University of Texas School of Law - Peregrinus Yearbook (Austin, TX)

Page 13 text:

r«’v 5 AROUND TOWNES 1990 PEREGRINUS A Shift to Lcttets — 9

Page 12 text:

AROUND TOWNES 1990 PEREGRINUS A SHIFT TO LETTERS The most significant change to the law school’s academic structure in recent years was the adoption of a new grading system, taking effect in the fall of 1990. On Monday, April 16, 1990, the facility approved the recommendation of the Standards and Rules studcnt faculty committee that the current numerical system be abolished, and that grades be allotted according to an updated advisoty curve using the letters A+, A, A-, B+-, B, B-, C+, C, D and F. The advisory curve will be higher, and uniform for both first-year students and upperclassmen. Professor David Robertson and Associate Dean Julius Getman initiated this year's discussion with their proposal that frcshlaws be graded on a Pass Fail basis for their first semester and or entire first year. Robertson and Getman recognized a great deal of competition and anxiety among freshlaws, stemming in part from the 55 to 91 grading scale and unduly harsh fresh law curve. 1 had the fortune, along with Monica Freeman-Brennan and Heather Burris, of being a student selected for the committee as it evaluated the issues. Eight faculty members served as voting committee members, including Professor John Sampson who presided as chairman. From the outset, everyone on the committee acknowledged the problems sparking the Rob-ertson-German proposal, but most were not willing to go to a Pass Fail system as a solution. After a couple of meetings, the committee voted almost unanimously to raise the freshlaw curve to equal the upperclass curve. This was so that more students could receive good” grades, and to recognize the obsolescence of the low curve’s previous function of ’’weeding out” poor students. Other meetings focused on the nomen- by Michael O. Whitmire daturc of the grading system, that is, whether to use numbers or letters for official reporting purposes. The purpose of a 55 to 91 scale seemed confusing to both students and employers, and there were indications that some employers — particularly those out of state — thought that a realistic top grade was '’100' and did not adjust when comparing UT students with other law students. Monica Frccman-Brennan came up with the idea of doing a student survey to demonstrate what we felt was an overwhelming student dissatisfaction with the grading system — although we were not sure how well the faculty on the committee understood. By the end of January, Monica had spent a great deal of time tallying the figures, typing all of the student comments, and compiling them into a packet for all the members of the committee. As a pleasant surprise, the strong student opposition to the grading system, combined with a multitude of well-written poignant comments, really made an impact on some of the faculty on the committee. There was a lot of informal bantering regarding how the committee should address the concerns. Professors Powers, Robertson and Wellborn came up with a proposal based on student sentiment that we adopt an A B C D F system with a totally new curve. The committee had taken the survey to heart, and overwhelmingly adopted this proposal by a 9-2 vote shortly before spring break. Just after spring break, Chairman Sampson submitted the committee's recommendation to Dean Mark Yudof so that he could call a faculty meeting. After a couple of weeks, Yudof finally called a meeting for the faculty to vote on the issue. In the meantime, there was a flood of memos from the faculty. The most significant one was from Professor Joseph Dodge who suggested that a system including pluses and minuses would be better. The members of the committee had anticipated such an amendment surfacing at the meeting, and a survey by Wellborn indicated that the faculty was leaning in that direction. The committee met one last rime prior to the faculty meeting to discuss our proposal. We were concerned about the possibility of proposed amendments at the faculty meeting to our recommendation. We knew that a discussion of all the issues would take too long and meaningful evaluation would get bogged down — whereby we might be stuck with the numerical system. Thus, for political purposes, we amended the A B C D F proposal to include pluses and minuses. At the faculty meeting, the issue was discussed for more than two hours. Because there were many sub-issues involved with the recommendation, several faculty members did indeed want to discuss them. Dean Yudof had to call for several non-binding straw votes” to determine if there was a strong feeling one way or another on the issues and to narrow them down. In the end, the consensus seemed to be that since the committee had discussed many of the issues and concluded with the submitted proposal, that a rehashing or drafting session with the entire faculty would waste time and be unproductive. Hence, the proposal passed by a 25 to 8 margin, with two abstentions. The students on the committee were pleased with the change, and that the faculty had been responsive to student input and concerns. 8 — A Shift to Lctten

Page 14 text:

AROUND TOWNES 1990 PEREGRINUS TROUBLED TIMES FOR THE LIBRARY The University’s Board of Regents recently approved a $7 increase in the law school tuition per credit hour to directly benefit the Tartlton Law Library. The tuition increase took effect in summer 1990 but the future for the library’s funding is still uncertain. Tarlton's Associate Director of Research, Gary Hartman, termed the library's situation as an emergency” and thinks the Texas Legislature will have to provide the ultimate answer by further appropriations. Tarlton is the nation's fifth-largest law library in terms of volumes held, but promises to fall if current trends continue. In a 1988 survey at the 175 ABA-approved law schools, Tarlton ranked only 25th in irs annual book budget and 30th in by Michael O. Whitmire volumes added for the previous year. The library has held similarly weak rankings in other areas for several years. Guy Wellborn, an Associate Dean of the School of Law, acknowledged the emergency nature of the situation, but he believes that tuition increases will provide the solution through periodic adjustments, perhaps every three to five years. The library's costs keep rising but the legislature has been reluctant to provide any substantial boost to Tarlton's funds. As Wellborn explained in an interview, the bulk of the library's purchases are non-discretion ary (e.g., magazine subscriptions, continuing volumes to a reporter series) and the costs of such books steadily increase. In fact, this year Dean Mark Yudof was forced to supplement necessary library expenses by taking money from the Dean's Discretionary Fund. The fund is designed not to be used for expenses within the law school's academic structure, but for unbudgeted circumstances such as the special needs of student organizations. A Special Committee of the Board of Visitors, a group of alumni, submitted a report in April, 1989 stating that a $300,000 per year increase in funds was needed simply to keep the library's book-buying ability at an adequate level. The committee mentioned several possible methods of obtaining the funds but concluded 10 — Troubled Time foe the Library