1. Who took the survey?
The survey was distributed to faculty at a faculty assembly meeting plus made available to faculty through each unit at the College. Responses were submitted to various members of the Task Force or directly to Alisa Smith (in SSHS). A total number of 78 surveys were returned and completed by faculty. Since not all faculty responded to each question, the sample size will vary depending on response rate. The following provides a break down of the faculty who participated in the survey by rank, years teaching, unit and tenure versus non-tenure status.
Sixty-nine faculty reported their rank at the school — fifteen are Assistant
Professors, nineteen are Associate Professors, nineteen are Full Professors
and sixteen are Adjunct Professors. Sixty-eight identified whether they were
tenured or untenured. Thirty respondents are non-tenured, and thirty-eight respondents
were tenured. Sixty-seven faculty identified their respective unit association
— 11 SSHS; 10 TAS; 12 AIS; 27 CA; 7 SAB. Sixty-seven faculty
reported the number of years that they have been teaching. The total years teaching
(including Ramapo and non-Ramapo time) range from
2. Total Sample Findings
A number of quantitative and qualitative results were compiled by the survey. The quantitative results are reported in the first half of the report, and the qualitative answers will be discussed in part two.
a. General Grading and Assessment
On average, faculty reported that 17.76 % of students deserve an “A”. Most (67%, n52) believe that the current distribution of approximately 30% A-range grades is significantly inflated, almost 30% (n=2 1) believe that distribution is appropriate, and only one faculty member thought the distribution was too low.
Forty-five percent of faculty (n=34) do not delineate what constitutes outstanding or excellent work in their syllabi, 34% (n=26) do and 21% (n=16) do so sometimes. Most (78%, n=56) do not use the normal curve to measure students’ grades and few faculty (16%, n=9) think the normal curve should be adopted to measure student grades. To evaluate students performance, most (84%, n=63) faculty use a combination of objective and subjective methods and just over half (51%, n=39) determine student grades against an ideal, 18% (n=14) against others’ work in the same class and 30% (n=23) use some
It should be noted that all adjunct faculty responding to the survey and reporting
an association were members of the
other method to determine grades. Two-thirds of faculty (67%, n=50) have not lowered their standards and expectations over the last five years of teaching. Sixteen percent of faculty have lowered their standards and 17% have not been teaching for five years. Most (83%, n62) do not feel pressure to “give” students higher grades because they aspire to graduate, medical or law school, and some (13%, n=l0) feel pressure sometimes. Two thirds ((n40) of faculty think student evaluations of faculty performance and concern about low class enrollments impact the rigor of student grading. Fifty-eight percent (n=45) of faculty think that effort and attendance should be reflected in student grades, 26% (n=20) thought those factors should be considered sometimes, and 13% (n= 10) thought those factors should not be considered in determining grades.
One half of faculty (n=38) reported having the opportunity to review their grading patterns at Ramapo College and half reported they had not had this opportunity. Two- thirds (68%, n50), however, thought that a review and comparison to other faculty members’ grading patterns would be helpful. Most believed the rigor of their grading was average (53%, n=37) as compared to other faculty, 44% (n=3 1) thought the rigor of their grading was above average.
More than half (52%, n=38) encourage students doing poorly to withdraw from their classes. Ninety percent (n=68) have never denied a student request for a W grade, but it is rare (78%, n56) that faculty give an “F” to students to allow them to repeat the course. Almost half (49%, n=32) of faculty think that the late deadline for course withdrawal encourages student to withdraw and almost half (48%, n3 1) think the late deadline discourages students commitment to their classes earlier.
b. Challenges to Grades
The faculty was asked about two different types of grade challenges. The first concerns challenges made directly to the faculty, the second concerned formal, administrative challenges. Sixty-eight percent of faculty (n=52) reported that students have raised challenges to their grades to them, 26% (n20) stated that they have never had a student challenge a grade and 5% r(n=4) reported that students challenge grades “often” or “very often.”
Only 33% (n=25) of the faculty, however, has had at least one student challenge a grade with the administration. Of these faculty, most (88.5%) stated that administrative challenges were a rare occurrence and 11.5% stated that they occurred “often” or “very often”. In these administrative proceedings, most (67%, n=16) felt the administration was supportive of the faculty, in 25% (n6) of the cases, the grade was raised to a “D”. All faculty answering this question (n=2 1) with the exception of one was satisfied with the administrative grade challenge proceeding.
c. Future Grading
As stated earlier, few (16%) faculty think the normal curve should be adopted to measure student excellence. Most (77%) would also reject the adoption of a more simplistic -- honors-high pass-pass-fail -- grading model. Of those who would reject the change, 57% felt strongly about their rejection. Only 23% supported the adoption of this grading model, and of those only 11% felt “strongly” about their support. Almost 60%
did not support a wider use of the pass-fail grading option, as well. Of the 41% (n=29) who did support a greater use of pass-fail, their support varied based on the type of course that could adopt such a grading policy. The percent of those reporting uyesh as well as the actual number of faculty supporting the use for a specific course is reported here: Senior seminar (17%; nl2); freshman seminar (27%, n19), internships (27%, n19), independent study (19.7%, n14), courses in the major (1%, n=l), co-ops (22.5%, n fieldwork (21%, n15), gen-ed courses (5.6%, n=4), athletic courses (19.7%, n14), 1 or 2 credit courses (11.3%, n=8), lab courses (4.2%, n=3), studio art (14.1%, nlO), winter session (10%, n=7), summer session (5.6%, n=4), and visual/performing studio courses (14.1%, n=10).
Sixty percent of faculty support the current grading scale with 11 categories ranging from A/A- to D/F, only 34% support adding an A+ and a D- to the current grading scale and few (22%) would support modifying the current grading scale from a letter system to a number system on a 0 to 100 scale.
3. Disaggregated Data Analysis
This part of the report examines variations in faculty opinion based on their status, i.e, rank, unit and tenure. Sample sizes will vary for each finding based on the number of faculty answering the specific question posed (in other words, not all faculty responded to every question in the survey including the demographic optional information).
a. General Grading and Assessment
(1) By rank: Full, Associate, Assistant and Adjunct
Senior faculty were more likely to view a distribution of 30% A-range grades as significantly inflated as compared to Assistant, Associate and Adjunct instructors. Eighty-three percent (n 15) of senior faculty thought this percent was significantly inflated whereas only 16.7% (n=3) thought it was appropriate. Sixty percent (n=9) of Assistant Professors believed the distribution was significantly inflated, whereas 33.3% (n5) thought it was appropriate and one Assistant thought the distribution was too low. Seventy-three percent (73.7%, n 14) of Associate Professors, much like Senior Professors, thought the distribution significantly inflated, and 26.3% thought it appropriate. Adjunct instructors were equally divided with 50% (n reporting the distribution significantly inflated and 50% (n=7) reporting the distribution as appropriate.
Assistant and Adjunct instructors are more likely than Associate and Full Professors to delineate in their syllabi the definition of outstanding or excellent work. Of the faculty that include such statements regularly, 28% are Assistant Professors and an additional 48% are adjuncts. Only 12% of Associate and Full Professors regularly place this language in their syllabi. Associate (3 8.5%) and Full Professors (3 8.5%) are more likely to delineate what constitutes outstanding or excellent work in their syllabi sometimes. Of those reporting that they never include such statements, Full Professors are much more likely to never include such statements (36.7%), followed by Associate Professors (33.3%), Assistant Professors (20%) and Adjuncts (10%). Most faculty did not
use the normal curve in grading (78%), and few (16%) think that it should be used. Only 1 Assistant, I Associate, 3 Full and 1 Adjunct Professor thought the normal curve should be adopted to measure student excellence.
There was little variation, by rank, in terms of how faculty grade students. Of those reporting that they rely on “stand-alone work against an ideal”, Associate (28.6%), Full Professors (28.6%) and Adjuncts (25.7%) were more likely to use this method than Assistant Professors (17.1%). Assistant Professors (3 3%) were more likely than others (Associate 25%, Full 25% and Adjunct 16.7%) to assess student achievement against others’ work in the same class. Those reporting some “other” method of assessment were equally distributed across all four ranks (23.8% to 28.6%). Assistant and Adjunct Professors were more likely than Associate and Full Professors to opine that effort and attendance should be reflected in student grades. Of those reporting “yes”, 31% were Assistant Professors and an additional 33% were Adjunct Professors. Only 23% were Associate Professors and an additional 13% were Full Professors. Associate (32%) and Full Professors (52.6%) were more likely to opine that attendance and effort should “sometimes” be reflected in student grades than Assistant (5%) and Adjunct (11%) Professors. Associate (40%) and Full (3 0%) were more likely to opine that effort and attendance should not be reflected in grades than Assistant (20%) and Adjunct (10%) Professors. Since most faculty (84%) utilize a combination of objective and subjective methods for grade assessment, there was insufficient variation to compare across rank. Similarly, there was little variation, by rank, on whether faculty reported lowering their standards and expectations over the last five years. Most (67%) have not lowered their standards or expectations. Of those reporting yes, 27.3% were Assistant Professors, 27.3% were Associate Professors, 27.3% were Full Professors and 18.2% were Adjunct Professors. Interestingly, Associate and Full Professors were more likely to report feeling pressure to “give” student higher grades because they aspire to graduate, medical or law school than Assistant and Adjunct Professors. Only 7.1% of Assistant Professors and 13.2% of Adjunct Professors reported these feelings “sometimes”, and none simply answered “yes” to this question. Where as 21% and 5% of Associate Professors reported feeling this pressure “sometimes” or answered “yes”, respectively and 5% and an additional 5% of Full Professors reported feeling this way “sometimes” and answered “yes” respectively. It is important to note that the numbers here are very low. Only 1 Assistant reported feeling this pressure sometimes, 2 Adjuncts reported feeling this way sometimes, 4 Associate Professors reported “sometimes” with an additional 1 reporting “yes”, and 1 Full Professor reported yes and 1 reported feeling this way sometimes. Sixty-four percent of faculty (n=53) thought that student evaluations of faculty performance and concern about low class enrollment impact the rigor of student grades. Of those faculty (n=34), 17.6% were Assistants, 26.5% were Associates, 3 8.2% were Full and 17.6% were Adjuncts.
Most faculty who had the opportunity to review their grading patterns at Ramapo were more senior faculty. Of those who have reviewed, 35% were Associate Professors and 40.5% were Full Professors. Only 5.4% were Assistant Professors and 18.9% were Adjuncts. With the exception of Adjunct Professors (15.6%), most other faculty (Assistant 28.9%, Associate 28.9%, and Full 26.7%) thought reviewing and comparing grading patterns with other faculty would be helpful. Most faculty viewed the rigor of their own grading as average or above average as compared to other faculty. Only two faculty (Associate Professors) viewed the rigor of their grading as below average compared to other faculty.
Associate (38.2%) and Full Professors (35.3%) were more likely than Assistant (17.6%) and Adjunct (8.8%) Professors to encourage students to withdraw from courses in which they were not doing well. Most, however, have never denied a student a grade upon their request. Only 1 Assistant, 2 Associate, 4 Full and 1 Adjunct Professor reported denying a request for a “W” grade. Similarly, only 1 Associate Professor reported giving the grade of “F” “often” to allow a student to repeat the course. Some faculty, 4 Assistant, 4 Associate, 2 Full and 4 Adjunct Professors reported giving an “F” to allow a repeat “sometimes”. Most faculty, across rank reported only doing this “rarely,” and some hand-wrote in the margins that this was never done.
(2) By Unit
Although most faculty thought the current distribution of approximately 30% A range grades is significantly inflated (72%), there was some variation across unit on this distribution. Of the 10 faculty members reporting their unit association and answering this question 50% thought the distribution was significantly inflated, 40% thought it was appropriate and 10% (1 faculty member) thought the distribution was too low. All TAS faculty (n10) thought the current distribution was significantly inflated, 75% (n=9) of AIS faculty thought it was significantly inflated and 25% (n=3) thought it appropriate. Sixty-seven percent (n=l 8) of CA faculty thought the distribution was significantly inflated and 33% (n=9) thought it was appropriate. In SAB, 86% (n6) thought the distribution of A grades was significantly inflated, and 14% (n= 1) thought the distribution was appropriate.
In delineating what constitutes outstanding or excellent work in the syllabus, of those reporting yes (n=22), most were members of the CA faculty (59%, n13), followed by SSHS (n=5, 23%) and AIS (n=4, 18%). Those that reported including this definition “sometimes” (n13), most were members of SSHS (n=4, 3 1%), followed by AIS and CA (n=3, 23%), TAS (n=2, 15%) and SAB (n1, 8%). Those faculty who reporting “no” in response to this question were predominantly members of CA as well (n= 11, 36%), followed by TAS (n8, 26%), AIS and SAB (n=5, 16%) and SSHS (n2, 7%). In grading students, few faculty (who also reported unit association) used the normal curve (n11). Of those using the normal curve 5 were members of CA, 3 of TAS and 1 each from SSHS, AIS and SAB. Most faculty (n—45, 85%) also rejected the idea that the “normal curve” should be adopted to measure student excellence. Four faculty in CA, and one faculty from each of the remaining schools (SSHS, TAS, AIS, and SAB) thought the normal curve should be adopted.
When asked how students are graded — against others’ work in the class or stand- along work against an ideal of excellence”, most reported using “stand-alone work against an ideal” (n35, 53%), many used some other method of grading (n1 9, 29%), and the rest (n=12, 18%) examined grades against others’ in the same class. By unit, no member of SSHS reported comparing grades against others in class, 82% (n=9) reporting using stand-alone work against an ideal of excellence and 18% (n=2) reporting using some “other” method. In TAS, most (50%, n=5) used stand-alone work, 30% (n3) compared against others in class, and 20% (n=2) used some “other” method of grading. In AIS, faculty were more likely to report grading against others’ work in the same class (42%, n=5), followed by some “other” method (33%, n=4) and 25% (n=3) used stand alone work against an ideal. In CA, most used “stand alone work against an ideal” (52%, n14), followed by some “other” method (37%, n10) and 11% (n3) compared students work against others in the same class. In SAB, 67% (n=4) used stand-alone grading against an ideal, and 17% (n=l) each reported using a standard against others in class and some other method of grading. With respect to whether attendance and effort should be reflected in student grades, those responding “yes” came predominantly from CA (n20, 52%), followed by AIS (18%, n7), SAB (15%, n-6), TAS (10%, n=4) and SSHS (5%, n=2). Those reporting that attendance and effort should be reflected “sometimes” were more evenly distributed among the schools: CA (28%, n=5), SSHS (28%, n5), AIS (22%, n=4), TAS (17%, n=3), and SAB (6%, n Most faculty use a combination of objective and subjective measures to assess students’ performance (82%, n=54). Only a handful (n10) used only one method — objective (n=7) or subjective (n=3). The three faculty using only subjective measures were in TAS (n2) and CA (n1).
Most faculty (n=47, 72%) also reported that they had not lowered their standards and expectations in the classroom over the last five years. Of those who reporting a lowering of standards, 40% (n=4) are in AIS, and 20% (n=2) are in each of three schools
—
More than half (n=34, 52%) of the faculty reported having the opportunity to review their own grading patterns at Ramapo. Most faculty in SAB (86%, n=6) reviewed their grades, 67% (n of TAS Faculty reviewed their grades, 64% (n=7) of SSHS faculty in reviewed their grades, 41% (n=1 1) of the faculty in CA reviewed their grades, and 33% (n=4) of AIS faculty reviewed their grades. Two-thirds of the faculty (n also thought a review of the grading patterns and comparing patterns to other faculty would be helpful. This pattern of support was consistent across the schools — (SSHS, 82%, n9; CA, 69%, n1 8; MS 67%, n8; SAB 57%, n=4, and TAS, 50%, n5). Only two faculty thought the rigor of their grading was below average when compared to the grading of other faculty — one from AIS and one from CA. The remainder of faculty thought their rigor of grading was average (52%, n=3 1) or above average (45%, n=27) as compared to other faculty. In SAB (86%) and TAS (78%) most thought their grading was above average, whereas in SSHS (60%), AIS (56%), and CA (68%) most thought their grading was average.
With the exception of CA faculty, most faculty across units reported that they would encourage a student to withdraw from class if they are not doing well — AIS, 67%, n=8; TAS 60%, n SAB 57%, n=4, SSHS 50% n=5 and CA 46%, n=12. Only a handful of faculty have ever denied a student request for a W grade — three in SSHS, 4 in CA and 1 in SAB have denied a request for a W. It is also rare for faculty across the units to give a student an “F” to allow them the opportunity to retake a course. Seventy-nine percent (n said this is rare, 19.4% (n=12) said this occurred “sometimes,” and only one faculty member reported this occurred often. The latter faculty member is in SSHS. Between 60% (SSHS) to 90% (AIS) reported that this occurred rarely.
(3) By Tenure
More tenured than non-tenured faculty thought the current distribution of approximately A-range grades is “significantly inflated”. Although almost 70% of the faculty respondents thought the distribution was significantly inflated, 64% (n=29) of those faculty were tenured. Non-tenured faculty were much more likely to think that the distribution was “appropriate”. Of the 30% of faculty who believed the distribution was appropriate, 60% (n1 2) were non-tenured. The single faculty member who believed the distribution to be too low as non-tenured.
Of the 48% of faculty who do not delineate what constitutes outstanding or excellent work in their syllabi, 66% (n=2 1) were tenured. Non-tenured faculty were more likely to include such language in their syllabi. Of those that reported “yes”, 73% (n were non-tenured. Tenured faculty were more likely to include this language “sometimes” 77% (n=10). Although most faculty do not use the “normal curve” to measure student grades, of those who do rely on the normal curve (nl4) most were non- tenured faculty (72%, n 0). Moreover, most (85%, n=44) do not think the “normal curve” should be adopted as a measure of student excellence. Of the few (n=8) that did support this type of measure, they were equally distributed between tenured (n and non-tenured (n=4) faculty. Although most faculty (85%, n=58) thought effort and attendance should be reflected in student grades at least sometimes, tenured faculty (78%, n=7) were more likely than non-tenured faculty (22%, n=2) to think that student effort and attendance should not be reflected in student grades. Few differences in the method of student assessment — objective, subjective or combination thereof, were reported. Most (83%, n55) used a combination of objective and subjective methods for student assessment. Additionally, half (51%, n=34) of the faculty also determined grades by comparing to ‘stand-alone” work rather than “against others’ work in the same class”, 31% (n=21) used some “other” method, and only 18% (n12) compared to others’ work in class. There was little difference between the faculty, based on tenure and non-tenure, in terms of the method of determining a grade.
In response to whether faculty have lowered their standards over the last five years, as anticipated those that reported not teaching for five years were all untenured faculty (n Of the remaining faculty (n=56), most have not reduced their standards and expectations. Few faculty (15%, n1 0) felt pressure to give students higher grades because they aspire to graduate, medical or law school. However, of those faculty who felt this pressure, the majority (n=7) were tenured. On the other hand, many (6 1%, n=33) of faculty thought that student evaluations of faculty and concern about low class enrollment impacted the rigor of student grades. Of those feeling this way, most (64%, n21) were tenured faculty.
Although slightly more than half of the faculty (52%, n=35) stated that they had the opportunity to review their own grading patterns at Ramapo, the majority of them were tenured faculty (80%, n=28). Sixty-eight percent (n=45) thought that reviewing and comparing grading patterns to other faculty would be helpful. Of these, 44% (n20) were non-tenured faculty. Almost all faculty (97%, n=59) thought that the rigor of their grading was either average (54%) or above average (43%) as compared to other faculty. The only two faculty who thought their grading fell below average were tenured faculty. Tenured faculty were more likely to think their grading was above average (78%) than non-tenured faculty (23%).
Although 52% of the faculty encourage students to withdraw from courses when they are not doing well, tenured faculty (74%, n=25) are much more likely to do this than non-tenured (26%, n=9) faculty. It was very rare that faculty reported giving students the grade of “F” to allow them to retake a course and there was little difference, based on tenure, on this finding. Just over half (53%, n32) thought the late deadline for withdrawing from courses did not encourage students to withdraw and almost half (47%, n=28) thought it did encourage students to withdraw from classes. Little variation on tenure existed for this finding, faculty were virtually split on this finding. More than half (55%, n= 32) also do not think the late deadline for withdrawing from courses discourages students from committing to their classes earlier. More tenured rather than non-tenured faculty felt this way. Thirty-seven percent (n=l0) of non-tenured faculty thought the late deadline did not discourage students from early commitment to class, whereas 71% (n=22) of tenured faculty felt this way. Thus non-tenured faculty were more likely to think the late deadline discouraged students.
b. Challenges to Grades
(1) By rank
Assistant Professors (36.8%) and Adjunct Professors (42.1%) were more likely “never” to have a student come to them with a grade challenge as compared to Associate Professors (10.5%) and Full Professors (10.5%). Associate professors (33.3%) and Full Professors (33.3%) were more likely to report that students challenge their grades “sometimes” whereas only 17.8% of Assistant Professors and 15.6% of Adjuncts reported that students challenge their grades sometimes. No Assistant Professors reported that student make challenges “often” or “very often”, one Associate Professor reported challenges were made “often”, and two Full Professors reported that challenges were made “often”, and an additional on reported challenges were made “very often”.
Formal challenges, according to faculty responses, however were rare across rank. But, again Assistant and Adjunct Faculty were less likely to report a grade challenge to the administration than Associate and Full Professors — Assistants (18.8%), Associates (3 1.3%), Full (3 1.3%) and Adjunct (18.8%). Of those reporting a challenge at the administrative level, most found the administration supportive (Assistants 60.0%; Associate 83.3%; Full 7 1.4%; and Adjunct 60.0%). The remainder, except one, reported that the grade was raised to a “D”, and one faculty stated they made and error and changed the grade. Most (95.2%) also reported that they were satisfied with the outcomes of the administrative proceedings (Assistant 80%; Associate 100%; Full 100%; Adjunct 100%).
(2) By Unit
A handful of faculty (26%) reported that they never have students challenge grades with them, more (68%) of them report that this happens “sometimes”. Only three (two in AIS and 1 in TAS) report that this occurs “often”, and one faculty member in CA reports this occurs “very often”. From 60% (TAS) to 86% of the unit faculty members experience a challenge “sometimes.” Two-thirds of the faculty have never had a student “formally” challenge a grade with the administration. Of those with this experience, 45.5% (n10) were from CA, 18% (n=4) from TAS, 18% from AIS (n4), 9% (n2) from SSHS and 9% (n=2) from SAB. Of those with the experience of an administrative challenge, 87% report that this has occurred rarely, only two faculty report it occurs “often” (1 in CA and 1 in SAB), and one faculty (CA) reports it occurs very often. Most found that the administration was very supportive (73%), 23% had the grade raised to a D, and one faculty member calculated the grade wrong and changed the grade. One hundred percent of faculty (n=l9) from each unit stated that they were satisfied with the outcomes of the administrative grade challenge.
(3) By Tenure
Of the faculty reporting tenure status, 28% (n19) have never had a student come to them with a grade challenge. Of those, most (84%, n=16) were non-tenured faculty. Sixty-six percent (n reported that challenges occurred “sometimes” and most of these were found among tenured faculty (7 1%, n31), only a handful (n=3), all tenured faculty, stated that students made grade challenges “often” and only one faculty, a non- tenured professor, stated this happened “very often”.
Of the two-thirds (66%, n44) of faculty who have never had a student challenge a grade formally with the administration, 55% (n=24) are tenured and 445% (n20) are non-tenured. More tenured (6 1%, n14) than non-tenured (3 9%, n=9) had experienced a formal, administrative grade challenge. Of these experiencing an administrative challenge, most (87%, n20) said this occurred ‘rarely,” 9% (n=2) often, and 4.3% (n=l) very often. Of those that reported an administrative challenge was a rare event, most 965%, n were tenured faculty. Sixty-eight percent (n=15) felt the administration was supportive during the process —73% (n1 1) of these were tenured faculty. The remaining faculty reported that the grade was raised to a D (27%, n=6) or that the faculty member made a mistake and changed the grade (4.5%, n1). Most of the situations with a grade being raised to a D were experienced by non-tenured faculty (67%, n=4), and the one faculty who made the error was tenured.
All tenured faculty (n=l 1) reporting being satisfied with the outcome of the administrative grade challenge, 89% (n8) of the non-tenured faculty were satisfied, and 11% (n1) was not.
c. Future Grading
(1) By Rank
Since most (77%) of faculty would “somewhat” or “strongly” reject the abandonment of letter grading for a more simple scale of honors-high pass- pass- fail, there is likewise little variation across rank. However of those supporting wider use of pass-fail grading (n=27), Associate (29.6%) and Full (33.3%) Professors were more likely to report support than Assistant (14.8%) and Adjunct (22.2%) Professors. Variation, however, across the types of courses that faculty would support the use of pass-fail did exist. Of those responding “yes” to a wider use of pass-fail for the senior seminar course (n=l1), 18% were Assistants, 27% Associates, 27% Full Professors, and 27% Adjuncts. Of those supporting its use in the freshman seminar class (n=i9), only 10.5% of Assistants, 26% of Associate, 37% of Full and 26% of Adjunct Faculty. Of those supporting the pass-fail grade for internships (n=19), 10% were Assistants, 32% Associates, 32% Full and 26% Adjunct Faculty. Of those supporting the use of pass-fail for independent study classes (n 15% were Assistants, 15% Associates, 46% Full, and 23% Adjunct. Only a single faculty member supported the use of pass-fail for courses in the major and that faculty member was an Adjunct Professor. Of those supporting its use for co-op courses (n16), 12.5% were Assistants, 37.5% Associates, 37.5% Full, and 12.5% Adjunct. For using pass-fail for the fieldwork course (n14), 7.1% were Assistants, 42.9% were Associates, 28.6% were Full, and 21.4% were Adjunct. Only four faculty supported using pass-fail for gen-ed courses, one was an Assistant Professor and the three others were Adjunct Faculty. Of those supporting the use of pass-fail for athletic courses (n14), none were Assistants, 43% were Associate, 43% were Full, and 14% were Adjunct. Supporting pass-fail for one or two credit courses (n=8) were 12.5% Assistant, 50% Associate, no Full and 37.5% Adjunct Professors. Use of the pass-fail grade for lab courses was only supported by three faculty, one Assistant, one Associate and one Adjunct. Of the faculty supporting pass-fail for studio courses (n8), 25% were Associates, 37.5% were Full, and 37.5% were Adjunct. Similarly, of those supporting the use of pass-fail for visual/performing studio courses (n9), 11.1% were Assistants, 22.2% were Associates, 22.2% were Full, and 44.4% were Adjunct. Using pass-fail for winter session courses was only supported by 7 faculty, 14.3% Assistant, 42.9% Associate, 14.3% Full, and 28.6% Adjunct. Fewer supported its use for summer session courses (n=4), 1 Assistant, 1 Associate, and 2 Adjuncts.
Fifty-six percent (n=29) of faculty do not think that there should be different criteria for grading depending on the field of study. Of those supporting the use of a different criteria (n23), 2 1.7% were Assistant Professors, 39.1% Associate Professors, 26.1% Full Professors and 13% Adjunct Professors.
More than half of the faculty support the current grading scale with 11 categories ranging from A/A- to D/F, of those supporting this scale (n40) 17.5% were Assistant Professors, 35% were Associate Professors, 22.5% were Full Professors, and 25% were Adjunct Professors. About 1/3 supported the adding of an A+ and a D- to the scale, of those 28.6% were Assistants, 23.8% were Associates, 19% were Full and 28.6 % were Adjunct Professors.
(2) By Unit
None of the faculty in SAB (n=7) would support the abandonment of letter grading for a more simple scale. In fact, each faculty member “strongly rejected” abandonment of letter grading for a scale of honors-high pass-pass-fail grading model. Only one faculty (9%) member in SSHS supported somewhat the abandonment of letter grading for the simple model of honors-high pass- pass- fail grading. The remaining faculty either strongly rejected (45.5%, n=5) or somewhat rejected (45.5%, n5) the adoption of the simple model. In AIS (n=10), only one faculty member would “strongly support” the adoption of the simple model of grading and abandoning letter grading, 60% (n would strongly reject the change and 30% (n=3) would somewhat reject the change. In TAS (n1 0), most faculty (70%) would strongly reject the change to a simple model of grading, 10% (n1) would somewhat reject the proposition, 10% (n1) would somewhat support the change, and 10% (n1) would strongly support the change. There was more diversity among the members of CA. In CA (n=26), 46% would strongly reject (n a change from letter grading to a simple grading model of honors- high pass- pass- fail, 15% (n=4) would somewhat reject the model, 19% (n5) would somewhat support the change, and 19% (n=5) would strongly support the change.
Although 59% (n=36) of the faculty would not support a wider use of the pass fail option, 41% (n25) would support a wider use of the pass/fail option. Most of the support came from CA (48%, n=12), followed by AIS (16%, n=4), TAS (16%, n=4), SSHS (12%, n3), and SAB (8%, n=2). For those responding yes, there was some variation across units for which courses the pass/fail option was most appropriate. There was little variation among some courses, e.g., few (less than 15%) thought that courses in the major (0%), gen-ed courses (3%), 1 or 2 credit courses (11%), labs (3%), studio art courses (11%), winter session courses (8%), summer session courses (3%), and visual/performing studio courses (11%) should use the pass/fail option. Sixteen percent (n thought pass fail should be used in the senior seminar course and 50% (n=5) of those individual are in CA, 20% in AIS, and 10% from SSHS, lAS, and SAB (n=1 each). Nineteen percent (nl2) thought the pass/fail option should be used for independent study courses
— CA (42%, n5); AIS (25%, n=3), TAS (17%, n=2), SSHS (8%, n=1) and SAB (8%, n=1). Twenty-seven percent (n=17) thought the option should be available for freshman
seminar — 47% (n=8) from CA, 24% (n4) from AIS, 12% (n=2) from SSHS and TAS, and 6% (n=l) from SAB. Twenty-seven percent (n=17) thought intemships should be graded on a pass/fail scale — 47% (n=8) from CA, 23.5% (nz=4) from TAS, 12% (n2) from MS and SAB, and 6% (n=1) from SSHS. Twenty-four percent (n1 5) would approve the pass/fail option for Co-ops — 40% (n=6) from CA, 27% 9n=4) from TAS, 13% (n=2) from AIS and SAB, and 7% (n=l) from SSHS. Twenty-one percent (n13) would approve the use of pass/fail for fieldwork courses — 46% (n:=6) from CA, 15% (n=2) from SSHS, lAS and SAB and 8% (n=1) from AIS. Twenty-one percent would approve its use for athletic courses — 31% (n=40) from CA, 23% (n=3) from SSHS, 15% (n=2) from TAS, SAB and AIS.
Fifty percent (n25) reported that they do not think different criteria for grading should be implemented based on various fields of study. Of those who do support the use of varying criteria (n=25), 44% (n= 11) are from CA, 20% (n are from AIS, 16% (n=4) are from SSHS and TAS and 4% (n=1) are from SAB. The majority (66%, n44) also did not support the adding of an A+ and a D- to the current grading scale. In SSHS, 27% (n=3) supported the adding of an A+ and D-, 30% of the TAS faculty (n=3), 42% of the AIS faculty (n5), 37% of the CA faculty (n and only one faculty member from SAB supported the additions (14%). As expected based on the previous finding, two- thirds (63%, n=42) of the faculty supported the current grading scale ranging from A/A- to D/F and two-thirds (61%, n=4 1) did not support modifying the grading scale from the letter system to a number system on a 0 to 100 scale.
(3) By Tenure
The vast majority (75%, n=49) of faculty would reject the abandonment of letter grading for a more simple scale of honors- high pass- pass- fail grading. Of these those who “strongly rejected” this proposition, two-thirds (n=24) were tenured faculty and of those who somewhat rejected the change, 69% (n=9) were non-tenured. Only 24% (n16) supported the change to the simple scale, 67% (n=6) who somewhat supported the change were non-tenured, whereas 71% (n=5) who strongly supported the abandonment of letter grading for a simple scale were tenured. More than half (55%) would not support wider use of the pass-fail option. Of the 45% of faculty who would support its wider use, 61% (n17) are tenured faculty. The following is a break down of the courses where tenured and non-tenured faculty approving of a wider use would implement this option:
19% (n=12) Senior Seminar (non-tenured 50%, n=6; tenured 50%, n=6); 29% (n1 8) Freshman Seminar (non-tenured 33%, n=6, tenured 67%, n=12); 29% internships (non- tenured 33%, n=6; tenured 67%, n12); 22% independent study (non-tenured 43%, n tenured 57%, n=8); 4% (n1); Courses in a Major (non-tenured 100%); 25% Co-ops (non-tenured 25%, n=4); tenured 75%, n12); 24% (n=15) Fieldwork (non-tenured 40%, n=6, tenured 60%, n9); 6% (n4) Gen-Ed courses (non-tenured 100%); 21% (n13) athletic courses (non-tenured 7.7%, n1; tenured 92% n=12); 11% (n=7) one or two credit courses (non-tenured 43%, n tenured 57% n 5% (n=3) lab courses (non tenured 67%, n=2; tenured 33%, n 14% (n=9) studio art (non-tenured44%, n=4; tenure 56%, n=5), 1 1%(n winter session (non-tenured 57%, n=4; tenured 43% n=3); 6% (n4) summer session (non-tenured 75%, n=3; tenured 25%, n1); and
16% (n10) visual/performing studio courses (non-tenured 6%, n=6; tenured 40%, n4).
Fifty-six percent (n=29) of the faculty do not think there should be different criteria depending on the field of study. Of the 44% (n=23) who do support the use of a different criteria, 61% (n14) are tenured faculty.
Only 34% (n=23) support adding an A+ and a D- to the current grading scale, of these 61% (n=14) are non-tenured faculty. The majority (60%, n=41) also support the current grading scale with 11 categories ranging from A/A- to D/F. Of the 29% (n=20) who do not support the current scale, 50% (n=l0) are non-tenured and 50% (n10) are tenured faculty. Most 963%, n=43) also would not support modifying the current grading scale from the letter system to a system based on a 0 to 100 number scale. Of the few (22%, n1 5) who would support a change 60% (n9) are non-tenured faculty.