TTU business school dean responds to investigation findings

Add Us On GoogleAdd as a preferred source on Google

From the Dean of Rawls College of Business Lance Nail

As you are aware, I received a copy of the Ad Hoc Committee's report regarding the grade changes in Dr. Jay Conover's spring 2015 ISQS 5345 course. Prior to my resignation as Dean, I had not had the opportunity to respond to the report; thus, I submit this response to be attached to the Committee's report.

The Committee's first charge was to determine whether the grade changes were justified.

I am aware of OP 34.03 which sets out the procedures for a student grade appeal. I will admit that I did not follow these procedures to the letter; however, this was an extraordinary case in which there was no way to follow the policy explicitly and allow deserving students to graduate. First, and foremost, I firmly believe that I acted in the best interest of students who were treated in an unfair manner by a professor who was unwilling to explain his grading decisions to them or to me. As I shared with you before, the college had received an earlier complaint of unfair grading by Dr. Conover.

In this instance, there were multiple graduate students who would have been required to fail his class and miss graduation to follow the prescribed operating policy.

This situation was very extraordinary on the following bases:

Grades were assigned by Dr. Conover to the students in mid-March as this was an eight week MBA course.
OP 34.03.1.d requires that only final grades can be appealed. The final grades could not be submitted and posted until the end of the semester, a few days before graduation. As such, it would be an absolute impossibility for any deserving student who should have their grade changed to be able to appeal the grade and have it changed prior to graduation.
This is the first time I have been faced with the situation under the new condensed semester format of our MBA program and our current operating policy does not offer an avenue of relief to students who formally appeal their grades during the semester because they are not “final” grades.
Multiple students offered evidence to me that Dr. Conover’s grading may not have been objective and stated that he refused to discuss his grading with them. Further, Dr. Conover would not address the students’ complaints when we met.
In order to determine whether or not the students could demonstrate their knowledge of the requisite material in the course, I authorized the development of an alternative exam developed by a professor who taught the same course in the MBA program. This was a comprehensive examination with 86 appropriately difficult questions based on the stated learning outcomes for the course. Those students who chose to take the test were graded by the professor who developed the test.
The alternate exam was not administered until Dr. Conover would not address the student complaints with me on April 29, 2015.
Further, on the afternoon of April 28, 2015 and morning of April 29, 2015 (before I met with Dr. Conover) I informed you of my intent to administer the alternative test if Dr. Conover didn’t address the students’ complaints when we met later on April 29th. Tests were administered and four of the students receiving grades of D’s and F’s from Dr. Conover were able to answer 80% or more of an 86-item comprehensive exam developed by the professor based on the stated learning outcomes for the course. A fifth student who complained about Dr. Conover’s grade made just over 60% on the alternate exam and his final grade was not changed from the original F assigned by Dr. Conover for he did not demonstrate a passing knowledge of the stated learning outcomes for the course. I had determined per Operating Policy 34.02 that the actions of Dr. Conover were arbitrary and capricious in his giving of grades based upon the complaints by students, my review of graded assignments that several of the students exhibited to me, and the results of the alternate exam.
The policy gives the Dean authority, even after the appeals committee, if he determines that the grades were based on arbitrary and capriciousness to change the grade.
The Committee determined that Dr. Conover did not engage in arbitrary or capricious grading practices. The Committee could have no basis for this as they did not interview a single student who complained. It was my understanding that every student who had registered a complaint would be interviewed by the Committee. Two of the students are currently employees of Texas Tech and could have easily appeared before the Committee. No professors were asked to address the Committee who had taught students who exhibited superior performance in statistics and who had failed Dr. Conover’s class and registered complaints of his unfair grading in a prior semester. The students had been assigned to another statistics class taught by another faculty member outside of the college due to the students having been in Dr. Conover’s class and requesting not to be required to take Dr. Conover again because of the way they were treated and graded. The faculty member believed these two students were very capable statistics students who earned high grades in the class she taught. Further, the student representative on the Committee was removed from the Committee before hearing all of the witnesses and was not replaced by another student.

Therefore, I disagree and cannot accept the Committee's findings that there was no arbitrary and capricious grading on the part of Dr. Conover when I believe that the Committee did not act in good faith to speak to any of the students or other witnesses who could attest to such.
Let me close by stating that I deeply regret any negative impact that this may have caused for the Rawls College of Business or Texas Tech University. I have loved being the Dean of what I feel is a college of great people and potential.

I hope that my resignation will allow for a favorable transition to many years of continued success for both the college and the university.