Against the Adoption of the Plus/Minus Grading System at CSU Long Beach

Taking into consideration the Report by the Ad-hoc Committee on Grading Options we the Students of CSU Long Beach are opposed to the adoption of ANY Plus/Minus Grading System.

We have taken this position due to the fact that:

CSULB is one of the strongest universities in the State recently being ranked No. 3 by Princeton Review for the best value public college in the nation, and any change to the grading system to increase prestige would be unnecessary.
There is NO DATA to support the claim that by NOT incorporating the plus/minus grading system graduates from CSULB would be at a disadvantage and their performance in doubt.
The impact on the retention and graduation rates as a result of the institution of the plus/minus grading system is likely to result in more students being put on probation, and in the long run could reduce retention and graduation rates.
Instituting the Plus/Minus Grading System would hurt and penalize the very best students by differentiating between A and A- students with no corresponding A+.
Instituting a Plus/Minus Grading System would create grade disparities between professors who decide to use the plus/minus system and those who do not, which could create an increase in the volume of grade changes, academic appeals, and petitions.

The following is the exact copy of the Report on Grading Options by the Ad-hoc Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Report on Grading Options

By

Ad-hoc Committee on Grading Options

Tim Caron
Academic Senator
Associate Professor
English

Karen Clippinger
Academic Senator
Associate Professor
Dance

Alan Colburn
Academic Senator
Professor
Science Education

Robert Godina
Academic Senator
Chief-of-Staff, Associated Students

Amin KM
ASI Senator
Associated Students

Marilee Samuelson
Director, Academic Advising Center

Karl Squitier
Lecturer
Comparative World Literature and Classics

Praveen Soni, Chair
Academic Senator
Professor
Marketing

Overview of the Process

The Committee on Grading Options was constituted in early fall 2005 as a result of a motion passed by the Academic Senate in spring 2005 to report on the effect of changing the grading system to incorporate pluses and minuses on the already existing letter grades. Committee members are listed on the front page of the report and include faculty from various colleges, staff, and students. The committee members provided, as well as discussed, the diversity of issues associated with a grading system change in order to make a comprehensive assessment of potential consequences of the change. The committee met regularly in fall 2005 and early spring 2006, made a determination of the factors and issues of concern, gathered information from a wide variety of sources at CSULB and other universities including other CSUs, discussed and debated the information, and is privileged to present this report on grading options to the Academic Senate.

Current Letter Grading System

A = 4.0 B = 3.0 C = 2.0 D = 1.0 F = 0.0

This system is also used by CSU Fresno.

Concerns/Issues with the Current Letter Grading System

Inappropriate and inaccurate grading: Some professors and students believe it is unfair to assign the same grades to students in courses when disparities exist in their accomplishments. For example, in some grading systems, both 81 and 89 yield grades of B, while a 91 earns an A. A difference of 2\%, in one case, makes for a 1.0 pt. difference in GPA, while a difference of 8\%, in another case, has no effect on GPA. This concern seems more pertinent in todays grading environment where a majority of students are in the B range, and the current system does not allow for finer distinctions in grade ranges.

Lack of Incentive: The simple letter-grade system may provide students a disincentive to work hard, especially at the end of the semester. A student has little reason to work hardand potentially learn moreif they are in the mid- range of the grade since a change in the grade is less likely the closer they are to the end of the semester.

Reduced possibility of entering top graduate programs: When comparing students from the simple letter grading system with the plus/minus grading system, students from CSULB who have a GPA of 4.0 may be at a disadvantage and their performance in doubt, since they could have obtained a 4.0 either by an A or A-, while students attaining a GPA of 4.0 from the plus/minus grading system attained the 4.0 by earning all As. The admissions officer may have reason to favor the latter student.

Option 1: Letter Grading System with Pluses and Minuses

If CSULB institutes the plus/minus grading system, then Title 5, Sections 40104 and 40104.1 of the California Code of Regulations (included in the Appendix), requires grade points as follows:

A+ = 4.0 B+ = 3.3 C+ = 2.3 D+ = 1.3 F = 0.0
A = 4.0 B = 3.0 C = 2.0 D = 1.0
A- = 3.7 B- = 2.7 C- = 1.7 D- = 0.7

Plus/minus grading would be voluntary and used at the discretion of the individual professor.

This system is currently being used by 21 of the 23 CSUs except Long Beach and Fresno. Chico, Dominguez Hills, East Bay, and Humboldt have D as the last grade point step above failure. Channel Islands, Fullerton, Maritime Academy, and Monterey Bay allow an A+ to be recorded on the transcript but the GPA associated with it is still 4.0.

Arguments in favor of Option 1

Appropriate and accurate grading: Proponents of the plus/minus grading system believe it will allow faculty to more accurately reward both the superior and inferior performance of students, with the corresponding change in grades expressed on the grade sheets. This option has greater relevance in courses where there are many students who obtain As and Bs. The plus/minus system will be beneficial to those students who fall in the top range of the grade category and detrimental to those who fall in the bottom range of the grade category.

Incentive for Students: Proponents believe that students might work harder and learn more if pluses and minuses were added to the grading system making a higher grade or even a lower grade possible at the end of the semester.

Improved probability of entering top graduate programs: Proponents believe that with the adoption of a plus/minus grading system, admissions officers would have no reason to doubt CSULB students who have a GPA of 4.0 since they will be comparing apples to apples. However, preliminary investigation of the impact that grading systems have on admissions to graduate programs at two universities suggests that graduate admissions officers accept the grading system utilized by the university from which the student graduated.

Recognition of outstanding students: With the A range divided between A and A- , it will be possible for professors to differentiate and recognize the outstanding students in a course and program from those students that are excellent.

College of the Arts (COTA): On October 8, 2002, the COTA faculty council requested the Academic Senate to change the current grading system to a plus/minus grading system. They felt that the adoption of a plus/minus grading system would accurately and fairly reflect each students achievement and overall standing, as well as assist in controlling grade inflation where grades have drifted upward over time.

CSULB faculty advisory ballot: In spring 2003, the CSULB faculty members were polled regarding their opinions on the adoption of the plus/minus grading system via an advisory ballot. Of those who voted, 503 (67\%) were in favor of instituting the plus/minus grading system, while 248 (33\%) were in favor of the current system. It is pertinent to note that faculty members voted based upon their knowledge of the two systems without any concerns/issues associated with both systems being provided to them.

Arguments against Option 1

Inability to make finer distinctions: Opponents believe that often times it is difficult enough to make distinctions in grades with the current system. With even finer distinctions and grade points available through the plus/minus grading system, the problem associated with assigning grades and perhaps misclassifying students is likely to be further exacerbated.

Negative Vote of the Educational Policies Council (EPC): The EPC continuously deliberated on this issue beginning in fall 2002. The council was privy to the vote of the faculty on the advisory ballot recommending the change to the plus/minus grading system. On April 9, 2003, after considering the measure at length, the EPC voted against the proposal to change from the current system to the plus/minus grading system.

Fewer students with a GPA of 4.0: The plus/minus grading system divides the A grade into two parts -- A and A-, -- thereby reducing the number of students obtaining a GPA of 4.0 since there is not a corresponding A+ with a 4.3 to balance out the A- with a 3.7. In instituting a plus/minus grading system, one university did find that students at the very top of the grade spectrum were impacted by this change since there was no corresponding 4.3 grade point.

Increased number of students on probation and finally disqualification: As per Title 5, good academic standing requires an overall C grade or 2.0 for undergraduate students and an overall B grade or 3.0 for graduate students. With the adoption of the plus/minus grading system, some undergraduate and graduate students who are at the C (undergraduate) and B (graduate) grade borderline respectively could be earning a C- (undergraduate) and B- (graduate), and not remain in good academic standing. This could increase the number of students on probation and eventually disqualification since CSULB has had a freshmen remediation rate of around 60\% for the last two years with a majority of freshmen under-prepared for the rigors of college-level work. One university found that fewer undergraduate students graduated with a GPA of 2.0 after the adoption of a plus/minus grading system.

Impact on overall GPAs: Computer simulations at Wake Forest indicated few overall GPAs were likely to be affected by adding plus/minus grades. Arizona State looked at other schools and predicted that the change would result in a small drop in GPAs for students in the 3.8-4.0 region, mostly because some A grades would become A- grades. They predicted that students in the 3.5 GPA range would likely be unaffected because A- grades would be offset by B+ grades. Students around a GPA of 3.0 may see a small increase in GPA, especially if there were incentives to move up a grade due to smaller grade intervals.

At Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, a study of the effect of the implementation of the plus/minus grading system on graduate student grades found that overall, no significant change was noted; however, in some disciplines, slight declines were observed. The differences in the GPAs generally showed a downward pattern confirming one of the reasons the students opposed the adoption of the plus/minus grading system. The cumulative GPAs did not change dramatically, but the number of A grades did decrease significantly, and the GPAs of the weakest category of students (UGPAs
In an attempt to obtain an understanding of the impact on student GPAs in instituting a plus/minus grading system, Jack Farrell, Director of Evaluations and Records in Enrollment Services was requested to take a random sample of students transferring from schools with a plus/minus grading system to the current CSULB system and calculate their GPAs using both systems. He found that GPAs of three students were higher under the plus/minus grading system; the GPAs of six students were higher without the plus/minus grading system; and the GPA of one student remained unaffected.

Two members of the committee from different colleges in the university recalculated the GPAs of their classes from the spring semester using the plus/minus grading system. These classes included undergraduate and graduate classes, and large and small classes. In all cases, the GPAs of the classes declined because, while under the plus/minus grading system the B- is balanced by the B+, the C- balanced by the C+, and the D- balanced by the D+, there is no corresponding balance for the A-. However, it is possible to maintain or exceed the original class GPA by changing grading scales such that a disproportionate number of earned grades are B+, C+, and D+ grades that offset the A- grades. The grading scales, as they are now, will continue to be determined by individual professors.

Jobs: Mr. Manuel Perez, Director, Career Development Center (CDC), obtained the perspective of the CDC staff members on the impact GPA has on employment. Their collective experience suggests that employers recruiting CSULB students utilize GPA as one of many factors in the selection process, and that the GPAs importance increases as the job market becomes more competitive; employers place a greater emphasis on GPA. GPA is extremely important in some professions such as accounting and engineering, and most employers prefer a minimum GPA of 3.0. Job Outlook 2004 corroborated the experience of the CDC staff members in that employers looking for well rounded candidates use GPAs as one of many criteria and usually as a cutoff. Thus, the extent to which the GPAs are likely to change around the 3.0 mark as a result of the institution of the plus/minus grading system, the corresponding effect is likely to be felt in the job market as well.

Increase in number of grade changes: The adoption of the plus/minus grading system resulted in an increase in the number of grade changes performed by the registrars office at Georgia State University in the year after the change was implemented. This increase was attributed to more students filing grade appeals, as well as to the clerical errors made by professors on grade sheets. Clerical errors by professors may or may not occur in CSULB due to the increased push toward an online grading environment.

Impact on Athletics: Gayle Fenton and staff from Student-Athlete Services are concerned that some student athletes would be negatively affected by a plus/minus grading system. They worry about students remaining athletically eligible by maintaining required GPAs, passing GE foundation courses (if C- was not deemed passing), getting credit for credit/no credit courses (if C- was not considered credit), and achieving required grades in core courses for desired majors. Ms. Fenton believes these concerns are particularly important because of recent changes in the NCAA Academic Standards that have the potential to penalize entire teams rather than just individual players. To independently analyze the possibilities, Student-Athlete Services provided the committee with a chart listing the number of C grades received by first time freshmen student athletes (from various sports) in foundation courses, and a second chart providing information about term GPAs, cumulative GPAs, and the number of C grades received by a sample team (Soccer) for fall 2003 and spring 2004. Ultimately, student athletes who might be negatively affected by plus/minus grading are those whose grades are in the C- range, i.e., many "low C grades" in courses, semesters, or programs currently mandating a "C or better" or a GPA of "2.0 or better" to retain eligibility. We cannot determine how many C grades would have been C- grades, but the first chart did reveal that approximately 29\% of the first time freshmen athletes received one C grade, 25\% two C grades, 6\% three C grades, and 3\% four C grades in foundation courses. The sample soccer team data showed 13\% of students with an average GPA of 2.0 or less one semester, and 3\% the other semester. No students had a cumulative average GPA below 2.0 both semesters.

Increased expense, workload, and errors: There will be a necessity for a variety of grading calculations for each student because some professors will opt for the plus/minus grading system while other professors will not. With an increased number of grading intervals, the manual calculation (currently not CMS enabled) of GPAs and grade deficiency points, which include calculations for the repeat process, would become more cumbersome and for some initial period, prone to error. It will also be more difficult under the plus/minus system to plainly explain to students on probation, how grade point deficiencies may be removed for reinstatement. Enrollment Services is concerned that the plus/minus grading system will create more work for an already heavily work-impacted office. An increase in the volume of grade changes, academic appeals, and petitions is anticipated.

Moreover, increased expenses and work will be required to accommodate a new grading system. It includes modification and redesign of computer programming and changes of text in various publications, revised official transcript legends, etc. Specifically, all documents throughout the university will need to be examined to decide whether C- or better should replace C or better for undergraduate students, and whether B- or better should replace B or better for graduate students.

Factor neutral to grading system

Financial Aid: Eligibility for financial aid is tied directly to enrollment status. As long as a student maintains satisfactory academic progress and is not academically disqualified, the student is eligible for financial aid -- regardless of cumulative GPA. GPA is relevant when a student becomes ineligible for financial aid because of insufficient academic progress. A minimum term GPA of 2.0 is one of the criteria used to determine reinstatement of eligibility for financial aid for such students. A disproportionate number of C- grades associated with the plus/minus grading system could render more students ineligible for financial aid because of insufficient academic progress, and make it more difficult for students to be reinstated for financial aid as well since a minimum GPA of 2.0 or C average is required. However, Jack Farrell, Director of Evaluations and Records in Enrollment Services and Dean Kulju, Director of Financial Aid and Administrative Operations concluded that any direct effect of the plus/minus grading system on financial aid eligibility is likely to be negligible.

Major Concerns/Issues with the adoption of Option 1

Minimum Standards: Numerous requirements establish the grade of straight C as the minimum standard for fulfillment at the undergraduate level and a straight B at the graduate level. With the institution of the plus/minus grading system which allows a C- and a B-, how would these minimum standards be affected?

These are:

Fulfillment of General Education foundation courses
Prerequisites specified for engineering courses (Accreditation concerns)
Each of the Magic Four courses used as a criteria for transfer admissions decisions.
Course repetition and deletion for grades of C-
Requirements for scholarships
Athletic eligibility

The university/college/department may choose to maintain the original minimum grades of C and B for undergraduates and graduates respectively, or may choose to specify a new minimum standard of C- and B-.

Information was gathered from CSUs in Northridge, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stanislaus to shed light on how they deal with the minimum standards after adoption of the plus/minus grading system. All of them accept the C- for the GE foundation courses and C- does place students on academic probation. The C- does affect the graduation requirements and none of them allow graduation with an overall C- GPA. CSU Northridge and San Diego reported that a C- would not meet their major departments criteria for graduation, while CSU Sacramento reported that departments can opt for C-.

Retention, and graduation rates: Both these rates, and the effect that a change in the grading system will have on these rates seems critical to the adoption of any grading system. Unfortunately, specific information on retention and graduation rates before and after the change from a simple letter grading system to one incorporating pluses and minuses was not available, making it difficult for the committee to make a determination of the impact of a grading system change on each of these rates. However, the extent to which some students may consistently obtain borderline C grades at the undergraduate level, and borderline B grades at the graduate level, the C- and the B- respectively is likely to result in these students being put on probation, and in the long run could reduce retention and graduation rates.

Option 2: Elimination of the C- grade from Option 1 (See page 3)

The allocation of grade points would be as follows:

A+ = 4.0 B+ = 3.3 C+ = 2.3 D+ = 1.3 F = 0.0
A = 4.0 B = 3.0 C = 2.0 D = 1.0
A- = 3.7 B- = 2.7 D- = 0.7

Option 3: Elimination of the C- grade for the undergraduates and elimination of the B- grade for the graduates from Option 1. (See page 3)
Undergraduates could earn the B- grade.

The allocation of grade points would be as follows:

A+ = 4.0 B+ = 3.3 C+ = 2.3 D+ = 1.3 F = 0.0
A = 4.0 B = 3.0 C = 2.0 D = 1.0
A- = 3.7 D- = 0.7

It seems clear from the research on the plus/minus grading system that the C- grade at the undergraduate level, and the B- grade at the graduate level are the bones of contention to adoption of the system resulting in several thorny issues and obstacles that may indeed be formidable. In order to surmount these obstacles, these options that eliminate the two grades either only at the undergraduate level or at both the graduate and undergraduate levels may be worth considering.

The benefit of these options is that the university can still maintain the C grade and the B grade as the standards for a variety of issues that it currently does, and will not have to undergo major changes in the catalog and requirements as they exist. The other arguments in favor of and against Option 1 are still relevant for both these options.

Option 4: Letter grades with pluses and minuses but unchanged grade points

The allocation of grade points will be as follows:

A+ = 4.0 B+ = 3.0 C+ = 2.0 D+ = 1.0 F = 0.0
A = 4.0 B = 3.0 C = 2.0 D = 1.0
A- = 4.0 B- = 3.0 C- = 2.0 D- = 1.0

This is a hybrid system that allows the use of the plus/minus grades on transcripts, but does not change the grade point average as a result of it. Thus, the brighter students can point to the pluses in their transcript to show superior work and learning, while other students can focus on the GPAs that remain unaffected. Some think this system to be a good compromise between the current and plus/minus grading systems, allowing for the best of both the worlds. It may even be thought to obliquely tackle the incidence of grade inflation. While this grading system is not currently allowed, as per Title 5, the Chancellor may approve experimental combinations of grades and grading designations, prior to their final adoption.

In 2001, the University of Maryland began the abovementioned system of assigning grades. Transcripts had pluses and minuses, but the grade points remained unchanged. The University then studied what happened over the next four semesters. They found that overall grade distributions did not change. Forty percent of undergraduates were in the A range, seventy five percent in the A-B range. Many more students received A- grades than A+ grades. Slightly more plus grades than minus grades were given for the B and C ranges.

The University of Maryland found these issues emerging after changing to the new system:
Students complaining about inconsistent use of plus/minus grading with some professors using it, while others did not, especially if the end result was a lowering of the grade points.
Faculty members were used to the old system and were unclear about how to recalibrate grades for the new plus/minus grading system. In other words, they found it difficult to figure out the finer distinctions.
Professional School Admission: If plus/minus grades are on transcripts, GPAs are calculated using the plus and minus for law and medical school admissions, even if the university didn't intend that to be the case.
Transfers to other institutions: Issues connected to "minimum grade of C" for students who got C- grades, even though the C- isn't counted in their GPA.

Conclusions

The committee on grading options thanks the Academic Senate for granting it the privilege of providing a detailed report on the various grading options available to the university, and their varied consequences. Throughout its deliberations, the committee has obtained and discussed/debated relevant information in a dispassionate manner, and tried to provide an unbiased, impartial perspective on this rather important and critical issue for the university community. Interestingly, despite the shift by several universities from a simple letter system to one incorporating pluses and minuses, few results of the consequences of the change are available. The committee has provided some options for consideration, but does not make a specific recommendation.