Student Assembly

Dear President Skorton,

I would like to formally communicate to you Resolution 53: Regarding the Proposed Final Exam Schedule, sponsored by Executive Vice President Sarah Balik and Vice President of Finance Geoffrey Block. The resolution is a recommendation to the University Registrar advocating for Scenario 2 of the three scenarios for the final exam schedule that were sent to both the GPSA and the SA. The resolution also includes a memo that is to be forwarded to the University Registrar, though parts of it are probably more relevant to the Provost.

The SA voted today to endorse Scenario 2 that was proposed by the Registrar. SA members, including the seniors, felt that this was the option that would benefit the widest array of students.

The members discussed at length, and the memo reflects these sentiments, the lingering issue of the level of participation in this process. The shared governance structure of Cornell, in theory, allows for the participation of each of the constituent groups in not only many of the discussions that occur before a decision is made, but also in the actual decision-making process. In this instance, the members of the SA in 2011–2012 spoke vehemently against the changes to the academic calendar, citing mostly reasons related to mental health and the welfare of the undergraduate population. As the memo expresses, these were largely disregarded and the calendar changes are now being enacted.

What seemed to trouble the members was the lack of interest in the opinion of the undergraduate population. While we cannot speak for our colleagues in the GPSA, the SA overwhelmingly felt that the 24-hour turnaround time, which has essentially yielded in no period for feedback, was a slap in the face (for lack of a better term). Many SA members raised questions about why we were even bringing the resolution forward because they felt that the decision has already been made, given that we are expected to give our feedback so this can be published at 8am.

The foundation of our shared governance system is the idea of participatory governance. When members of the constituent groups are asked to participate in the process, they do so willingly because they believe that their opinions have some weight. They believe that participation means participation in the actual decision-making process, not merely the discussion phase. Otherwise, this is just a mere consultation. The memo seemed to get at that point.

The memo also discussed the impact of the calendar changes and final exam schedule on international students. It cannot be emphasized enough that the international population is integral to Cornell being an international research institution. It is incredibly disheartening that with the new changes these students now have to wait to purchase their tickets home or to other places, given that prices for travel are already pretty high. While the memo does not address this, I want to also state that students from low-income backgrounds also have to cope with that change.

The resolution also seeks to ensure that the process for determining these changes is better conceived and executed in the future, particularly that there is more time to give adequate feedback. Additionally, I am including the Dean of the Faculty on this email because the resolution stipulates that he be included, particularly in regard to the clarification and enforcement of the exam conflict policy.

The resolution and memo are attached for your reference. Please note that the amendment to endorse Scenario 2 is not reflected on this hard copy because our clerks have not had time to put it in the system, given the short window we have for conveying this resolution. The amendment to endorse Scenario 2 reads as follows:

“Be it further resolved that the Student Assembly recommends that the Registrar strongly consider weighing large classes finishing early in the final exam algorithm as this scenario will benefit the most students.”

Best,

Ulysses