1. Summary of SILS Grading Practices April 28, 2010

2. Basis for analysis “ Regular ” SILS courses ▫ Excludes courses with enrollment under 6 ( grad or undergrad ) ▫ Excludes independent studies, master ’ s papers, and dissertations / theses Courses offered during Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 Averages / percentages weighted by number of students in class

3. Grading of undergraduate courses Overall GPA = 3.38 (3.3 = B +) Fall 2008 data include : ▫ 12 courses, taught by 12 different instructors Spring 2009 data include : ▫ 13 courses, taught by 13 different instructors 7 courses were included in both the analyses of undergraduate and graduate grades

4. Analysis of UG GPA by course level

5. Analysis of UG GPA by type of instructor

6. Analysis of UG GPA for required courses

7. Comparison with other schools/depts at UNC

8. Conclusions: UG grading No big differences by course level No big differences by type of instructor No big differences by whether the course is required SILS is relatively high, compared to others at UNC Individual extremes ▫ 11 of 25 courses had average GPA over 3.5 (9 instructors ) ▫ 4 of 25 courses had average GPA over 3.7 (4 instructors )

9. Grading of graduate courses In F 08, 49% H ’ s ; in S 09, 52% H ’ s Fall 2008 data include : ▫ 47 courses taught by 37 different instructors Spring 2009 data include : ▫ 47 courses, taught by 37 different instructors 7 courses were included in both the analyses of undergraduate and graduate grades

10. Analysis of graduate grades by course level

11. Analysis of graduate grades by type of instructor

12. Analysis of graduate grades by requirement level

13. Conclusions: Graduate grading A slightly higher proportion of H ’ s is assigned in 400- level courses (461, 490) No big differences by type of instructor No big differences by whether course is required Individual extremes ▫ 47 of 94 courses with 50% or more H ’ s (36 instructors ) ▫ 30 of 94 courses with 67% or more H ’ s (25 instructors ) ▫ 6 of 94 courses with 95% or more H ’ s (6 instructors )

14. Discussion Are these grading practices acceptable ? If not, what action should be taken by whom ?