Senate
revisits Puvungna, plus-minus grading
By
Joseph Serna
Online Forty-Niner
Assistant City Editor
Associated Students Senate passed two Puvungna-related resolutions Wednesday,
one calling for the protection of the land, and the second calling for open,
student-involved discussions on the fate of the land.
The second resolution is necessary because, though the Senate may pass a resolution
calling for protection of the land, the Senate legally has no power over Puvungna.
The “Protection of the Tongva and Acjacheman Sacred land of Puvungna
at California State University, Long Beach” resolution, introduced by
Sen. Elisa Herrera, College of Education, was passed unanimously by 19 of the
20 senators, with Vice President Hironao Okahana abstaining.
“
I want this resolution to express that for students and ASI… this land
is irreplaceable…and we want to protect this land,” Herrera told
the Senators before the vote. “Even though [building facilities on the
land] might be nice, it boils down to the fact that it’s sacred land.”
“
If you don’t vote for this, it’s going to be a pretty strong interpretation
on how this land is going to be used,” said faculty adviser Wayne Dick.
The second resolution, “Calling for Discussion Concerning the Historic
Site of Puvungna,” was sponsored by Sen. Mike Emenhiser, College of Business,
Sen. Amin Km, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, and Okahana.
The resolution calls for any discussions on the site to be a collaborative
effort of “local Native American communities, the California Native American
Heritage Commission and the university community, including students, faculty
and staff,” according to the document.
Later, Praveen Soni, chairman of the ad-hoc committee on grading options, specifically
the plus-minus option, gave a presentation of the committee’s findings.
Soni, also an academic senator and professor of marketing, presented four possible
options if plus-minus grading were to be initiated at Cal State Long Beach.
The first option presents a plus or minus option for each letter grade, except
for a failure. Only an A+ or A would count as 4 points, while an A- would become
3.7 points. The disadvantage to that fact, Soni points out, is that while a
B+ is worth more than a B (3.3 vs. 3.0), a C+ is worth more than a C (2.3 vs.
2.0), and a D+ is worth more than a D (1.3 vs. 1.0), only for the A grade does
the plus not reward the student.
It provides no motivation for a student to try for an A+, the committee concluded.
However, the committee also believes the change in points could provide the
initiative for a student to work for the higher grade, with the exception of
the A. They also found that admissions officers for graduate school would have
no reason to doubt the validity of a student’s grade point average because
they could distinguish a B- student from a B+ student.
A second option, eliminating the C- option from the scale, would protect those
on academic probation and athletes who need at least a 2.0 GPA to be in good
standing with the university.
A third option is to also eliminate the B- option, keeping CSULB consistent
with both its B grade and C grade standards.
The fourth and final option would maintain the plus-minus scale for all letters,
similar to option 1, but would not change the point total for either a plus
or a minus.
This would allow for accurate grading for professors, distinguishing the work
of their students. The committee concluded that the fourth “hybrid” option
would allow a B+ student to point to the plus as a sign of achievement on their
resume, while a B- student can point to their GPA with equal confidence.
Soni fielded concerns about the subjectivity of professors’ grading,
and said numerous studies have showed little change in the GPA of the overall
student body after the plus-minus grading option was implemented at different
universities.
The committee made no recommendations, instead leaving it up to the Senators
to discuss and eventually vote on in the coming weeks.
|
