Proposed GPA changes lack real benefits

The days of scraping by with a low A or B to earn that 4.0 or 3.0 may soon be coming to an end.

Tech is considering switching to a plus/minus GPA system (A, A-, B+, B, B-, etc.), based upon the desire, from a professor’s point of view, to better distinguish student performance.

In the case of a single class, having more options to evaluate students with must surely be appealing to the professor.

This system could provide more accurate feedback on student performance and make a distinction between students within a letter grade range.

While the proposal looks good from the perspective of the professor distinguishing student performance within a single class, it loses its merit when viewed from the perspective of the student, who is inevitably struggling for grades in dozens of classes throughout his time at Tech.

A plus/minus GPA system offers no overall benefits to any students during the course of earning their degrees, yet would still be detrimental to some.

For the majority of students—those in the mid-C to mid-B range, changing to a plus/minus system will have no overall effect on their GPAs.

Students at either end of the GPA spectrum similarly stand to gain nothing from such a change; though they would face possible loss.

Given that the system has little to no impact on most students and would only stand to punish those already performing at the top of the GPA range, the enactment of such a change would only punish those already achieving excellent grades by making such an achievement even harder—something that hardly needs to be done at a place like Tech, already known for its low GPAs.

The only students immediately affected by such a system would be those with “borderline” grades (i.e. an 89 or a 91 in a non-curved, 100-point grading scale).

Under the plus/minus system, the 89 would merit a B+, or a 3.3 GPA. The 91 would be an A-, giving a 3.7 GPA.

Statistically, for a student that ends up at the borderline more than once (that’s just about everyone), he has a 50-50 chance of being on either end of the deal.

Averaging the 3.3s and 3.7s, he would see a mean GPA of about 3.5 for all his borderline classes.

By the same logic, under the current system where the same student would get either a 3.0 or a 4.0, he would see the same average GPA.

These logical assumptions are backed up by both simulations and actual data on a plus/minus grading system.

A 1997 computer model by Wake Forest professor Rick Matthews indicated that, on average, students with GPAs between 1.0 and 3.6 would see at most a 0.06 change, indicating that the “plus” effects statistically negate the “minus” effects.

A 2002 report by Cal State University examining the effects of its own change from a standard 4.0 scale to a plus/minus system seemed to validate the simulation’s results.

The report revealed that overall GPA for lower and upper division (undergraduate) courses tended to increase by approximately 0.1 percent (that’s percent, not grade-point), essentially indicating no statistically significant change.

So, with the effects of the system negating any change in borderline grades, where would the impact be felt most? In the highest and lowest grades.

Using a system with a C+, C and C-, as Andy Smith, vice provost for Academic Affairs, said would be the case under the proposed plan, gives the following correlating GPAs: 2.3, 2.0 and 1.7.

The last, corresponding to C-, is particularly problematic, as a student with a passing grade no longer has a passing GPA.

Of course, this could be fixed simply by doing what Arizona State University did—using only C+ and C.

This would then mirror the problem seen at the opposite end of the spectrum, where only two grade options exist: A and A-.

Under the proposed system, there is no A+ (4.3), and rightfully so, as this could lead to external institutions adjusting down all Tech GPAs to match a 4.0 scale.

Nevertheless, this leaves the problem of there being not only a lack of incentive, but a disincentive, in this proposed system for students in the A range.

Their grades cannot get any better, but can get worse (A-, a 3.7).

Thus, students in the middle have nothing to gain from a change; students at the top can only face potential loss, and students at the bottom face either no change or a potential (and possibly devastating) loss.

This leaves the only argument for such a grading system change one of a subjective nature—that individual students within a class should be better distinguished by their performance.

In other words, an A student with a 97 should be distinguished from an A student with a 91 (or, in the case of an engineering class at Tech, the A student with an 85 should be distinguished from the A student with a 77).

To answer this, it is helpful to examine the definition of each letter grade, as per the Institute’s rules and regulations, section V: A—Excellent; B—Good; C—Satisfactory.

We need not go further.

The purpose of the grade is not to show, out of a nature of competition, which student is “more excellent” than another; rather, it is to provide an evaluation of that student’s work in the course.

At Tech, it’s already hard enough to achieve a 4.0 in most classes.

Any student currently doing so, especially in the school’s rigorous engineering and science disciplines, more than deserves the title of “excellent.”

The workload is bad enough for current students with a 4.0 without having to add the extra stress and burden of trying to outstrip all the rest of the competition.

Few enough students can currently claim a 4.0 GPA in any major at Tech, let alone a 3.9 or 3.8—this requires consistently excellent performance in every class, be that a string of 95s or a mix of 98s and 91s (again, on an un-curved system).

In the grand, four (or five or six)-year scheme of things, the potential GPA penalty to such students under this system seems like just another slap in the face from a school already filled with enough challenges.