The Cavalier daily :: Tuesday, November 25, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

Two motions - both questioning the
institution of pass-fail courses - were
defeated by the College faculty last night
in the first of what might be a long line of
special sessions which will discuss the
report of the Curriculum Committee.

The motions were considered under
what David F. Shannon, Dean of the
Faculty, described as "rules of informal
consideration" in which motions to
amend are in order but only for the
purpose to "perfect language."

The College Faculty will continue to
consider the specific parts of the Curriculum
Committee's proposal in this fashion. After
consideration of specific points, the whole
proposal must be voted for approval.
Amendments may be made during the final
vote, but it is hoped that a step by step
consideration will reduce the number of last
minute amendments.

First Topic

The nature of pass-fail courses was the first
matter to be debated after the continuation of
general discussion on the philosophy of the
report was cut off about half way through the
meeting. At that time discussion was focused
on consideration of degree requirements, the
first of the specific areas taken up in the
committee's written proposal for curriculum
changes.

Contained in the section entitled "Degree
Requirements" was the committee's proposal
to allow eight semester courses to "be taken in
the College or elsewhere in the university on a
pass-fail basis and offered for a degree in the
College." The committee further suggested that
"no more than two courses during any one
semester may be taken on a pass-fail basis."

Discussion immediately centered about two
points of the pass-fail proposal which were later
to result in the two defeated amendments.

The first motion was made by Edward A.
Kolodziej, associate professor of Government
and Foreign Affairs, who questioned the
committee's reasons for increasing the number
of pass-fail course from the four of its interim
report to the eight of its final proposal.

Mr. Kolodziej's motion would have limited
the number of pass-fail courses to four, with no
more than one course in any semester taken on
a pass-fail basis. He argued that the faculty
should evaluate pass-fail courses for a year on
this basis and then make a decision to reduce or
increase the number of pass-fail courses.

In discussion supporting Mr. Kolodziej's
motion, other faculty members expressed fear
that graduate schools would be less likely to
accept students who had taken a large number
of pass-fail courses.

Eight Pass-Fails

Opponents of Mr. Kolodziej's motion stated
that students were not required to take eight
pass-fail courses. They claimed eight was not a
large number of pass-fail courses in a system
where students took five courses a semester.
Dante L. Germino, professor of Government
and Foreign Affairs, argued for retention of
eight pass-fail courses, asserting that such a
system was in accord with the committee
proposal's "basic assumption to shift
responsibility to the student."

Mr. Kolodziej's motion was defeated by a
vote of 110 to 69.

A second motion arose out of discussion of
how a pass-fail course was to be computed in a
student's grade point average. Under the
proposal of the committee, a student failing a
pass-fail course would receive no degree credit
for the course but would not have the "F"
averaged into his grade point average.

Paul T. David, professor of Government and
Foreign Affairs, presented a motion which
stated that pass-fail courses "graded F shall be
computed in the grade point average as course
attempted and failed; courses graded P shall not
affect the GPA." Faculty members arguing
against the motion by Mr. David stated that one
of the intents of pass-fail courses was to
encourage a student to take courses in areas
other than those in which he felt most familiar
and safe. Failing a pass-fail course, they argued,
should not damage his grade-point average.
They said the fact that a student would not
receive credit toward his degree for failing such
a course was enough punishment.

Mr. David's motion was defeated by a vote
of 89-68.

"Degree Requirements"

The faculty never got past the section on
"Degree Requirements," which were outlined
in the first two paragraphs of the Curriculum
Committee's four page proposal. Specific
proposals not yet considered include the
lowering of the requirement for foreign
language and the alternative of taking six hours
credit of "foreign culture," a liberalization of
the science, humanities and social sciences
requirements; the awarding of degree credit for
ROTC; removal of the requirement for physical
education; and the creation of a non-major
major or University major.

John Moore, chairman of the Curriculum
committee, noted that two other areas the
comprehensive examination and the University
Major were mentioned in the section on
Degree Requirements, but suggested that these
points would be best considered in a later
section of the committee report.

Another special session of the November 18
faculty meeting, when discussion on the
Curriculum Committee's report first took place,
will be held at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2
in Wilson Hall auditorium. The next regular
College Faculty meeting is scheduled for
December 17.