Editorial

EPPC Proposal is Incomplete

On Tuesday, Dec. 10, the College faculty will vote on a motion from the Educational Plans and Policy Committee that eliminates CR/NE in favor of a pass/no pass system, which adds the grades of D and F, and limits its use to only four times per College career. The proposed plan seeks to eliminate the problem of “informal dropping” and doubts of the Oberlin transcript being an accurate indicator of a student’s academic work, while maintaining the freedom for academic exploration that CR/NE allows. This plan is incomplete though, and should be tabled until other aspects of academic policy are considered, such as credit value, semester credit requirments and reading period length. CR/NE, while it can contribute to difficulty of getting into classes, is more importantly an academic defense against Oberlin’s other, more pressing, academic policy ails.
The EPPC, in discussing informal dropping and the accuracy of the Oberlin transcript, uses only one variable, the student. It figures that approximately four percent of students informally drop a course each semester. Also, while the EPPC does not state either way whether the transcript would make a student look better or worse, CR/NE is most often considered a way to make a student’s GPA pristine. In this the variable is again the student, as if to imply that an Oberlin student does not earn their transcript. No consideration is made to other academic policies that contribute to difficulty of getting classes or negative reflections of a GPA.
Along with informal dropping, factors including class year limits or inconsistent wait-list methods among faculty contribute to registration difficulty. These are larger problems. The first dictates when a student can easily explore all academic fields. The second leads to too many time consuming e-mails, meetings and headaches that detract from class work and learning.
The amount of credit that a course is worth must be addressed first or concurrently. For example, a studio art course earns only 3 credit hours while spending 6 hours in class, and approximately 20 out of class. With the requirement of an average 14 hours a semester, unmanagable and unhealthy work loads are created. CR/NE is a valuable tool in aleviating this stress. It can actually promote a more accurate transcript, as it can help balance the negative inaccuracies of poorly weighted credit values. It should not be removed unless credit value is altered.
CR/NE is not used to purposefully explore classes that one would not normally take, and it can be abused. It is, however, currently a way of making up for other academic policy mistakes. CR/NE extends a great respect to the student body, acknowledging that there are problems with many policies, but stating that those problems will not be taken out on the student’s health, well-being, or transcript. Until those problems are gone, that respectful acknowledgment must not be removed. EPPC should, again, reintroduce a similar proposal in the future, but one that includes other problems and that has student involvment in constructing the proposal. In the mean time, they should focus on extending reading period.
The length of reading period is another factor ignored by the proposed policy. Currently, reading period is three days long, two days of which are a weekend and too often encourages body abuse for the sake of grades. It is not uncommon for caffeine kiosks to sprout up in Mudd’s a-level during finals, encouraging already mind-warped students to drink that last can of Red Bull (or “Blue Ox,” offered free to students in the DeCafé last semester) and write one more paragraph. Even worse is the quiet but consistent consumption of drugs like Aderol that some students see as the only answer to limited time to finish loads of work. This is certainly not healthy nor educationally sound. The unnecessary stress of reading period contributes to the decision that so many Oberlin students make to study abroad, not so much for the “foreign experience” but more for the chance to “get out of Oberlin.” Does this stress produce an accurate transcript of student work? The problem has thin connections to CR/NE, but is a serious academic flaw that CR/NE currently aleviates. Surely, the trust that CR/NE is an option can help alleviate that stress. Not considering CR/NE, the reading period length is a huge problem and should be the focus of future EPPC proposals.
The Review asks that the College faculty support healthy and diverse exploration of all fields of study, and not pull out CR/NE, which is currently an essential crutch for currently undisscused academic problems.