Grade Normalization Forum
SBA wants your informed opinion on why you support or oppose the Grade Normalization Process. View the information about the process and how it affects students here, and then post your comments and suggestions about the Grade Normalization process below.
*all "Sent to SBA" comments were submitted via the SBA suggestion box or emailed directly to SBA, and can be verified.
*all "Sent to SBA" comments were submitted via the SBA suggestion box or emailed directly to SBA, and can be verified.
posted by SBA at 5:24 PM
8 Comments:
This process seems to highlight one of the aspects of law school that was most disappointing to me after finding out how grades really are given. When I came to law school, I had only taken one or two classes in my life that were graded on a curve. At my high school and in my undergrad programs, you were graded as an individual. The testing was fair, and you got the grade you earned. On a test with fifty questions at two points apiece, if you missed four, you received a 92, or an A-. Professors seemed perfectly competent in grading papers as well. As Professor Blomquist suggests, they know an A or B or C or D when they see it. Also, the availability of intangible ways to raise your grade (i.e. class participation) worked in the favor of those students who wanted to make the most of their learning experience in a particular class.
To be honest, the whole idea of grading on a curve never made sense to me. What is the value, exactly, of making a test so unfairly hard that only one student can do well? Wouldn't it be a much better idea, and much more fair, to simply learn how to test well? A friend who is a teacher recently discussed with me the sad state of testing in higher education. As a middle school teacher, her training included a variety of classes on assessment - learning how to test. It is my perception that many (most?) professors who insist on a curve simply do not give fair, evenhanded assessments. Instead, they provide tests with questions that students in the class could not possibly be expected to answer. I have high respect for Professor Berner, but I recall in Criminal Law that he told us that a couple of the short answers on the exam would be impossible or at least very far-fetched. In particular, he said that one year, he put, as an identification question on an exam, the name of a high-school classmate of his that he had mentioned once during the semester in passing. He seemed to find this very entertaining, but to me, it just seems like a way to skew the testing results to support a curve.
Why not create exams that fairly test the knowledge that the professors impart during the semester of classes? I have taken exams at Valpo Law that have been fair, and those that have not. But what is the value in "amping up" the difficulty to the point where classroom learning and studying are inadequate to the task of completing an exam with a degree of earned success? By earned success, I mean that students who attend class, study, and understand the material, are able to answer most of the questions correctly and truly get a mathematical A or B, instead of a ridiculous grade based on a curve. I do not want this to sound as though I do not appreciate the better grades that have come from having a curve - I simply believe that the testing should not be so unfair as to REQUIRE the curve to fix its inadequacies.
That being said, I think that the way that this entire process was approached by the faculty is absolutely unprofessional. Students should not be tricked into supporting a plan that does not necessarily benefit them. Moreover, our student representatives should not be tricked into garnering our support, because it undermines our ability as students to gain effective representation, and it is unfair to our representatives who work hard for us and take their responsibilities seriously. Obviously, I do not hold the reps or the SBA President responsible for this, nor do I think that any student would after hearing how the majority of the faculty appears to have tried to pull the wool over all of our eyes by misleading us and mischaracterizing the process. Bravo to all of you for sticking with us during the process and continually trying to do what you believe is best of all of the students! We do appreciate your work.
I also believe that this proposed program negatively affects our integrity as a school. Contrary to the proponents' arguments, many students did choose to come to Valpo Law BECAUSE we did NOT have grade normalization. We were told that our grades were not "manufactured", that many classes had opportunities for every single student to do well and earn a good grade. To change horses mid-race, especially for those of us who are upperclass students, seems absolutely unfair because this system is not what we signed up for.
I want to make one additional point, and that is that life simply is not fair at times! Maybe you end up with Professor Brietzke for Contracts, or maybe you have Adams. Maybe you have Carter for Crim Law, maybe you have Berner. If professors graded fairly, we wouldn't have to try to remedy the inequities between grading in sections of the same course. But think of it this way: Sometimes, when you get pulled over by a police officer, you get a ticket. Sometimes, you get a warning. You might even get out of trouble altogether. And that's NOT FAIR! But it's LIFE. Things will not always be equal. And it's nice the the professors want our grades to be better so we can get better jobs. But I think there is a better solution than grade normalization: Require that the professors give fair assessments for their classes that truly reflect the information provided and the analysis needed to understand the issues of the class. This proposal simply supports the status quo by trying to rein in those professors whose grades are characteristically higher or lower, instead of insisting on integrity in testing. Granted, I know that many professors spend hours and hours formulating tests that are intended to be fair. But even these tests can include the occasional ridiculous question that is supposed to aid in providing the curve. All I'm asking is that professors take another look at their method of testing, and evaluate its fairness before determining that we need grade normalization to simply provide a glossy finish to a flawed system.
Sent to SBA:
"Although there are numerous aspects to this grading policy that I think are ridiculous, here's another one to throw into the mix...What about all the 3L's who lost their scholarships after the first year? Many of those
scholarships only required a 2.7 to keep the money. If this policy was in place then, I bet almost all students would have kept their money. What about the 2 years of tuition that these people had to pay out of pocket? Now, this policy is further screwing the 3L's by lowering their gpa in their last year. Conversely, people who did not have scholarships their first year, but acquired some money in their second year, may have received more money with a higher gpa (if this policy had been in place then). Like many 3L's, I've already endured the low grades in con law, employment law, ucc,
business associations, etc. We're due for a few A's this year. Again, more reasons why it is extremely unfair for the school to apply this policy to anyone other than 1L's this year."
Sent to SBA:
"I believe Blomquist has the best reason against grade normalization. One person's success is another person's failure. It will create a hostile environment in this law school."
Sent to SBA:
"I am disappointed the SBA did not do enough research on the Grade Norming Process prior to now. You recommended a procedure you did not fully understand. That shows a lack of preparation and professionalism. You already have the reputation of being a party organization, and, frankly, have done nothing to disuade the student body of that reputation."
Sent to SBA:
"One of the reasons VUSL was appealing to me was because I would be graded on my own work, not according to others in my class. Does the administration owe us some type of notice before
making such a change?"
I have many issues with not only the new Grade Normalization program but also the way in which we as a student body have been informed of it.
First, something needs to be done to fix the plethora of problems at
VUSL and those problems that our graduates have obtaining meaningful employment in the legal field. Is grade normalization the answer? Do other schools change grading polices while students are in the middle of their coursework? I understand by reading the statement in favor of this process that other schools were looked at in determining the criteria for the grade normalization. However, it would be helpful to know which other schools were looked at (were they in the fourth tier like VUSL? Were they of comparable size?), and what the impact of the implementation was when it occurred at these schools. Further, full disclosure of the findings may also lend some credence to the Curriculum Committee's decision and subsequent faculty approval.
Second, let’s look at the practical implications of this program on students, especially those who need to maintain scholarships. Law school is competitive enough as it is, but this policy will increase the competitive atmosphere to the point where you could literally be cutting your own throat by assisting someone else in your class to understand the material. Additionally, if this process is implemented and enforced, it will prevent me (and possibly others) from taking those smaller classes such as Trial Practice and Drafting because I have to keep my scholarship and will not risk doing "A" quality work and getting a "C"(that I didn’t earn) because of some sort of scheme to "normalize" things. (I understand that there is some sort of “opt out” provision for these smaller classes, but the opt out must be approved by the Curriculum Committee and the possibility of an opt out being granted has been described as remote.) Therefore, when I graduate, I will lack those practical skills that firms are looking for and my prospects will yet again be hampered by the fact that I chose Valpo Law.
Finally, a furtive attempt to implement a policy that affects each and every one
of us stinks of corruption. What are they hiding? A posting on an SBA website does not cut the mustard when it comes to such a substantial matter that could deeply impact all of our grades. The fact that the SBA actually backed this program without a more complete investigation of all of the ramifications is disappointing, but really not shocking. The SBA is known for its parties and they are good at providing all of us with beer. Should I have to rely on the beer providers to tell me about new administrative policies? The responsible and professional thing for this administration to do would have been to inform the student body directly (with a letter or email from the Dean) so that we would have some sort of official notification of these changes.
After reading your message and then reading it again I find
myself shaking my head and wondering what is happening.
If this does not raise an alarm, I do not know what will. What can we do to tell the powers that be that our $26,000+ should buy more than an abundance of force-fed bureaucratic bullshit and frivolous expenditures.
I suppose there will always be bodies to fill the seats, but the current mode of student treatment all but assures this school that while the seats will be full, the coffers will be empty. The 3Ls will be not be using their future donative dollars to fund the latest VUSL folly. Instead, they will meet, tell their horror stories and share a drink to wash away the bitter taste.
How in the world can this sneaky plan get implemented halfway through the semester in classes that don't just have one exam at the end. Our prof. said Berner told him that he had NO CHOICE and he HAS to implement the GNP NOW. The very next day, I asked about it and Berner said it is voluntary. Berner LIED TO MY FACE.
How can I have earned an A up until this point in time and potentially earn a C at the end of the semester, despite the fact that I did A work? By instituting this 5 weeks before the end of the semester, they are completely changing the scope of the semester, without student imput, and it will have no positive effect on anyone. I had certain expectations, and now I am frankly scared. That is unconscionable, intolerable, unfair and deceitful.
I feel like this has been snuck under the rug and this could effect my scholarship and my employment because a few professors noses are out of joint and need to have their egos massaged b/c the adjuncts are more "popular" than they are.
This stifles creativy and hard work and is a socialist approach to education. If this is the kind of system they want to have, everyone here now should be grandfathered. Are they trying to dump their scholarship students by lowering GPAs? And even if class ranks remain the same, how do you explain how your GPA has taken a dive and that you lost your scholarship.
The students are paying their salaries and deserve input into this process beyond a predetermined forum where the adminsitration has already made up their mind, despite student dissention. It is too late in the game for this system to be implemented this year. I do not know who to believe anymore and am VERY upset.
The 2Ls are really getting the worst deal here. The 3Ls are out of here and many already have jobs. The 1Ls are new and this will not change their grades throughout. But for the 2Ls, who need jobs, how do you explain a significant GPA drop to an employer that you had no control over? Do you think anyone would believe anything as asinine as a school administration changing the entire grading policy at the school 5 weeks before finals, and after a number of classes have already given some of their grades. Absolutely not. I am sick of being screwed by Valpo. They do NOTHING to help their students. It is no wonder this school is 4th tier with administrators like this.
Post a Comment
<< Home