Talk:Graduation Requirements
From SPSU Wiki
This Seems Reasonable...
The proposed policy sounds like a reasonable one to me.
Ken
Perhaps this is too loose...
Assuming 20, 3-hour classes in one's major, the proposed policy would allow a student to graduate with as many as 12 D's in their major classes (assuming the other 8 classes were A's). 10 D's with 7 C's and 3 A's would also suffice.
Rather than cap the number of courses requiring a C or better I would like to see a cap on the maximum number of D's. I think 3 D's in one's major should provide more than enough slack.
Russ Hunt
But That's Not Too Likely...
While it is certainly possible that someone could get some 8 "A's" and a lot of "D's", I'm sure we can agree that it isn't very likely to occur. A more likely scenario is that this would show up for someone who had a majority of "C" grades. The 2.1 requirement would mean that for every "D", there would have to be somewhat more than one "B" to balance. I don't think that's a bad standard.
Zszafran 30 October 2005 18:05 (EST)
Expand it further
Would it be possible to do what some places of higher learning have done where there are more dileneations of letter grades such as A+, A, A-, B+, etc. This would help in distinguishing the true performance of students and their alacraty (or lack thereof) in classes. Hopefully, it would encourage students to do more than just get the A, but to go the extra mile and truly apply themselves in learning. Some do this already, but perhaps this incentive would stimulate them all the more. To boot, it would cut down on all of the ties we have at graduation for top grad...
Now along the lines of the proposal, I am for having more than just 4 "defining grades," but I am also concerned for the wellbeing of students progressing in class sequences. I believe the main reason for having "C bars", (all this talk about bars on campus and we are dry...) is that we truly want the students to succeed. If they get a D in a course that is a pre-req for 2 other classes in a sequence, does that not pre-suppose that they will have an extremely hard if not impossible time at doing well in the future classes? We need to come up with a method that ensures they learn the material and when we do our ABET (or other accrediting agency) assessments, our students have indeed learned all of the outcomes we have set forth. Will "D" students be able to accomplish them under this new defined rubric? Will they be able to succeed in future major classes? I can think of many more than 2 classes where there is a need for foundational and fundamental concepts to be fully impressed and applied in their minds, hands, etc.
added by Alan Gabrielli: The University System sets the grding system. I believe the +/- system has been considered and rejected several times. It is not an option for us.
Minimum GPA
I am a bit surprised that no one has mentioned the 2.1 minimum GPA proposed. I suggest that it is too low! A minimum GPA for all courses in the major of 2.5 would go some ways to address the issues of too many A's and D's and also it would help address the prerequisite concern expressed by Lance. I am also concerned that a maximum of only two courses out of 20 being designatable (is that even a word) as requiring a "C" or better is too low. When i first heard the idea, I did not hear a number associated with it and was thinking more on the order of 5 or 6 classes that might carry such a designation. This, too, might help offset the impact of performance in prerequisite classes, if some of them are designated as requiring a "C" or better. While I understand and to some extent applaud Zvi's concern for graduation rates, I must admit that I am among those who are troubled by "requirement reduction." A basic rule in education training is that students will never rise to a level higher than that which their teacher expects of them. SPSU has historically had a very strong reputation with industry for the quality of our graduates who could "hit the road running" - something which has enabled us to compete VERY effectively with GA Tech when it comes to graduates' employability. Industry (perhaps unlike our current BoR) cares little how high our retention rate is nor how many students we graduate. But they DO care about the quality, and I think this is the one tie to industry (we seem to be losing a lot of the others) we really need to maintain, for our own existence as well as for our students. Personally, I would rather see a "C" or above in all major courses AND a 2.5 gpa in the major as the university standard. Perhaps it is grade creep, but I think today, most consider a "D as substandard and therefore inadequate performance rather than meeting minimum expectations.
But Is That Going too Far?
Here Here (whomever you are -- use the 3 tildas to author stamp or type it out...) I meant to mention this as well as increasing the 2 number, but a GPA of 2.5 may be a bit high. I could compromise with 2.25... A 2.5 would be hard to pull up unless we start using that forgiveness policy. How will that apply here anyway??? Regardless, of what is done, I hope the prime concern in addition to trying to improve retention is that we maintain our tremendously high quality grads as we would not want the supreme value of our degrees to degradate in any way as that esteemed alum mentioned in a previous wiki posting... Lance Crimm
Averages alone just don't work.
Even with a minimum GPA of 2.5 a student could graduate with 10 D's in their major! I do not think this is anywhere near the standard that we would like to uphold. If the problem that we are trying to solve is that a student with an acceptable GPA has one or two D's that are keeping them from graduating, then let's consider a policy that allows one or two D's.
Also, it is my understanding that the grade forgiveness policy has already been approved and is being implemented. As a result, it should be easier for students to pull up their GPA.
All Ds are not created equal...
My impression from 22 years of advising and doing a lot of graduation audits is that we could solve many of the problems with Ds in major courses if we looked at cases individually.
I personally am much more likely to say that a student with a D in some freshman or sophomore class, who subsequently does OK in classes that follow the one with the bad grade, ought to be allowed to graduate. On the other hand, a student who meets GPA requirements but has a D in a more advanced class maybe ought to have to repeat it. Similarly, there are some advanced classes that are central to a major, and others that are sorta off in a backwater, or even electives. An advisor ought to consider the nature of the specific situation when deciding if a D is minimally suitable.
Of course, this requires the exercise of professional judgment, which some are reluctant to do.
--Bob Harbort
Re: All Ds are not created equal...
I agree with all of that. However... that's hard to explain to students, can give the appearance that some students are treated differently from others, and (worst of all) it means someone has to be able to waive the requirements in individual cases. Not I!
How about a requirement of C or better in upper-division (3000 and 4000) required courses, together with a minimum GPA requirement? That automatically excuses a few grades of D at the beginning without compromising graduation standards. Uhhh, assuming there's no critical knowledge in lower-division courses that's not reinforced and expanded in a required upper-division course.
That fixes (I think) the problem of making sure one meets some sort of reasonable standard to graduate, but leaves the problem that a D in some lower-division courses could indicate that a student cannot succeed in a subsequent course.
It's pretty easy to argue that a student who hasn't learned anough to move to the next course should not earn a passing grade. A minimum pass should be enough to go on, and less than that should earn a grade of F. Maybe we need more lower-division Fs!
Perhaps a better approach, and one where we can give individual attention without the appearance of favoritism, is to address advising for students with Ds in critical lower-division courses. Ultimately it will be the student's decision to repeat a D course or try to advance without repeating the course, but we should be able to help them make an informed decision.
Bob Brown 3 November 2005 10:32 (EST)
Reflecting On What "Pass" Means
Maybe part of the issue can be resolved by reflecting on what "Pass" means. When a student gets a "D", they have passed the course, indicating that they are able to pass on to the next course, the next level, or toward graduation.
Therefore, if a faculty member does not feel that a student has done sufficiently well to pass on to the next course, or to pass on to graduate, they should not give that student a passing grade--the student should fail. The problem arises when we tell the student that they have passed the course, but we also tell them that they are not able to pass on to the next step, or to graduate. What does the word "pass" mean, under this circumstance?
So how about this as a suggestion--if the student has done sufficiently well to pass on to the next step, they should get a passing grade. And don't forget--a "D" is a passing grade. If they are not ready to pass on to the next step--don't give them a passing grade. They should get an "F".
Requiring students to get a passing grade in each major course is reasonable. Requiring them to have done average work overall in their academic careers is reasonable. Asking for average work (or even a little bit more) overall in the major is reasonable. Requiring a minimum grade of "C" in a small band of critically important courses is reasonable.
I believe that going beyond this is no longer reasonable, and contributes, in part, to our lower retention and graduation rates.
What do other programs do?
I just did a very quick, very unscientific survey of four other USG schools.
Agricultural Engineering and Biological Engineering at UGA
All students must earn a grade of C or better in all required Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics courses and in the following engineering courses: ENGR 1120, 2110, 2120, 2130, 2140, 2170, 3140, 3150 and 3160. Except for those ENGR courses requiring a grade of C or better, a maximum of two ENGR courses with grades of D may be used to satisfy graduation requirements.
ISYE at GA Tech
ISyE students must complete the required ISyE courses with a letter grade of C or better. Students who receive a D or F in a required ISyE course are required to repeat the course as soon as possible, preferably during the following semester at Georgia Tech.
BS in Business Education from the University of West Georgia
Attain a minimum of 2.0 for the business junior core and Area F. Attain a minimum of 2.0 for the major field requirements. No more than one “D” is accepted in courses presented to satisfy major field requirements.
North Georgia College and State University
A student must have a minimum grade point average of 2.0 on all work presented for graduation. Not more than 25 percent of the credits for graduation may carry grades of D.
It appears that our "C or better in the major" policy is not out of line with other schools and is not likely a significant factor in our retention/graduation rate problem. I believe that amending our C or better policy to allow a maximum of two D's within the major courses would be a reasonable change without dramatically lowering our standards.
--RussHunt 4 November 2005 10:36 (EST)
The AG engineers seem to take a reasonable approach
...and it's one that each department ought to be able to define for its own degree program curricula: List specific course for which a C or better is required, and set a limit on the number of Ds in the others.
What Some Other Places Do...
Russ prompted me to check and see what some other places do. Here's what I found (please bear in mind that I got this information from their websites or catalogs, so reality may be different).
California Polytechnic (Pomona)-- 2.0 overall and in the major
New York Polytechnic -- 2.0 overall in major, with a C- required in up to five courses
Rochester Institute of Technology -- 2.0 in the major
Rennselaer Polytechnic (RPI) -- 1.8 in the major and overall (hadn't seen one below a 2.0 before--this one surprised me)
So--maybe a reasonable compromise would be something like:
"2.0 overall, 2.1 in the major, no more than 4 "D" grades in the major or cognates (Area F)." What do you all think?
Zszafran 7 November 2005 14:04 (EST)
D's in the Major
I really don't see a problem with allowing D's in the major, as long as a suitable GPA is maintained. I think requiring a major GPA in the 2.1 - 2.2 range is an acceptable proposal. Allowing no more than X number of D's in the major is, to me, a less desireable substitute. Enforcing both requirements (GPA and fewer than X D grades) is unacceptably complicated, in my opinion.
Alan Gabrielli
Grad Req does not equal retention
I am not convinced that the graduation requirement of 'C' or better is a major factor in low graduation rates. My personal experience in the HTC department leads me to believe that a sense of community and belonging is a HUGE reason students stay in school long enough to graduate. I would further propose that this communal disposition is also a factor in a student's GPA. What better motivator exists than peer pressure?
I would be interested to see a breakdown of the graduation rates by degree program. Those with the highest rates could be models for the rest of the university.
I take pride in the fact that our school has higher standards (among the three highest SAT scores for entering freshmen) than most of the public colleges in Georgia. This distinction is one that I plan to mention to prospective employers. If SPSU decides that this standard is too difficult to obtain for future students, then maybe you are marketing to the wrong students.
Joy Leake
