At the University of Arizona, the story goes, the venerable computer software used to maintain student records is incapable of recording anything other than a letter grade. Accordingly, we have only A, B, C, D and F grades, no A+’s, or B-‘s. We may soon gain the technical ability to record plus/minus grades, and we have been discussing whether it is a good idea. The pros of changing are that given our curve (25% A, 55% B, 20% C or lower), someone in the top third of the distribution and someone in the bottom third could receive the same grade. This is (allegedly) a disadvantage to students seeking employment, and a disincentive to working hard because most students earn a B–no reason to burn the midnight oil to get a B+ because there are no B+’s. The cons are said to be that plusses and minuses focus students on the wrong thing (grades instead of learning, and other forms of genuine merit), that the distinctions would imply a false precision about grades, and would be difficult to the faculty to assign accurately and fairly.
If your school went through this recently, what did you determine? Is there a decisive case for either side that I have not raised? Of course, it is much easier for the faculty to grade when particular attention has to be paid only to exams that are close to the A/B or B/C line, but if for some reason it would be better for the students, it would be worth doing.
Posted by Marc Miller on February 24, 2010 at 05:23 PM
Comments
Has Arizona considered switching to a method based on two completely random numbers, such as one which grades on a scale from 55 to 86, with a standard median at 77?
Alternatively, you could add a totally arbitrary “1” in front of each score, transforming the scale to one from 155 to 186 so that your median grades look less like Ds.
Surely, if this is a good method, it will catch on in the marketplace of ideas.
Posted by: UofC law grad | Feb 28, 2010 12:30:49 PM
We use the +/- system, but do not enforce a curve. Instead, the distribution is required to have a mean between 2.x and 3.x (the actual number escapes me). Of course, this gives a prof flexibility in tweaking his distribution to conform to the mean.
[Maybe too much flexibility? More than 60% of the top-ten-percent from last term came from a single section with a grossly bimodal distribution (that conformed to the enforced mean, of course). That same section had as many students on academic probation.]
Posted by: Jon | Feb 26, 2010 9:06:02 AM
U of Toronto has a hybrid where it’s A (no + or -), B+, B, C+ C….
I think it’s a good compromise.
Posted by: keith | Feb 25, 2010 1:15:59 PM
We recently switched from a system where the available grades were 4.3, 4.0, 3.7, 3.3, 3.0, … to a system where the available grades are 4.3, 4.2, 4.1, 4.0, 3.9, …. The theory is not that we can actually reliably distinguish a 3.3 from a 3.2 but that the new system evens out some of the inherent arbitrariness of grades. When you score an exam on points, it’s nice not having to draw a line between close raw scores that ends up making a big difference in the grade. On the other hand, if you grade not on points but on a more holistic basis, I prefer far fewer choices.
Posted by: Jennifer Hendricks | Feb 24, 2010 9:32:30 PM
I favor the +/-, but I think if you stick with the current system, the % of A’s should increase. My first thought on seeing 25% A/ 55% B is exactly what you suggested; no matter what I’ll do I’ll probably get a B. If 35% get A’s, then it seem more realistic to expect to be able to get one.
The precision and motivation problems would remain, but I think 35% A’s would motivate more to go for the gold. At least it would motivate me.
Posted by: andy | Feb 24, 2010 7:43:38 PM
This seems to be quite similar to the High Pass / Pass / Low Pass system that is now in place at HLS, and has been for some time at Yale. So one question is simply this: if you are going to have a three-level grading scheme does it matter how you label them?
One difference between UofA and HLS and YLS is that I don’t think that 20% of the students at HLS and Yale get LP.
Posted by: ctr | Feb 24, 2010 6:57:28 PM