Participants in yesterday's forum on the possible addition of pluses and minuses to Brown's grading system discussed topics including grade inflation, an on-campus obsession with A's, the New Curriculum and graduate schools' perception of transcripts.
The forum, which was sponsored by the Undergraduate Council of Students, was structured as a six-participant panel debate: two faculty members for and one against, and two students against and one for. Approximately 70 people, mostly students, attended and had the opportunity to ask questions of the panel.
Each panelist was given the opportunity to make a five-minute opening statement, beginning with Dean of the College Paul Armstrong, chair of the College Curriculum Council. Armstrong advocated the addition of pluses and minuses to eliminate what he termed "compression at the top." A's have become "meaningless" grades because they make up 62 percent of letter grades, he argued. At the same time, he said, getting an A "means everything to students" because they have become the "only acceptable" grade. He believes adding pluses and minuses would alleviate some of the pressure to get A's.
Armstrong said adding pluses and minuses would not "violate the spirit of the New Curriculum," as some critics have asserted. Calling himself a "passionate advocate" of the New Curriculum, Armstrong argued that compression at the top has "subverted the New Curriculum (by) jeopardizing values."
Students try to "game the system" to avoid getting B's, which he believes they wouldn't do to avoid B-pluses. He accused students of using provisions of the New Curriculum designed to encourage risk-taking to avoid getting B's, offering anecdotal evidence of students attempting to fail courses. Students do this so a course does not show up on their transcript, and they can avoid receiving a B, he said. The "original intent" of the New Curriculum was to reduce pressure to earn perfect grades, and adding pluses and minuses would alleviate "the cult of the A and the stigma attached to the B," Armstrong said.
Jonathan Waage, professor of biology and a member of the CCC, opposed pluses and minuses. However, he opened by stating he was "almost in complete agreement with what Paul (Armstrong) said." Waage said there must be an understanding of "what the grading system is for (and) what we are not going to accomplish by changing to a plus/minus system."
It makes little sense to try to fix a non-standardized, non-uniform, "very, very fuzzy" system by adding nuance, he said. Furthermore, he added, there is "no evidence whatsoever" that it will fix grade inflation.
Waage concluded by expressing his dream that someday "transcripts (will) disappear from the face of the earth and be replaced by portfolios."
Luther Spoehr, lecturer in education and a member of the CCC, argued in favor of adding pluses and minuses. He said the addition of pluses and minuses would be "an opportunity to make reporting of student (achievement) here at Brown more precise, clear and honest." He called opposition to the proposal "wrongheaded at best and duplicitous at worst."
Spoehr continued, "Most instructors I know give B-plus work an A. That is the system. It is full of fudge, and about as intellectually nutritious."
Students are already "grade-conscious," he said, reiterating Armstrong's argument that they go to great lengths to "game the system." He said behavior such as "slacking off" in courses in which they are already getting B's so they can focus on getting A's in other classes is "embarrassing (but) widespread." He believes adding pluses and minuses would "help eliminate this kind of gamesmanship." Spoehr was deeply critical of "manipulating and cynical" students "taking advantage of the system (as if it is) a game that can be won."
Spoehr added that pluses and minuses would help professors fulfill their "obligation ... to give you an accurate and precise report of your performance."
Tristan Freeman '07, chair of the UCS Academic and Administrative Affairs Committee, spoke in opposition to pluses and minuses. Freeman argued that the New Curriculum "really has not changed all that much" since it was implemented. Adding pluses and minuses, he said, would decrease the emphasis on the Brown education as a "process of individual and intellectual development" and increase competition among students. Students would be less open to working together if the difference between an A-plus and an A depended on what the person next to them received, he said.
Additionally, grade inflation at Brown is a product of the requirements for getting into Brown, he said, adding that Brown's peers have pluses and minuses and they still have trouble with grade inflation.
Freeman agreed with Waage that problems of non-standardized grading among departments and even among different teaching assistants in the same class would not be addressed by adding pluses and minuses.
As for the potential of pluses and minuses making Brown transcripts more respected by graduate, medical and law schools, Freeman pointed out that Brown students "already get into these programs."
Freeman also contested Armstrong's contention that students game the system, saying "the system works now," adding to applause that Brown students do well because they are "extremely bright."
Don Trella '07, public debates coordinator for the Brown Debating Union, argued for the addition of pluses and minuses in what he dubbed a "non-traditional way." He began by arguing that changes should not be applied until the class of 2011, because "Brown espouses a set of values (that) attracted a lot of you to this University (and the University has an) obligation to uphold these values."
He argued against adding A-pluses, because they would lead to "extreme über-competitiveness" and obsession with "perfection." But changing the system would lead to "enormous benefits," he said, and remedy an A's "meaningless" status. He agreed with Armstrong that the "harms to getting a B are so enormously large that it does engender those perverse" manipulations of the system.
Additionally, he argued that the lack of pluses and minuses leads to "self-perpetuating" grade inflation because professors feel pressure to assign A's in place of B-pluses.
He concluded by saying "more information (is) always going to be in our favor" and adding pluses and minuses will make grades more "commensurate with effort."
Zac Townsend '08, vice president of UCS, attempted to counter some of the arguments for the addition of pluses and minuses. He quoted from a 1969 report written after the approval of the New Curriculum that advocated "means which do not place primary emphasis on detailed grades." He argued that, therefore, the lack of pluses and minuses is an "integral" part of the New Curriculum.
Addressing the notion that students game the system, Townsend said this is a "disillusioned point of view." Although Brown students are competitive, he said the "type of competition" prevalent at Brown is different from that witnessed at peer institutions because Brown's grading system does not emphasize evaluation. As a result, he said, "more cooperation happens at Brown."
During the question-and-answer portion of the forum, Townsend received applause for his argument that it is a "fallacy" to say changing the rules and structure of the grading system would not change the intellectual culture at Brown.
Several questions also opened a conversation on other possible reforms of the grading system that would emphasize more consistent standards. Armstrong supported this as a "great idea," adding that the "conversation would be facilitated" by the presence of pluses and minuses because "grades are (too) meaningless" to have that conversation now.
Freeman countered that it would be "far more effective for us to start (grading system reform) from the bottom up." Waage agreed, arguing that adding pluses and minuses would create the "illusion of but not the reality of a better grading system."
The forum concluded with two-minute statements from each panelist, several of whom chose to reflect upon the process of and prospects for the possible change. Freeman warned against the "holy grail of the A-plus" and the harm pluses and minuses could do to "the intellectual culture" at the University.
Spoehr cautioned that the plus/minus debate has the potential to turn into a case where "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and that waiting now could mean waiting forever. He also criticized opponents for "wrapping yourself in the mantra of the New Curriculum ... the equivalent of wrapping yourself in the flag."
Waage concluded with the pearl of wisdom that "our current system sucks (and) adding pluses and minuses is not going to make it less sucky." To great applause, he continued: "Grades are not the object of one's education."
