NOBODY LIKES to be talked about behind his back. So why does the faculty think they can do it to students without insulting us?
That's right, while we're all caught up in midterms and various spring activities around Grounds, professors at the Arts and Sciences Faculty Committee meeting were discussing the students and our supposed grade-grubbing ways. They want to change the Intermediate Honors as well as the Dean's List GPA requirement to a 3.6 as opposed to the current 3.4. Though Committee Chairman Donald Ramirez withdrew the proposal shortly after putting it on the table, the circumstances surrounding the whole event seem very murky. The decision to raise the bar for Dean's List or Intermediate Honors recognition could not affect students in a more direct fashion, therefore, the faculty, at the very least, should keep the students informed of their decision.
First, what's wrong with a 3.4? Nobody on the Committee would offer a comment about this. Chairman of the Faculty Senate, David T. Gies, although not on the Committee, offered some insight in an e-mail response. "I don't know anything about a formal resolution, nor how or whether it was brought up or tabled. That is, I know that there has been general discussion, and that the Dean is very interested in the subject of grade inflation, as are many of the faculty," said Gies.
The numbers concerning recent grade inflation don't warrant a dramatic change in the requirements for honors. In 1989, the graduating class had an average GPA of 3.03. Ten years later, the average GPA was a 3.18. There was no material change in College Board scores over the course of those ten years. As a consequence, aptitude has remained the same while levels of achievement, on net, have risen. Indeed, there is grade inflation. But only on the order of fifteen-hundredths of a point.
The Arts and Sciences Faculty Committee doesn't suggest that we change the 3.4 to 3.55, thereby adjusting for inflation. Instead they suggest that the new standard should be a 3.6, and for some reason unbeknownst to the students have temporarily set aside the issue.
This has led students to ask why, but faculty members have been less than receptive. In a personal interview, Donald Ramirez, a professor of mathematics and the chairman of the Committee, said "If you're looking for a comment, you won't find it here." Also on the Committee is Dean Melvyn Leffler, but he could not be reached for comment. In addition, Dean Stephen Plog, who also sits on the Committee could not be reached, but his secretary said that he had no comment and could not be met with, since he was busy with "end-of-the-year stuff."
The fact is the topic of grades directly affects us, the students. We crucially depend upon these badges of honor in applying to top graduate, law and business schools. It's not even so much that we need them in their own right, but in the application process, what's not there is often more telling than what is.
If fewer University students are recognized with the status of honors, fewer of us will be appealing candidates in the big contest for continuing education. The result is the University could send off fewer students to graduate school and could deter even more potential undergraduates from coming to the University for this reason.
Maybe this is a sacrifice some are willing to make in order to raise the bar. That's fine. But since it exclusively concerns the students, it should be articulated directly, openly and forthrightly to us. We should be permitted to engage in an open dialogue, to voice our concerns and apprehensions about this policy.
Instead, there is a veil of secrecy surrounding this Committee's deliberations. Usually a ring of secrecy implies that there is something to hide. What was wrong with the resolution? Why was it withdrawn? Can we expect it to come back, and in the same cloud of secrecy with which it was first introduced? Nevertheless, something fishy could have gone on, and students shouldn't tolerate it.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 21 hours agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 3 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
