SLC addresses student concerns on attendance, course availability and assessments
By Anna Maxwell, March 18 2025—
Vice President Academic Jessie Dinh provided a consultation at the Feb. 25th Student Legislative Council (SLC) meeting on supplemental fees, course availability and term break assessments.
Dinh outlined that the purpose of the consultation was to touch base with counsellors and provide a forum to get feedback proactively rather than at the end of the semester.
“I’m getting a lot of emails from students after the fact, and I am trying to mitigate those concerns before time progresses and they get worse,” said Dinh.
The council brought forth a variety of concerns to Dinh regarding attendance policy, course availability and other course-specific issues.
Faculty of Medicine Representative Hannah Kim questioned Dinh about TopHat usage for mandatory attendance and how it can be used under university policy. Dinh explained that the current attendance policy states that no classes can mandate taking attendance, though instructors can use their discretion when using it for bonus marks.
School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape (SAPL) Representative Julia Law then brought attention to student frustrations regarding mandatory attendance taking in their department. Law went on to specifically reference BDCI 423, where instructors directed students who needed support regarding attendance and extension requests to the Bachelor of Design in City Innovation head office, which no longer exists.
“There’s the SAPL head office, but this in the past has never handled extensions or attendance questions,” said Law.
After the SLC meeting, in a follow-up email regarding the university’s specific attendance policy, Dinh explained that she had initially misinterpreted the policy before the meeting. She clarified to the Gauntlet that though attendance taking cannot be prevented, it also cannot be counted towards a student’s final mark unless considered a participation grade.
“A participation grade must have a relevant assessment of learning (e.g., a practice review question) that a student can choose to complete,” Dinh elaborated.
The Academic Calendar Section E.3 states, “Regular attendance is advised for students in all courses and there is no regulation that precludes an instructor from taking attendance in the class. The University has directed that attendance will not be considered when assessing a student’s grade except in courses where class participation is a required component of the course.” You can find the policy online here.
Law also highlighted that no course options are currently provided for SAPL students in the Spring or Summer, potentially forcing students to extend their degrees.
Werklund Faculty Representative Siena Yee then brought up her discontent with quiz content for EDUC 445. Yee mentioned a situation regarding quiz questions that were initially described as straightforward but later perceived as trick questions by students. The professor decided to revise the grading policy by removing the disputed questions. Students who answered them incorrectly will have their marks adjusted, while those who answered correctly will keep their original scores. She noted that some students were frustrated with the way the issue was dealt with.
Faculty of Science Representative Gabriela Dziegielewska followed up by voicing concerns regarding VETM 423, citing a lack of learning objectives provided before the class’s exams. Dziegielewska also criticized the exams for poor design, saying many students struggle to finish on time. Those needing accommodations face added challenges, including inconsistent instructions.
“This has been when you talk to past students, an issue for years on end that continues over and over, despite faculty saying that they will talk to instructors,” Dziegielewska said.
Faculty of Arts Representative Aitazaz Shah brought forward arts students’ frustrations with class availability. He described the significant challenges students are facing securing spots in their required courses, with many finding themselves waitlisted if they do not register within the first week. Faculty of Arts Representative Edom Girma echoed this concern, and both representatives said they would provide Dinh with relevant course codes for reference.
After the meeting, when asked how she would utilize the information she had been provided, Dinh said it would start with personal research on each concern brought to her individually. Then, upon confirming the authenticity of an issue, she plans to reach out to the relevant instructors.
“I reach out to the instructor and I ask them for some clarification on why it is that students feel this way behind the course. Then I would ask them to work with the students in the future to improve this, and if I’m seeing that there’s a reluctance to help, I do reach out to the Associate Deans and have that conversation with them,” said Dinh.
She also highlighted the work being done within the Assessment Principles Group (APG) to improve how assessments are done across campus.
“They’re the ones that want to hear this feedback, and if I’m able to communicate it well and they’re able to put it in the draft principle and the policy, then it’ll be able to be enforced,” explained Dinh.
For agendas, minutes and upcoming SLC meetings, visit the SU website.