COLUMN: 10th week pass/fail proposal discussed

---

by Maryana Iskander

---

EACH WEEK, the Student Association would like to bring up an item off our agenda for the Thresher Opinion section. And that is exactly what we are seeking -- your opinion.

It is important that arguments on both sides of the issue are presented so that the picture is more complete.

Please take the time to read about a resolution to suggest to the undergraduate curriculum committee that the pass/fail designation be changed from the end of the fourth week of classes to the end of the 10th week of classes.

Your comments are encouraged.

E-mail Michael Munson at munson@rice.edu or Maryana Iskander at whales@rice.edu or the entire Student Association Senate at our listserv address sa@rice.edu .

Pro: The current system allows little time to determine the difficulty of classes.

If the intent of the pass/fail system is to allow students to take classes which they might otherwise not take, then students should be allowed to continue past the fourth week before designating P/F in order to better understand the nature of the class.

Students taking more than one elective can have enough time to evaluate which course should be taken pass/fail and which for a grade.

Also, for students who are taking two such classes in the same semester, allowing them to designate the pass/fail course in the 10th week (when they have a better sense of the class) decreases the amount of academic stress at the end of the semester and encourages good academic performance overall.

No one loses and many people gain from this proposal. Professors will experience enhanced interest and class participation. Students who are unsure of course difficulty have more time to gauge the course, and students who know their intentions are unaffected.

Allowing a 10th-week designation would encourage students to participate to their utmost and would increase their quality of work.

Con: There are two reasons to oppose the proposal. First, the stated intent of the pass/fail policy is to permit students to attempt courses for which they may not have an appropriate background, without punishing them with a bad grade.

This decision should be made at the time of the course selection. If the student is wrong in anticipating a bad grade (i.e. he/she wound up making a good grade), the current system permits the good grade to be reflected on the transcript.

The purpose of the pass/fail policy is not to permit students to hide bad grades selectively. This is what would occur with a late change.

Second, the existing policy encourages students to complete every course with as good a performance as possible. A late change to pass/fail indicates that a student is doing poorly, though probably not poorly enough to fail.

Such a student now has little if any reason to continue to perform in the class.

Prior to adopting the policy of permitting a change from pass/fail to grade after the course, students taking courses pass/fail would routinely stop attending, taking exams, etc., during the weeks after the 10th week, because a pass was guaranteed and there was no incentive to improve. The SA proposal would recreate this situation.

Maryana Iskander is the SA president and a Wiess College junior.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the February 9, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX, 77005, USA.