About a week and a half ago, the SGA (Student Government Association) conducted a survey on grading policies that garnered 850 responses — nearly a quarter of the student body! The results of the survey demonstrated that the student body overwhelmingly prefers a “Double A” grading system, a system where every student earns an A or A-, over any other system mentioned in the survey. As a result, some members of the SGA and other students drafted a proclamation with their findings — that students want a “Double A” grading system.
At the next SGA meeting, record numbers of the student body looked on as the Senate passed a proclamation: “A Recommendation For the Provost To Modify the New Grading Policy For Spring 2020 In Response To The COVID-19 Pandemic.” Swiftly, the document was sent to President Nariman Farvardin, Provost Christophe Pierre, and Associate Provost Cindy Chin. While this effort to advocate for the student body is grand, it’s only going to make the student body think less of the SGA.
Let’s backtrack to the beginning of the pursuit for Double A. Right after spring break, a first survey was sent out to the student body. This survey was not presented as a general survey looking at the university’s grading policies, but rather as a survey to prove interest in a “Double A” grading system at Stevens. On social media, the PR for Double A was incredibly heavy.
The response to this survey was overwhelmingly positive; students wanted a Double A system. Everyone was actively thinking about it. By the time the survey had closed, over 500 students had responded. The SGA then announced that the Double A has a “81.4% approval rate.” To outsiders, the policy was going to be implemented. A proclamation was drafted and put on the docket for March 29, and the Senate was sure to pass it.
Wrong.
With over 70 students huddled into a Zoom call, a few members of the Senate and the Cabinet challenged the proclamation due to believing the survey was conducted poorly or simply disagreeing with a Double A policy. After an hour and a half of discussion, the proclamation was tabled for a week so that a better survey could be conducted. Onlookers were outraged — How could this proclamation not pass? Do our elected officials not advocate for us? The SGA’s perception took a small hit from this postponement of the bill.
The following week, a new survey was sent out regarding grading policies. Even though it was presented as more neutral, only one policy was on everyone’s minds: Double A. Over the prior week, the student body had seen so much material on Double A that the new survey just seemed to be collecting the same information yet again. It appeared to still be an effort to get a Double A grading policy implemented at Stevens.
Using data from this new survey, a new proclamation, the aforementioned “Recommendation For the Provost To Modify the New Grading Policy For Spring 2020 In Response To The COVID-19 Pandemic,” was written and passed. The SGA Senate approved Double A. To most of the student body, this outcome suggests that Double A is coming: that it is only a matter of time before a new Stevens announcement formally declares the new grading policy.
But what if that doesn’t happen?
A large portion of the student body does not understand how the SGA works. The SGA does not have power to implement change on its own; it must rely on members of the Stevens administration to institute change. Most of the student body does not know this. They think that because the proclamation was passed, the administration has to listen and Double A will be implemented.
Most of the SGA’s efforts are relatively minor and not publicized widely with the student body. However, this time, the SGA attempted an initiative that is incredibly high-profile. If Double A is not implemented, it will appear that the organization can’t do anything. Students will think, “Why should I tell the SGA my issues if nothing will come of it?”
The fear is that Double A likely won’t be instituted at all. All of Stevens’ academic peer schools — the schools that Stevens bases a lot of decisions off of — have not adopted a Double A policy; most have an optional pass/fail policy similar to our grading policy. Recent “high-profile” asks, such as the Intercultural Center, have had peer institutions with similar systems already in place; it was not a stretch to have one created here.
With an impending response from the provost this week, this is a make-or-break moment for the SGA. The organization needs to prove that it can actually advocate for the student body by having Double A implemented or risk a perception that it will not solve student problems for years to come.
Be First to Comment