The Registrar's office asked us if we could remove our grade data from Coursicle (which is public data, by the way, which you can get via a FOIA request) because they were afraid of further scrutiny regarding easy A classes for athletes. In order to keep good relations with UNC, we complied, but we said we wanted to start on the path toward getting some sort of data on the quality of courses/professors, so they said they'd have us pitch our case to the Educational Policy Committee. It was a pretty bullshit meeting.read more
Two professors really hated me, a bunch were neutral or didn't speak, and then there was one guy who was really for it. But like, dude, the ones who were against were really dicks. Anyway, Karthik is on the committee, because he must have been appointed by Powell Or maybe the guy before Powell He didn't speak at all, just took notes. I was just wondering if you think he'd be up for it. Because I'm pretty sure he has a vote. I think they're just advising the Registrar on what to do, but the Registrar wants to do it. He just wants "faculty to be aware of it". But like, they were making some good points saying that students shouldn't be making decisions on what classes to take based on grade data, so I rebutted with the fact that we're adding "contextualized transcripts" which will discourage students from taking classes just because of grades. So I essentially was like "look, we just want some data to supplement what we have already" "We would prefer to have data such as course evaluations" It's just nuts dude, these are the faculty that are representing all the professors in the university. It's just that like one professor was like "well if we published grade data, then students could figure out who got what grades if they colluded" And I said "well, UNC would not provide grade data for classes with fewer than 12 students, and it's very statistically improbable that such an instance would be possible for classes with a larger size" And yeah about the new transcript, one professor, who was one who was really against the idea, was like "well, I've worked here for 30 years, and I think it's unreasonable to think that students will change behavior with the new transcript. I think it'll be 10 years before students actually realize what the contextual grading means" Which is like What??? how stupid do you think we are that it would take us 10 years to realize what it means that our percentile in the class is included. This one guy, Jeff Spinner-Halev, was super for it. Do you know him? And then that same professor who thought it would take 10 years was like "well why don't you just have students post their comments and rate the difficulty on your site individually, rather than using our data" and I was like "okay, dude, two reasons. Self-selectivity and small sample sizes. If we did that, then our data would be no better than blinkness or rate my professor. Students who hate the class and love the class are more likely to respond. Additionally, a very small fraction of the class would actual respond, and such a small sample would not be a good representation of the population of students who took that class" The professors name who was saying all the dumb things was "Theresa Raphael-Grimm". dude lol omg her bio "Her primary clinical and research interests are in biases" WHAT ABOUT SELF-SELECTION BIAS So Chris, the registrar, told us in June that we should have the grade data by the end of August...which was just too optimistic (according to what Candy, the director of ConnectCarolina who is my primary contact at ITS, said). Now, Candy thinks that this is going to take months for them to decide. When we started, Chris was like "Joe's here to talk to us about the request and ultimately we would like to accept the request" also, before I even sat down when I entered the room, Mark Schoenfisch (chem professor), was like "Why is it okay for students to make decisions based on grade data?" and it was like dude calm down. So the head of the committee was like "why don't we give him a chance to introduce himself first, and then we'll move to questions". It just seemed like the people who were against were like pissed at us for even asking. Jennifer Coble. Neutral: http://bio.unc.edu/people/faculty/coble/ Lauren Leve. Neutral, leaning against: https://religion.unc.edu/people/current-faculty. Theresa Raphael-Grimm. Against. https://www.google.com/search?q=Raphael-Grimm+Theresa&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Da8RVI3VKejjsATe0ILwDA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1068&bih=808 Kristin Reiter. Neutral? Don’t remember. http://sph.unc.edu/profiles/kristin-reiter-phd/ Mark Schoenfisch. Against. http://www.chem.unc.edu/people/faculty/schoenfisch/ Gigi Shemer. Neutral, leaning against. http://bio.unc.edu/people/faculty/shemer/ Jeff Spinner-Halev. Very pro. http://spinhalev.web.unc.edu/ Karthik Sundaram. Neutral (didn’t talk). http://sph.unc.edu/cphm/news-releases-15/karthik-sundaram-i-like-to-think-ive-helped-a-little/ Goethe Vaidyanathan. Neutral (didn’t talk). http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/profiles/vaidyanathan.htm Kimberly Kassiladis. Neutral (didn’t talk). https://www.google.com/search?q=Vassiliadis+Kimberley&oq=Vassiliadis+Kimberley&aqs=chrome..69i57.370j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=Kimberley+Vassiliadis+unc Against sort of against neutral sort of for for xx x xxxxxx x Plus Chris and Panter, both for?