The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/news/2005/08/19/art_class_grades_changed

August 19, 2005 > News > EX&S: Prof’s grading unfair

EX&S: Prof’s grading unfair

By Katherine Corley | Thresher staff

More than 30 students who received C’s in a visual arts class last spring were permitted to change their grades to “satisfactory,” the Committee on Examinations and Standings decided this summer.

The decision was made in response to a petition by 31 of the 51 students who took ARTV 330: Pop Art and its Origins in the spring. The petition states instructor David Brauer did not provide clear expectations for an end-of-course assignment — a sketchbook that accounted for 100 percent of students’ final grades. A chance to submit sketchbooks for a regrade offered by the Visual Arts Department was also unfair, the petition states.

A grade of satisfactory does not factor into a student’s GPA, and the satisfactory/unsatisfactory grading system is normally designated for an entire course at its beginning — unlike the pass/fail system, which students exercise at their choosing. Students who failed the course were not allowed to change their grades.

Brauer, a visiting professor from the Glassell School of Art at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, could not be reached for comment.

In a June 6 e-mail, EX&S Chair Deborah Nelson-Campbell announced the committee’s decision. She said the committee’s response addressed the problem that nothing was given to the students in writing about the professor’s expectations.

“Apparently many students did very little, but they were furious because they assumed that what they had done was acceptable because they were not told,” Nelson-Campbell, a French Studies professor, said. “What you cannot say under these circumstances is, ‘These are Rice students, they’re smart, they should have known.’ That’s not playing fair.”

The decision also stated, however, that students’ performance in the course was sub-standard.

“The committee believes that many of the students in ARTV 330 were not serious in their commitment to the course and submitted sketchbooks that were clearly unacceptable for an entire semester’s work,” Nelson-Campbell wrote. “However, because there was no written syllabus that described the professor’s expectations, it is impossible to know exactly what information was transmitted, as it was expressed orally in class.”

Heather Rotheray (Jones ‘05), who organized the petition with several other students, said many students who received grades of C or worse followed the spoken guidelines given in class.

“The instructions that were given were to put sketches and notes from class in the sketchbook and to not miss more than two classes,” Rotheray said. “It was never said that you had to fill up the sketchbook. We all thought that we were getting A’s when we handed in the project.”

Jones College senior Christina Tjok, who co-wrote the petition, said students were led to believe their grades would either be A or F.

“Originally, [Brauer] was going to do the class [satisfactory/unsatisfactory] because he doesn’t believe in the system of putting a numerical score on the artistic process, but some of us needed the class for our major, so he did it A or F instead,” Tjok said. “We operated the entire semester with that mentality.”

However, several students who did not sign the petition said doing well in the class was possible, despite the unspecific expectations. Wiess College junior Kaylan Tannahill said he disagreed with the petition.

“Art classes are supposed to be a creative opportunity for you to grow and expand and be open-minded without direction,” Tannahill said. “Dr. Brauer said [the sketchbook] is what you make of it. It was supposed to be a collage of the semester.”

Rachel Green, a Lovett College sophomore, said students could have attempted to make a good grade even if they were unsure of specifics.

“There are two options with so little direction — to do [work] that might or might not have been sufficient and then blame it on the professor or to put effort into it and make something that you’re proud of, even though you may not know if it’s sufficient,” Green said. “I felt that the expectations were not that clear, but that should have been OK given the [artistic] setting. It’s not like a MATH 101 class.”

The petition also stated the Visual Arts Department’s offer to regrade the work was unfair. Rotheray, then a graduating senior, said she was only given 24 hours to redo the sketchbook under new guidelines. Tjok also said the offer did not allow enough time.

“The regrade opportunity was problematic because, in the middle of exam period, the department expected us to do a full-blown portfolio to reflect the entire semester, and they expected us to get that done in, at most, five days,” Tjok said.

Visual Arts Department Chair Karen Broker returned from sabbatical to assist with the regrade, but she said the original grades were justified.

“I listened to students and they were very enraged, but I realized the grading was very fair,” Broker said. “Most of the complaints were that there were so many C’s, but if they did average work, they got an average grade. Some only did six pages of a 160-page sketchbook, and many really hadn’t started the sketchbook until the night before it was due.”

More than 30 students submitted their sketchbooks for regrading, and six of their grades were changed.

Tannahill agreed the grading was mostly fair.

“Art is subjective, but there’s also a certain level of work, and you don’t have to be a Picasso to make an A,” Tannahill said. “They really didn’t try, and they used the excuse that Dr. Brauer wasn’t specific enough as an excuse for their lack of work.”

Rotheray said she was pleased with the committee’s decision.

“[The professor] had something in their mind [he] expected, but [he] didn’t ever voice it, which is why [most] students received C’s,” she said. “I’m happy with what happened — a middle ground between teachers and students.”

End of article

Back to top