1980_02 The Daily Collegian February 1980

              ftgoT f»enetyCs«ig)a« reWiua, g, WW
oint
Grade petition procedure
in bad need of revising
To most students, changing a grade they feel is unfair is close to trying to
move a mountain. Because of this defeatist attitude, many do not even try to
change-grades. Those that do try, however, give the pessimist ample ground
for doubt.
Outvf 43 grade change requests presented to the Student Academic
Petitions Committee during the past three years only three grades have been
changed. This is not very encouraging for the apathetic students content to
take an unjust grade rather than protest it."
The procedure does not seem to be very favorable to the student. Before
the student even reaches the petitions committee he or she must first con¬
front the professor who gave the grade, then the department head and then
the dean of the school.
If no solution is yet reached, the student must then draft a report stating
the facts of his case and present it to the petitions committee. The student
must then face the committee, which is comprised of faculty and admini¬
strators who will probably side with the faculty member instead of the
' student since they usually feel he is more responsible. The student must
undergo this ordeal and still only have about a seven percent chance of
getting the grade changed, based on the number of times grades have been
changed in the past.
The procedure is complicated because only the professor who gave the
grade or the president of the university can change a grade. The petitions
committee only acts on behalf of the president and can only suggest a grade
change to the professor. In the past, however, no professor has refused to
change a grade when requested by the committee.
Although students have been successful in getting grades changed by
the petitions committee and even before they reach the committee, I feel
there is room for improvement. If the committee could be rearranged,
possibly by adding student members for grade protest hearings only, it
' would be much more responsive to the students.
-Pete Woodside
'Sorry, the governor is out to lunch'-
School prayer revised
BOSTON AP -Officials of the Civil
Liberties Union of Massachusetts said
today they will file a suit in state
Supreme Judicial Court today challeng¬
ing the constitutionality of a new state
law reviving spoken prayer in public
schools.
At least two school districts, Newton
and Beverly, ignored the Jaw that took
effect today, saying they axf hoping for a
quick court test of the law's constitution¬
ality.
John Roberts, director of the CLUM,
said the group will first seek a court in¬
junction suspending the law, then chal¬
lenge its constitutionality.
The measure, approved overwhelm¬
ingly by the legislature last year, re¬
quires teachers in public schools to ask
each morning If any student wants to
lead the class in prayer. Students who do
not wish to participate are to be excused
from the room.
The- law replaces an existing statute
requiring teachers to announce a minute
of silence each day for either prayer or
meditation. That procedure is neglected
in many school districts.
Letters to the Editor
Students in best position to judge professors
gag. . —--It*- - )',    D«-li»*i--|l.,     ■in..,  mini i  f Tallin  maul tu>   ..,..,   ftlu*  *"' fat l-l #U-.* a ........ I
Dear Editor:
I am writing this letter regarding the
issue of students serving on faculty per¬
sonnel committees. I would like to ad¬
dress specifically the article in the
February 1 issue of the Collegian, as well
as the general opposition to this badly
Dr. David Quadro, chairman of the
speech communication program, was
quoted as saying, 'I don't think they
(students) have the expertise to judge a
scholarly article written by a professor
or qualif led to make judgments about the
course material and its repeatability in
a particular field-
Well, maybe a student would have
minor problems evaluating a 'scholarly
artide,' however, I feel a student is the
most qualified in judging whether or not
an instructor is communicating the
"course material and its respectability
organised and clearly understandable. It
is the student who, day after day, sits
through a particular instructor's classes.
And, Ifierefoie, it is the student who is
most qualif led to know whether the sub¬
ject matter is being presented adequate¬
ly. Realistically, how many faculty mem¬
bers of the personnel committees sit
through classes in order to evaluate a
professor's "in class* performance?
Dr. Quadro also stated that 'there
could be a situation where a student is on
a committee (RTP) and a group of facul¬
ty wishes to have a very frank discussion
about a professor, and that student is
either taking a course or will take a
course from that professor."
True, this could be a slight compli¬
cating factor, but what about the profes¬
sor who is being evaluated by his/her
peers, some of whom may be good
friends with that professor. Would this
not create a tendency toward favoritism?
Wouldn't it be difficult not to promote
someone with whom you had dinner the
night before? I am not saying that this
is' occurring on any frequent basis,, but
the fact remains that there are problems
with the present system, and having the
direct input of students on the retention,
tenure, and promotions process (RTP)
could alleviate some of these problems.
One of the reasons the statewide
Academic Senate was cited for not hav¬
ing students on these important commit-
tai.«'«aia afwofmtaO Ta-ird; I a
tees was that "there is no evidence that
student participation in the personnel
process would improve teaching effec¬
tiveness.' First of all, there Is "no
evidence'because every time the issue
comes up, the Academic Senate opposes
it with vehemence. There has been no
chance for evidence of improvements,
since students have never been allowed
to participate in this process. Further¬
more, it may not increase effectiveness,
but surely it would get rid of some of the
ineffectiveness that is going on in the
CSUC system.
Robert Kulfy, chairman of the CSUC
Academic Senate, said "there is no
evidence that the present personnel pro¬
cedures are inadequate. "I leave this for
the individual student to decide, if you
have never had instructors who were in¬
capable of gathering, organizing, and
presenting course material to a signi¬
ficant number of the students attending
class, then maybe there is no room for
improvement, i think this to be a farce.
Indeed, the main'argument against
having students participate on these
committees is the claim that they would
cause "a host of implementation prob¬
lems." Certainly it would be a challeng¬
ing task, but far from impossible. How
many necessary changes are ever easy?
Think of all the legislation that would
have failed if "it'll Be too hard* was
taken as a valid argument.
Students are the consumers! I We are
the ones who receive the joys or frustra¬
tions of a good education. Therefore, we
too should have a voice in the product we
consume-our education. Presently, stu¬
dents have almost no voice: it is but a
mere whisper in personnel matters. This
is truly a problem IrUhe system requiri¬
ng attention, despite its difficulties.
The CSUC system is one of the finest
institutions of higher education in the
world-let's keep it that way. Maybt
students on these committees wouldn't^
solve all of the problems; nevertheless, it
would be a step in the right direction'.
Jeff B.Watson
Administrative Vice President
Associated Students