Welcome to Science Court!
Science Court is a project designed to combat polarization in American society and strengthen democracy. It is run as an interdisciplinary course in the University of Minnesota Honors Program involving students from across the university. The students select a controversial issue and spend an entire semester studying it in depth to determine the facts (based on sound scientific research) and then argue it in a mock trial in front of a jury of citizens with a mix of views and backgrounds. The public is engaged through compelling audio, video and online content generated by the students about the preparations, trial and verdict. The trial is free and open to the public.
The 2022 Science Court case is
Grading practices at the University of Minnesota can lead to bias, stress, and disincentivize learning, new innovative student assessment methods should be adopted
This year's Science Court is in partnership with the University of Minnesota (UMN) Student Senate. This topic is inspired by a Student Senate resolution, approved on December 3, 2020, requesting an extension of the UMN policy allowing students to opt for S/N grading (Satisfactory/Not satisfactory) in any course due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Science Court case generalizes this to a full reevaluation of how students are assessed at UMN. This is timely considering increasing concerns regarding student mental health, the increased emphasis on student diversity and equity, changes in how students learn due to the technological environment, the increase in scholastic dishonesty facilitated by the internet and social media, and the rise of remote learning.
Science Court will consider student assessment holistically exploring what is known from scientific research in domains of knowledge informing this topic and propose two main strategies, Refine versus Reform, for the Student Senate to consider.
- The "Reform" (pro) approach proposes to replace the current UMN system with alternative methods for grading and student assessment proposed in the literature and tested at other institutions.
- The “Refine” (con) approach will argue to largely retain the current UMN grading system with modifications aimed at addressing its limitations based on research findings.
Stay tuned or follow us on twitter or join the Science Court mailing list to be kept informed.
LATEST BLOG POSTS
Thank you Kerri Miller!
This week the class had a very beneficial visit from one of MPR's incredible podcast hosts, Kerri Miller. Kerri sat down with each domain research group from the science team to learn about the research that they've done thus far, and about where to go from there. She also fielded questions from the legal and media teams about how to form solid arguments, how to properly prepare for interviews, and how to effectively present information. With her help, the resarch and work is continuing to grow in the right direction. Stay tuned for more updates on our progress on the case and for a final sit down with Kerri as we get closer to the trial.
Thank you for spending our class with us Kerri Miller!
The Votes Are In and This Semester's Case Is...
Two weeks ago the process of selecting this year's Science Court case began with a competition in which nine teams of students pitched their ideas. A vote narrowed the field down to three finalists, which were investigated in depth by three "case evaluation groups" (CEGs) composed of both science and legal team members. Last night, the CEGs presented their findings to try and convice the audience that their topic should be the focus of this semester.
Q&A with Prof. Tadmor on Science Court in Star Tribune
A Q&A with Prof. Tadmor on Science Court "Aerospace engineer takes civility to court at University of Minnesota" appeared in the Inspired section of the Star Tribune on Saturday, March 16, 2019. In a conversation with reporter Gail Rosenblum, Tadmor discusses his ideas on strengthening democracy and what prompted him to act. Read the conversation at http://strib.mn/2TUe95G