Proposal for plus/minus grades, 1996-97 (2024)

Committee on Academic Affairs

Members of the Committee:

Please consider this proposal for implementing plus/minus grades.The current system requires that faculty discard considerableinformation regarding student performance. The system proposedhere will result in transcripts that more accurately reflect whatour students have achieved.

We propose the following system:

The design goals were:

• Increased resolution, i.e., more grading steps.
• Retention of the meaning of the current letter grades A, B,C, D, and F.
• Retention of the 4.0 scale.
• Least possible effect on grade point averages.
• A familiar grading system that offers the least change fromwhat we now have while permitting more accurate representationof student performance.

The system we propose achieves higher resolution, with twelvesteps instead of the current five. The letter grades without plusesor minuses carry the same value as in the current system, so thefaculty who do not choose to use the new system many continueto grade as they always have.

"Plus" or "minus" adds or subtracts a thirdof a quality point to a grade. This system evenly spaces the plusand minus values between existing letter grades. Even spacingoffers the greatest resolution.

Two grades are conspicuously absent: A+ and F+. We have chosento omit A+ in order to retain 4.0 as the highest possible gradepoint average (GPA), while simultaneously retaining the meaningof A as 4.0 quality points. F+ was omitted, because we feel thatfailure is failure, and should carry no quality points.

We have conducted simple computer models of the effect of adoptingthis grading system on grade point averages. While the modelsadopt simplistic assumptions, the results are rather insensitiveto the details of these assumptions. Therefore, we may have someconfidence in these results. The models predict what one wouldexpect:

• The GPA of nearly all students will be neither hurt nor helpedby this system. Boosts in GPA due to "plus" grades wellbalance the depression of GPA due to "minus" grades.For example, a student who currently has a B+ average (3.333)may have achieved this by making mostly B's (3.0), while makingA's (4.0) perhaps a third of the time. Under the new system, thisstudent would likely make mostly B+'s (3.667) combined with anequal number of B's (3.0) and A-'s (3.667), once again achievinga B+ average (3.333).
• The GPA's of individual students will be more accurate representationsof their knowledge and performance. All faculty acknowledge inaccuracyin the grades they assign. Rounding these to the nearest lettergrade increases the average inaccuracy of the quality pointsassigned. Adopting a higher resolution scale lessens the inaccuraciesintroduced by rounding. The improvement in accuracy will be moresubstantial for semester GPA's than cumulative GPA's, since averagingover multiple semesters improves accuracy.
• Students with averages around a D- under the current systemwould have achieved a slightly lower GPA under the proposed plan.They would now occasionally receive a D- instead of a D, but willnot receive the compensating benefit from the omitted grade ofF+. This effect disappears for GPA's above 1.0.
• Student's whose current GPA is very close to 4.0 currentlywould have achieved a GPA as much as a few hundredths of a pointlower under the proposal. There will be fewer students with a4.0 GPA. While these students currently have all A's, a smallfraction of these might have been A-'s, and will be awarded fewerquality points under the new system. (Including an A+ of 4.333in the system would eliminate this effect, but also would allowsome students to achieve a GPA of more than 4.0.)

Note that the above results ignore any effect of the change ingrading system on the propensity of faculty to "round up"borderline scores to the next grade. Some have expressed concernthat adopting plus/minus grades will result in grade inflation,since three times as many students will be in a borderline situation.There should be no cause for such concern:

• If faculty continue to "round up" all borderlinegrades in the same way, there will be no effect of overall GPA.Although nearly three times as many students will benefit by thisboost each semester, the boost will be only one-third as large(0.333 instead of 1.0 quality points), so these factors will cancel.
• Faculty may be less inclined to round scores up to the nextgrade. Currently many faculty recognize the inherent inaccuraciesin their grading and the large difference in performance between,for example, B+ and B-. Some choose to give students the benefitof the doubt if they have a score near the cutoff for the nextletter grade. Under the new system, there is much less reasonto round up. We have a name for "almost an A." It iscalled B+, with an appropriate quality point value.

Other possible benefits of the proposed system are reduced stressfor some students and higher motivation for others. There is abig difference between steps in the current system, so the consequencesof minor differences in performance can be substantial. Underthe proposed system, minor differences in performance result inminor differences in grade assigned. At other times students findthemselves late in the semester firmly placed in the middle ofa letter grade range, so that performance on the final exam isnot likely to have any effect on the final course grade. Underthe proposed system, these students will find a reason to continueto prepare for final exams in the hope of making small improvementsin their course grades.

We believe that there are no valid reasons to continue the currentsystem now that grade point averages are no longer calculatedby hand. The system we propose will better represent the performanceof each student in each course. Faculty who do not wish to useplus/minus grades need not do so, and the grades assigned by thesefaculty will be perfectly compatible with those of faculty whowish to take advantage of the increased resolution. We ask thatthe Committee on Academic Affairs recommend to the faculty adoptionof this system which will allow us to make these finer distinctionsin the grades we assign our students.

Page Laughlin

Rick Matthews

Claudia Thomas,

Associate Dean of the College