The Academic Affairs Committee of the Arts and Sciences Council passed the amended Achievement Index proposal by a 7-2 margin Tuesday.
The grading plan will now come before the full council Thursday and, if approved, an 18-month trial period-one of the plan's amended stipulations-will begin May 1, 1997.
The committee tabled the proposal last Tuesday in response to a motion made by Trinity sophomore Eric Weisman, a Duke Student Government legislator and committee member, who said he wanted more time to incorporate student input-as reflected by DSG's Thursday referendum-into the proposal.
The proposal's four amendments mandate that the AI's trial period be shortened from five years to 18 months, faculty members receive reports evaluating their grading patterns, a Committee on Grading be established to evaluate the AI during the trial period and the University set forth a method for adjusting professors' AI calculations in independent studies and in uniformly graded classes containing 10 or fewer students.
In addition to approving the four amendments, Weisman said the committee clarified two minor points pertaining to the AI proposal. First, it affirmed that the two student representatives to the Committee on Grading will be appointed by DSG. The grading committee also will consist of the provost, four faculty members, the registrar, the associate dean of undergraduate affairs and the associate dean of the School of Engineering. Second, the Academic Affairs Committee decreed that the grading committee submit a full evaluation of the AI to the Arts and Sciences Council by Oct. 31, 1998.
Committee members said they discussed both the perceived merits and problems of the AI during their 90-minute, closed meeting.
Weisman said committee members discussed issues inherent to the AI's intent. "My feeling is that one of the main purposes of the AI is to combat grade inflation," Weisman said, "but [other committee members] tended to shy away from that."
The committee also conferred about both the impact of the trial period and the ways in which it would be able to measure the AI's success, should it pass.
Judith Ruderman, vice provost for academic services who is invited to committee meetings although she is not a committee member, said the trial period will serve as an educational interim for both students and faculty.
"What passed this morning was not a proposal to institute this whole-hog," Ruderman said. "It was a proposal to institute the trial period.... I think it's fair to say the Academic Affairs Committee is still interested in having a trial period and that it wouldn't harm students."
But Weisman reiterated what many opponents of the measure have said before him: The 18-month trial period, he said, "is not a true reflection of what Duke will be like under the AI," as students' transcripts will still feature GPA-based grades and ranks.
Speaking about how committee members thought they might measure the proposal's success, Weisman said: "People don't know." Two of the methods proposed, however, include gauging student opinion and monitoring other universities to see if they follow Duke's lead in implementing a system analogous to the AI.
But DSG representatives said the Academic Affairs Committee payed little attention to student opinion, as it passed the proposal despite student voters' sound rejection of the AI. "I was disappointed that the [committee members] didn't take students' input into account," Weisman said. "They kind of wrote off the referendum."
The vice provost, however, cited the fact that "only 50 percent" of the student body voted and that the committee was not, therefore, disregarding student input.
Nevertheless, Trinity senior Takcus Nesbit, president of DSG, said he was equally disenchanted with the committee's decision.
"I think the students should be appalled that the Academic Affairs Committee chose to forward this flawed proposal to the Arts and Sciences Council," Nesbit said, adding that DSG plans to purchase a full-page advertisement to run today in The Chronicle that denounces the AI and lists all council members' names in an effort to make them more accountable for their votes. DSG is also sending a letter to all council members, he said, asking them to consider students' responses to the proposal before they vote on it.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.