CIT priorities hinder policy
Greiner suggests "manual solution" to carry out grade changes

By MARA McGINNIS
Reporter Assistant Editor

Despite the university's inability to implement an electronic process to accommodate a new grading policy, President William Greiner has emphasized to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee that the policy is "not on hold" and that "some sort of manual solution" will be identified until the problem can be resolved long-term.

Greiner told the FSEC on Sept. 9 that because of more pressing obligations in Computer and Information Technology (CIT)-specifically Y2K and Access99-virtually all other projects will be moved back to the spring.

The issue has some faculty members concerned about how priorities are determined in CIT, which is one of the issues to be explored by the senate's Computer Services Committee.

The new grading policy, which has been published in the most recent undergraduate catalogue, allows students to repeat courses in which they receive a grade of C plus or lower. The grade earned the second time the course is taken is the one that counts toward the student's grade-point average, regardless of whether that is the higher mark.

Although the policy is in place, it cannot be properly implemented since CIT has limited resources to do the programming that would allow for replacement grades to be calculated in students' grade-point averages.

Greiner said he anticipates a permanent solution will be in place by the end of Spring 2000 and told senators that he has passed the issue on to Senior Vice President Robert Wagner.

Greiner said he will suggest that Wagner look at how many instances there are per semester to see whether or not it is something that can be done by hand.

Jack Meacham, professor of psychology, told Greiner that the number of grade replacements "cannot possibly happen by hand" in his department.

Senators also raised concerns that if grade changes are not accounted for in student records, it could prevent students from being accepted into their prospective departments.

"As of June 1999, the grading committee had no clue that this would be a real problem," said John Boot, professor and chair of the Department of Management Science and Systems, who also pointed out that due to programming difficulties, it took nearly two years to introduce "plus" and "minus" grades to UB's grading system more than a decade ago.

He suggested that some of the revenue from the student technology fee be used to get the job done, even if it takes "imaginative accounting techniques" by the university to cover up what might require an illegitimate allocation.

Judith Adams-Volpe, director of Lockwood Library, noted that in her area there have been "all kinds of questions and interest on the part of students" regarding the issue.

In other business, William Fischer, vice provost for faculty development, updated FSEC members on the mentoring of junior faculty. He reported that all but four deans had complied with his request to submit to him a document outlining how senior faculty in each of their schools approach the issue of helping junior faculty members in their pursuit of tenure.

Samuel Schack, professor of mathematics, noted that a continuing problem is that "too frequently" faculty members receive termination notices because the provost's office did not finish the review process and that there is "no excuse for it."