Committees
Report of the Academic Practices Committee
Introduction
In December 2001, Provost Dennis Berkey charged a group comprised primarily of faculty to consider issues related to grading including: conferral of Latin honors, deadlines for dropping courses, the determination of course grades, grade changes, and transcript formats. Over the course of five months, the committee met several times to discuss these topics, review internal data, and study the practices of comparable institutions. What follows are the recommendations of the Academic Practices Committee for consideration by the Provost and the University Council.
Latin Honors
Currently, there is no campus-wide criterion for the conferral of Latin honors. Latin Honors are based upon attaining a GPA specified by the individual school or college over the course of an undergraduate degree program. The committee was charged to consider if there should be a campus-wide criterion for Latin honors; if 39%, the 2001 conferral rate, was too high a percentage for honors; and if the University should consider conferring honors based upon a percentage of the class. In making its recommendations, the committee reviewed the practices regarding the conferring of honors at other elite institutions, and it analyzed at length the meaning of the term "honors." An article by the Boston Globe (Oct. 8, 2001) compared some of the nation's elite colleges' and universities' honors rates for graduating seniors. Harvard, the primary focus of the article, graduated 91% of its seniors with honors. Boston University at 39% had a higher percentage of students graduating with honors than Johns Hopkins (29%), Boston College (29%), Duke (28%), Columbia (25%), Stanford (20%), and Cornell (8%). MIT does not confer honors. The committee discussed both the absolute and relative meaning of "honors." Given the comparative figures with other institutions and the absolute meaning of honors taken to be "superior," the committee ultimately agreed that conferring honors upon 39% of graduating students at Boston University is too high a rate. Additionally, the committee was troubled by the substantial discrepancy in what constitutes honors among the Schools and Colleges at Boston University. Percentages of students earning honors ranged from 21% in the School of Management to 53% in the College of Fine Arts. (See Appendix A) After examining information from other institutions and discussing the impact on Boston University students, the committee voted to recommend that: Boston University move to a percentage-based system of conferring Latin honors. The top 5% within each school and college would be awarded Summa Cum Laude, the next 10% Magna Cum Laude, and the next 15% Cum Laude. The committee did recommend that The University Professors which awarded 95% of its students Latin honors, fully in keeping with its required 3.5 GPA threshold, might be permitted an exception to a fixed standard. Given the very small number of students in that program and the outstanding quality of those students, to apply the percentage rule seemed inappropriate.
It is the committee's recommendation that honors be calculated after 7 semesters (or one semester prior to graduation when a student requires more than 8 semesters of study), so that the designations will be determined early enough to be included in the commencement program. The committee did discuss whether this early calculation of honors would be a disincentive to students' continued hard work in their final semester. However, the ultimate conclusion was that motivated and talented students qualifying for Latin honors will not precipitously "slack off" as many apply to graduate school or have post-undergraduate plans that would necessitate a solid GPA from start to finish.
Drop Deadlines
Currently, students can drop a course without any notation appearing on the transcript through the fifth week of classes. Additionally, they can drop a course and receive a "W" on the transcript up until two weeks prior to the end of classes. While this policy has helped students avoid receiving failing grades, it has also allowed them to "craft" their GPAs by withdrawing if the student fears that he will receive a lower grade than he desires. This may mean that he withdraws to avoid a grade of C or even B.
Each committee member sought to reflect the range of views and concerns that might be voiced among the faculty regarding the drop deadline. Some argued that there was no need to change the current deadline, as students have paid their tuition for the courses, and it is penalty enough that they will ultimately need to re-take a course or substitute a different course to stay on track for earning their degrees. Others argued that students need time to get their sea legs under them in courses and to see if they have the requisite preparation (this was especially noted in the sciences, mathematics, and foreign languages). The committee deliberated on how much feedback to students on their performance was called for and whether a change to an earlier drop deadline would require changes in pedagogy. The committee also observed, upon examining the data (see Appendix B), that approximately 3% of all grades in a given semester result in a W, with half of those Ws being given after the current drop with W deadline. After weighing the options and considering the pattern of drops, the committee decided to recommend:
The drop (with W) deadline be moved to the end of the eighth week of classes. This will allow faculty to evaluate at least a paper or exam for each student and for the student to make an informed decision as to his/her progress in the class. The committee further recommends that:
Faculty not be allowed to assign the W beyond the eighth week. In particular, the committee recommends that no W grade appear on professors' grade sheets. This policy should help relieve some of the pressure for grade changes that students may bring to bear on their faculty. In particular, the committee argued that faculty be informed that grade of W on their final grade sheets will no longer be a viable option (or recognized by the Office of the Registrar).
Extreme circumstances, like an extended illness or serious family emergency, which sometimes makes it necessary for a student to receive a W would continue to be handled through the Deans' offices.
Determination of Course Grades
There are currently and have been in the past, instances of faculty members delegating the responsibility of determining course grades to the teaching fellows and graduate assistants that lead components of a course such as lab or discussion sections. While there is the expectation that our graduate students act and are trained as apprentice teachers, the committee agrees with the Provost's assertion that the ultimate responsibility for assigning grades must rest with the faculty of record. As it is the faculty of record who establishes the content of the course, the weight of various assignments, and the standards for grading exams and assignments, it must also be the faculty of record that determines and assigns the final grade with the input of the appropriate teaching fellows or graduate assistants. Therefore, the committee recommends that the following language be disseminated to the faculty of the academic units:
The faculty member of record is responsible for issuing final grades, even if teaching fellows play a major role in the evaluation of student work. Should any questions arise from a student, a parent, or an outside party with rights to access to the records, the faculty member will bear full responsibility for any discussion or explanation of the grade.
Grade Changes After the Close of the Semester
There are various recognized pressures on faculty in the grading process. Not only are there standards of quality that must be considered in assigning a grade, but also, increasingly, there is the issue of financial aid that is contingent upon earning a specific GPA. Students often lobby faculty to change grades in order to continue their various types of aid. The existing grade change form makes the process relatively simple, indicating the reason for the grade change, one of which is "incorrect calculation." Bowing to increasing pressure from students may be combated by creating some additional hurdles to the grade change process. Requiring faculty to provide a more complete rationale for each grade change as well as instituting appropriate and consistent procedures for oversight of these changes will, in the committee's opinion, go far in reducing the number of grade changes after the semester. Therefore, the committee recommends a three-pronged policy regarding grade changes: Modify forms to eliminate incorrect calculation option. Faculty must provide a comprehensive rationale for any change of grades after the close of the semester.
Require approval of grade changes by the unit's chair or dean. Disallow grade changes after six months from the end of the semester.
Transcript Format
The committee discussed at length the utility of modifying the current undergraduate transcript format. Committee members pointed out that the purpose of an undergraduate transcript is to assess a graduate's performance with respect to graduates of other institutions and to graduates of Boston University.
The committee analyzed the various audiences served by the transcript (graduate admissions officers, employers, parents, and students themselves) and the various uses to which the transcript is put (as a marker of comparative excellence, as an indicator of the institution's standards, etc.). In its deliberations, the committee suggested various ways that the transcript might be modified to serve the variety of audiences and uses. Some members of the committee thought the Boston University transcript should be as comprehensive as possible, including information on rank in class (by decile), class statistics such as average high school GPA and rank, and median grade conferred in a given course. Others countered that too much information is only confusing to the reader of the transcript. The committee understood the impetus for modifying the transcript, such that the inclusion of average grades in the course and numbers of students enrolled would give some context for judging the individual student's grade against the average.
The committee examined two transcript formats provided by Dartmouth College and Indiana University, as both institutions make use of more detail on the transcript than is typically seen. (See Appendix C)
Dartmouth College now includes on its standard transcript the number of students enrolled in each course and the median grade assigned. The college approved this format in 1994 and incorporated its use in 1998. Indiana University now offers two options to its students: a traditional transcript much like Boston University's and a context transcript that includes comprehensive grade distribution information. Only 2%-5% of IU students request the context transcript and, in fact, Indiana University may do away with this option as they change software applications.
Most members of the committee favored the Dartmouth transcript model and would recommend moving toward that format.
The current transcript should be modified to include information on number of students enrolled in the course and median grade assigned. Courses enrolling fewer than 10 students as well as independent studies should be exempted from including the additional data.
The committee considered what level of data should be included and discarded the following options: 1)weighing an individual student's semester grades against all students in that academic unit and 2)weighing a student's semester grades against those of all students in that class. This level of detail was not viewed as helpful to those reviewing the transcript nor advantageous for Boston University students.
The committee discussed providing a final rank-in-class (e.g., by deciles or quartiles) but decided against such a recommendation. The top 30% of the graduating class will be so designated by Latin honors, but the committee concluded that characterizing the other 70% of the class did not serve those students well and would not ultimately be helpful to the reader of the transcript.
AP Credit
During the committee's deliberations, the matter of AP credit was raised, primarily because of timely reports that a number of institutions were re-evaluating their policies in granting AP credit. The committee did not have the opportunity in the 2001-2002 academic year for comprehensive review and discuss of the awarding of AP credit to incoming students. However, there was a brief discussion that culminated in the recommendation that the recent APC Recommendations on Advanced Placement and Credit (Appendix D) developed by the College of Arts and Sciences be distributed and discussed at the Council of Deans and Undergraduate Council.
Conclusion
The committee sought to make recommendations that would tighten policies related to academic standards, but members reiterated the need for on-going serious discussion within departments and schools about the standards for assigning grades and the hazards of grade inflation. These recommendations are meant to serve as a part of a larger discussion about academic standards and practices. The committee was sensitive to the fact that Boston University students are competing for places in graduate and professional schools, and it sought to make balanced recommendations that would indicate our high academic standards without placing our graduates at a competitive disadvantage in employment or graduate education.
These recommendations are respectfully submitted to the Provost by the members of the Academic Practices Committee.
| Title | Name | Department |
|---|---|---|
| Dean | Linda Wells | CGS |
| Co-chair Professor | Laurence Kotlikoff | CAS Economics |
| Co-chair Professor | Peter Arnold | SMG |
| Professor | Dottie Clark | COM |
| Ms. Frances-Gail Cosico | ||
| Student Union Professor | Sidney Friedman | CFA |
| Professor,Senior Associate Dean | Susan Jackson | CAS |
| Professor | Igor Lukes | UNI and CAS |
| International Relations Professor | Melanie Matthies | SAR |
| Professor | Natalie McKnight | CGS |
| Professor | Hamid Nawab | ENG |
| Professor | Mary Catherine O'Connor | SED |
| Mr. Richard Rook | ||
| Associate Registrar Professor | Fred Wasserman |
|
| Ms. Suzanne Kennedy Gill | ||
| Assistant Provost, member ex officio | Ms. Stephanie Pasha De Vito |
