The merits of adding pluses and minuses to undergraduates' grades were debated in a sparsely attended University-wide forum that turned contentious, revealing the passions aroused by the issue. Panelists and audience members noted the disappointing turnout - 19 students and nine faculty attended Thursday's two-hour discussion in Salomon 101.
Each of the eight panelists spoke for several minutes and then responded to questions and comments from audience members. Those who spoke against the proposal, including College Curriculum Council member Shyam Sundaram '08, Professor of Biology and Senior Adviser to the Dean Jonathan Waage and Associate Professor of Sociology Ann Dill, all said while they are in favor of changing the grading system to better reflect students' progress, they do not believe the addition of pluses and minuses would achieve that goal.
"I'm in favor of changing the system, but not in the way it has been proposed. I would only favor a change if it represented actual compromise between faculty and students, and that is not what this is," Sundaram said.
Tristan Freeman '07, chair of the Undergraduate Council of Students' Academic and Administrative Affairs Committe, spoke against claims by Lecturer in Education Luther Spoehr and others who say the current policy allows students to "game the system" by modifying their level of effort in response to how they think they will perform in a particular course.
"Brown students aren't doing well here because they're in high-stakes games of chess with their professors," Freeman said. "They're doing well because they are extremely bright. The evidence of any gamesmanship is anecdotal at best."
"We really don't have any quantitative information on what percentage of students actually game the system," Waage said. "If students are going to game a three-letter system, what make us think they're not going to game a six-letter system as well?"
Associate Professor of Philosophy Bernard Reginster listed arguments in favor of the proposal, saying that with so few students receiving C's, the current system is effectively the same as S/NC.
Though she argued that greater distinction is needed in grading, Dill questioned whether adding pluses and minuses effectively informs students of their progress. "Perhaps we should use numerical grading going out to three or four decimal places," she said facetiously. "My son is in such a university and he got pi as a GPA. We're not sure what it means, but we think it's pretty funny."
Dill said Course Performance Reports, discussions with students and WebCT postings of "assignments that are exemplars of extraordinary work" are some of the ways in which faculty can better inform students of progress and expectations without lowering motivation.
"I was rather upset that we're having this forum because it is an opportunity for a broader discussion," she said. "There's been a larger focus on plus/minus at this university over the last few years and little discussion about the other aspects of teaching."
Spoehr, vice chair of the CCC and one of the proposal's most vocal supporters, said that because the majority of grades given are A's, students do not have enough information about their performance. "(The current system) renders A's meaningless and, paradoxically, B's poisonous," he said.
According to the Office of Institutional Research, 46.6 percent of grades were A's in the 2004-2005 academic year, with B's making up 24 percent and C's only 4.6 percent.
Despite their disparate opinions, panelists agreed that pluses and minuses are not intended as a replacement for conversational feedback and CPRs, though Spoehr contended some students are not as interested in this feedback as they are in their letter grades, and that more specific grades could motivate students.
Spoehr said under the current system he is more likely to inflate a student's B-plus work to an A. Because of this, Professor of Chemistry Matthew Zimmt exclaimed from the audience, "Then give them a B!"
Dean of the Graduate School Sheila Bonde did not bring a particular opinion to the discussion, but sought to inform the audience of the perspective of graduate students. The proposal enjoys a high level of support in the Grad School, where a committee voted last night to support the proposal, Bonde said.
She said that with the "rise of a terminal masters population," students need more distinctive grades so they stay competitive in cutthroat job markets and admission pools.
Bonde also said she discovered that no specific grading policy exists in the Grad School, and depending on the decision in the undergraduate College, "we may decide to go to a unified system, and we might decide to use a separate system."
Audience questions proposal
Approximately nine students and two professors commented or asked questions of the panel. Of those commenting, Professor of History Timothy Harris, who heads the British program for the Office of International Programs, spoke in favor of the proposal, saying that not having pluses and minuses distorts GPAs to the detriment of students applying to study abroad.
Nicholas Everage '01 GS, an audience member and epidemiology student, questioned the methodology of the oft-cited 2003 survey by the Sheridan Center for Teaching, which indicated more than 80 percent of faculty and graduate teaching assistants favored pluses and minuses. Everage asked who responded to the electronic survey: whether it was required of faculty and whether the respondent pool could have been self-selecting.
Reginster replied that a "significant" number of faculty replied to the survey, prompting Zimmt to launch from his chair in the audience, exclaiming, "Does 'significant' mean 10 percent or 90 percent?"
"Nearly 50 percent," Reginster replied, prompting Zimmt to retort, "'Nearly' is a pretty broad number."
Waage finally clarified that 181 faculty members responded to the survey, adding that "181 is not 50 percent. The survey is interesting and informative, but it was not a direct set of questions about plus/minus grading."
UCS Vice President Zachary Townsend '08 asked Dean of the College Paul Armstrong, the forum's moderator, to post the panelists' remarks on the CCC Web site, and Armstrong agreed to do so. He also asked about the source of the plus/minus proposal.
"Why this proposal instead of a more holistic discussion of grading policy?" Townsend asked Armstrong.
In response, Waage quoted a 2003 CCC report that recommended discussion of a broad range of options for grading reform. Townsend noted the apparent contradiction in the report and the subject of the forum, asking Armstrong, "What Professor Waage just read - I... I don't understand... why hasn't that happened?"
No one from the panel answered Townsend's question, and Armstrong moved on to the next audience member, prompting Townsend to ask, "Do you really not have an answer to that question?"
Spoehr spoke up next, saying, "Look around you - this is the conversation you wanted."
Armstrong, the CCC's chair, sourced the plus/minus proposal to the parliamentary nature of the CCC, which originally raised this proposal instead of others. "If the CCC feels more conversation is needed, it should delay until the issue has been fully aired," he said. "We will see what the wishes of the CCC are - I'm not sure what will come of their discussion. Anything could happen."
The CCC has its next meeting Tuesday, when Sundaram said it will vote on whether to recommend plus/minus grading to the Faculty Executive Committee. If the FEC approves the proposal, it will be voted on for approval by the full faculty, he added.
Low turnout
Numerous people both in the audience and on the panel told The Herald they were disappointed by the low turnout at the discussion. "A lot of people had this time free. This is an issue that will affect every person on campus. It's a little disappointing that more people did not take advantage of this," Sundaram said.
"I thought we'd have just as many people as at the last discussion. Either way, UCS is not going to stop. ... This is incredibly important," Freeman said, adding that UCS will contact faculty and CCC members to ensure they understand the level of student opposition to the proposal.
"I do wish there had been more people here," Spoehr said.
"I'm sure I haven't persuaded you, and you haven't persuaded me. But the conversation we've had will make me feel a lot better about this campus, even if the proposal doesn't go through," Spoehr said as a concluding statement to the audience.
