Yannblog

At roughly 3:30 p.m. today, a barely-quorum of Mines faculty senators passed 6-1 a resolution for a Fall 2012 implementation of an A thru D- plus-minus system. This was effectively a compromise on a compromise, passed by a body where, in theory, the motion could have been overturned if all faculty had attended.

There are a few reasons for the passing of this motion in that form, which I’ll outline below, as well as an explanation of what may happen from here, and the opinion of a faculty member (Dr. Eberhart) about the situation, as well as a question for the seniors…

One more thing: pass this note on to everyone at Mines you know. I’d be writing this in the Oredigger, but it’s a bit too vitriolic for that.

A. REASONS FOR FAILURE

1. Student Apathy
Over fifty people signed onto the Facebook event as “will attend” for the 3 p.m. meeting. Over 100 said “maybe”. Actual attendees numbered maybe fifteen for students. Quite pathetic, considering so many people pretty much broke their word on attendance of the event.

The reason, possibly: students were told that the system wouldn’t go into affect until Fall 2012 when they would theoretically (barring poor academic performance) be out of undergraduate school at Mines anyway. This was sent out in emails as a fact, rather than the result of a straw poll at what wasn’t even a Faculty Senate meeting. The analysis was correct, however the resulting drop in participation took the wind out of the movement’s sails.

How exactly did it do so? Kevin Duffy, ASCSM President and Orator Extraordinaire, who I am privileged to know, was expecting a much larger turnout of students than actually showed up. He actually had to amend his speech (memorized by the way…impressive…) on the fly to account for this lack of student turnout. This weakened position probably contributed to the faculty decision as quickly as happened. With more students, we would have had more bargaining power. As it stood, fortunately the 2012 “grandfather clause” passed, expected but a bit of a downer considering the result: deflated grades for hard-working students.

Bottom line: students were downright selfish today, choosing not to turn out for this event simply because, chances were, the decision there wouldn’t affect them. They passed the buck. Not cool.

2. LB Williams (please someone let her know about the presence of this note)
Yes, I’m pointing out a person here. This will ride the line of an outright personal attack, for which I apologize; that sort of thing is immature and I don’t want to bring such a thing up, at least in this post.

First off, there is the issue of credibility. LB is a grad student who will probably be here for awhile (see my upcoming Mines Entrepreneurship Club Spotlight in The Oredigger, next issue, for why). Regarding the plus-minus system, the pro here is that she has been under it for her Mines career. The con is that she doesn’t represent in the least those who will be affected by any change in policy regarding the plus-minus system. This reflects rather badly on the cause as a whole if her student status is brought to light or known, even if her philanthropy is without bound…

Unfortunately, here’s where the borderline personal attack comes in: I personally think that the underlying reason isn’t terribly philanthropic. It might be even myopic, a desire for the limelight, so to speak. That’s the worst I’ll say here. However it seems as though she is an agitator, and will agitate for anything. I’m hoping these agitations will be for the right thing, but I can’t say what’ll happen next. She’s the lobbyist, activist type, the one who will pound the ground and get results if a cause of any sort is given to do so. Don’t get me wrong, between the activism and her entrepreneurial, outgoing persona, she may well end up on Forbes’ billionaire list at some point, and I wouldn’t want to be caught working against an opponent company or ideology with her as the lobbyist (too late; I’m an old-school Ron Paul republican). However this behavior is rather disturbing, and the somewhat mercenary attitude (with “fame” as the “payment”) may reflect poorly onto whatever cause she champions, no matter what she might do in genuine spirit to further it.

Third, during the meeting she brought out a list of five hundred or so signatures against the plus-minus system. A bit late, and in all honesty the faculty senate can throw what 4000 students say to the wind if they so choose, especially if said students merely signed a petition when accosted to do so. If the petition had been in an e-mail, LB would be termed a petty, whiny blogger type, sad to say. Additionally, she stressed the alternate grading systems (A+ and balanced A) without noting that, should they go into effect, many students would have no problem using the new system next semester, a huge selling point for the faculty senate. If they can put together a position that goes “into stone” quickly, less headaches for them, and a better rep from peer organizations. She not only didn’t mention this fact, but also stressed the balanced A system more than the A+. The problem with this: no other university has a plus-minus system with “balanced A”, while many have an A+. “Everyone’s doing it” provides a surprising degree of credibility to such arguments, so the wrong one was stressed here.

3. FACULTY APATHY
Seven faculty senators showed up today, a quorum. There are thirteen faculty senators in all. Technically if everyone had shown up, the vote could possibly have been 6-7 with no change of heart of the current people there. Probably wouldn’t have happened, and even saying such a thing is the very media spin that I abhor, but something to bring up. The faculty who were there passed the resolution relatively quickly, silencing possible debate from senate chair and A+ ally Dr. McKinnon. Yet if the issue had been presented clearer (with all due respect, a better knowledge of Robert’s Rules of Order would have helped the process), with the final vote as an option between the A through D- system and further discussion (likely A+), the A+ resolution might have passed. This didn’t happen.

It could be construed that the senators who didn’t show up were leery of being associated with the final plus-minus decision. This may well have been the case, but it really doesn’t matter at this point. Again, this is just speculation and spin, no more. The senate had a quorum and passed the resolution.

B. BEATING AN ON-LIFE-SUPPORT HORSE
As it turns out (thanks to LB Williams), within 30 days of a faculty senate motion passage, the issue can be brought up again by way of twenty faculty signatures. “Faculty” includes librarians in this case. So, assuming a decent proposal were brought to the faculty (A+ is most likely, with the added bone of implementation in Fall ’09) the motion could be brought up again, and possibly amended. to the benefit of current and future Mines students. LB, please comment if you would and explain this nuance of Faculty Senate bylaws, as you’ve researched it and I haven’t.

C. A FACULTY PERSPECTIVE

After the meeting, I had the opportunity to chat with Dr. Mark Eberhart about the plus-minus system, and he seemed willing to sign such a petition (A+), but offered two other solutions that he deemed more viable.

First, the idea (which I had heard before) of a full-precision (three digits of accuracy) grade from 0 to 4 right out of the class; if we’re doing number grades as a fine-toothed comb of student performance measurement we might as well make that comb as fine-toothed as possible, for fairness’ sake.

Second, the new-to-me idea of 4.0 grading with A and A-, so long as a student never makes any B’s. This would mean that people with 4.0 grades under the old system would keep the same grade in the new system. Workbale and sensible, though not an option anyone I know of has considered.

Finally, he made it clear that he won’t be, on a large-class level, implementing a plus-minus system due to overhead. A plus-minus system increases the number of grade breaks to be dealt with, and increases the number of points at which it is profitable for a student to “fight for points”, drastically increasing student-teacher face-to-face time. Which would be absolutely crazy with a large class.

Additionally, Dr. Eberhart grades on student performance, rather than on a numerical grade. If a student shows exemplary effort, or blows off a class, he would grade on plus-minus accordingly. In effect, with the current system, he looks for “grade breaks”, where students naturally fall into the following categories (my labels):

A – Excellent
B – Good
C – Meh
D – Lousy
F – EPIC FAIL

The plus-minus system (which is, by the way, optional for professors, just like they could grade on A, C, F if they wanted) would make the divisions more like the below:

A – Excellent
A- – Sort of excellent
B+ – Very good
B – Good
B- – Not quite so good
C+ – Better than meh
C – Meh
C- – Meeeeeeeh
D+ – Almost lousy
D – Lousy
D- – Sucky
F – EPIC FAIL

Rather impractical, to say the least.

In a plus-minus system, Eberhart considers the situation only good for a small class, in which case he’d probably assign grades based on class rank ore than other things. Speaking of class rank, he considers, and believes that grad and med schools consider, class rank to be of greater importance than a raw number grade/GPA. Effectively, a 4.0 is worth much less if you’re in the 80th percentile than in the 95th. Or 99.9th (been there before actually, just not at Mines).

Lastly, Eberhart insists (probably rightly) that the plus-minus system really doesn’t matter, and is surprised everyone is in such a tizzy about it; the places where a single number grade (GPA) matters are incredibly few and far between. At which point the vast majority of institutions will look at other qualifiers, such as course descriptions, LSAT scores and class rank, not to mention institution prestige, to determine who, of similar GPAs, makes the cut. Yes, ALL else equal, a higher GPA is better than a lower one, but the case is incredibly rare for this.

D. WHAT TO DO NOW
1. Talk to your professors. Talk to them. Or e-mail them directly, singly. Ask if they are willing to donate their signature in exchange for an A+ system starting fall of 2009. Explain your reasoning why this is better than the current plus-minus system, both for them and for you. A personal touch is pretty much required at this point.

2. If you’re LB Williams, please hand off your work to an undergrad student, preferably a junior or below, as they’re the only ones affected by the switch. In all honesty, it appears as though all your efforts at this point may be in vain if you’re the poster child for this movement.

3. Comment on this post, and share it with friends. Be constructive and well-reasoned. Nothing less will do in this situation. Bring up new points, or briefly state your support for the current ones.

4. If you care about this issue, SHOW UP AT THE <expletive deleted> <another expletive deleted> MEETINGS! Especially if you said you’d be there. Otherwise I do not have words to convey what a sleazeball you are. No, really.

E. QUESTION FOR SENIORS
Do you get class ranking on your transcript? If so, what’s your experience with grad/law/med school on this tidbit of information? I want experiences, not hearsay or even third-party verified data.

If you’ve made it to the bottom of this post, thanks for your time. Hopefully this helps clear things up, and I’m not just spitting into the wind in my own feeble anger about things I myself can’t change. Have a nice evening/day/week/semester/