ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GRADE CHANGES

SPRING 2003

 

 

To:  The Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate

 

The Grade Change Committee (GCC) met monthly throughout the academic year.  During the summer months, members of the GCC who remained on campus evaluated urgent grade change petitions.  If there was not unanimous support for the petition among those members, action on the petition was deferred to the full Committee for consideration in Fall Quarter.

 

The Committee’s actions for the period from Spring 2002 through Winter 2003 are summarized in tables 1-4.  The 4,190 petitions submitted to the Office of the Registrar during that 12-month period represented a 1.4% increase from the preceding 12 months.  Of this total, 3,654 petitions were handled by the Office of the Registrar, and 536 were adjudicated by the GCC, representing a 16.5% decrease in the number of petitions handled by the Committee relative to the preceding 12 months.

 

The GCC moved forward with a recommendation initiated by the 2001-02 GCC, at the request of the Chair of the Academic Senate, to eliminate use of the Enrolled, No Work Submitted grading option (E-NWS or NS) for students who remain enrolled in classes after the drop deadline but do submit work for grading.  Because the E-NWS notation does not appear on the official transcript, students in such situations have little or no incentive to drop courses in which they have completed no work.  Such behavior results in a misallocation of the University’s scarce teaching resources and is a disservice to students who are unable to enroll in courses they need to complete their degrees in a timely manner.

 

A secondary consideration in support of the proposed change is the fact that some instructors abuse the E-NWS notation, awarding it to students who have completed work in the course. Similarly some staff advisors encourage inappropriate use of E-NWS as a type of “drop” mechanism to avoid paperwork.  Although there is no quantitative evidence regarding the extent to which the E-NWS notation is used improperly, the GCC sees ample evidence of this abuse in the 50-90 student petitions it addresses each month.  Eliminating the notation will encourage the assignment of proper grades by instructors.

 

Students now have continuous and almost effortless computer access to their class registration status, leaving them little excuse for not being registered properly.  Concern has been expressed about students who are enrolled in “placeholder” courses while they are on the wait list for other courses.  This issue arises only for courses with the 10-day drop deadline.  In principle a student could be added to a course from the wait list just prior to the drop deadline (e.g., on the 10th instruction day) and not be aware of the add in time to drop the placeholder course before the deadline. A related, though isolate, problem occurs when students are added on the 11th or 12th day from a wait list, after the 10-day drop deadline has passed.

 

In reality, this timing problem is easily addressed.  First, the aforementioned ease of schedule access makes it nearly effortless for students to monitor their schedules, and ample instructions can and should be provided to students regarding their obligations in this regard.  Second, the Registrar’s Office has put into place a procedure (effective Fall 2003) that allows students a three-business-day grade period after the 10th day of instruction to come into the Office of the Registrar to drop either (a) a 10-day-drop class that was added to their schedule on the 11th or 12th day, or (b) a “placeholder” course with a 10-day-drop deadline that is no longer desired because the student was added from a waitlist to a preferred course on the 10th, 11th, or 12th day of instruction.  This grade period can and should be widely publicized.

 

Finally, and importantly, in proposing this regulation, the GCC recognizes that approval of this change will inaugurate a transitional period of some confusion on the part of instructors, students and staff.  The Committee accepts the obligation to evaluate grade change petitions from students who believe an F grade assigned under provisions of 15.A was assigned improperly. With the extant safeguard provided by the GCC and the aforementioned procedure established by the Registrar’s Office, inappropriate assignments of F grades can be eliminated, while retaining the undeniable benefits of the proposed change in terms of improved class access and enhanced integrity of the grading system.

 

The GCC also revised its guidelines on requested changes from P/NP to letter grading.  A change from P/NP to a letter grade to meet graduation requirements imposed by a major or college will not be accepted.  The units imposing the requirement should be the ones to evaluate such requests.


 

The breakdown of petitions received and acted upon by the GCC is given below.

 

Table 1:

 

PETITIONS RECEIVED AND SOURCE OF GRADE CHANGE RESOLUTION

 

 

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

GCC

TOTAL

 

SPRING 2002

 

1258

 

219

 

1477

 

SUMMER 2002

 

727

 

9

 

736

 

FALL 2002

 

608

 

203

 

811

 

WINTER 2003

 

1061

 

105

 

1166

 

TOTALS

 

3654 (87%)

 

536 (13%)

 

4190

 

 

 

 

Table 2:

 

ACTIONS COMPLETED BY THE REGISTRAR’S OFFICE

WITHOUT REFERRAL TO THE GCC

 

 

SPRING 02

SUMMER 02

FALL 02

WINTER 03

 

GRADE CHANGES

 

1011

570

392

888

RETRO-DROPS

 

48

22

20

22

RETRO-ADDS

 

145

96

176

100

RETRO-WITHDRAWALS

 

4

2

0

1

RETRO-PF/SU

 

1

0

0

0

UNIT CHANGES

 

47

36

20

47

CORRECTIONS

 

2

1

0

3

TOTALS

1258

727

608

1061

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3:

 

ACTIONS COMPLETED BY THE GCC

 

 

SPRING 02

SUMMER 02

 

 

Approved

Denied

Approved

Denied

 

GRADE CHANGES

29

18

2

0

 

RETRO-DROPS

16

51

5

0

 

RETRO-ADDS

8

0

0

0

 

RETRO-WITHDRAWALS

20

44

1

0

 

RETRO-PF/SU

8

21

1

0

 

UNIT CHANGES

1

1

0

0

 

CORRECTIONS

1

1

0

0

 

TOTALS

83

136

9

          0

 

 

 

 

 

 

FALL 02

WINTER 03

 

 

Approved

Denied

Approved

Denied

 

GRADE CHANGES

 

16

 

8

 

19

 

8

 

RETRO-DROPS

 

11

 

48

 

6

 

27

 

RETRO-ADDS

 

8

 

0

 

3

 

0

 

RETRO-WITHDRAWALS

 

14

 

65

 

10

 

15

 

RETRO-PF/SU

 

3

 

28

 

3

 

13

 

UNIT CHANGES

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

0

 

CORRECTIONS

 

0

 

0

 

0

 

0

 

TOTALS

 

53

 

150

 

42

 

63

 

 

 

 

Table 4:

 

SUMMARY OF GCC DECISIONS

FOR THE PERIOD SPRING 2002 THROUGH WINTER 2003

 

 

 

 

APPROVED

 

DENIED

 

TOTAL

 

GRADE CHANGES

 

66

 

34

 

100

 

RETRO-DROPS

 

38

 

126

 

164

 

RETRO-ADDS

 

19

 

0

 

19

 

RETRO-WITHDRAWALS

 

45

 

124

 

169

 

RETRO-PF/SU

 

15

 

62

 

77

 

UNIT CHANGES

 

3

 

2

 

5

 

CORRECTIONS

 

1

 

1

 

2

 

TOTALS

 

187 (35%)

 

349 (65%)

 

536

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

                                                                                    Richard J. Sexton, Chair

                                                                                    Michael Caputo

Christiana Drake

                                                                                    Jack Farrell

                                                                                    Brian Higgins

                                                                                    James Schaaf

                                                                                    Gang Sun

                                                                                    Neelam Babbar, Undergraduate Representative

                                                                                    Raj Gupta, Undergraduate Representative