xt7b8g8fjd87 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7b8g8fjd87/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1995-04-10  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 10, 1995 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 10, 1995 1995 1995-04-10 2020 true xt7b8g8fjd87 section xt7b8g8fjd87 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY



4 April 1995

Members, University Senate
The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
April 10, 1995 at 3:00 PM in room 115 of the Nursing Building

Minutes: To be circulated.
Chair’s announcements


Action Item:

a. Proposal to amend the University Senate Rules, Section IV - -, application deadlines. (Circulated under date of 31

March 1995)

For Discussion Only: University-wide plus/minus grading sysem.
(Circulated under date of 3 April 1995.)

Louis J. Swift
Acting Registrar

US Agenda: 4. I 0.95




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 pm, Monday, April 10, 1995, in Room 1 15 of the
Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Professor Raymond Cox, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Kevin Adams, Dan Altman, Drew Alvarez, Gary Anglin, James Applegate,
Michael Bardo*, Paige Bendel, Mark Berger, Vasant Bhapkar, Suketu Bhavsar*, Thomas Blues, Maria
Boosalis*, Jana Bowling, Douglas Boyd, Dean Brothers, Joseph Burch, Allan Butterfield, Lauretta Byars,
Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Jorden L. Cohen, Delwood Collins, Jean Cooper*, Virginia Davis-Nordin*, Lance
DeLong, Lee A. Edgerton, David Elliott*, Robert F arquhar*, Thomas Ford, Donald Frazier*, Michael
Freeman*, Richard Furst, Lorraine Garkovich, Lori Gonzalez, Anne Haas, Lynne Hall*, Kirby Hancock,
Issam Harik, J. John Harris, S. Zafar Hasan*, John Haughton, Christine Havice*, Robert Hemenway, James
Hertog, Floyd Holler, James Holsinger, James Hougland, Robert Ireland, Jeff Jones, Raleigh Jones, Craig
Koontz, Thomas Lester, Jonathan Liar, Thomas Lillich*, C. Oran Little, Brent Logan, Jan MeCulloch, Martin
McMahon, A. Lee Meyer*, Douglas Michael*, Donald Mullineaux, David Nash*, Phyllis Nash, Anthony
Newberry, Scott Noble, Judith Page, Clayton Paul, Ronald Pen, Barbara Phillips, Rhoda-Gale Pollack, Daniel
Reedy, Thomas Robinson, Ellen Rosenrnan, Edgar Sagan, W. Craig Shellhart, David Shipley, Timothy
Sineath, Deborah Slaton, William Stober*, David Stockham, Phillip Tibbs, Chris Vance, Charles Wethington*
Carolyn Williams, Eugene Williams, Paul Willis, Emery Wilson W Witt.

I g r , '\

Chairman Cox made the announcement that the minutes from ' e March 20, 1995 meeting had 11 yet

been circulated. Any corrections need to be sent to Cindy Todd. Formal approval will be done at the first
senate meeting in the Fall.

The Chair made the following announcements:

The Chancellor's Search Committee has had it‘s second meeting and they have gotten the group down to
seventeen candidates. The group will be reduced to five to ten candidates at the next meeting. When that list
is set, the names will be published and they will be brought to campus.

There is a correction from an article in the Kernel. It said the executive search corporation representative
would be doing the cutting of the list. This is not the case. Their representative will be interviewing the
candidates to see if they are still serious candidates, and do background checks. The representative will then
report to the Committee. The Committee will be doing any cutting of the list.

The Senate Council has arranged to have a memorial bench in memory of Bill Lyons placed out in the
green area that is between Patterson Office tower and the parking lot . There will be a dedication of the
bench and a presentation of the first annual Lyons award. The first recipient is Gilbert Friedell of the
Kentucky Cancer Program. The dedication and the award presentation will be on Thursday, April 27 , 1995
at 2:00 PM, weather permitting, outside at the bench. If weather is not permitting, it will be held in the
student center. Notices will be sent.

Letters for new senators will a be sent out this week.


 The Chair recognized Dean David Mohney for a memorial resolution.

Memorial Resolution
Leonardo Ricci

Leonardo Ricci was born in Rome, Italy, on June 8th, 1918. Of himself, he would say, "I am
just a man," but he was so much more: he wrote, taught, designed, painted, and theorized
about a new architecture every day of his adult life. He lived with the belief in the brilliance of
the human imagination and a profound existential positioning of the self in the world.

Ricci received a diploma from the University of Florence in 1942, and a doctorate of
architecture from the University of Rome in 1950. Following the Second World War, in which
he served as a member of the Engineering Corps, he began his academic career as an Assistant
Professor of architecture at Florence, and remained on its faculty until 1963, serving for a
period as Dean. He taught a variety of courses which extended well beyond the conventional
architectural curriculum, including industrial design, interior design, composition and drawing.

In 1960, Ricci came to the United States as a Visiting Professor of Architecture at MIT, and
over the next two decades, he held similar positions at the University of Florida, Pratt Institute,
and Pennsylvania State University. Interspersed with these American appointments was a
return to the University of Florence. He became affiliated with the University of Kentucky in
the early 19705, and in 1977 Ricci was appointed as a distinguished Visiting Professor here.

He remained in that capacity, both in Lexington and at the College of Architecture's Atelier
Veneziano, in Venice, Italy, until his death.

Professor Ricci balanced his academic and artistic careers with a substantial architectural
practice. After training with the Italian Modernist architect Giovanni Michelucci, Ricci
established a studio in 1944 with friend and colleague Leonardo Savioli, which remained active
for three decades. They undertook projects as wide-ranging as an apartment house for 1500
people in Sorgone, and the design for the Italian pavilion at the Expo '67, the World's Fair in
Montreal. In the 1980's he took into a new partnership Professor Maria Dallerba, herself a
faculty member of the University of Kentucky, who also, in time, became his wife. They
undertook major works together throughout the rest of his life, such as new gate for the city of
Florence, the Palace of Justice in Savona, Italy (which has recently been completed), a Cultural
Center in Pistoia, and a design for the Palace of Justice in Florence, which should start
construction in the near future.

Yet the work which may best represent Ricci's life is the house which he built for himself in
1951, at the age of 33, on the hill of Monterinaldi overlooking Florence. In addition to
designing the house, Ricci directed the construction and worked on it himself. Initially there
was no road to the site, only a trail; access was difficult. The small construction crew quarried
stone from the site (which had served as a stone quarry during the Renaissance). and hauled
water to mix concrete from a distant well on a pack mule and by wheelbarrow. Florentine
officials and other architects questioned Ricci's judgment in choosing to build on such a site.


 But Ricci stood firm, completed Casa Ricci, and it is now recognized as one of the great
examples of postwar Italian architecture. In the ten years which followed completion of his
house, 17 additional houses were designed and built, and the village of Monterinaldi was
created. Thus out of such difficult circumstances, Ricci made a place not just for himself, but a
place where others could join in the communion of social interaction.

Leonardo Ricci's students have experienced Ricci's heightened sense of the world in which we
live, and the opportunities that world offers for the creative endeavor. Leo Ricci distilled in his
students a belief that one can and will make significant architecture. As he said, "If I could be
remembered for one thing, I hope it would not be as an architect, a painter, a writer, a
philosopher, an existentialist, or a professor. It would be as a man who found something novel
in our society, new in our culture, and that I was able to communicate that to the world."

Leonardo Ricci passed from this world on the night of September 30, 1994.

Dean Mohney asked that the resolution be made a part of the minutes and a copy sent to
Professor Ricci's family.

The Chair asked that the Senate stand for a moment of silence in recognition of Professor Ricci.
Chairman Cox recognized Professor Gretchen LaGodna for a Special Resolution.

University Senate

WHEREAS: Dr. Robert E. Hemenway has been chosen as the next Chancellor of the
University of Kansas and, thus, is leaving his position as Chancellor of the
Lexington campus, University of Kentucky.

WHEREAS: Dr. Hemenway has very ably and faithfully served our university as a faculty
member in the Department of English, as Chair of that Department, and as
Chancellor, establishing along the way an outstanding record as teacher,
researcher, administrator, and most valuable University citizen.

WHEREAS: Dr. Hemenway has provided excellent leadership to the faculty, students, and
staff of the Lexington campus as evidenced by restructuring and development
of new programs, significantly increasing the number of national merit finalists,
successfully recruiting diverse faculty, and formally recognizing staff and their

WHEREAS: Dr. Hemenway has constantly used his intellect, energy, vision, and his great
talent for communication to make this a better university and to make us,
collectively, a better faculty.


 BE IT RESOLVED: The University Senate thank Robert Hemenway for his many
contributions and wish him well in his continuing efforts on behalf of higher education. The
University of Kansas is indeed fortunate and the Senate sincerely hopes that Dr. Hemenway's
tenure at the University of Kentucky prepared him well for his new responsibilities.

Professor LaGodna stated that Chancellor could not be in attendance to hear the resolution, but he would
receive a copy.

The Chair stated the first item on the agenda was to change some application deadlines. The circulation
did not get circulated due to a postal problem. Chairman Cox asked for a motion to do away with the 10 day
circulation rule. Motion was made and seconded. In a voice vote, the motion was unanimously passed.
Copies were handed out today.

Chairman Cox said he had a report from Allison Carll from the Admissions Advisory Committee. They
are going to propose uniform application deadlines for all programs. Specifically they will propose:

February 1 - Fall Application deadline for professional programs including Pharmacy, Nursing, Clinical
Laboratory Sciences, Communication Disorders, Physician Assistant Studies, Health Administration, Interior
Design, and the Coordinated Undergraduate Program in Dietetics, with the exception of Architecture which '
will use March 1 for a deadline.

August 1 - Fall Application deadline for selective admissions programs; Business and Economics,
Communications, and Computer Science.

October 1 — Spring Semester application deadline for Computer Science, Communications, and Clinical

If this proposal passes, the committee recommendation will be circulated as soon as it is available.
Anyone who has any problems or concerns should respond to the Senate Council. Based on that response,
the Senate Council will be asked to take it up on an emergency basis and presumably approve it. The

implementation date should be Fall of 1996, but the various application forms need to go to the printers by

The Chair recognized Professor Gretchen LaGodna, Chair-elect of the Senate Council, for the first actio
item. Professor LaGodna stated the proposals apply to three specific programs: Architecture, Landscape
Architecture, and the College of Business and Economics. Each has a particular reason for the change of

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) asked if the Colleges of Architecture and Business and Economics
were aware that the other application deadlines were going to change. The Chair answered yes they were
involved in the committee process. Professor Gesund said he was under the impression that when the colleges
agreed to the new deadlines it was in order to come into line with the other colleges. Chairman Cox said that
Business and Economics was the same. February lst applies to Pharmacy, Nursing, Clinical Laboratory
Sciences , Communication Disorders, Physician Assistant Studies, Health Administration, Interior Design, and
Coordinated Undergraduate Programs, not any on this list.


 Professor Gesund said he was under the impression that Architecture, for instance, wanted to get in line
with everyone else and this would put them out of line.

Joe Fink (Admissions) said that he could give some background. The Admissions Advisory Committee
has been discussing the issue of trying to get more uniformity to the deadlines. As part of that, these three
programs went ahead and formulated a proposal because of the discussion. At the same time the Admissions
Advisory Committee had a meeting in which representatives from Nursing, Business and Economics, Allied
Health Professions, Architecture, Communications were present. There was a variety of discussion, and those
present reached an agreement about moving towards more uniform dates. All of the discussions focused on
application deadlines for fall; they did not discuss application deadlines for the spring semester. Although it
involves small numbers of applicants, there is still a desirable endpoint of having uniform dates for spring as
well as for fall. The proposal that is not up for vote relates to uniform deadlines for spring semester as well as
some of the other colleges that are not in this action item for today.

There was no other discussion. In a voice vote, the proposal unanimously passed and reads as follows:

Change the deadlines for application to the College/program as follows: Landscape Architecture Program
1) Delete application deadlines from A. (Freshmen), B (Transfers from Other Degree
Programs), and C. (Transfers from Other Landscape Architecture Programs)

College of Architecture
1) Freshman Admissions: from February 1 to March 1
2) Transfer Students: from February 1 to April 1

College of Business & Economics

1) Fall Admissions: From June 1 to August 1

2) Spring Admissions: From October 15 to December 1
3) Summer Admissions: From April 1 to May 1


Landscape Architecture Program: The Landscape Architecture department has worked with
admissions to develop a Pre-Landscape Architecture code for those students applying to the
Landscape Architecture program. Once the requirements have been met to the admitted to the
program, the student’s record is updated by the Associate Dean for Instruction’s office in the
College of Agriculture. Therefore, the department feels there is no longer a need for an
application deadline with the Pre—Landscape Architecture code in place.

College of Architecture: The College of Architecture, as a selective admission program, offers
the Architecture Admission Test on the first Saturday in March each year for entrance into the
program for the following Fall semester. Selection of the entering class takes place during the two
week period following the test. The two week period reserved for accumulation of data including


 that from the University Admissions Office can easily be accommodated through the second week
in March through the use of the SIS information system. The proposed change of dates will not
significantly alter the process of admission to the college but simplify the deadlines within the

College of Business & Economics: The College of Business and Economics feels that making
their deadlines correspond with the general University deadlines is both more efficient and fairer to

These changes have the approval of the Senate Council and Admissions Advisory Committee
Implementation Date: Fall Applicants, 1995. ‘

Note: If approved, the proposed changes will be forwarded to the Rules (Committee for

Chairman Cox thanked the Senate for their cooperation. He had asked many of them to be on committees
and also chair them; they had all responded wonderfully, and he appreciated that. He also thanked the Senate
Council. They have been a constant source of support, inspiration, and encouragement. Thanks to the
sergeants at arms (Michelle Sohner and Jacquie Hager). Gifford Blyton, the parliamentarian could not be here
today. Thanks to Susan Caldwell, the recording secretary. And a special thanks to Cindy Todd. It has been
wonderful working for her; she is a good boss. It has been a good year; he has learned a lot and appreciates all
the support.

The Chair stated the next agenda item was for discussion only . A proposal came from the College of
Arts and Sciences on the plus/minus grading system which is similar to what we now have in Fine Arts,
Architecture, and Landscape Architecture. Arts and Sciences made a formal proposal last fall for a plus/minus
system for the undergraduate courses in that college. The Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
discussed this and came to the conclusion that because of the size and centrality of Arts and Sciences, if they
are going to have a plus/minus system, it is nearly tantamount to the whole university having a general
plus/minus system for grades. That is the issue the Senate Council would like discussed today. Based on the
outcome of the discussion, a straw vote will be taken. Based on the discussion, the Senate Council will move
ahead, and a formal proposal will be made sometime next year for a university-wide plus/minus system or a
proposal to reconsider the Arts and Sciences proposal will be made.

The Chair recognized Professor Gretchen LaGodna to introduce the item. Professor LaGodna stated this
was basically a proposal that has to do with instituting a plus/minus grading system. not to be confused with a
Pass/Fail system. The proposal dealt with the pros and cons for the entire undergraduate university system as
opposed to looking at it as only an Arts and Sciences proposal.

Greg Watkins (Student Senator) said that a problem he has with the proposal is that it only deals with
Arts and Sciences. If students in Business and Economics take a class in Arts and Sciences, does it apply to
them? If it doesn't, it is unfair, by singling out certain students. Most students who take classes in other
professional programs do not take courses in Architecture. Also, what about the students who transfer from
Arts and Sciences to Communications? What happens to their plus/minus grades? Will their GPA change?


 What happens if a student transfers into Arts and Sciences? Will their grades get bumped up or moved down?
This will create a lot of paperwork problems for the Registrar's Office as well as for the students. He had also
talked with quite a lot of students in the past two weeks; many of them are against this. However the student
advisory board in Arts and Sciences supported it.

Dr. Cox stated that is order to prevent the confusion, the senate council thought the proposal should be
for everyone. As he understands things, if a student from Arts and Sciences happens to take Fine Arts classes,
when the grade is recorded the pluses and minuses are stripped off. There is the potential of two students
taking the same courses and doing the same work but having a different GPA because the plus/minus would be
stripped from one and not the other.

Hans Gesund (Engineering) said that this was a non issue because the computer program could easily
be adjusted to record the grades no matter what college the student is in. He is unhappy because that Arts and
Sciences feels they can evaluate people so precisely, everyone else is going to be forced to do the same thing.
He is used to both systems since he teaches in Architecture where there is a plus/minus system and Engineering
where there is not. He personally feels each college faculty should be allowed to make up its own mind.
Inconvenience to the Registrar's Office in having to change slightly their program to take into account the
grades where students receive is not a valid reason for forcing the entire university, to follow the decisions Arts
and Sciences. This decision should be an individual college decision.

Horst Schach (Academic Ombud) said that he was an advocate of the plus/minus system. There are some
problems with only certain colleges use the plus/minus system. If there are students from mixed schools in
class, and if he awards one of his students a minus, that person is punished. If he sends a minus to Interior
Design, that gets canceled and the student gets a B. (Professor Gesund stated there was no reason for it to be
canceled. It is a matter of fixing the computer program.) Professor Schach stated the only sensible thing was
to have the whole university use plus/minus.

Professor Schach stated the other reason he would advocate this was that 90% of the ombuds business has
to do with grade complaints. Grades are a yardstick and the more precise they are, the less debate there is
about what is measured. Students gauge themselves very carefully in the sense that they have it figured out
going into the final what they need to get a certain grade. Being from Landscape Architecture where the
system has been used for many years, he argued that one of the main reasons for going to the plus/minus
system was because some of the courses are six credit hours apiece. It is terribly unfair for the student who
gets a 79% to get a C, and the student who gets an 80% to receive a B. It is horrible on their transcript when
multiplied by six credit hours. In the Landscape program. a students who drop below a C, they either have to
stop and reconsider their career or go before the faculty. It is beneficial to do that the minute they hit a C-,
rather a C. If they waited until they got to a D, they would lose a great deal.

Chairman Cox presumed that if the university did go to a plus/minus system, any particular college that
didn't like the plus/minus could decide within themselves to use the regular letter grade.

Bradley Canon (Political Science) felt that it should be made clear that faculty would not be required to
use the plus/minus system.


 . Heather Hennel (Student Government) wanted to point out that she had talked with several students and
that less than 50% are in favor of the plus/minus system. Students do not like to be thought of as lazy and go
into class and do the minimal amount of work to get the A, B. or C. The students say college is a stepping
stone, and there are many pressures surrounding everything. They go to class and try to learn; they receive the
91%, and they are trying their hardest along with work and other activities. Their argument is that they are
trying for a A. When they receive it, it may not be the highest A, but they still feel they deserve an A. Another
argument against the change is that teachers have a limited focus. Who is to say the teacher can decide
whether a student writes an essay that is worth 95% or a 94% and whether that should be an A or A-?
Teachers are not machines; there would be discrepancies in the way teachers grade, especially in a History 108
class where essays are written for the test. If the teacher likes you they may bump you to a 94% instead of a
91%. Another argument has to do with mixed classes. If someone is in a class with half Education students
and half Arts and Sciences students, and if Arts and Sciences is the only one which has the plus/minus system,
you have two students doing the exact same work getting an 87%. One is going to receive three points and
the other one 3.8. Students have also said if this is approved only for Arts and Sciences, some will decide on a
major earlier than they feel they should have to in order to avoid the plus/minus system. That would be
unfortunate. Heather also stated she would like for Student Government to handle this, this matter from the
students side, (possibly through some sort of resolution through Student Government) then the matter could be
presented to the Senate Council. She feels that if students are in favor of it, they will be in favor University
wide, (rather than in just one college in order to keep it consistent. She wanted to make a recommendation
that the Senate consider sending a resolution through Student Government.

Dan Rowland (History) said that the plus/minus system would actually eliminate an arbitrary line on what
is an A or an B. This proposal would produce a series of less arbitrary arrangements and give more
categories. The college of Arts and Science Council considered this quite carefully, polled all the faculty and
came out very decisively in favor of the plus/minus system.

The Chair stated that he has a letter from Dick Ulack, Chair of the Arts and Science Faculty Council,
which points out that Arts and Sciences is quite strongly in favor of the plus/minus system for their college.
One of the votes taken was 151 in favor with 57 opposed.

Dr. Louis Swifi (Dean, Undergraduate Studies) asked Horst Schach if there were fewer conflicts when
there is a plus/minus system. Is there any information from other institutions? Are there fewer conflicts
between a person getting an A- with a 93% and an A with a 94%, as opposed to getting a B with an 89% and
an A with a 90%? Professor Schach replied he had no empirical data along those lines. experience happens in
his office. When most students challenges to grades have to do with individuals at the lower end. For those at
the upper end, especially those trying to get into some competitive program. the change would be helpful
because at least they could get a B+ and get some numerical quality points. The plus/minus system would give
a more accurate evaluation of what is taking place.

Gretchen LaGodna said that she did not ever remember a dispute in the colleges with plus/minus grades

between a B+ and an A-. Every grade dispute she remembered had to do with full grades (i.e. A, B. C etc.)
where the disagreement was.

Professor Monica Harris (Psychology) felt she was able to make distinctions between students who
. perform well and those who do not. In her class there is a world of difference between the student who gets


 the 89% and the one who gets the 81%. She would like to be able to reward the 89% students and tell them
that they did much better than the 81% students. Under the current system she is unable to do that. She feels
the plus/minus system would benefit students.

Professor Eric Christianson (History) said that he taught large sections of History 108 and one of the
things that he does hear questioned every semester, particularly in large courses, is whether or not plus/minus
will be offered. There is a considerable number of students (from a class of 300 probably 30 or 40) asking
whether there will be plus/minus. He feels there is reason to believe there is a number of students interested in
having plus/minus. He would like to have the ability to differentiate between the student who did fairly well
and the student who did much better. If one was to ask a very large number of students in the College of Arts
and Sciences, there would probably be a large number in favor of plus/minus.

Alan Aha (Student Government) asked if the students were polled and what was the reason for the
Student Advisory Board being behind this proposal. He wanted to know what students thought about it and if
they were asked.

Ted Tauchert stated that the people from Arts and Sciences said that the students were involved. There
were three students on the Committee and they never came to the meetings.

Horst Schach suggested instead of a poll, a meeting should be held with the students in Architecture and
Landscape Architecture, where plus/minus is used, to see how they feel about it.

Greg Watkins said that he had spoken with some students from the College of Law and they seemed to
think the professional programs need it because there is so much competition within the programs. He did not
think that splitting hairs uniVersity-wide was really needed. However, if the students want plus/minus, he
would support the proposal. From the people he had talked with, there is not very much support for it.

Professor Loys Mather (Agriculture Economics) said that he polled his classes and found out that those
who favor plus/minus favor it quite strongly; those who oppose it, oppose it quite strongly. The result was
60% was in favor of it, 36% were opposed, and 4% were not sure. We need to make sure there is an
opportunity for dialogue to get students feedback.

Mary Moore (Freshman Representative) asked whether the university would go back and change past
grades if the proposal were implemented. Chairman Cox answered no; it would not be retroactive.

Brad Canon stated that there are really two issues being debated. One is the merit of the system itself; the
other is whether it should be university-wide or brought up as an Arts and Sciences proposal for that college.
Thus, when the straw vote is taken one could be favor of the system for Arts and Sciences but not necessarily
want to impose it on the rest of the university.

Professor Hans Gesund asked if it becomes policy and the faculty member wished to opt out of it, can
they do so, or would they be forced to comply with the policy and award plus/minus grades. He noted this
because the syllabus has to state the grade policy. If a professors put in their syllabus that they will give only
straight grades, are they breaking university policy? Are we basically saying that every faculty member will
give plus/minus grades? The Chair said that if faculty members were to state in their syllabi their particular



policy, that would be fine. They would not have to give plus/minus grades. Professor Gesund wondered what
the opinion of the Deans, the Chancellor, the President, and the Ombudsman would be on that point.

Professor Larry Grabau (Agriculture) stated that he could see how within a college some professors could
use the plus/minus system and some not. As a student, this could cause some students to do as little as
possible to get the higher grade. Also, an A plus could be a problem for some students who are compulsive
about being the best at anything they do. Chairman Cox stated that the Arts and Science proposal does not
include a A plus.

Enid Waldhart (Communications) indicated that she was concerned about a statement from the
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee that it seems evident that the plus/minus system would,
indeed, result in more precise and accurate grading within a given course taught by given instructors. The
committee goes on to say, however, that the grading plan brought to its attention indicates that the greater the
number of grade categories, the greater the discrepancy in grades by different instructors. It seems that in the
arguments for and against plus/minus there should be a lot of talk about the discrepancy issue. This is of major
concern. The notion of discrepancy among instructor is a very significant one, when there is the potential of a
plus/minus system being adopted University wide.

Ted Tauchert stated that the information was reported to him second hand. Tom Guskcy in Education has
done a study.

Gretchen LaGodna said it would make sense that the more categories you have, the greater the difficulty
in getting consistency among graders. We experience that problems now in different sections, and there are