead, privacy-preserving, clearly-stated protocols that ensure integrity.

   Reply

3. I do not support this resolution as is based on flawed premises. The University has not been changing course grades.

   Since the start of our conversations about this issue, people have referred to Section 6.1 of the Faculty Handbook (regarding Instruction: Grade Changes):

   “Only the instructor of the course has the responsibility and authority to judge the quality of a student’s work and assess the appropriate grade. No one can overrule instructors and require them to go against their judgment.”

   I fully support this policy. This policy is not relevant, though, to the conversion of F’s to W’s.

   Let’s say that I assign a student an F, and this F is later converted to a W by my College’s Academic Records Committee. In this scenario, how and when has my assessment of the student’s work been overruled– who claims that the student’s work and performance in my course were any different from my assessment? How and when I have been required to go against my judgement? Answer: no one, and I have not.

   Retroactive W’s and expungements do not alter my or any professor’s assessment of a student’s performance in a given class. They rather determine that the student’s *lack* of performance in a particular instance is no longer relevant in the context of the student’s semester, year, or degree.

   As such, the practice of retroactive W’s is not an incursion into faculty responsibility and authority. Yet the proposed resolution (particularly its earlier draft) extends the authority of individual faculty members into students’ progress with their courses of study.

   It was argued in the October meeting that changing an F to a W is a grade change because the change affects a student’s grade-point average. Yet since when is a student’s GPA relevant to a faculty member’s evaluation of a student’s work? If an individual faculty member wants control over a student’s GPA, who is to say that the desire for such control isn’t vindictive and an abuse of power?

   Appendix I of the Faculty Handbook, “The Academic Responsibilities of the Faculty,” defines faculty obligations as the following:

   “to communicate and extend knowledge, to subject to continuous critical scrutiny and transmit…intellectual and cultural inheritance, and to provide conditions in which students are stimulated to explore, to challenge, and to learn.”

   I do not see “to serve as gatekeepers” or “to sort out the losers” listed among these obligations.

   Also, an F is hardly a specialized instrument; one doesn’t need to be an expert to assign one. Faculty are experts in their fields, but they are not necessarily experts in the issues that can lead a student to receive an F.

   Lastly, why is 50 per year a significant number of retroactive W’s? In 2018-2019, there were 15 formal undergraduate Policy 6.4 complaints. And how many concussions, hospitalizations, other crises…?

   I see that the revised resolution is toned down from the original. Still, I do not believe that certifying students’ failure has any essential place in our educational mission. I find the resolution and the conversations leading up to it to be counter-productive to a genuine understanding of the issues at hand.

   Joanie Mackowski, Associate Professor
   Senator, English Department

   Reply