As a result, the EPC cannot endorse the specific Resolutions as written, while we applaud the efforts of the Trustees to stimulate discussions among all members of the University. Faculty have the responsibility and the prerogative to judge student academic performance by criteria they deem appropriate. While the EPC acknowledges that faculty have the right to adopt their own grading criteria and policies, we also acknowledge that faculty have several responsibilities. First, faculty must ensure that their grading policies are not capricious but are consonant with the goals and objectives of the course and the discipline. Second, faculty should engage in regular discussions within their department concerning grading practices and standards, as well as other equally important issues such as curriculum, methods of course design and assessment of student learning, and how faculty evaluate and learn from these assessments.
Mechanisms exist and are used to control irresponsible grading practices.
The EPC therefore endorses the Trustees' statement that departments should engage in discussions regarding grading policies, but we would suggest that these discussions be broadened in scope beyond the Trustees' Resolution, and that they do not abridge the faculty's fundamental freedom in how they assess student academic performance. An inevitable consequence of different grading policies is that the meaning of grades is often not clear. Students often make decisions about their aptitude for a subject, and the courses they wish to take or avoid, on the basis of erroneous assumptions concerning their grades. Whether or not grade inflation exists is not relevant to the issue of grade indexing. The BFC.EPC has held numerous discussions with the Registrar during the 1995-96 academic year.