MEMORANDUM

TO:  The University Senate

FROM:  Academic Standards, Regulations and Admissions Committee (Craig Oren and Roger Cowley,
co-chairs)

SUBJECT: Plus-Minus Grades

DATE:  April 26, 2002

This is a status report on the proposal to change the default University grading system to add the grades of A- and B-, at 3.67 and 2.67 respectively, and to alter the grades of B+ and C+ to 3.33 and 2.33 respectively.  That proposal remains under consideration by the Academic Standards, Regulations and Admissions Committee (ASRAC).

As you may recall, the Senate held an open discussion on this matter at its March meeting. ASRAC found that discussion to be quite helpful in gauging sentiment and, more importantly, in finding out what Senators see as the key issues.

ASRAC believes that the plus-minus grade proposal requires further study during the Fall Semester.  The committee has two concerns about proceeding to a final recommendation to the Senate.  The first is that there are unanswered questions. Perhaps the most important of these concerns students who are cross-registered between Rutgers’ Newark campus and the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT).  NJIT follows the present Rutgers system of having pluses but no minuses. If Rutgers changes its system, but NJIT does not, then students who are cross-registered will receive grades under two different systems. This seems clearly undesirable.  Thus, the Senate needs to know whether there is a strong possibility that NJIT would follow Rutgers’ lead if we change systems.  This requires consultation between the administrations of the two institutions.  The Executive Committee is therefore requesting that our Administration explore the matter with NJIT’s administration; similarly, the Executive Committee will write to the appropriate faculty governing bodies at NJIT, and so this is an appropriate matter to refer to the Administration.

In addition, it would be desirable to ensure that we have the best possible information on what the effects would be of a change from the present to the proposed system.  For instance, we understand that the Law School Data Assembly Service and its medical school counterpart currently weigh a Rutgers B+ and C+ as respectively a 3.3 and 2.3, rather than the Rutgers weights of 3.5 and 2.5 respectively.  This means that our students may well be hurt by the current system.  On the other hand, some have suggested the possibility that a new system might make it harder for students to be admitted elsewhere.  We also believe it would be appropriate to try to gather information about the likely effects of a change in the grading system on grade-point averages, e.g. by monitoring the effects of the change at the School of Law in Camden.  We believe that the Administration might well have expertise to offer on this matter, as well as on other matters concerning the effect of the change.

The Committee’s second concern involves process.  A decision to change grading systems is an important one. Therefore, the Committee believes, we need to ensure that we have a process that assures that the University community is involved. The Committee seeks to meet this concern.  First, the Committee recommends that the Administration be asked to report to the Senate on possible means of giving the University Community additional opportunities to be heard on the merits of the proposed change.  The Administration might, for instance, wish to consider whether it is practical to give students and faculty a chance to submit by e-mail comments on a proposal, such as was done at the School of Law in Camden.  The report from the Administration would be due by October 1.

 
The New Brunswick faculty has already been heard through its Faculty Council.  But units at other campuses would be affected as well by a change in the University grading system.  The Executive Committee will request the faculty council in Newark, and the faculties of the College of Arts & Sciences and School of Business in Camden, as well as student governments at all three campuses, to  undertake a process of consultation.  These entities would inform their constituents about the change, and hold a period of discussion before reporting back to the Senate by November 15.  That reporting schedule would give the Senate time to make a decision early in the Spring Semester.  That would afford sufficient time for the new system to be adopted for the Fall Semester, 2003, if this is what the Senate desires.

In sum, these steps would make it possible to answer particular questions of fact, and to create a process that allows all members of the University community to be heard on the matter before a decision is made.