In higher education, the evaluation of academic work by instructors is generally accepted. However, situations arise where students may believe their grades are unfair or inaccurate. At the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA), a structured process exists to address these concerns, ensuring fairness while respecting academic expertise. This guide outlines the grade appeal process within LSA, providing clarity for students who feel their grades require further review.
Grounds for Initiating a Grade Appeal in LSA
It’s crucial to understand that simply disagreeing with a grade is not sufficient grounds for an appeal. The LSA grade appeal process is specifically designed to review cases of alleged capricious grading, not to re-evaluate an instructor’s academic judgment. Capricious grading is defined by the following circumstances:
- Grading Based on Non-Performance Factors: Assigning a grade based on criteria unrelated to a student’s actual performance in the course.
- Unequal Application of Standards: Holding a student to stricter or more demanding standards compared to other students in the same course.
- Significant Deviation from Announced Standards: Grading in a manner that substantially departs from the grading criteria communicated by the instructor at the beginning of the course.
It’s important to note what the grade appeal process is not for. It is not intended to question an instructor’s professional judgment in assessing the quality of a student’s work. Furthermore, disagreements based solely on perceived differences in grading rigor between instructors are not considered valid grounds for appeal. The process exists to correct demonstrably unjust grades, offering students a pathway for redress when genuine issues of fairness arise.
Navigating the LSA Grade Appeal Adjudication Process: A Step-by-Step Guide
The University of Michigan LSA has established a clear, multi-step process for students wishing to formally appeal a grade. This process is designed to be thorough yet respectful of both student concerns and faculty expertise. Here is a detailed breakdown of the adjudication process:
Step 1: Initial Consultation with the Instructor
The first step in addressing a grade concern is direct communication. Within two weeks of the start of the semester following the one in which the grade was received, the student should contact the instructor who assigned the grade. This communication should be in writing, clearly outlining the student’s concerns and requesting a meeting to discuss the grade.
During this meeting, the instructor is expected to explain the rationale behind the assigned grade, providing the student an opportunity to highlight any perceived errors or misunderstandings. If the instructor was a Graduate Student Instructor (GSI), the student should first consult with the GSI. If a resolution isn’t reached with the GSI, the student should then contact the faculty member in charge of the course. If the instructor is unavailable, the student should proceed directly to Step 2.
For grades received in the Fall term, this step should ideally be completed by January 30th of the following year. For Spring, Summer, or Winter term grades, the deadline is September 30th. Grievances outside these timeframes are considered only in exceptional circumstances.
Step 2: Engaging the PICS Director
If the initial meeting with the instructor does not resolve the student’s concerns, the next step involves the Director of the Program in International and Comparative Studies (PICS). The student should discuss the issue with the PICS Director and submit a formal written complaint detailing the nature of the grievance.
The PICS Director will then solicit a response from the instructor. Based on the complaint and the instructor’s response, the Director will determine if sufficient grounds exist to warrant a committee hearing. If the PICS Director is involved in the grievance, the Director of the International Institute will assume this role.
Step 3: Director’s Assessment and Hearing Determination
If the PICS Director concludes that the complaint does not present sufficient grounds for a committee hearing, the student will be informed of this decision. However, even if the Director advises against it, the student retains the right to insist on a formal committee hearing.
Step 4: Formation of an Ad Hoc Review Committee
If the PICS Director determines that a basis for a hearing exists, or if the student insists on a hearing, the grievance is then referred to an ad hoc review committee. This committee is specifically constituted to review the particular case and is appointed by the PICS Director (or the Director of the International Institute if applicable).
The review committee consists of three members: two faculty members and one student. The student member’s status (undergraduate or graduate) will match that of the student filing the grievance.
Step 5-9: Review Committee Findings and Program Director’s Decision
The review committee’s process involves careful consideration of the student’s grievance, the instructor’s perspective, and the course materials. After review, the committee submits a written summary of their findings and recommendations to both the instructor and the PICS Director.
- Committee Recommends Upholding the Grade: If the committee concludes that the original grade was fair, the PICS Director will inform the student in writing that the grade will stand and that no further appeal is possible within the International Studies Program.
- Committee Recommends Grade Change: If the committee finds that the instructor’s grading was not fair, proper, or judicious, the PICS Director will attempt to persuade the instructor to implement the committee’s recommendations and change the grade.
- Instructor Refusal: If the instructor refuses to change the grade despite the committee’s recommendation and the PICS Director’s persuasion, the instructor must provide a written explanation for their refusal to both the student and the PICS Director. The PICS Director will then provide the student with a written statement summarizing the entire appeal process, including the review committee’s recommendations, the Director’s own evaluation, and the instructor’s refusal.
Step 10: Finality within the Program
It is critical to understand that the procedures outlined represent the complete grade appeal mechanism available within the International Studies Program at LSA. Once these steps have been exhausted, no further appeal within the Program is possible.
Exception for Unavailable Instructors
An exception to the initial consultation step exists when the instructor is no longer affiliated with the University of Michigan. In such cases, a student can directly present their grievance to the review committee without prior discussion with the instructor. The committee will attempt to contact the former instructor to gather their perspective and formulate a recommendation. If contacting the instructor proves unsuccessful, the Program Director, in consultation with the committee, may approve a grade change.
Conclusion: Ensuring Fairness and Maintaining Academic Standards
The University of Michigan LSA grade appeal process is a testament to the institution’s commitment to both fairness and academic integrity. It provides a structured avenue for students to address legitimate concerns about capricious grading while simultaneously upholding the principle of instructor expertise in academic evaluation. By understanding the grounds for appeal and the step-by-step procedures, students can effectively navigate this process should the need arise, ensuring their academic experience is both rigorous and equitable.
