On May 12, 1997, the Faculty Senate approved minimum syllabus requirements for graduate and undergraduate classes. Sometime between then and now, a sentence appeared under the 'grading policies' section. It reads:
"If a portion of the grade involves qualitative or subjective judgments, include a rubric in the grading scheme that identifies what distinguishes 'A' work from 'B' work from 'C' work, etc."
The erroneous sentence has been removed; it was voted out at the Senate's Feb. 9 meeting. When, why and by whom the sentence was inserted will remain a mystery for now.
The more interesting question is if the policy really should have been removed. After going unnoticed for who knows how long, then being brought to the Senate's attention by a student with a grade appeal, the "new" policy excited many students. But, because few professors knew about the policy in time to make their syllabi this semester and it has now been removed, it won't help anyone.
Would it have helped anyone had it been enforced?
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the requirement. Writing is an inherently subjective discipline, and the elements that distinguish papers of various grades are ineffable, or at the very least take a couple years of English classes to understand. Attempting to distil it into a rubric is impossible and unfair to students.
To use the "real world" model that students are so fond of (e.g. "History is stupid; when am I ever going to need to know this in real life?")
An employer will give clear expectations and goals for each project or task in a workplace, like the individual description of what topics should be covered in each paper. Your boss will not give an itemized list of what it takes to get promoted to CEO, because the qualities that make someone a good leader and manager are both inherent and indescribable. There are easy ones like organization (which applies to papers too, by the way) but what about charisma or reliability or just It? How are you going to spell that out in black and white? The meanings of the words themselves are subjective.
"I have no problem in terms of saying 'Here's what an 'A' paper is, here's what a 'B' paper is,'" said Jolie Fontenot, a visiting assistant professor of communication. "[The rule] just adds clarifications for expectations, it still doesn't mean you're going to know what an 'A' paper is. My concept of an 'A' paper could be totally different from another professor."
The communication department was one of few departments campuswide to notify their professors and enforce the "new" rule.
The overwhelming student support for the rule was surprising, to me at least, and may point to a deeper problem I was unaware of. Stories of professors who don't outline their expectations, then fail students' papers with no explanation, are prevalent but always second or third hand. Still, the sheer number of jilted students who endorse a policy like this one indicates a need for something similar.
I would support a policy that requires a written outline of the topics to be covered in each assignment be provided by the professor. However, I do support the Faculty Senate's decision to remove the offending sentence from the syllabus requirements (and not just because its inexplicable appearance is an abomination to the very policies and procedures our government holds dear.) A rule like that one gives students unfair and unrealistic expectations about their future in the "real world."
Be the first to comment on this article!