Calling it a resolution about "preparing students for the classes they need to take," senators overall voiced support for the measure, tempered by concerns that allowing students to retake courses could allow them to inflate their GPAs.

Currently, undergraduate students may repeat courses in which they receive a grade of D+ or lower. The first and second grades for the course are averaged in the student's grade-point average, and credit hours are counted only once.

Under the proposed policy, the grade counted toward the student's GPA would be the one earned the second time the course was taken, regardless of whether that is the higher score. Credits earned count only once, and students may repeat a given course only once, although there is no limit on the number of courses that may be repeated.

Students "should be encouraged to get the knowledge they need in order to proceed" with their studies, noted Thomas Schroeder, associate professor of learning and instruction and chair of the Faculty Senate Grading Committee.

The current policy may prevent some students from pursuing majors that require them to have a GPA of 2.5 in certain courses in order to be eligible to enter that department.

Calling the resolution "very valuable," Melvyn Churchill, professor of chemistry, noted that a student who experiences academic difficulties is likely to "have trouble forever" unless he or she is able to repeat courses.

Critics of the proposal have contended that allowing students to repeat courses is unproductive, but Don Schack, professor of mathematics, noted that is only the case from the viewpoint of "producing degrees rather than producing education."

Schack also voiced concern that by using the second grade in calculating a student's average, "calling it a GPA is misleading." He recommended that these grades be noted with an asterisk on the transcript.

Critics of the proposal also have voiced concerns that the grade-replacement policy would allow students to artificially boost their GPAs.

"This replacement is not free," said William Baumer, professor of philosophy and a member of the grading committee. "It is expensive in time and tuition. On top of that, the impact on the GPA for one course is not that significant."

Raising the grade in one course from a C to an A will boost a student's GPA by only 6/100ths of a point, he said.

"There are too many speed bumps that will discourage students from (repeating large numbers of classes in order to raise their GPAs). We ought not burn a lot of time and effort worrying about this," Baumer said.

Judith Adams-Volpe, director of Lockwood Library, told senators that she has "significant problems with the proposal" because it "takes the burden" away from staff and faculty members for providing good teaching and support services. "We are, with this proposal, ignoring our responsibility for that kind of outcome."

She added that the grade-replacement proposal should continue to pertain only to grades of D and F.

"The problem of where we set the bar-C or D-is an important issue," said Schroeder.

Grades of C, he said, are not adequate for continued study in some departments. Mathematics, for example, requires an average of higher than 2.0-above a C average-in certain courses for entry into the major, although according to university policy, no department can require a GPA above 2.5 for entry into a major, he noted. For that reason, the cutoff for retaking courses was set at grades of C+ or lower.

The proposal will receive its second reading at the Faculty Senate's Oct. 13 meeting.