|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Yaacov on Tuesday, May 17 2005 @ 10:49 AM CDT |
It is pretty clear why they are changing the rules, because if they don't a significant section of the class in question will be forced to end their studies.
That's an answer that doesn't really help. I know the obvious reason for which the rule change is being advanced. What I'm interested in knowing, and what I asked questions about, is why this situation has arisen and why that policy is the best one. In the architecture situation, admin told us that the profs voted for it, but that's not a root cause anymore than saying "20% of students are failing" is a root cause of this policy.
If those students really cannot meet reasonable standards, they should be failing out. If the standards are not reasonable, they should be changed, not bypassed. If the standards are sensible, but the way we teach is unsuitable to 20% of the students, then teaching methods need to be changed. Whichever it is, we need to take a closer look at why this has happened and what it says about the program, rather than just saying, "Oops, we want a higher graduation rate, so let's just change the rules to make that happen."
Graduation rate should be a relection of academic success of the students in the program, not some preset number that we play with academic requirements in order to achieve.
---
"an ideology is a thought—economizing device" - Moisés Naim[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
