Subject:  Request for Information on Plus/Minus Grading System

Last December you forwarded a request from the University Senate Executive Committee and the Academic Standards, Regulations and Admissions Committee, asking me to report on the proposed changes to the university grading system.  On 16 January 2003, I circulated the attached request.  I am attaching the responses I have received to date, and will forward any others I receive as they arrive.  Please share these with the appropriate Senate Committees for their review and deliberation.

Attachments

Text of January 16, 2003 memorandum from University Vice President for Academic Affairs Joseph J. Seneca to Edward Kirby, Gabor Toth, Holly M. Smith, Adesoji Adelaja, Carmen T. Ambar, Emmet A. Dennis, Arnold G. Hyndman, Carl Kirschner

Subject:  Plus/Minus grades

The University Senate’s Academic Standards, Regulations and Admissions Committee has requested a report from the Administration on the feasibility of changing the University grading system to a plus/minus system.  I have been asked to report by 15 April 2003 on “the effects of the present system, and of the proposed system, on the prospects of Rutgers students in seeking admission to graduate, post-graduate and professional study elsewhere.”  A copy of the request is attached for your information.

Please advise me on the effects this change would have on your students’ future opportunities.  I would appreciate receiving a brief, written response by 1 April 2003.  Thank you for helping me to respond to the University Senate’s request in a timely fashion.

Text of March 24, 2003 email from Holly Smith to Joe Seneca
Subject:  Plus and minus grade proposal

In your January 16 memo, you requested a report on the effects that the proposed change in the University grading system would have on students’ future opportunities.  The proposal is to add the grades of A- and B- to the current system, and change the point value scale from the current one (A 4.0; B+ 3.5; B 3.0; C+ 2.5; C 2.0; D 1.0; F 0) to a new system more commonly used at other institutions (A 4.0; A- 3.67; B+ 3.33; B 3.0; B- 2.67; C+ 2.33; C 2.0; D 1.0; F 0).

Dean Michael Beals, on behalf of FAS, solicited faculty opinion from its department on this matter as it pertains to undergraduate students.  The Graduate School, New Brunswick will report separately on its concerns about the effects a new grading scale would have on its programs.

Support for the proposed system ranges from almost unanimous in the Humanities, to strong in the Social Sciences, to mixed (fairly evenly divided) in the Natural Sciences.  Proponents feel that additional grades are appropriate because of the wide spectrum of student performance, because more grades mean the ability to make finer distinctions (which faculty can indeed discern among their students), and because it is easier to reward improvement because the steps are smaller.  Opponents believe that the proposed system will focus even more attention on grades than we already have, and that overly fine gradations are not sensible.

If students’ future opportunities are most influenced by the accurate correspondence of grade and performance, then the majority of our faculty believe that those opportunities will be enhanced by the ability to make finer distinctions, with the minority view that such distinctions are not usefully made.  If the question of future opportunities is one about the effect of the proposal on GPAs, faculty sentiment seems to be that grades will not be inflated under the new system – some grades that would have been A or B will drop to A- or B-, with little change in the opposite direction, but with more accuracy overall.  A smaller number feel that the effect will be in the opposite direction (grade inflation), with some grades of B+ or C+ bumped up to grades of A- or B-.

We hope this is of help as you deliberate about the best course of action in this domain.

Text of April 18, 2003 email from Jolie Cizewski, Vice Dean Graduate School – New Brunswick, to Joe Seneca
Subject:  Plus/Minus Grades

Dear Joe, I am sorry for the late response to your request for information from the Deans on the proposal from the University Senate’s Academic Standards Committee on the feasibility of changing the University grading system to a plus/minus system.  It has taken a while for the Graduate School to solicit input from our almost 60 graduate programs, as well as to circulate a resolution through the Executive Council of the Graduate School.  It should be noted that the response to the proposal was rather evenly divided amongst the graduate programs.  The Graduate Student Association approved the change, as did the programs at UMDNJ, that are joint with the Graduate School New Brunswick.

Do not hesitate to get back to me if you require further information.

The following resolution was passed by the Executive Council:

RESOLUTION ON GRADING SYSTEM
Executive Council
Graduate School-New Brunswick

Having consulted with the Graduate Student Association and the directors of graduate programs, and they in turn with the faculty, the Executive Council finds that a majority of programs and of faculty members prefers to accept the proposed new grades of A- and B- for the Graduate School-New Brunswick, if approved by the University Senate.

Given that a majority approves, and many do so with enthusiasm, while those opposed will not be required to employ the new grades, we find that it is reasonable to enable those who wish to use the additional options to do so.

We find, further, that there is no support for introducing the grade of D into the list of authorized grades for Graduate School courses.

We therefore resolve – and recommend to the faculty – that upon Senate approval the new grades of A- and B- be added to those now approved for use in the grading of Graduate School-New Brunswick courses.