Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:09:32.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appeals Day: A Study of Academic Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Kenneth J. Reichstein  and
Ronald M. Pipkin
Kenneth J. Reichstein
Affiliation:
Temple University
Ronald M. Pipkin
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is well established that educational attainment is related to career opportunities. Increasingly, society is requiring highly trained personnel for more complex jobs. A college education is becoming an essential part of the normal preparation for many occupations.

Type
Standards of Judgment
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , February 1968 , pp. 259 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 by the Law and Society Association

References

1. B. R. Clark, The “Cooling-Out” Function in Higher Education, 65 Am. J. Sociology 570 (May 1960).

2. Most of the descriptive material in this section came from an interview with the associate dean and from the materials he made available. Also, the senior author was a faculty judge in the proceedings.

3. Students who are dropped in the semester prior to their graduation but who have otherwise met the graduation requirements are graduated without appeal.

4. GUIDELINES FOR APPEALS

You are free to readmit or deny readmission on any basis you may consider appropriate. We will, however, consider some guidelines during the briefing session. Broadly speaking, there are two basic considerations: (1) the likelihood of the student's completing the second semester successfully; and (2) whether or not the person deserves to continue in view of the particular set of circumstances in which he finds himself.

Points under likelihood of success are as follows:

  1. a.

    a. Past college grades are the best predictors of future college grades. A poor first semester usually means a poor second semester.

  2. b.

    b. Bright students who have not done well academically are unlikely to improve suddenly. A substantial lapse of time or significant change in their activities is usually desirable.

  3. c.

    c. Factors such as illness, employment, emotional upset, family stresses, and the like, seldom change significantly from one semester to the next.

  4. d.

    d. Next to past college grades are test scores : if they are high, there is more hope; if they are low and the grades are low, there is little hope.

  5. e.

    e. The student who was just readmitted this past fall and again earned less than a C average, probably should not be readmitted.

  6. f.

    f. The student who is within 45 credits of his degree is more likely to succeed than the freshman or sophomore, other things being equal.

Points to consider under deserving of another chance:

  1. a.

    a. The student who has simply neglected his academic work but states boldly he has turned over a new leaf probably should not be allowed to continue. Attitudes toward academic work are slow in changing.

  2. b.

    b. The student may simply have had poor luck. For example, in his freshman year he may have been put on strict probation, then had successfully completed two or three semesters but now earns a D in a four credit course and the rest C's. In cases where the automatic system seems unfair in a particular case, readmission is probably in order.

5. J. H. Skolnick, The Sociology of Law in America: Overview and Trends, Law and Society: A Supplement to Social Problems, 27 (Summer 1965).

6. See H. W. Baade (ed.), Jurimetrics, 28 Law & Contemp. Prob. 1-270 (Winter 1963); G. A. Schubert, Quantitative Analysis of Judicial Behavior (1959); and Judicial Decision-Makinc (G. A. Schubert ed. 1963); Judicial Behavior (G. A. Schubert ed. 1964).

7. F. Kort, Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Mathematically : A Quantitative Analysis of “Right to Counsel” Cases, 51 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1-12 (March 1957); F. M. Fisher, The Mathematical Analysis of Supreme Court Decision: The Use and Abuse of Quantitative Methods, 52 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 339-48 (June 1958); S. Nagel, Using Simple Calculations to Predict Judicial Decision, Am. Behavioral Scientist 24-28 (Dec. 1960).

8. H. Oliphant, A Return to Stare Decisis, 14 Am. B. A. J. 71-73 (1928).

9. E. Green, Judicial Attitudes in Sentencing (1961).

10. T. Sellin, Race Prejudice in the Administration of Justice, 51 Am. J. Sociology 212-17 (Sept. 1935); R. Martin, The Defendant and Criminal Justice (U. Tex. Bull. No. 3437: Bureau of Research in the Social Sciences, Study No. 9, Oct. 1934); E. M. Lemert & J. Rosberg, The Administration of Justice to Minority Groups in Los Angeles County, II, No. 1 U. Cal. Publications in Culture and Soc. 1-28 (1948); F. Gaudet, Individual Differences in the Sentencing Tendencies of Judges, 32 Archives of Psychology (1938).

11. Some limited data on 207 students dropped after the first semester, 1962-1963, were provided by the associate dean. An analysis was made, relating return after time out of school to grade point average the first semester of their return to school. Return after school was divided into return after no time out (or being allowed to continue), return after one semester, and return after one year or longer. Grade Point Average was divided into above and below a two point. Although the finding was not statistically significant, the longer the time out of school, the less likely the student was to make a two point the semester of his return. Since there was no random assignment of students to create a true experiment, the students who were allowed to continue were very much likely to have had higher grades than the group that spent time out. Nevertheless, there is no empirical support for the contention that waiting the time out is beneficial, especially where it is imposed rather than chosen freely.

12. For a definition of the universalism-particularism pattern variable, see T. Parsons, The Social System 62, 63 (1951).

13. J. H. Skolnick, Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society 73-77 (1966).

14. The four cases of unfairness were ones where student's characteristics of demeanor and status, and statements uttered were the primary basis for the decision. Grades were discounted. The first student had a cumulative GPA of 1.81 and a semester GPA of 1.75. The following is a description of his reappeal hearing by one of the committee members. The two other members gave similar descriptions.

He was immaculately dressed and I noticed he had a close grade-point. But then he began to talk. He tried to sell us a shoddy bill of goods about getting a girl pregnant—her abortion and attempted suicide. This kid was a bad egg, a total waste. I immediately voted to drop.

The second student had a cumulative GPA of 1.80 and a semester GPA of 1.92. The following description was given by one member of the committee. The evaluation of the other two agreed with this one.

X was a fairly bright boy but he had a weird personal appearance—a Beatle haircut. He said he wanted an understanding of his personality but he placed it on a personal basis. We all agreed he had a bad record.

The third student also had high grades and was close to graduation, but was not readmitted because of his poor academic attitude.

The fourth case was one of reverse discrimination. Here a Negro student with low grades was readmitted.

15. See D. L. Smith, Robert King Merton: From Middle Range to Middle Road, Catalyst 11-40 (Summer 1966).