MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, DECEMBER 9, 1996
        The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m.,
Monday, December 9, 1996 in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences
Building.
        Professor Janice Schach, Chairperson of the Senate Council,
presided.
        Members absent were:  Gary Anglin*, Vasant Bhapkar, Patricia
Birchfield, George Blandford, Darla Botkin, Joseph Burch, Lauretta
Byars, Berry Campbell, Brad Canon*, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Eric
Christianson*, Jordan Cohen*, Scott Coovert, Raymond Cox*, Frederick
Danner, Frederick DeBeer*, Philip DeSimone, Andrew Dreibel, Richard
Edwards, Janice Evans, Robert Farquhar, William Fortune, Daniel
Fulks, Beatrice Gaunder, Hans Gesund*, Issam Harik, Christine
Havice, James Holsinger, Clifford Hynniman*, Craig Infanger*, Edward
Jennings*, Raleigh Jones, Jamshed Kanga*, Laura Keith, Stuart
Keller*, Monica Kern, Craig Koontz, Philipp Kraemer, Gretchen
LaGodna, Thomas Lester, G.T.  Lineberry*, C. Oran Little, Joyce
Logan*, Daniel Mason*, M. Pinar Menguc*, Jenny Miller, Karen Mingst,
David Mohney*, Donald Mullineaux, David Nash, Wolfgang Natter,
Michael Neitzel*, Jacqueline Noonan, William O'Connor, Melanie Shay
Onkst, Rhoda-Gale Pollack*, Deborah Powell, Thomas Robinson, Michael
Rohmiller, Avinash Sathaye, Horst Schach, David Shipley, David
Stockham, Enid Waldhart*, Thomas Waldhart*, Retia Walker, Jesse
Weil*, Charles Wethington*, Adam Wilhelm, Carolyn Williams, Eugene
Williams, Lionel Williamson, Paul Willis, Emery Wilson, Phyllis
Wise, Craig Wood, Ernest Yanarella.
        Chairperson Schach made the following announcements:
        There are three new members to the Senate Council, they are
Ray Cox, Roy Moore, and Lee Meyer.  They were given a round of
applause.  Mike Neitzel, Tom Garrity, and Jim Applegate are the
outgoing Senate Council members.  They were given a round of
applause.  Jim will be continuing on as Senate Council Chair next
year.
        The Holiday Social will be December 10, 1996 from 4:00 p.m.
until 6:00 p.m., in the Alumni House with the Board of Trustee
members.
        The Chair said that following discussion with Merle
Hackbart, Special Assistant to the Governor and the Governor's Task
Force on Higher Education, the Senate Council developed the
following resolution in keeping with the Senate Council's position
on the role of the research institution in the Commonwealth, in an
attempt to gain further recognition by the Governor's Task Force of
the needs of the University of Kentucky.  Professor Schach asked
Professor Applegate to introduce the resolution.  *  Absence
Explained Senate Council Resolution The Pursuit of Academic
Excellence The University of Kentucky Senate Council by this
resolution reaffirms the commitment of the faculty to excellence in
teaching and research at the University of Kentucky.  The Council
believes that the University should be position to move to the next
level of excellence in achievement as a Carnegie I Research
University and should be positioned for national recognition of its
teaching and research programs.  As a first step in assisting the
University to move to this next level of excellence, the Senate
Council proposes that the Administration, in concert with the
faculty, examine programs currently in place at the University of
Kentucky which are already at or have the potential to move into
arenas of national prominence and identify new programs which are of
major significance to the Commonwealth.  Further, a study should be
undertaken to determine what types of resources will be needed to
achieve or sustain academic excellence in these identified areas.
These initiatives will constitute an important first stage of the
development of a Capital Campaign for the University and will be
useful for the planning process of such an effort.
        Chairperson Schach said she would like to outline the
discussion for the agenda item concerning plus/minus grading.  The
discussion would be broken into two parts; one to discuss the merits
or demerits of plus/minus grading systems in general and the other a
discussion of policy making.  How does the University deal with it
as a policy, considering the history and where we will be heading in
the future.  The following will be the ground rules for the
discussion, there will be no action items entertained, the Chair
will recognize the speakers on the floor and all speakers need to
represent new views as compared to the person who spoke before so
that everyone gets an opportunity to participate.  If you are going
to simply support what someone else said, just state that.  Everyone
received a chronology of plus/minus grading at the University.  The
history is a long one starting previous to 1970 with the College of
Law, then the College of Architecture and the Landscape Architecture
program.  In 1983, the first proposals for University-wide
plus/minus grading  was returned to the Senate Council.  It was
denied at the Senate Floor in 1984 and again in 1989.  So, on three
separate occasions plus/minus grading on a university-wide basis has
been rejected.  In 1990, Fine Arts came on board.  There was also
Senate discussion of the proposal by the College of Arts and
Sciences and in Communications, where again a University-wide system
was discussed and returned to the Senate Council.  The approval of
plus/minus grading in Arts and Sciences was significant and impacted
more students than the other colleges with specific courses tied
only to that major.  Then, the Colleges of Social Work and Human
Environmental Sciences came forth with similar proposals which were
denied on the Senate floor.  There is a copilation at the end of the
chronology of which colleges have plus/minus, which are requesting,
and then a poll that Senate Council Chair Gretchen LaGodna conducted
in February 1996 of where other colleges stood on the issue.
        After reviewing the chronology, it is evident that this is a
subject with a long history in the Senate and has been carefully
considered in the Senate and the Senate Council.  This has not been
a subject that has been treated lightly or quickly.  It has been
carefully debated and considered.  The Senate Council Chair would
like the discussion to acknowledge that, and acknowledge that they
are all trying to work for the best solution on this subject.
Contrary to some of the recent Kernel editorials, no one is trying
to do anyone harm, no faculty is trying to do students harm, and
vice versa.  Everyone is trying to find the solution that is in the
best interest of everyone.  So, the Senate Council Chair would like
the discussion to proceed in that spirit.  Much of the discussion
that has gone on so far probably has served individual interests and
at this stage we need to consider what is in the best interest of
everyone at the University.  What is in the best interest of all
colleges and not individual cases.
        In order to frame the discussion, a number of individuals
have been asked to speak who will provide some important information
in consideration of the discussion.  Then, there will be a four
person panel of students and faculty who have thoughtfully prepared
their positions on plus/minus grading.  Then the meeting will be
opened for floor discussion.  Agenda Item:  For discussion only.
Grading Systems Background:
        A Chronological History of +/- Grading Systems at the
University of Kentucky Pre-l970 Senate approves College of Law +/-
grading system.  1978 Senate approves College of Architecture +/-
grading system at May 2, 1978 meeting.  1982 Senate approves
Landscape Architecture Program +/- grading system at October 11,
1982 meeting.  1983 A university-wide proposal for +/- grading is
forwarded to the Senate in 1983 and returned to the Senate
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee.  1984 A university-wide
+/- grading system proposal is denied by the Senate at the April
1984 meeting.  1989 A university-wide +/- grading system is denied
by the Senate at the March 20, 1989 meeting.  1990 Senate approves
of College of Fine Arts +/- grading system at April 23, 1990
meeting.  1994-95 During the 1994-95 academic year, the Senate
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee considers a College of
A&S proposal to establish a plus/minus grading system for
undergraduate courses in that college.  After deliberations, the
committee recommends that the change be instituted on a
university-wide basis rather than in just the College of A&S.
Plus/minus grading is already in use in the College of Law, Fine
Arts, Architecture, and the Landscape Architecture Program.  April
1995 At the April 10, 1995 Senate meeting a general discussion is
held.  Debate ensues regarding instituting the +/- system for all
University undergraduate courses, as well as solely in the College
of A&S.  No clear consensus is achieved.  October 1995 At the
October 9, 1995 Senate meeting, the College of A&S proposal and a
university-wide system is again discussed and the following concerns
raised:  1.      Issues of equity and consistency 2.      If there
was no designated A+ grade, the best students may be less likely to
earn
        4.0's.  (This concern was confirmed by experience of
Shippenburg University of
        PA, who adopted a +/- grading system in 1992.)  3.
Weakest students may be more likely to fall below 2.0 GPA's.  The
Senate returns proposals to the Senate Council for further study.
December 1995 In response to the Senate's directive, the Senate
Council seeks additional input by sending the proposal to the deans
of undergraduate colleges asking faculty councils or comparable
groups review it.  The request specifically asks that they consider
the advisability of a University-wide plus/minus system for all
undergraduate students.  The memo invites student input from the
colleges as well.  A separate request is made to the Student
Government Association.  February 1996 The Senate Council
reconsiders proposals for a university-wide +/- grading system and
+/- grading in the College of A&S at its 19 and 26 February meetings
taking into consideration the following input:
         Discussion at previous Senate meetings
         SGA's October 1995 petitions and January 1996 Kernel survey
         Internet assessment of other universities' experiences
         Responses from 10 University of Kentucky Colleges
         Research-based data from Dr. Tom Guskey and Dr. Roseann
Hogan The Senate Council acknowledges that those currently using a
+/- grading system are satisfied, but concludes that there is no
compelling rationale to recommend instituting such as system
university-wide.  The Council believes, however, that the original
proposal forwarded by the College of A&S should be brought back to
the Senate for a vote.  March 1996 Senate approves College of Arts &
Sciences +/- grading system.  April 1996 The College of
Communication and Information Studies College Advisory Council
unanimously requests that their College be added to the list with
approved +/- grading system.  The proposed system is consistent with
that of the College of A&S and is accepted by the Chair of the
Senate Admissions and Academic Standards Committee as an extension
of the earlier debate.  The Senate Council recommends the proposal
and the Senate approves at the April meeting.  October 1996 The
Colleges of Social Work and Human Environmental Sciences forwards to
the Senate Council proposals for a +/- grading system patterned
after that of the College of A&S.  The proposals are accepted by the
Senate Council as extensions of the earlier debate and forwarded to
the Senate which denies both proposals at the October 14, 1996
meeting.  A motion is passed for the Senate Council to revisit the
entire issue of +/- grading.  At the October 28, 1996 Senate Council
meeting, the idea is approved of holding a series of discussion-only
sessions for +/- grading system at the November and December Senate
meetings in an effort to arrive at a clear and educated consensus on
this issue.  The consensus of the Council is that no motions be
allowed during these sessions and that spokespersons representing
various sides, both faculty and students, be invited to present.
Current Colleges with +/- Grading College of Law College of
Architecture Landscape Architecture College of Fine Arts College of
Arts and Sciences College of Communications and Information Studies
Current Colleges Requesting +/- Grading College of Social Work
College of Human Environmental Science The Graduate School Results
of Poll on +/- Grading System Conducted by Senate Council Chair
Gretchen LaGodna February 1996
 College of Social Work
        Faculty supports a university-wide +/- system
 College of Allied Health Professions
        Faculty Council reports Ênot much support¾ for the concept,
but if established,
        they believe it should be university-wide
 College of Engineering
        Student view is negative and this view is supported by
faculty
 College of B&E
        Majority of faculty polled were opposed to +/- grading
system
 College of Agriculture
        Student Council strongly opposed.  Faculty response mixed by
majority support.
        All were opposed to adding an A+ category.
 College of Nursing
        Faculty Council indicated majority of faculty support
 College of Human Environmental Sciences
        Faculty voted to support, but recommended no use of D- or A+
categories.
        Suggest that the pluses be at the .5 level and minuses at
the .7 level.
 College of Communications and Information Studies
        Faculty Council in support, only if university-wide and with
no A+
 College of Education
        Departments were equally divided between opposition and
support
 SGA
        Survey in Kernel revealed 235 students opposed and 43
supporting.
        The Chair first invited Betty Huff, the University Registrar
to share some of her thoughts and impressions of plus/minus grading
at other Universities.
        Betty Huff made the following remarks:
        Jan Schach asked me to comment on any information I might
have from my colleagues across the country about the impact of a
conversion to plus/minus grading.
        About one year ago there was a discussion on the Registrar's
List Serve about the effects of a conversion to plus/minus grading.
I was unaware at that time that the topic would become a major issue
at UK or I would have retained the correspondence.  But the distinct
impression given by my colleagues indicated the following:
        A conversion to plus/minus grading resulted in a Êgathering
toward the middle¾ for most students.  The students truly affected
were the students at each end.  Students with 2.00 GPAs tended to
drop and students with 4.00 GPAs tended to drop.  Since a C- is a
1.7, a student with a GPA bordering on 2.0 is likely to fall below
2.0 and be placed on academic probation.  It is also important to
remember that federal financial requirements necessitate a 2.0
overall for the academic year.  Thus a student with all Cs and one
C- would be out of compliance for financial aid purposes for that
academic year and would have to appeal for an exemption.
        As for the concern of students about their GPA, if they are
applying to another university for undergraduate or graduate school,
it is not necessarily so that the receiving institution accepts the
GPA as reported.  UK recomputes the transfer GPA for undergraduate
students for purposes of admissions.  Many universities who do not
have a GPA that includes plus/minus grading will strip the pluses
and minuses from the student's academic record.  And many
institutions recompute the GPA based on the major courses.
        The Chair then recognized Virginia Davis-Nordin from
Education to share some thoughts from Tom Guskey, College of
Education, who is as close to an expert on the subject as there is
on the campus.
        Virginia Davis-Nordin made the following remarks:
        Tom Guskey who some of you know has his doctorate from the
University of Chicago in Measurement Evaluation and Statistical
Analysis.  He spends his time running around the world, researching
and writing in this area.
        I sent out an e-mail to the faculty in my college telling
them about this discussion and this is what I received back from
Tom.
        Tom wanted to attend the Senate meeting on Monday, but he
couldn't because he has to go to Vancouver to accept a national
award for Book of the Year from the National Staff Development
Council.
        His wish for the meeting would be to press those who want
plus/minus grading to provide evidence that the change will enhance
teaching or learning in any way.  He knows of none.  As an
institution of higher learning, should not our decisions be based on
evidence rather than opinion, regardless of how passionately or
emotionally presented?  What is our purpose in grading anyway?  As
educators is our primary interest in helping students learn, or is
it in accentuating and then codifying the differences among them?
Is our purpose to develop talent, or is it to select talent?  If it
is indeed the latter, to select talent, then we should all teach as
poorly as possibly for it accomplishes that purpose quite well.
There are students who for various reasons will learn regardless of
what we do.  The vast majority of others who need our help and
guidance, however, will not get it and variation will be enhanced.
When I think of all the important pedagogy issues that deserve
serious consideration and debate I am greatly saddened by the
attention this trivial one of plus/minus grading is getting.
        The Chair then introduced Alan Aja and Michael Tomblyn.
Alan is the President of the Student Government Association and
Michael is a Student Senator and as well as a Senate Council member.
        Alan Aja made the following remarks:
        I am going to give a brief history of the Student Government
Association's involvement with the plus/minus system.  I went back
through some of the files in the Student Government office and I
could not find action that was taken during the last year by the
Student Senate or by the Student Government in general.  I will tell
you that as you recall last year the Student Government Association
had a survey in the Kentucky Kernel.  They took out a small ad and
asked the question Êare you opposed or in favor of plus/minus¾?  Two
hundred thirty-five students opposed and twenty-three supported
plus/minus.  However, we did not feel, that was a valid scientific
survey, so we hired independent contractors under the direction of
Tim Cantrell from Lexington Community College.  Students were then
called randomly from the phone directory and asked various questions
about the plus/minus grading system.  The bottom line is that out of
ten students; seven were opposed, two were for, and one did not
care.
        I would like to share some of the points that students are
concerned about.
        -       All or nothing, if we are going to have it, let's
have it in every college.  What about a
                grandfather clause?  How about for first year
students only and, if so, keep it University-wide?
        -       Graduate Students, what is my GPA, how is it going
to work?
        -       Double majors, there are students who have classes
in different colleges, one who has
                plus/minus and one who doesn't?  What do they do
when applying to Graduate School?
                What is their GPA?  When they have two different
ones?
        -       It is an accurate system.  It is fair.  It is a
great reward to students who are in the plus
                range.
        -       IF IT IS OPTIONAL, WHAT HAPPENS?  IF IT IS
optional, what is the big deal?
        -       Even students in classes that deal with contract
grading are confused.
        There are instructors who have chosen not to use it this
semester, who have mocked it in front of classes.  That in many ways
destroys the legitimacy and creditability of the system.
        In all honesty, most of what I have heard has been against
plus/minus.  But the bottom line is listen to the students, the
majority of the students here today are graduating, but are here
because they are concerned about the student's future.  Let's keep
our University consistent and do what we can to be as fair,
accurate, and consistent as possible.
        Michael Tomblyn made the following remarks:
        Please take out the results of the survey form.  Professor
Tim Cantrell took care of the experimental design and made sure
there was no bias in the questions.  The first graph is the class
breakdown, it starts high with the freshmen.  The reason for the
sampling being higher with underclassmen is because more of then
tend to live in dorms.  But that is important because freshmen and
sophomores will have to live under this system longer.
        Page two, Item 2 is the breakdown of the survey results in
each college, a frequency sample.  There are really good results
from the larger colleges; Arts and Sciences, Business and Economics,
Engineering, and Education.
        Item 3 is something I put in, because I wanted to know if
students felt that they were able to educate themselves sufficiently
on the plus/minus issue.  Basically the only way students do that is
by talking to professors and by reading the student press.
        Item 4 has the text in it, so you can read it exactly as it
was presented.  Once again Ken Cantril made sure there was no bias
and we were not leading in it.  Just like Alan said, if you ask ten
students; seven were against, two were for, and one did not know.
As far as in the different colleges, the larger colleges especially
Arts and Sciences, Communications, Engineering, Social Work, Human
Environmental Sciences, the percentage of the breakdown for and
against was similar to that of the University as a whole.  There
were four colleges that were interesting; one the Graduate School,
graduate students were opposed to plus/minus not quite 2 to 1.  I am
wondering if there is some noise there.  I talked to some Graduate
Students after the survey and found that they would not want to get
plus/minus in their classes but when they are TAing in a large class
they would not mind having that tool to differentiate between
students.  The other three that were interesting are the three
colleges that currently have the plus/minus grading system.  The
College of Law was evenly divided.  As far as the two undergraduate
colleges who have plus/minus, one was opposed slightly and the other
was almost completely opposed.
        I have heard concerns from that the students opinions do not
carry a lot of weight.  But I feel every piece of information is a
good piece of information.
        The Chair then introduced Professor Steve Hart, the
Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to describe the
process that the College of Arts and Sciences went through to
approve in house the plus/minus proposal and share some thoughts as
to the rationale of the College.
        Professor Hart made the following remarks:
        The issue of a plus/minus grading system has, as you are
aware, been a long-standing issue in our university community. The
recommendation to implement a +/- grading system in the College of
Arts & Sciences originated in the Council of the College of Arts &
Sciences (which is a faculty-elected body acting as an advisory body
to the dean, consisting of representatives from the three areas of
Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities, a  student
representative, and the Associate Dean, all of whom have voting
rights, except for the latter).  The College of Arts & Sciences
Council during the 1993-1994 academic year asked that a
sub-committee look at the issue of plus/minus grading, which, after
lengthy deliberations, recommended implementing a new grading
system. The recommendation was based on the rationale that the new
+/- system will lead to greater accuracy in the assessment of
students' academic performance. The College of Fine Arts was
contacted, and the College Council heard that faculty and students
alike liked the system.  The issue was debated in the College
Council in its first meeting, and the decision was made to proceed
with a vote.  As a result of some informal soundings Ms. Paige
Bendel, then the student representative on the council, suggested
that, if the new system led to greater accuracy, students were in
favor of the new system. She also addressed the council with regard
to relaunching the Student Advisory Council; she was encouraged by
the A&S Council to do this. The Arts & Sciences College Council
subsequently voted 5 to 1 in favor of the following motion:
        "That the College of Arts & Sciences implement the system of
plus and minus option for letter grades, commencing with the
1995-1996 academic year."
        At that point, the decision was made to take a vote of the
faculty of Arts & Sciences.  This vote was a paper ballot; ballots
were circulated to every full-time faculty member in the College of
Arts & Sciences. On November 7, 1994 the results of the vote of the
A&S faculty became known:
        Those in favor:        151
        Votes against:           59
        The above motion was then forwarded to the Senate Council.
During the whole of the 1995-1996 academic year the issue was
debated at the University Senate level; the issue, as I understand
it, was whether the College of Arts & Sciences should be allowed to
implement this system, or whether it should be a university-wide
system.  The argument in favor boiled down to two points: (1) the
A&S faculty strongly supported such a system which was seen as more
accurate, and  (2) the University had already, in effect, adopted an
approach whereby colleges retained a degree of autonomy since three
colleges, Fine Arts, Law, and Architecture, already had the system.
        Mitigating against its implementation was the idea that
there should be uniformity in grading throughout the university
system. The first survey of student opinion carried out by The
Kernel in spring 1995 was inconclusive and showed opinion on the
issue to be split.  As you know, the proposal, after a year-long
deliberation, was passed at the Senate level in Spring 1996, and has
been implemented in the College of Arts & Sciences, and the College
of Communications, as of Fall 1996. In preparation for this
presentation today, I recently carried out an informal survey of A&S
faculty on the new grading system; and the gamut of replies was
quite broad; they range from the wildly enthusiastic (I quote: "I am
thrilled to have this new option"; "Personally, I like the new
grading system and feel it provides better precision in grading") to
the doubtful (the main worry expressed was with regard to the lack
of an A+ category) to those who thought it had made no difference.
Many more reported themselves to be in favor than were opposed to
the new system; faculty support, in general, therefore remains
behind the new grading system. It is too early to give any
definitive judgment on how the system is working;  I saw with
interest that students in the College of Arts & Sciences were not as
opposed to the system as students in other colleges, as indicated by
the survey carried out by the SGA and reported in The Kernel on
December 2, 1996 and December 3, 1996.
        It would be a good idea to hold another survey of student
opinion at the beginning of next semester, to see if students are
more or less opposed to the system once they have received their
grades. The College of Arts & Sciences is committed to evaluating
the new grading system:  we want to look at the data and assess if
the hypothesis, which has been expressed frequently, that this new
system hurts the best students, is in fact true.
        We intend to do a data-based comparison of grades for this
semester. But I would be grateful for any other input you can
provide to me, so that the right questions can be asked and the
right answers given.
        Chairperson Schach stated in the proposal for the College of
Arts and Sciences and Communications there had been some questions
over the semester as to whether it was required or optional for the
faculty.  That question was sent to the Senate Rules Committee of
which Tom Nieman is Chair.  He will now give the official
interpretation.  The interpretation was sent to all faculty in the
Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Communications and Information
Studies.
        Professor Nieman made the following remarks:
        The Committee along with Legal Counsel has decided that the
rule change is in fact in effect for the undergraduate students in
the Fall Semester of 1996.
        There is no requirement in this rule that an instructor must
award any particular grade or set of grades within the grading
system established in the Senate Rules.  Instructors on an
individual basis can determine what type of grades they are going to
give within that system.
        Chairperson Schach then introduced Professor Lee Edgerton,
the Academic Ombud to outline what would be considered good practice
with respect to clarifying with students and the instructor
plus/minus grading as it relates to the syllabus.
        Professor Edgerton made the following remarks:
        Students have a right to information about the course.  That
is a senate rule which is interpreted to mean that the syllabus is
to identify for the student the grading practice to be used in the
course.  The Rules Committee interpretation makes it clear that
grades in colleges and programs for which plus/minus grades are
allowed may or may not include plus or minus categories.  If we are
talking about a required course with multiple sections, particularly
those classes for which we (faculty) do not allow students to shift
from one section to another, I believe all sections should have a
consistent policy with respect to plus/minus grading.  In my
opinion, an inconsistent grading policy in that case becomes a
violation of their right to fair and just evaluation within a
program.
        It is more difficult to extend the argument for consistency
in grading practice within a course to those situations where the
course is taught by different faculty members in different semesters
and different years.  Most of us value the differences in style and
format that are utilized by various faculty.  If we acknowledge that
value, and if we also acknowledge that different grading practices
may favor different formats, we should, in my opinion, affirm both.
Thus, my recommendation would be that courses with multiple
sections, in which students may not shift between sections, be
consistent with respect to plus/minus grading for any given
semester.  For a given course being taught by different instructors
in different semesters, I would be receptive to letting the
individual instructors judge whether plus/minus categories were
appropriate for their section.
        Because plus/minus grading is new, it is important that we
clarify for students in the syllabus and in the first meeting of the
class, whether or not we are going to use those categories.  I think
it would be desirable to share with the students the rationale for
our decision. If you believe you are increasing the accuracy of the
grading and feel that greater accuracy is important, share that with
the students.  If you believe that the course does not lend itself
to such fine gradations and you choose to use broader categories,
share that perspective.  Give the students a chance for some
feedback if they want to provide it before the end of the semester.
        Chairperson Schach introduced the four members of the panel
who would be sharing their own personal experiences and thoughts
about plus/minus grading.  There are two faculty members, one who
opposes and one in favor of plus/minus and two students; one in
favor and one opposing.  First we will hear from Jed Porter a
Senator from Architecture who was both a student and now a professor
under plus/minus grading.  Next will be Michael Tomblyn from the
Graduate School who will speak to his thoughts against.  Then will
be Senator Doug Poe a Professor from the Business and Economics
College who will speak against.  Last will be John Swintosky, a
Landscape Architecture student who will speak on behalf of
plus/minus.
        Professor Porter made the following remarks:
        I bring two perspectives to the discussion because I am an
alumnus of the College of Architecture and I currently serve as an
assistant professor on its faculty.  Our college has had this system
since Fall Semester 1978.  As a student, I was always keenly aware
of the implications of  those pluses and minuses.  I always welcomed
the challenge of earning an A rather than an A- or a B+ rather than
a B.  I always appreciated the information which that system of
evaluation provided.  As a member of the faculty, I really
appreciate the flexibility of a system which allows us to reward
differences in performance.  There are differences within the range
that is usually reserved for A or for B.  As an alumnus - as a
former student - and as an assistant professor, I never regarded the
system as inherently unfair.  There are marked differences in
performance.  When students do well, they need to be rewarded, and
when they do not, they need to be so informed.  I have always
regarded education as a partnership.  I am expected to arrive well
prepared and deliver a coherent lecture or be present in my studio
and offer helpful critiques as my students' projects evolve.  I
expect my students to be well prepared for their lectures and to
have drawings and models to show me.  When they do not do well, I
try to seek them out.  I have never seen the system itself as a
system that discriminates, for it has always seemed to me to reward
students who do well and to inform students about their differences
in performance.
        As to some of the effects of the system in our college.  I
try to follow my own students' careers fairly closely.  I find that
they regularly find employment with the best firms in Lexington and
elsewhere and that they are admitted to the best schools for
advanced studies in architecture, which includes schools like
Columbia University, Cornell University, and the University of
Pennsylvania.  They do so with A-s as well as As on their
transcripts.  The system has worked well in our college.  I have
always appreciated the flexibility which it provides me as an
instructor.  I appreciated the information about performance which
it provided me as a student.
        Michael Tomblyn made the following remarks:
        It is not often that we get together on the second Monday of
every month to actually debate an issue that directly affects
students the way plus/minus grading does.  We are going to be
discussing what is perhaps the most important issue to all the
students on this campus today.  Like Alan and I presented, if you
randomly selected ten students from the University population, seven
are going to be against it.  Even colleges who have had this grading
system for years have failed to support the grading policy in this
survey.  The students on this campus are more agitated about this
issue than any other and are frustrated by the appearance of faculty
aloofness for their concerns.  Today I am before this body to hear
out the students on this important issue and to discard the
condescending and paternalistic attitude that the faculty know
better than the students what is good for them.  The debate today
will no doubt be animated and perhaps even heated but I hope my
colleagues on both sides will spurn the devil of passion and embrace
the angel of reason.
        During the past month or two I have spent nearly 25 hours
pursuing research on plus/minus grading.  From talking to learned
colleagues to pursing the primary literature to networking with
other universities.  Over the next couple of minutes I hope to share
my findings with you and to offer an argument in opposition to
plus/minus grading that I believe to be unassailable.  In order for
us to undertake such a drastic makeover of the basic fabric of our
academic life one must offer convincing arguments that will leave no
doubt as to the benefit of pursuing this change of course.  So far
no argument has been brought forth.  Two reasons have been forwarded
by proponents of plus/minus grading; one is that the new grading
system is not really going to matter one way or the other and the
second is that it allows professors to make fine distinctions
between closely earning students.  The former argument is a
nonargument at best and at worst it actually argues against
institutional plus/minus because, if it makes no difference, why do
it.  The latter argument is on the surface legitimate.  Indeed why
should two students who earn nearly ten points away from each other
obtain the same grade?  Is this not unfair to the better student,
whatever the better student is?  However, a closer study of this
position finds it to be at least in this case indefensible.  One
must ask themselves who is forwarding this argument and why and why
does the problem the proponents wish to correct exist?  At least in
the College of Arts and Sciences the lines in the plus/minus front
are distinct.  The faculty in humanities and social sciences are for
plus/minus and the faculty in the hard sciences are in opposition.
Of course there are a couple of exceptions on both sides but for the
most part this is the rule.  Now this really confused me for some
time.  Why would the lines be drawn so strongly?  Then I obtained a
copy of the Arts and Sciences distribution of grades for the last
semester, Spring 1996, and it all became clear.  This document
contains the average grades expressing GPA points for lower division
undergraduate, upper division undergraduate, total undergraduate,
and total graduate courses.  The results are absolutely striking.
The average total undergraduate GPA in the hard sciences comes to
about a 2.50, that is respectable, that is where it is supposed to
be for average students, that is what average is.  If you look over
in the nonscience, the mean total undergraduate GPA is a 3.15, I
know some thought this was worse.  In Social Work it is only 3.5,
3.6, or maybe a little higher.  Women's Studies gave about nine As
for every B, assuming there were no Cs, Ds, or Es, if there were
there would be more than nine As for every B.  Aerospace Studies,
Environmental Studies, and Modern Studies also gave more As than Bs,
once again assuming no Cs, Ds, or Es were assessed.  Here is the
clincher, African American Studies felt that every student in all of
their upper division courses earned an A, 4.00, that is average.
When the number of nonscience departments and programs total three
to four times the number of science departments it is no wonder that
Arts and Sciences faculty support plus/minus grading.  The reason is
finally clear.  While the sciences obviously utilize the five grade
system, the nonscience faculty seem to only utilize a three grade
system.  So while the desire to differentiate between students is
admirable, I would suggest that utilizing grade options already
available to the Arts and Sciences faculty might obliterate the
alleged need for institution of a plus/minus system.  So if there
are no defensible reasons to make the move to plus/minus, are there
any reasons to oppose it?  Yes, I think there are several.  The
results of moving to plus/minus from other universities has shown
conclusively that in the end students are indeed hurt by the grading
system.  Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of
Missouri have been wrestling with the problems that have risen since
moving to plus/minus.  North Carolina State University is a perfect
example.  Some of you may have seen the latest tirade today in The
Kernel.  Each semester since the adoption of plus/minus, and it has
been a few years now, has ended with the exact same result; 50% more
minus grades given than plus grades and we are to believe that it
does not hurt students.  You get the same numbers from other
universities that we have networked and talked with.  The students
are currently in a state of rebellion against the plus/minus system
at NC State and faculty have been utilizing the new options
arbitrarily.  Some will give an A- but not a B+ or B-, then they
will give a C+.  So it is a whole hodge podge of grading
possibilities in the wonderful world of North Carolina State
University since the institution of plus/minus.
        Another obvious problem of plus/minus is the failure to
replicate grading outcomes for identical situations.  While our own
Dr.  Guskey has published research showing that his grading options
are expanded, the probability of two professors assessing the exact
same performance with the same grade declines precipitously.  This
is common sense and a real danger to students especially during
their early years at UK when taking required course work
encompassing several professors and teaching assistants are the
rule.  The facts are firmly ingrained in students' minds.  They are
informed of the dangers of moving to a plus/minus grading system.
Just as it happened at MIT and other universities, this will lead to
an increased epidemic of grade consciousness.  You have all seen it
before, students are coming to you at the end of the semester and
arguing for one or two points on that first test or quiz.  They are
more interested in that one or two points than it they are going to
come out of your class learning something.  Moving to plus/minus
increases grade consciousness.
        Instead of being placated by the more options offered,
people say well now students aren't going to feel the need to come
and argue for a B because they received a B- and that is all right.
Now, what you find at universities is now that you have twice as
many students on the bubble, twice as many students on the
borderline between one grade and another, and you are going to have
twice as many students in your office.  Increased grade
conscientious has also been shown to lead to increased instances of
cheating.  None of us want that to happen.  Not only are there
problems with plus/minus grading itself, but as we close out this
fall semester we have yet to come to terms with implementation
problems.  What about 400G courses; what are they graduate or
undergraduate courses?  A & S and Communications assume plus/minus
on the undergraduate.  G suggests it is a graduate course; the four
or the four hundred if you look in the Bulletin says it is
undergraduate.  I have no idea which it is.  I brought this issue up
with people on the Senate Council and they said Fine Arts had the
same problem and they have dealt with it.  But no one could tell me
exactly how they dealt with it.  What about crosslisted courses?
For example, there are students I know who signed up for a course
under a biology heading and others who signed up for the same
courses through a biochemistry heading, biochemistry being in the
Medical Center, not A&S.  Biology is under plus/minus while
biochemistry is not.  Who gets the plus/minus?  Is this fair to
those who wanted to sign up under one course number but could not
because it was filled?  How is a professor going to equalize a B-
under biology with a B, or is it a C in biochemistry?  Faculty have
informed me that these problems have existed, but one again have yet
to tell me how they have fixed them.
        Finally there is the unfortunate factor of misinformation
deliberate or otherwise that was fed to faculty last Spring
regarding the optional nature of plus/minus grading.  Many faculty
who do not wish to employ plus/minus grading in their courses were
fooled into thinking it was required.  They were not informed they
could be conscious objectors and opt out simply by noting this on
their syllabi.  Now they know plus/minus is simply an option but are
still bound by their syllabi.  These faculty lose, the students lose
and now there is greater rift between students and faculty.  Of
course these faculty simply give all letter grades and state that no
one earned an intermediate grade, however a lot of faculty feel that
is deception and are not going to do that.  Once again the students
lose and there is a great rift.  Many other faculty will simply
refuse to give plus/minus grades regardless of whether it is
required or not.  The end result is a new grading system that is not
yet ready for implementation and will hurt many of those involved.
The reasonable person can see that there are no defensible arguments
in favor of plus/minus and a few good reasons to oppose.  There are
also implementation problems that threaten the future of plus/minus
grading at UK.  If the faculty truly wish to act in good faith on
this issue, then today we will vote to hold off on plus/minus
implementation until next fall and all work together to iron out the
wrinkles in the meantime.  Myself, and I'm sure some of my
colleagues, are willing to talk about and perhaps even compromise on
this issue.  But only without the sword of Damocles over our heads.
I have a modest proposal.  Set aside the implementation of
plus/minus grading until August and work for a compromise.
Suggestions could be only having plus grades that reward more
without having minus grades.  You laugh but this is a way that your
students will support you and the students will not be hurt.  Maybe
not that, lets keep plus/minus university-wide, but allow the
students to choose the grading option when they register on VIP.
The faculty get their option, they can give plus/minus in their
courses, the students also get their option.  We already do this for
pass/fail and audit.  The fact is that we are willing to compromise
on this issue to an extent to give the faculty what they want and
the freedom that they need as long as it does not hurt students.  I
hope today that faculty are going to stand up and join us rather
than following the pied piper of plus/minus to an unfortunate end
like lemmings.
        Professor Doug Poe made the following remarks:
        Briefly I have four reasons for opposing plus/minus grading.
Two are personal and two are more generic.
        In the primary undergraduate class I teach I use a variation
of contract grading, because it encompasses a wide variety of tasks;
computer projects, written assignments, homework, class
participation, and in-class tests.  I have used this system in which
the student contracts to do a specified amount of work in each
category so that they may not obtain a particular grade without
reaching a certain level of proficiency in each category.  Each
semester that I teach this undergraduate class at the end of the
semester I swear that I will never use this system again because it
is so much work for me.  But every semester on the last day when I
ask the students, (I have kept records for the past 6 years)
ninety-eight and a fraction percent report that if they had it do
over again they would choose the contract grading rather than the
straight forward grading.  One hundred percent report that they
worked harder and learned more than they would have if we had used
the straight grade presentation.  This type of grading that I use, I
assure you I will not do under a plus/minus system.  I will not
fight fourteen graduations in the way the grade is computed.  This
goes along with what Virginia Nordin presented saying that the more
graduations you get the less good the teaching is.
        Secondly, as Michael pointed out, I believe it leads to
grade consciousness and that I will have a lot more students in my
office arguing over a fraction of a point for something that was
done early in the semester just so they can get a grade.  More
generically, last year the first time this was voted on I came with
those two reservations, but I came somewhat open minded, willingly
to listen to those who proposed going to plus/minus grading.  They
discussed that it would be beneficial to the students.  At that time
we did not have this large student representation, there were two or
three students here, one who had enough guts to stand up and say the
students did not support plus/minus.  That along with my own
personal feelings led me to oppose the issue.  That was the
University-wide proposal.  In the intervening time period, having
seen the information that has come forward, there is no consensus
among the faculty on this campus that this (plus/minus) is a better
way to do things.  Students are without question opposed to it,
despite the fact that it has been presented as being beneficial to
them.  The information I heard from the Registrar reinforces this
even more firmly for me.  Students who are solid A students will be
penalized.  This is not an opinion or a guess on our part; this is
fact from the Universities that have made the conversion.  The
students who are the weakest, who would get a 2.0 average, will be
penalized.  What we are doing is creating a great muddle in the
middle.  Lastly along with this, coming out of the mountains and
believing in strong mountain philosophy, I have always felt for the
side that says, Êif it ain't broke, don't fix it¾ and what we have
Êain't broke¾.
        John Swintosky made the following remarks:
        I would like to discuss some of the merits of the plus/minus
system and maybe rebut some of the opponents arguments.  I admire
Mr.  Tomblyn's and our President of SGA's diligence in the
participation in the process this semester.  However I think it is
precisely the lack of that participation that has put what they
perceive to be students in a fix with grades because they did not do
this leg work back when the original proposals came forth from Arts
and Sciences and the College of Communications.  These were debated
and resolved in April of this year.  The discussion today is like
closing the barn door after the cows are out.  As I digest the
argument so far, opponents of the plus/minus system call for
everything but exorcism while demonizing the proponents of the
plus/minus system.  Seldom is the crux of the issue the differing
numerical values awarded even addressed.  The two institutions
reporting to serve student interest, The Kernel and the SGA, would
do better to more closely analyze this point and then offer the
opinions and alternatives.  The two articles that were written
created an aura of suspicion and distrust around this issue of
grading.  To me it is ludicrous to assume that faculty would benefit
or generate any satisfaction by lower grades across the University.
To insinuate legal action on this issue, to present information
about an immaterial meeting with President Wethington who is not the
person in the forefront of this discussion, it is the University
Senate, leaves a lot to be desired.  It clouds the issue.  In
reference to the survey, one third of the respondents were freshmen,
I agree with that, but those freshmen have not been impacted by any
grading system in the university so far, not that they should be
left out, but those who are farther along, I believe have more
opinion and more impact on this discussion.  The three colleges and
one department that presently use the plus/minus system were
represented by roughly six and half percent of the vote; I will have
to accept the scientific survey method that this represents their
sample of the University at large.  But with only eight voices out
of Architecture, fourteen from Fine Arts, four from Law, and zero
from Landscape Architecture it seems like a more thorough survey
might yield some more interesting results and maybe a more thorough
survey of those who exist only under that system may open some eyes.
As far as the bias in the survey, I have a question with that also,
such as the third question which states Êare you familiar with the
current controversy over implementation of a plus/minus grading
system in some colleges,¾ to me that choice of words rather than
saying discussion or debate influences the response there.  Also the
fourth question where the University Faculty Senate was referred to
twice, when this is the University Senate which represents the
entire University not just the faculty, may incorrectly influence
the response that this is an imposition from a participant group of
faculty.
        The background I bring to discuss this is, I was a student
in the Engineering College from 1979 to 1983, where letter grades
were the norm.  If I remember correctly, I believe the grades were
more narrowly defined.  I know I had grades where an A was a 93 to
100 and a B was a 85 to 92.  It seems as though the plus/minus
grading system would merely return us to those days when the
standards were slightly higher.  Presently I am in the last year of
the Landscape Architecture Program in the College of Agriculture.
Landscape Architecture Program uses plus/minus grading, however to
address the crossover group, almost all the rest of my courses are
graded under the straight grades, except for a few courses in
Architecture.  I believe the plus/minus system more accurately
rewards and is representative of the performance of the individual
student.  The old system lumps letter grades into blocks of ten and
the new system splits grades in relative slithers with three.  There
can and should be further discussion of the exact numeration of the
various plus/minus levels and on the inclusion or exclusion of the
A+ grade.  With the plus/minus there should be less likelihood of
complaints about grades, since accuracy is heightened, there should
also be less complaints about grade inflation, since individual
grades are better defined.  To me the student who knows their
percentage grade, knows which category he falls into and is more
likely to work to move up a level when it comes to finals and they
are one or two points away from whatever, there is less likelihood
of complaining about the grade versus quality points because there
is only plus or minus .3 than the whole move from a 3.0 to a 4.0.
The professors should feel less pressure because it is more clearly
laid out where students are going to fall.
        Professor Michael Kennedy's article in today's Kernel offers
some of these same options, such as no A-.  These are the types of
discussion we should be having.
        To sum up, decisions are best made when based on facts not
on emotions, feelings, or choosing a lot of pressurized words such
as extreme, mean spirited, agitated, aloof, and paternalistic.
There was student input in the decisions made by Arts and Sciences
and Communications to implement the new system.  There are three
colleges presently using plus/minus dating back to 1970, 1978, and
1990.  There are three more colleges interested in apply plus/minus
to their curriculum.  It seems that there may be a shift occurring,
that we are looking to move away from the straight grades and into a
plus/minus system.  It can recognize performance and excellence in
student education.
        Chairperson Schach thanked the panelists.
        Kaveh Tagavi (Engineering) said that if there were two
students and if one of them deserved a C+ and the other one deserved
a C-, it is not fair to give them the same grade.  About a year ago,
the Graduate Counsel started discussing plus/minus.  Because of
those discussions he sent e-mail to his faculty, not everyone
answered, but those who did, 2 to 1 were for plus/minus.  Dean
Lester contacted him and wanted him to present some of his concerns.
Dean Lester felt that if they did go to plus/minus, they should
revisit after a period of time to see how it is working.  He was
also concerned about some of the GPA cutoffs, because some
University-wide fellowships are given on a 3.3, and if this is going
to affect some students, we need to be conscious of that.  He was
also worried about perfect 4.0 students, whose GPAs would drop.
        Mandy Lewis (Social Work - student senator) said that 80
percent of the students in Social Work were opposed to plus/minus
according to the poll in The Kernel, but the faculty is 100 percent
in favor of the system.  There is a shift there, the faculty members
need to tell the students why they want plus/minus and the students
need to tell the faculty why they oppose the system.  Students do
care what happens in the University and they do need to be listened
to.  If they can't even consider listening to how they feel about an
issue to which most students are opposed, then they need to start
over at square one.
        Ellen Hahn (Nursing) said that after listening to the first
debate, their senators and student senators entered into a survey of
their faculty and students together.  Their faculty are very
divided, with the preliminary results showing about 52% opposed to
plus/minus grading, almost the majority of the undergraduate
students are against plus/minus, but among the graduate students
over half are for it.
        Doug Poe (Business and Economics) said that they had
listened to this debate for a year and he has not as yet heard
anything that is relevant to what they as a Senate should be voting
on.  What they should be talking about is whether or not a new
procedure will enhance the learning of the students, whether the
students like it or not, and whether they as faculty like it or not.
The only evidence he has heard on that issue is in opposition from
Education.  All this argument about grade point average simply
speaks to the point that this system leads to a concentration on
grade rather than learning.  He is not hearing anything that
convinces him that the grading system, the one they have or the one
they are switching to, has any benefits in terms in learning.  They
should not be looking at a different grading system unless there are
compelling reasons to go to another system.  The discussion of who
likes it and who does not is meaningless in terms of what the
University should be doing.
        Ashley Vancill (student - Arts and Sciences) said that there
were three groups of students; the ones who do not care about their
grades, the ones who are doing the best they can in their classes,
and the middle group.  Implementing a plus/minus system would not
encourage the best students to work that much harder, because they
are already working as hard as they can, they are already learning
everything they can.  She does not see how it would enhance their
learning, it would just cause more confusion and possibly even a
distraction from learning, because they would be so concerned about
their grades.
        Joan Callahan (Arts and Sciences) asked if there was any
consensus among Carnegie I Institutions that they should have a
plus/minus system?  If they were to not have the system, would that
affect perception of this institution, among research institutions.
        The Chair answered not to her knowledge.
        David Hamilton (History) said that in his two undergraduate
classes for this term, the plus/minus is a wash.  It is highly
anecdotal, but he did have a student in his office who was very
upset about plus/minus because he would have to study much harder
for the final than he would have otherwise.  That suggests that some
students are concerned about the impact of the grading system.  He
hopes it translates not into grade consciousness but more learning.
He favors plus/minus, because he feels it is a fairer, more accurate
system.
        Heather Burris (Allied Health - student senator) does not
see how students are for this system, no matter how many surveys are
done, the students will still be against the system.  It is mainly
because of the minus part of the system.  It will lower GPAs,
students will lose their financial aid.  She believes this system is
inconsistent with other universities.  The faculty wonders why there
is a low retention rate among the students and one reason is because
the students feel that the faculty is not listening to them.  If
they want the retention rate to improve, they should listen to the
students, they do know about their grades and what is best for them.
They should not go to this system, because it will hurt the
individual.
        Michael Walker (student - Agriculture) stated he was a
sophomore in the College of Agriculture and also in his final year
in the Modern Studies Program.  In the two Modern Studies courses he
has one of his teachers is doing plus/minus and the other teacher is
not.  He said he would if the majority of the class wanted to.  In
the class where there is no plus/minus there is more discussion
among students about what is going on in the class, more
academically enriching discussion.  In the class where there is
plus/minus, people are pulling their hair out about grades.
Plus/minus, especially for pre-professional students, is making the
students focus more and more on the grades than on the full
academically enriching experience at UK.  Focusing more on classes
and not trying to broaden one's horizons.
        A student from Arts and Sciences stated his concern is being
a senior this year.  He feels it is wrong to implement a policy on
seniors, it should be started with freshmen coming into the system.
He feels the upperclassmen should be exempt from the plus/minus
system.
        Joe Schuler (student - Social Work) referred to the article
in the Kernel about NC State, where they are considering eliminating
the plus/minus system that is in existence.  He resented the faculty
member who said it was fear of the unknown.  These students know
what it is going to do and what it has done and are still opposed to
it.  One of the problems that the Student Government at NC State
pointed out was the fact that less that 50% of the faculty were
actually using the system.  That is not consistency.
        Heath Lovell (Engineering - student senator) wanted to make
a point about the survey not representing all the colleges.  He went
to the College of Engineering student council and asked every
organization to go back to their students and poll them.  Everyone
came back and said that they were not in favor of plus/minus.  He
also had a student come to him who had a class where the professor
had the students vote on whether they wanted plus/minus grading.  He
was upset because his GPA is being effected by who is in his class
and what they are voting on, rather than how much he was learning.
It scares him to think that the University would do something that
would hurt the top level students.  How can the faculty present this
with such strong opposition from the students?
        Mike Cibull (Medicine) said that as a parent of a UK
student, the low level courses tend to be taught in sections and the
tests are given over all the sections, each individual section is
taught by a different person.  He questions the precision of giving
even ten point grades, let alone three point grades, considering the
differences section to section.  It goes far beyond our ability to
measure students.  He has been teaching for 18 years in the Medical
School.  There they essentially use two grades, and he can
understand the need for ability to differentiate students who they
know very well and there is a very limited ability to give them a
grade such as A or B.  That argument should only pertain to things
like graduate schools, where B is the minimum acceptable grade and
not to undergraduate schools, where he would hope that they would
encourage the faculty to use the whole grading system.
        Carolyn Brock (Chemistry) said she defended the position of
faculty as being the ones that make the decisions about what grades
shall be given.  Learning cannot exist without some level of trust
between students and faculty, if that trust is broken learning
stops.  It is clear to her that the students do not trust this
system.
        The Chair stated that a number of colleges and programs had
been approved for plus/minus.  The Senate came to the point where it
also approved the College of Arts and Sciences and Communications
proposal.  It was decided then by the Senate Council that they would
precede on a College by College basis with new proposals versus
attempting another university-wide proosal.  The Social Work College
and Human Environmental Sciences thought it would be a fairly smooth
process but found out it was not.  The Senate is now at an impasse.
Some decisions need to be made about what the policy is going to be
in the future.  The Chair asked the following question, should the
grading system at the University of Kentucky be uniform?
        Anna Keene (student - A&S) said that whether or not she
agreed with the plus/minus grading scale, what they need to think
about here is that each college across the University has chosen for
itself whether or not they want to implement this scale.  Definitely
each college curriculum is going to be different and it is very hard
to compare two colleges curriculums.  We are all pursuing higher
learning and in that thought we have to say at some point that it
will be all equally difficult and they all deserve that same type of
grades.  If there is going to be a system it must be
university-wide.
        Louis Swift - (University Studies) felt it was very
important that there was a uniform system across the campus.  If the
issue comes back to this floor again, they should follow the
procedure of first arguing that point, making a decision on that
issue, whether it shall be uniform or not and only when they have
decided that then proceed to the next issue about whether there
should be plus/minus or not.  We must decide on a uniform system and
that principle should be argued first.
        The Chair said that a university-wide proposal had come
before the Senate three times and failed.  The question is, does it
depend on the nature of the proposal that goes university- wide?
There are some alternatives; one with an A+, one with all pluses and
no minuses, (the University of South Carolina has that,) and one
with pluses and minuses only for the B, C, and D categories not for
the A categories.
        Dr. Swift stated the point he was trying to make was that
first of all they needed to establish the principle on whether it
shall be uniform no matter what it is.  If we open up the discussion
to three or four different possible proposals, then we lose the
principle.
        Michael Friedman (Fine Arts) asked if was remotely within
the realm of possibility that students could declare a plus/minus
preference.  Betty Huff, University Registrar said it would take
extensive programming.
        Virginia Davis-Nordin said there was the plus/minus
controversy and then the idea of college autonomy.  The University
is a collection of colleges and for some purposes have to be
uniform.  One of the governing structures that preserve some small
faculty impact on what goes on is the idea of college autonomy and
college faculty talking things over.  It is important that what they
come to preserves college autonomy as well as they can, as well as
serving the students.
        Chancellor Zinser stated on the point of uniform or not
uniform.  She would advocate that they do work for uniformity from
the point of view of the students' experience here.  There are lots
of choices that need to be made by students; when during the day,
what time in the semester, what faculty member they might want to
work with in trying to choose the class they are going to take,
after they have decided what major.  She would hate to see them
trying to decide whether or not to take a particular class based
upon whether or not they were using plus/minus.  Across the colleges
it should be uniform.  We are trying to encourage a lot of
interdisciplinary study, trying to encourage students to take
classes in other colleges across the university to get a very broad
education.  Having that uniformity in the concept of the grading
system is important.
        Joan Callahan (Philosophy) said that uniformity is
impossible.  She was in principle in support of the plus/minus
system.  Students do perform differently.  The fact that the system
might disadvantage some students is not necessarily unfair.  Under
the current system some students are unfairly advantaged.  The fact
that some students would get lower GPAs does not entail anything.
The crucial point is that they simply cannot guarantee uniformity,
even if the system is across campus or in a college.  Individual
professors are still at liberty, and they must be to use discretion.
Individuals professors are opposed to the system and therefore will
not use it.  Individual professors need to be a liberty to retain
that kind of discretion.
        The Chair asked the question; should plus/minus be required
or at the option of the instructor?
        Doug Poe (Business and Economics) said that the answer was
at the option of the instructor no matter how it is structured.
        Kaveh Tagavi (Engineering) said that there seemed to be some
confusion about uniformity.  One point is that if there is
plus/minus it should be all colleges.  Another point of uniformity
is that the grades should be the same from college to college.  Even
if professors were forced to say 93 is an A, they would make the
exam harder or easier to get what they want.
        Tom Blues (English) said he had deep reservations about a
plus/minus system, but feels that if a decision is made after
considerable discussion, debate, and the democratic process it seems
that faculty are obligated to use the system that has been advanced.
If the system is plus/minus how can he deny a student the
opportunity to earn a B+ and by the same token how can he in
conscious say a student is excused the penalty of earning a B-?  Or
maybe a B- is an advance over the possibility of a C+.  It seems
that there is a corollary to the principle that Professor Swift
suggested that they decide what system they are going to use as a
University and then they use it.  He believes the answer to the
question is yes, they are morally obliged to use the system by which
they have reviewed the options.
        A question of clarification was asked.  Ombud Edgerton said
that a faculty member could not be forced to use a grading scale set
by a college of university, that was his answer to whether the
faculty were informed correctly for this semester.  If that is true,
does that mean that a faculty member would not have to use a certain
grading scale no matter what was implemented?  Can a system be put
in place and all will use it, or will faculty still have the
electibility of using it?  If they do have the electibility than the
grading scale is not enforceable and should not be put to use.
        The Chair said it was her understanding that they currently
have the A, B, C, D, E categories and there are certain quality
points associated with each.  There is not currently a percentage
associated with each and there is no rule that says a faculty member
has to give each grade.  They can determine no Bs for whatever
reason, but they are bound by A, B, C, D, E.
        A student stated that he had a class this semester where on
the first day of class the professor talked about grading.  He said
he was told he was supposed to use the plus/minus grading system.
But since he did not like plus/minus his grading system would be 90
- 100 is a A+.  He is still using the system but has adjusted it to
what he thinks is fair.  He feels there needs to be a universal
grading system.  He is a sophomore and taking University Studies
requirements now.  He does not understand how he can take one class
and it be A-E and another class which is cross disciplinary and it
be plus/minus.
        Roy Moore (Communications & Information Studies) said that
if they do go to a system they should make sure the people are
expected to perform in good faith in complying with the system.   It
is important that there is a uniform system.  Based on the
information he has heard today, he would say they have not heard any
useful information.
        John Swintosky said that it sounded like one of the biggest
concerns was one of semantics, that if they score a 90 they will be
given an A- and then the associated drop in status.  Maybe the A-
should start at 87.  If that is the logic that is of the biggest
concern, it does not refute the value of the plus/minus system where
the .3s and .7s in between are recognized and are valuable.  No one
has addressed that.
        Joe Schuler (student - Social Work) said that if something
is voluntary it cannot be uniform.  You cannot have voluntary
uniform.
        Bill Freehling (Arts and Sciences) said that he was in favor
of the plus/minus system and had not heard anything that makes him
opposed to it.  The system enables him to really carefully grade
students.  There is a real difference between a B+ and a B- and he
values being able to put that difference on transcripts.  The
students have convinced him about two very important procedural
issues.  They are right that there should be an A+, there should be
a mark that distinguishes excellent work from super work.  They are
also right that it should be phased in, a senior should not be given
a different grading system than the one he has had all along.  That
will get rid of a many of the inequities that now exist and a lot of
the resentment among the students.
        Michael Tomblyn (Graduate Student) said there is a more
pressing concern, even the faculty member who is for plus/minus is
admitting that they are going to be doing something wrong in about
two weeks to a lot of students.  What they should be talking about
is how they are going to rectify this for two weeks from now.  They
can not change the rule now, but they could move to suspend the that
rule and then look at it.
        Ashley Vancil said that she did not want to be an experiment
for this semester.  Waiting a year to implement plus/minus might be
a good idea instead of trying it out and seeing what happens.
        Lee Edgerton (Ombud) said that he suspected there would be
as many moves down as there are moves up in the scale but he wanted
to reemphasize the fact that there is nothing in the rule that says
the cutoff is in a certain place.  They should not think that a
decision on plus/minus or straight letter grade is going to provide
some uniformity, there is some inherent variation in the system.  He
hoped that everyone would read William Raspberry's column in the
paper yesterday; he is talking about the fact that we sometimes let
issues become overblown.  No one's is going to ruined by a
plus/minus.  I hope that we will keep that in perspective and not
put ourselves in positions that will be of embarrassment later on
over something that ultimately is not going to have that much impact
on our lives.  We will all live if our GPA is a little lower.  It is
easier to faculty to say that than for students, but he hopes they
will try to keep the debate in perspective and keep our community in
tact.
        David Hamilton (History) said, to follow up on that point,
there is an apocalyptic sense that learning will cease if plus/minus
is implemented.  However Harvard, Michigan, Berkely, and Virginia
have this system.  Many of our faculty are from these institutions,
we try to recruit new faculty from these schools.  He does not think
that learning has stopped and the students at these institutions are
only grade conscious.  They have had plus/minus for years and we are
following up well behind.
        A motion was made to suspend the rule.
        Only 34 of the required 45 members to constitute a quorum
were present.  No motion could be entertained.
        Chancellor Zinser made the following remarks:
        It's late, and while the students are still here I'd like to
add some comments for clarity.  The collective views of the faculty
of the College of Arts and Sciences led to a request to the
University Senate for a plus/minus grading system, and with the
Senate's approval it is in effect.  Based on the subsequent
interpretation of the Senate Rules Committee that the policy is
permissive rather than prescriptive, the College's new plus/minus
grading system, in effect this semester, permits the individual
faculty member to use pluses and minuses or not.  Given this
interpretation, it is crucial that the faculty member's decision
about the grading structure for that class be communicated clearly
to the student. Because it is late in the semester, it is very
important to communicate to students anything that still needs to be
said about the grading method for that class this semester. Given
the permissive nature of the policy and the level of concern being
expressed about the change to plus/minus grading, it will be up to
the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences to discuss the
wisdom of using the plus/minus option this semester or not. It
remains the faculty member's choice. The permissive rule is in
effect. I recommend that faculty in the College discuss this as
quickly as possible because they are implementing their grading
methods now. The fact remains, the option to use the plus/minus
system is in effect, and the implementation of the option is a
matter between individual faculty and his/her students in the class.
        In preparing for the next stage of discussion on grading
policies, we might take advantage of the fact that we have variable
practices and some history to use. Some colleges have used
plus/minus grading for a long time, others have just implemented it,
some are not using it. There may be a good database for examining
the pros and cons.  I will do whatever I can, in collaboration with
Betty Huff, Roseann Hogan, Lou Swift and others, to see that we
provide helpful information about past practices in time for the
Senate's discussion of and action on the plus/minus grading matter
in February. I think this would be helpful if you agree. Also, there
must be some national information about the effects of different
grading systems on student learning. I agree with the comments made
today that decision making should be focused on the effects of a
grading system on student learning.
        My personal view is that the grading policy should be
uniform across the colleges (at least in undergraduate programs.) I
view the University not as a collection of colleges, but as a
collection of colleagues. While we may disagree in the formation of
a policy of this kind, once the representative body of the
collective faculty makes a judgment about a policy, especially one
as substantive and overarching as a grading system, each individual
faculty member is obliged to follow it (contrary to a couple of
suggestions otherwise today.)  There are processes and an Ombud
where a student may take up a concern that a faculty member is not
following a policy. The individual faculty member has the right to
give whatever grade he or she feels the student has earned within
the context of the grading structure set by policy by this Senate.
Academic freedom does not grant the right to operate outside the
policy of the collective faculty as represented by the Senate.
        Obviously, there is no perfect grading system. We have seen
that by our own experience and looking at the experiences of other
institutions. I believe the most productive thing to do right now is
to implement current policy carefully, sincerely and fairly in light
of the concerns. This means dealing with the present policy class by
class through the relationship the faculty member has with the
students in that class. And, it means getting ready for the next
round of policy discussions and action by having for the February
meeting any analyses of data that may be available to compare the
effects of plus/minus versus simple letter grade on student
learning, The feasibility of presenting such information will be
determined by the Registrar and others.
        Finally, I want to thank the students. This has been a nice
opportunity to have a discussion with students and to hear from
them.  Yes, we do listen to you. Our listening does not necessarily
lead to the results you want; but, yes we do listen.
        The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
                                      Betty J. Huff
                                      Secretary, University Senate
 
* Mary K. Kelly * University of Kentucky Registrar's Office *
* 12 Funkhouser Bldg., Lexington, KY  40506-0054 *
* mkell01@ukcc.uky.edu * (606)257-7169 *