Charles Gale, Fall 2009
Every time a syllabus is passed out the first day of class there is a predictable format for it and summary of information on it. It has the teacher’s name on the top along with the class name, and assignments and grading policies after them. Most of the material on syllabi is predictable, but one thing isn’t. While every syllabus states the expected tests and paper or two, there is unpredictability to how they say classes are graded. Every class gives the usual lower grades – C-, C, C+, etc. – however, there is no consensus among teachers when it comes to grading the most gifted students in their classes. When you flip through a new syllabus, instead of seeing the +/- system applied throughout the grades, you might see an abrupt change at the A level. Instead of an A becoming an A+ at a 97 average as a B becomes a B+ at 87 and a C a C+ at 77, it stays an A.
The inconsistency between different teachers’ syllabi is probably due to different thoughts about the grading system. The teacher that does not award A+s most likely assumes there is no reason to; the university calculates students’ GPAs on a 4.0 scale with As counting as a 4.0, Bs a 3.0, etc. with .3 added and subtracted for + and -, so a B+ is 3.3, a B- a 2.7. Not giving A+s in such a system is understandable; they would be a 4.3 so why give them if the scale only goes to 4.0? On the other hand, the teachers that do award A+s probably consider them an indicator of students who set themselves apart from their classmates in the amount of work done and the quality of the work. And, to those teachers, giving A+s is no harm. Why not give out A+s to distinguish the very best from the best?
The seemingly innocuous habit of not awarding A+s is a problem. The most immediate problem of not awarding A+ grades is that it puts truly gifted students at a disadvantage if they plan on applying to law schools. A student’s GPA is recalculated on a 4.3 scale when he applies to law schools, so even though a student’s undergraduate institution most likely does not calculate GPAs on a 4.3 scale, the 4.3 scale is prominent in the evaluation of his law school application.
When someone applies to a law school, his undergraduate GPA is recalculated by the Law School Data Assembly Service (LSDAS) with A+ marks weighted as 4.33 (Frequently). This recalculation might come across as trivial to some people who would say after taking 40 classes to graduate, a few 4.33s instead of 4.0s won’t affect much. That assumption is wrong. Consider a make-believe student who graduated with 3 A+s, 17 As, 15 A-s, and 5 B+s, his UGPA (undergraduate GPA) would be 3.79. When the LSDAS recalculates his UGPA to account for the A+s, however, it becomes 3.82. Such a difference does look insignificant at first glance, but consider the implications of that measly .03 point. To qualify for summa cum laude at UMass Dartmouth graduates must earn a minimum of a 3.8 GPA, meaning administrators assume students that earned a 3.8 GPA or higher are worthy of being set apart from their classmates (Academic). Who’s to say law school admission councils don’t consider similar benchmarks?
Admission to law schools is obviously very competitive and a boost to an applicant’s GPA can definitely help. Assuming competitive applicants to law school should have either a GPA or test score in the upper quartile of previously admitted students, then having some A+s on a transcript could absolutely help someone’s chances at being admitted to a law school. If that make-believe student decided to go to law school, his LSDAS GPA would put him into the upper quartile of a few prestigious law schools. According to the data at lawschoolnumbers.com, his 3.81 would make him competitive in the admission pools at Georgetown University, Northwestern University, and the University of Chicago, which all have law schools ranked in the top 15 by US News’s rankings of America’s top law schools (LSN, Rankings). If his undergraduate school did not grant A+s, his GPA would not be in the upper quartile for any of those schools and he would need to rely on the LSAT, the standardized test used in law school admissions, to become competitive. That is a precarious position to be in. To be competitive at those three schools, he would need to score in at least the 98th percentile on the LSAT (Rankings).
Awarding A+s would help students who are not prospective lawyers, too. When someone graduates, or when a student applies for an internship, employers will want to see his transcript, and having a few A+s scattered on it can help catch their eyes. As are nice to see, but A+s stand out. A B, for example, looks okay. It shows someone did the work in a class and did it fairly well. A B+, on the other hand, shows that a student did more than just okay; he did a pretty good job. An A shows that a student did a good job, an A+ would show he did a great job, and a few A+s would show employers he is a great student.
University administrators need to implement a grading system that allows students to earn A+s in every class if they have a 97 average or better in a class. This change should be applied throughout the university and not at just college or department levels. Creating a grading policy that allows for students to earn an A+ in any class would not be hard, expensive, or time-consuming.
There is no reason why a decision to create a grading scale that continues up to the A+ level cannot be made in a single meeting among school officials who have the authority to create such a system. The most reasonable objection to giving A+s is that it could add to grade inflation. Professors, if A+s are awarded in every class, might feel as if they need to give an A+ or two in every class, adding to the number of high-level marks in their classes. To satisfy the policy of giving A+s, professors will scale grades to give a student an A+, meaning students who earned a B will end up with a B+, etc. That would not happen. Professors would give a student an A+ only if it is earned. The grading policy would not require professors to give the top student in a class, regardless of his average, an A+. It would allow for students to earn an A+ only if they reach 97% of a professor’s expectations in a class.
Any discussion on a new university-level grading system would come to the conclusion that it would cost the university nothing. Administrators would only need to tell department heads of the new policy, and then department heads would tell the professors in their departments. None of the university’s computer systems would need to be upgraded to account for A+s since COIN, the only program that handles grades, already has A+s in its grading program.
Like Stanford University and the University of California at Irvine, it would be best for the A+ system to be applied at the university level (Definition, Grading). By applying the system throughout the university and not just within colleges or departments, the best students in every class on campus would be rewarded for work their professors consider nearly perfect. It would allow those students whose work corresponds with a 97 average to have it marked on their transcripts for potential employers to see when they apply for jobs and internships, and for law school hopefuls to get an extra bump on their GPAs. Their work and intelligence in college earned those averages, so they should benefit from them by having them marked on their transcripts
Creating a grading policy with A+s given to any student who earns a 97 average in a class would not hurt anyone, because it would not take time away from administrators, cost the university anything, or be hard to do. All it would do is let students who work hard be set apart from their classmates, and make looking at syllabi even more predictable.
Works Cited
“Academic Regulations and Procedures.” UMass Dartmouth – acalog ACMS™. Web. <http://catalog.umassd.edu/content.php?catoid=1&navoid=37&returnto=search#Grades_and_Grading_System>.
“Definition of Grades.” Office of the University Registrar – Home. Web. <http://registrar.stanford.edu/students/grades/index.htm?id=2>.
“Frequently Asked Questions – Credential Assembly Service (LSDAS).” LSAC.org FAQs. Web. <http://www.lsac.org/AboutLSAC/faqs-and-support-lsdas.asp#conversion-table>.
“Grading.” Home Page | Academic Senate. Web. <http://www.senate.uci.edu/senateweb/9_IrvineManual/2ASMRegulations/R1GenRq/RegA345.html>.
“LSN :: Law School Rankings: Selectivity.” LSN :: Browse Law Schools. Web. <http://schools.lawschoolnumbers.com/rankings>.
“Rankings – Best Law Schools – Graduate Schools – Education – US News and World Report.” Best Graduate Schools – Education – US News and World Report. Web. <http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/rankings>.