STUDENTS AGAINST GRADE NORMALIZATION
Following are a few reasons why we, the undersigned, do not support the grade normalization process in its current state:
This process will hurt students in smaller, practical-skills-based classes - classes where it is conceivable that a majority of the students truly could earn A grades through their efforts (Pretrial Skills, Trial Practice, etc). One of the main reasons students were previously in favor of grade norming was because it was believed that professors in these classes could petition to be exempted from the requirements. As it now appears that the vast majority of these petitions would be denied, the practical effect of the opt-out provision is that no one can opt out.
Exempting Honors Program classes unfairly disadvantages students who were not asked to participate in that program. Not all students who do honors-quality work are in the Honors Program, nor will all of the first-year, first-semester students who are admitted to the Honors Program do honors-quality work - for the first year, students who are in the Honors Program don't have to worry about a curve deciding their grade, even if they do more poorly than their classmates in “regular” classes. This disadvantage is even more distressing when the criteria for admittance to the Honors Program are unclear to most students, even to some who have been admitted.
Grade norming will not dissuade students from “forum-shopping” for classes - the criteria will simply change. Students who want a better chance at a high grade will seek out large lecture-style classes instead of small classes, or classes with multiple-choice exams instead of classes with essay exams.
While grade norming will benefit the 1L class, it will affect upper-class students adversely. Many of us were recruited on the fact that VUSL was a true grading law school. While true grading may have its own set of problems, this grade norming process leaves current upperclass students even worse off. We did not have the benefit of increased GPAs as 1Ls in our core classes. The idea was to weather the storm with the knowledge that you could raise your GPA with later courses. Now that grade norming will force some students to have lower grades, this will make it hard for us to raise our GPAs. A suggested alternative is to limit grade normalization to the first-year class only, giving that class the chance to learn about any negative impact grade norming would have, as well as reaping the benefits.
Even though the pilot program is 'optional', the email received by many of our adjunct professors made them believe they have to follow it. Many adjunct professors have viewed the word `optional' to mean, if they don't do it, their future employment is in jeopardy. We disagree with the practical effect of “highly encouraging” a non-tenured professor to subscribe to these practices.
We also take issue with how this process was decided. It appears to us that adjunct professors were not included in discussion of the grade norming process, if only because many of us were asked by our adjunct professors during class if we knew anything about it because the adjuncts did not.
Grade normalization should work to normalize our grades to other schools' in effect, not just in name. When employers look at resumes they look at grades first, not schools. Thus, a grading system like this hurts our students' chances of making it past the first round of resumes where a minimum GPA (not class rank) is the deciding factor.
For these reasons, we, the student body of Valparaiso University School of Law, voice our strong opposition to the Grade Normalization Policy.
--The Undersigned
|