On Granting Extensions

First, some background: in my undergraduate career, I received a total of three extensions, over all four years. One was due to hospitalization for blood poisoning, thanks to a nasty infection, and the other two were because I wasn't happy with my work. So for a long time, I was of the harsh extension belief. On the other hand, I received more than three extensions in my last quarter here at Chicago, so I've been on the supplicant side as well.

On one side of the debate stands a position I'll call the Justice position. The fundamental tenet of this belief is to maintain equal opportunity for all students, keeping the rules similar for all students is best. Assuming the professor has allowed a reasonable amount of time for the assignment to begin with, all students should return their work at the same time. I subscribed to this belief throughout my undergraduate days, often considering extension seekers "suck-ups" or "weaklings." (I was still a teenager, and more intense than I am today.) If I could (basically) follow the rules, why couldn't everyone?

This stand has the advantages of simplicity and external equity. In religious practice, it would be considered a rules-based approach. The Torah is a good example; if one follows to the letter the 613 commands, one receives the eternal promises, according to Orthodox Jews. In my faith community, Catholicism, there are those who proscribe the appropriate tithing and indulgences and ways to receive Communion and such, following the rules of the Catechism and Canon Law strictly.

On the other side stands a position best described as Mercy. This position, while not denying that the work needs to be completed, allows for cases where the stated time period or materials provided are sometimes insufficient, and thus deserve occasional modification based upon circumstances. Effectively, equality of opportunity is maintained through individual evaluation. This stand has the advantage of compassion. It's best expressed through some of the more liberal Catholic and Protestant churches, and to some extent in Sufi Islam.

Justice versus Mercy

I now believe in a limited mercy position. (Notice I said limited, which means you're not getting extensions every week from me!) I am quick to admit that this opens the door to abuse, especially by silver-tongued and charming students, more likely to be granted relief. And I have departed from the straightforward tack, making tracking more difficult. And no, I won't deviate from the policy posted for the class; my viewpoint is but a small one in the Department, (pretty much infinitesimal, really, but let's not get me too depressed) and the need for uniformity increases over a larger sphere.

Yet, I still want to defend the mercy position. Yes, it does fit well with my perceived image of compassion. And yes, the idea of making seemingly perpetually morose Chicago undergraduates happy appeals to me. Beyond that, though, I think of my main goal as an instructor and assistant as getting students to learn and apply statistics. It's not to hand out grades (which often get in the way of learning) as carrots; it's not something that pays the bills so I can go research like I really want. My job is to get students to understand the binomial distribution, apply the t test, explain margin of error, and other such things: to help them understand. (And, to get them to like statistics, or at least tolerate statisticians.) If someone needs two extra days, or an additional reference, or a half hour with me walking through a problem, I should be able to provide them the necessary tools to meet their goal of understanding. To me, the limited mercy approach, backed by many office hours, great lectures and discussions, and alternative sources, is the best way to meet this goal.

Written July 2001. I've taken a tougher line during my quarters as Lecturer, because as I say, constancy among classes prevails over personal philosophies.