It was the challenge that many say epitomized how former Student Body President Eve Carson led.
It was a largely unanticipated faculty issue in her first month in office — a vote on a new method of reporting grades known as the Achievement Index — that drove the Carson administration to act in a matter of days.
Within a month of being inaugurated, Carson had mobilized students to attend a Friday afternoon meeting, gathered a group from inside and out of student government to research the topic and gave an impassioned speech to the Faculty Council about why students were opposed to the idea.
Grading in the platforms
Monique Hardin
“Create a board with student
representation to discuss this issue with each department.”
Nash Keune
“We are not in favor of grade inflation. Rather, we are in favor of grade hyperinflation. We want UNC to become the Zimbabwe of grade inflation.”
Joe Levin-Manning
“I will seek student input on the issue and represent the sentiments of the student body to the administration in discussion over the issue.”
Hogan Medlin*
No mention of grading in his platform. “It’s a continuing project. … The student body president’s role is to advocate for what students want.“
Shruti Shah*
No mention of grading in her platform. “It’s not one that can be tackled on a singular basis. It has to be tackled by peer institutions as well.“
Greg Strompolos*
No mention of grading in his platform. “I don’t think A’s should be given out like cookies. But I stand on the side of students. I will make sure that no legislation is passed mandating lower grades."
*We asked candidates who did not mention grading in their platforms to elaborate on their plans for the issue.
The measure failed by three votes.
“It was the first thing that we really jumped on,” said Mike Tarrant, student body vice president under Carson.
“It was also one of the most successful.”
And the next student body president could face the exact same challenge.
In April, UNC’s Faculty Council is scheduled to vote on a policy for curbing grade inflation, and the Achievement Index could be its focus.
And while the student body president will have no voting voice on the Faculty Council — which will ultimately determine the policy direction — history shows that he or she will have ample room to influence the process.
The grading issue
Motivated by a report published last spring chronicling a steady increase in the average GPA at UNC — a trend that means that the most common grade awarded is an A — the Faculty Council had a roughly hour-long conversation at its Oct. 9 meeting about the nature of grades and what should be done about the issue.
The Council charged the educational policy committee, a group of faculty members and a few students, with formulating a policy proposal by its April meeting.
What that proposal will be, however, is still up in the air.
A few things were ruled out in October. The proposal won’t mirror Princeton University and impose a quota on A’s. It also won’t separate the people who teach from the people who grade, as some small schools have done.
The proposals on the table include a more structured discussion among the faculty about grades or the Achievement Index, among other options.
The Achievement Index talk
The Achievement Index, the policy put forth in 2007, is a statistical calculation measuring student performance relative to their peers.
Upon taking office, Carson convened a group of students, including the student educational policy committee representative, the student body vice president and a freshman Roosevelt Institute researcher named David Bevevino.
After deciding to oppose the policy because they thought it would increase competition among peers and fail to change how professors grade, the group met with faculty members to discuss their positions, sent e-mails to rally students and spoke at the Faculty Council.
They also waged a public relations campaign after a faculty member published a column in The Daily Tar Heel supporting the index.
“We thought, if he’s going to come out this strong in favor of it, then we’re going to come out as strong against,” Tarrant said.
The next administration
The next student body president will inherit a grading world that looks remarkably similar to Carson’s.
Grades have continued to rise, the Achievement Index is still a prominent suggestion and many students still oppose it.
And he or she will have about two months after the election to figure out where the student body stands on the issue and how to effectively convey that to the faculty.
Bevevino, now the student body vice president and member of the educational policy committee, said the challenge for the next administration will be getting up to speed on the multitude of issues surrounding grading.
“Someone in their administration needs to know who the stakeholders in this talk are and what this means to them,” he said. “What are the faculty concerns with the various policies? What does it mean to make a change in grading practice? All these things are things a student government can provide feedback on.”
Current student government members who will be around next year said they recognize the importance of the talk and hope to carry it into next year.
“We have to keep discussing until we can come up with some innovative solution that addresses the problems but won’t have the negative impacts,” said junior Chris Carter, co-chairman of student government’s academic affairs committee.
But they recognize that there is a lot to learn before coming to the table.
Many faculty members, including Andrew Perrin, chairman of the educational policy committee, hold that the issue is mostly a faculty one. They are the only ones who can give grades and, therefore, the only ones who can affect policy change.
But others — especially those involved in the talks three years ago — hold that their activities show that it isn’t just a discussion for the faculty.
“This whole system of shared governance that we typically think of between the faculty and administrators goes down to students as well,” Tarrant said. “Our successful efforts to make sure it didn’t go through demonstrated the development of shared governance here at UNC.”
Contact the University Editor at udesk@unc.edu.
