Grade Replacement Policy - Essay Example

Grade Replacement Policy Proposal Grade Replacement Policy Proposal Introduction es offered at the CU’s of Colorado) Engineering and Applied Science Department are purposely strict. This trend is the institution’s only way of assuring excellent education for graduate students in this department. In effect, a strictness policy during examination honors the school’s alumni from this course. As a result, the teaching staff in the Engineering department equally worry about the performances of their students when it maintains a significant degree of educational strictness. This faculty can acquire more information about their students’ academic performances in certain units and their reflection on their pursued professions. I know I am modest when I say that the trustworthiness of existing examination criteria has feasts tremendous criticism in assessing a student’s insight of course material. Consequently, I argue that the institution has to take into account certain flexibility methods for a student’s academic records that reflect his or her efforts. The existing examination criteria for CU demand that the teaching staff adds a course-retaking student’s grades in his or her aggregate quality-point mean calculations. On the contrary, I propose that with the Dean’s consent, students can be free to replace their courses’ marks with the higher of the two exams taken during retake. This proposal will also allow the students to exempt the low-grade from calculating his or her aggregate quality-point mean score. As a result, the student’s records will still show the student took both exams and delivered an honest academic record. The following paper further provides proof of ways this policy can benefit the institution, student, and ensure the student’s future career. Additionally, I will support my proposal would statistics and true comparisons with institutions that currently apply this particular policy in their ranking system. Background In 2009, author Gerald Watkins Bracey noted that examiners believe the existing system for evaluation in the education sector is flawed. Irrespective of this observation, representatives in control of this sector still consider student grades the single source of evaluating their academic abilities and commitment. This poor consideration turns the entire education system into an ethical matter that one can resolve or alleviate in some ways (Thomsen, 2015). It is worth noting that this proposal involves enabling limited forgiveness to students by offering them another opportunity when they make a twin effort in one class. My retake and replace policy aims towards providing engineering students with approaches for recovering their academic transcripts when the institution’s policies limit them to do so. This policy exhibits a little more respect to individual conditions that students often face in the course of their higher learning. Nonetheless, a portion of these students may feel the urge to go back to school after completing their courses. As a result, a policy that takes into account the best efforts while at school is crucial, which is also an objective in this proposal (Thomsen, 2015). Additionally, students who wish to take academic leaves for the sake of their relatives and personal experiences can gain from this policy. This criterion of the policy is applicable equally to exchange students who possibly originate from countries with highly different learning systems and models. As a result, local and international students revel in a valued safety net that supports them during their experiences with cultural and linguistic barriers at the CU. Today, CU has a retake policy that enables Engineering students to sit for any units only up to 3 times, counting the original time. This policy further includes the grades recorded during each of these three retakes in the student’s aggregate grade point calculation. A student in the CU engineering department must sit for the class thrice to achieve a grade acquired from a three-credit course optimally. In total, the students would have tried for nine credits in one class, and the CU policy requires the lecturer to include all acquired credits in the student’s transcript. The final score becomes the mean of the three credit courses after tallying (Rediehs, n.d.). I find this policy highly ineffective because taking a class numerous times is problematically questionable. In mid-2014, CU thought about adopting a policy similar to my proposal but faculty members voted it down following a meeting. On May 1, 2014, faculty members revisited the structure of the overall examination criteria and policy for CU following the violations of existing educational freedom policies (Kuta, 2014). The committee found out that some administrators did not adhere to established protocols and sanctioned them. After that, the faculty considered adopting a policy that facilitated the constant cooperation between administration, faculty, and students to secure their futures. The committee expressed the need for a policy that was more popular, widely recognized, and intuitive. However, this expression did not land the institution a policy that meet all these expectations (Kuta, 2014). CU exempts the least grade allowable for a student to retake in a given course from the aggregate GPA calculations. More importantly, CU exempts the grade of the accepted retake effort from the aggregate quality-point mean calculation when this grade is not above that of the first-take grade. CU does display all efforts made by a student in any course, counting corresponding grades. Nevertheless, CU faculty either marks exempted grades as E, which means excluded grades, or displays the first-take grade. CU displays and adds the rest of the attempted retake grades in the GPA calculation taken together. This inclusion enhances the engineering students’ GPAs at CU, which in turn enhances the school’s position and image in contrast to other national learning institutions. In addition, CU still requires students to prove the similarity between the content of retaken units and original ones. In any case, CU would require the faculty to accept all retake requests before enrollment to make the grade exemption policy applicable (Kuta, 2014). Proposed Statement My proposed policy largely entails two key elements: Retaken and Addendum to Retake Policy. 1. Retaken The University of Dayton allows an undergrad who scores a D or F in a course considered first option to retake it a second time. The student can then remove the scores of the first-take (D or F) from his or her aggregate GPA. In addition, the University of Dayton does not include the first-take grades in the student’s cumulative GPA when he or she retook a course and performed better than or similar to the first-take grade. As a result, the student’s record echoes this incident by identifying the first-take grade with an E, which means the school is exempting this grade by modifying the aggregate GPA. The University of Dayton allows its students to grades worth less than 15 hours of retaken classes (Thomsen, 2015). This condition means that the student should be capable of demonstrating the ways the retake course has materials similar to the original course when the studied topics differ. Students ought to retake courses pursued by the student before the enactment of this policy, and prior to the completion of an undergraduate program, under the instructions of this proposed policy. 2. Addendum A student who retakes a course with a previous transcript has to use its grades to replace both former grades. However, the student can only carry out this replacement if the grades were better than or equal to each other. The institution will also have to tally all the number of retaken hours as the total time the student seeks to replace. For instance, a student who retakes ECON 101 will have to come six credit hours rather than three. Consequently, the student will be capable of pursuing nine extra course grades. Furthermore, the student will be free to retake a course a single time with the aim of exempting a grade. However, taking such a course will require the prompt submission of a printed consent by the chairperson of the student’s graduate program Director of Department. Procedure The Academic Senate will provide the approval necessary for this graduate retake policy to commence application immediately. The student who pursues a course before the implementation of this policy might have to retake it under the instructions of this policy before he or she completes the course. This condition means the student will have to seek permission to enroll for and plan to retake courses. At the same time, the department faculty brings the graduate report on its website up-to-date with the next revision phase. The GPCE will distribute this proposal to make graduate students aware of its requirements following its final authorization by the Academic Senate. This procedure will entail three key steps: i. The first grade of the student repeated registration will still be present on his or her record, but absent from the grade point mean during the closing of the term. Graduates getting an IF or IW grade during the repeated course will not have the original grade exempted from the aggregate GPA score until they get a letter grade in the repeated course. ii. The student will not carry out a retrospective deal because of retaking a course under this proposed policy. For instance, the institution will not take away any previous probation or suspension records, including qualification decisions made by the Dean concerning the student’s athleticism, financial capabilities, and other educational variables. iii. Students who do not qualify for retaking a course using Course Repetition are free to retake the course’s classes with the knowledge that both grades will reflect on their CU GPAs. Advantages and Intentions This Course Repetition Policy proposal will benefit the school in several ways. First, the institution will become conversant with the factors essential for the rigorous process of assigning credits to repeating students. The institution will also realize what it takes to tolerate students in need of academic acceleration. Second, the institution gains a competitive edge over other higher learning institutions such as the University of Dayton in terms of the number and competencies of students applying to this institution. Students will be inclined to enroll for a course in an institution that allows them to retake courses in case of academic nonperformance or personal challenges (Thomsen, 2015). Second, this policy especially benefits the student in several ways. First, the student’s GPA will improve after CU exempts his or her lower grade from the aggregate GPA after retaking a course. In addition, this enhancement will not be as drastic as it initially would have been considering the student’s GPA still improves. Second, the student enjoys the freedom to either remain at or switch institutions while retaking the course. This freedom benefits students who retake courses because of cultural, personal, or linguistic barriers to begin with. Third, the student will be confident of his or her ability to comprehend the course material and sit for exams if the course is a major. Third, this retake proposal is beneficial to further institutions including graduate school. Many graduate schools accept credits transferred from other institutions, which is part of this policy’s strategy to improve students’ GPAs. For instance, a student may decide to sit for a course for a second time to become eligible for graduate school in psychology. He or she will have to take into account the possibility of retaking the course in a different institution. As a result, the graduate school easily tracks the student’s academic transcript during application or enrollment. Relative and Supportive Statistics Students are highly discouraged when they cannot alter their grades to favor their GPAs. A study by the University of Michigan discovered that 80% of interviewed students centered their self-worth on their educational performance. This discovery means that low grades make students less motivated to continue with education (Thomsen, 2015). A second research at King’s College revealed that teenagers will low self-confidence will possibly suffer from health complications in the future, engage in criminal activity, and make less money than their well-performing classmates. These findings compel one to relate the low self-confidence with the low self-worth acquired from low, unchangeable grades. A third study in 2012 by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) ranked the United States number 17 in terms of SAT scores with a 40-year low behind Finland and South Korea (Thomsen, 2015). As a result, there is statistical proof of how low and unchangeable grades are possibly the country’s leading causes for the increase in school dropout rates and low-quality education. Second, with this policy, learning institutions strengthen their ranking systems. In January 2015, Homestead High School considered altering its grading scale to push for “equal competition” (Leininger, 2015). The institution realized that a student who scored 94% in a given subject might get an A- on his or her student transcript rather than the nationally equivalent A plain. In turn, the student’s GPA decreases and ruins the student’s ability to join a graduate school that accepts GPAs supported by A plain material by a small extent. As a result, the student becomes less motivated to pursue the course when he or she is not eligible (Leininger, 2015). Laura Rediehs, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at St. Lawrence University, said the inability to alter grades brings about the pressure to resist grade inflation amongst students, let alone discontinue their education (Rediehs, n.d.). Counterarguments and Responses 1. Lack of methodical proof or data showing students drop out of school or become discouraged to continue their education because they cannot alter their grades. Statistics and methodical findings by EIU support this statement. As a result, CU’s Academic Senate should not think low of the argument about better grade replacement policies by other higher learning institutions. 2. CU’s Academic Senate proposes the creation of programs that could assist students facing hardships in their courses and learning processes. In response, programs in the form of prompt response mechanisms, midterm grade transcripts, and more access to tutoring sessions. 3. Favoritism: This grade replacement policy is unfair to low-income students unable to meet the costs of three additional courses. As a result, the Academic Senate argues that this policy contradicts CU’s task as a higher learning organization. On the contrary, this proposal enables both high and low-income students to work for better GPA scores and increases their odds of getting a good job after graduation. 4. Scale: This policy fails to tackle the possibility of students retaking courses to replace grades. The policy’s addendum element of the retake procedure prevents students from having such a motive by including their lesser grades in their GPA when they sit for a course more than twice. 5. The competitive nature of courses: More learners may decide to retake courses, thereby causing an increase in the number of repeaters in classes, particularly in classes such as statistics, engineering, and mathematics. However, this likelihood is only possible when the students sit for the same course more than twice. The policy does not allow a third inclusion of exam scores in the student’s GPA. 6. Access to marketable courses: Enabling students to sit for highly marketable courses such as astrophysics, engineering, and mathematics worsens their access by other students. On the contrary, this policy allows both performing and nonperforming students to enjoy the perks of these courses. 7. Effect on Time-To-Graduation: Allowing students to sit for courses repeatedly to enhance their GPAs goes against CU’s initiative to enhance the period to graduation. The only way this statement can become a valid counterargument is by CU clarifying its priority in terms of making the period to graduation shorter and substantial. 8. Meaning for students: this policy enables students to consider a course unimportant the first time round. On the contrary, students who know cannot afford repeating a course will take classes very seriously the first time around. 9. The logic for limitations: This policy enables students to substitute better grades without replacing “No Credit” grades. This difference does not represent an illogical policy because it does not take into account “No Credit” grades when aggregating a student’s GPA scores. 10. Implementation: Implementing this policy is problematic in terms of pragmatism, complication, and capacity. The retaking and addendum aspects of the retaking process make this policy adaptable enough for simple implementation. 11. The integrity of CU grades: This proposal weakens the integrity of GPAs allotted by CU. If anything, this policy would make CU’s GPAs more viable amongst applicants and graduate schools that consider taking in CU alumni. Conclusion So why should CU adopt this policy? I argue that CU has to take into account certain flexibility methods for a student’s academic records that reflect his or her efforts. This proposal allows CU students to exempt the low-grade from calculating his or her aggregate quality-point mean score. As a result, the student’s records will reveal that the student took both exams and delivered an honest academic record. This proposal is proof of ways this policy can benefit the institution, student, and ensure the student’s future career. I have used statistics, scientific findings, and true comparisons with institutions that currently apply this particular policy in their ranking system to support this proposal. The existing examination criteria for CU require the teaching staff to add the grades of course-retaking student in his or her aggregate quality-point mean calculations. References Kuta, S. (2014). Faculty committee finds CU-Boulder violated policy in Patti Adler case. Daily Camera CU News. Retrieved from http://www.dailycamera.com/cu- news/ci_25680336/faculty-committee-finds-cu-boulder-violated-policies-patti Leininger, E. (2015). Grading scale changes possible. The Spartana. Retrieved from http://www.hhsspartana.com/1742/opinion/grading-scale-changes-possible/ Rediehs, L. (n.d.). Trust and Distrust: The Problem with Traditional Grading. St. Lawrence University. Retrieved from http://it.stlawu.edu/~lrediehs/grading_files/problem.htm Thomsen, M. (2015). The Case Against Grades. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/05/the_case_against_grades_they_l ower_self_esteem_discourage_creativity_and.html Read More