TO    : Executive Committee

FROM  : Craig Oren and Roger Cowley, Co-chairs, ASRAC

RE     : Plus-Minus grades

DATE    : January 28, 2002

At its January 25 meeting, ASRAC agreed to ask the Executive Committee to schedule an open discussion at the March 1 University Senate meeting on the advisability of revising the Rutgers grading system to include minus grades.  Under such a system, the grades of A- and B- would be added, with respective weights of 3.67 and 2.67. B+ and C+ would be weighted at 3.33 and 2.33 respectively, instead of their current 3.50 and 2.50. ASRAC would then use the results of the discussion to decide whether to proceed with a proposal, and what, if any, special procedure should be used as part of adopting it.

ASRAC has not reached a final decision. But it is interested in the proposal. Adding minus grades would permit faculty more flexibility in giving grades. Under our present system, performances that are above C can be classified only into the four categories of A, B+, B and C+. This means that a large range of performances can be classified as being identical for grading purposes. Adding A- and B- would give an additional two gradations, thus allowing faculty greater ability to distinguish among varying student performances.

ASRAC's research discloses the following:

* Few universities follow the Rutgers practice of having plus grades but not minuses. Surveys in 1982 and 1992 disclose that 7/8ths of all universities have either a simple letter grade system (A, B, C, C) or have plus/minus systems such as the one proposed.

* The trend seems clearly to be away from simple letter grades and toward plus/minus systems. In 1982, simple letter grade systems accounted for sixty percent of university grading systems; by 1992, this proportion had decreased to 47%, with the proportion of plus/ minus systems moving up from 25% to 40%.

* The School of Law-Camden shifted this Fall from the current Rutgers system to a plus/minus system. We compared the Fall grades with those in the Fall, 2000. We found that the overall grade-point average declined slightly from a 3.23 to a 3.20. This modest shift may well be due to other factors, such as a renewed emphasis at the law school on resisting grade-inflation. (First-year grades in the Fall, 2000, had been a 3.13, a historical peak.) On the other hand, the proportion of grades above a B (3.0) actually increased slightly from 50% to 53.6%. Consider, for instance, a paper that is ranked at a 3.2 at a scale of 4.0. Such a paper would have been classified as a B under the old system, since it was closer to a 3.0 than a 3.5. But such a paper now can become a 3.3 B+.

The same phenomenon happens at higher grades. The proportion of grades at levels above 3.5 increased from 26% to 32%. This is the result of a 3.6 paper being rounded off as an A- of 3.67 rather than as a B+ of 3.5.

We have heard little adverse reaction from either faculty or students, and some praise from faculty who now find it easier to draw dividing lines among papers. In particular, the line between B and C+ had always seemed daunting, and the presence of a B- moderated the difficulty.

* There might be administrative difficulties with a switch. It's true that the switch of the Camden Law School to the plus/minus system was easily accomplished with the help of University Registrar Ken Iuso. Ken has expressed some hesitation about trying to switch over the entire University to a plus/minus system. These concerns need to be explored.

* We are informed that the New Brunswick faculty council has endorsed the addition of minus grades, although we have not seen the council's resolution nor been informed of the council's rationale.

* Because the Rutgers system is relatively rare, little literature exists that compares it to other systems. Instead, inferences have to be drawn from comparisons between simple letter systems and plus/minus systems. Literature even on this point seems sparse. It did, though, disclose the following:

** As in the Camden Law School, there is little evidence that a plus/minus system reduces grade-point averages.

** There is some evidence that a plus/minus system reduces grade inflation. This is not a major concern at Rutgers, where grades appear to have been stable over at least the last decade.

** There is some evidence that a plus/minus system gives students more incentive to prepare even after the majority of the work for the course has been evaluated. A .33 shift in grade, after all, is more plausible than a .50 shift, and so a student in a course with multiple assignments may decide that it makes sense to work hard even on the final assignments.

** There are more grade changes as more grades are added. Research at Georgia State University disclosed that this not primarily a result of more student appeals; rather, faculty made more mistakes in filling out grading forms because they had more choices. One would think this could be dealt with through proper design of forms. At least one faculty member at the University of Florida reports that he has many fewer requests for grade changes now that a plus/minus system has been adopted, and speculates that this might be due to the lesser amount at stake in a grade appeal in a plus/minus system.

** Students clearly want to be consulted before the establishment of a new grading system. The Camden Law School found that students were divided and not especially passionate about the merits of adding minus grades. But there was concern about how grades under the old and new systems will be combined.  It is important that students understand that a B+ under the old system will still be weighed as a 3.5, and that there will be an adequate explanation so that potential employers understand this. We are particularly interested in hearing views about how student views can best be solicited.

** At least one institution with a plus/minus system has found that its professors do not all use the system. This arouses a sense of inequity, particularly if a professor does not promptly announce which system will be used. (This may  indicate that the plus/minus grading system changes student incentives to study.)  This has not proven a problem at the Camden Law School, nor would it likely be a problem on a larger scale. When an institution shifts from simple letter grades to plus/minus, a professor may think that he or she can produce the same grade-point average by not changing systems.  In a system like ours, in which pluses exist, a professor would be decreasing grade-point averages by not using minuses as well as pluses. The Camden Law School had no instance of a professor using pluses but not minuses.

These data, we believe, argue in favor of further consideration of adding minuses to the grading system. We think it would be helpful to hear from our Senate colleagues to have a sense of other issues that they believe should be explored, and of whether there is sufficient interest in minus grades so that ASRAC should move forward.