fl
cp
W to 7
Paper 3E
To: Senate
From:
Registrar
23 March, 1967
Subject: Grade Distributions
5-A-5
Fall Semester 1966.
At the June 1966 meeting of Senate a paper prepared by the
Registrar regarding the evaluation of Semester Grades was approved.
The paper contained the following recommendations:
a.
The individual student statement of marks be reviewed
as it is now,
by the Senate Undergraduate Admissions
and Standings Committee.
b.
A summary of the grades as attached be sent to each member
of the facult y . Where this has been done at other
Universities it has had a salutary effect upon those
markers or departments far out of line. Granted, it has
no effect upon the students represented on the summary
statements, bu.t after a semester or two gross discrepancies
would be unlikely.
c.
The Committee of Heads review
' each semester the summary
sheets as attached and comment on gross anomalies.
d.
The Registrar present to Senate a report as attached
for each semester along with comments from the Committee
of Heads. Senate should make recommendations to the
Heads for any changes thought necessary in the way in which
the Grading Scale is being used, or may ask for specific
comments from the Head on any apparent anomalies in his
department.
This publication of the suntm.ry results will undoubtedly have
a centralizing effect, although I suggest the Senate would want to
make
it
clear that a review of the overall pattern of grading is necessary, if only to
provide an informal benchma±k, for the individual marker, but that Senate has no
intention of forcing any rigid "scaling" system bn'thetJriiversity.
/These...
•1
/
'i
a
2
These recommendations were followed for the Summer Semester 1966
grades and the comments from Department Heads were submitted to Senate in
November.
The Fall Semester 1966 grades were referred by the Committee of
Heads to the Faculties for discussion and comment. The only comment
received to date is contained in Dean Rieckhoff ppar 3F.
As
Registrar and chairman of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Admissions and Standings, I would strongly support the Faculty of Science
suggestion that we study the question of grading practices. There appears
to be general uneasiness about the disparities from course to course, and
from Department to Department.
The
Committee on Admissions and Standings
finds it difficult at times to make judgments on a student's right to
continue at the University because of these disparities.
D.P. Robertson
Registrar
40
1.
— n
—
C)
o e
C)
t —
V
VC)
o -
C
C) Q
C)
c•
: .
4-'
C.) 0
C)Qtl
U
.
>
00 C.)
C- -' -
C.)
4-'
c
41 V
C) C..
.1
1-Jo
00
ha
I—.
—
I r
C
r ett P
f
j
•(n
o
•-
4-'
Cd
tj: -'
4-I
C)
N
—
N
a.
c
o
—
•
-4
C.
N
w4r
CO
U).
%O
N
O
'C
•
N
'S
•
S
C
S
S
-
•
CO
.
-.
..-•
N
.
N.
.
-
I
CO
I.
C
N N NN N
-
N -
NNN
K) -
' —
0
K) N- C .4 U)
'
N- C
— U)
U)
(7
C
1
'C
0
N
.
N-
I
'.4
U)
So
C
•
Ln
.
.
I
•
S
I
S
5
c_ccU)CC
N K)
-
N
N
•
N r- '-4
—
•
It
r
*AT N--
N
L,)
N N-
- N K) 9-4
'.0
• 0
v tn N
N •o
0
- '-4 N
'0 •
—
U) Q N v
N
—4
K) N N K) U)
—
N N
N — C tfl N
'C
K)
N
K)
N C
— C
K) LI) — K)
—4
C4 L')
N-
U)
U) co tT K) v ,
(14
N
CO
'0
03
('4
'0
- N I I.f) q t
'C N
cl
03
-
-4
0
co
CO
('4
K)
—
? U)
N-
U)
.4
C
U)
.4
N- Ci
N
'C
L/)
K)
-4
—
K)
Fr K) s-I .4
U)
U)
N
'.4
K)
'C
K).
K)
N
'C N
C
CO
'C
N CO U) U) 0i
N
'N
K)
C
N
— K) - 1'- '
I
N
—
in
LI
K)
)
C
U)
s4
N- ('4
('4s-1
1'-
03
.-4
03
C)
IN
.4
T
N
C)
s-
le
i
N
p
N-
K)
CO
0
C
'C
P1)
'0
—
N-
K)
N-
0
L/)
LI)
'0
—
C)110,
03
N-
—
C N C)
P1)
K) -4 N- N
N-
C) — '.4 N-
N
P1)
CO
C
—4
('4 '.0 — U) C) 0
NN
-I
K)
('4K)
C)N
K) C)
CN(7.LflQ)
N-N —
.4
•
I,)
•5
U
1
,C
>
;-.
•
,
"4
U
-
'C)
4-'
C.
0
•.-I
.4
4J
u.
LL
•..I U
.0
C.
>1
0 C V)
0
—
U
4.
(
U)
C i - '
V°)
C
CC(t/).4
0
•
0
(I)
U)
E
U
. . .
o
--4
-
0
U C -4 -H 0
0
-tic
.0
C)
s-I
U.. tu M. U. C..
CE
-
.
a EMbt
s-
•
U
•
E
..c
'v
CC
W.
0
vx
Q
03
>
0.
C)
4.1
>,
00
C
0
"
J(J...,-4
.0
•
•'.
,1
U
wC.
=
U- (
U) .-i
C-
C-
C-
CO
U
'
0.
03
03 U) U) 0.
-
-
