However, a controversial proposal that would have made it easier for students to retake courses in which they have earned grades of C+ or less was sent back to the body's Grading Committee for revision, with action expected by the senate in the fall.

The resolution on mid-semester progress reports that was approved unanimously by the senate at its last meeting of the academic year on May 13 was a revised version of a proposal that had been presented to senators on May 6. The revised version takes into account comments made by senators about the "danger" of using letter grades on a report outlining students' progress as of mid-semester, noted Grading Committee Chair Thomas Schroeder, associate professor of learning and instruction.

Unlike the original version, which allowed faculty members to report students' progress using letter grades or via a pass/fail designation, the revised resolution specifically defines the progress report as "a statement from the instructor indicating whether, on the basis of attendance and work completed, submitted and evaluated to date, the student is making 'satisfactory progress' or 'unsatisfactory progress' in the course."

The change was made, Schroeder said, because it better fulfills the goal of the resolution, which is to obtain a report of students' progress. "What we really ought to know is, is the student in question progressing satisfactorily or not? So on that basis, that is what we asked the instructor to provide."

The purpose of the proposal, he noted, is to identify those students who are at risk of failing, so that advisors can intervene to make sure the students are aware of the situation and can take appropriate action.

He stressed that the progress report should not be considered to be a final grade for any fraction of the course. "This is not an 'S' grade or a 'U' grade; it's a progress report. And it's not the grade for half of the semester," he said.

Don Schack, professor of mathematics, called the new resolution "a fine revision," but suggested that the last point of the resolution be "amplified" within the university.

The final section of the resolution states that "all instructors are encouraged to give all their students performance feedback on a regular basis, and early enough in the semester so that students who are not performing will have time to take remedial action."

"I hope that more effort would be made to make sure the faculty are aware of the need to provide some information to the students on how they're doing in a course in time for the students to take remedial action," Schack said. While he noted that the director of undergraduate studies in the math department reminds faculty members to update students on their progress, "I gather in talking to my colleagues that in a lot of departments that isn't done.

"I hope those in the Provost's Office will take that seriously within the university to keep us on our toes about that."

The resolution on grade replacement was sent back to the Grading Committee for significant revision after receiving little support from senators at the May 6 meeting. Criticisms of the proposal included that it perpetuates the attitude that some students have that they can "fix" poor grades if they know how to work the system, represents a "continuing downturn in academic integrity," and ignores the meaning of "grade-point average."

The proposal would allow students to repeat courses in which they have earned grades of C+ or less. Students could repeat a given course only once, and the grade that would be counted toward the GPA would be the one earned the second time, even if it is lower than the one earned the first time.

Schroeder acknowledged that he and other committee members also initially had problems with the issue of grade replacement, but, after studying the idea, changed their views.

He gave senators an example of a student who could be affected by the proposal so that they would have "an understanding of what problem we're trying to solve."

A student who earned all "Fs" in his first semester at UB would have to earn straight "As" in all courses taken during the next semester to be in good standing at the end of his first year.

"Personally, I think that's a little bit much to expect," Schroeder said. "Under the current system, the student's low grades in any one semester continue to live with that student, dragging the student's GPA downward for a long period of time. We think, as many other universities have decided, that replacing grades in repeated courses makes more sense than averaging the grades in repeated courses."

That opinion is based, he said, on the idea that "we're more interested in the outcome of a student taking a course, rather than in every course the student has ever taken all being averaged in together."