acquiring a sour "grapevine" reputation.) With borderliners getting what they deserve, there not only
would be fewer appeals, but, more importantly, a gradual scaling down of inflated cumulative G.P.A.’s.

Second, numerical grading would be an casy policy to implement. There would be no need for divisive
rhetoric about “academic standards," no drastic "great leap forward" kind of effort bound to meet
resistance. A simple administrative directive stating, that laculty have Jo more alternative grades to choose
from would stir hardly a ripple of protest. Recaleitrant: protessors need only select from) the five old
standbys. Moreover, since most institutions are moving toward computerization, transeripts can be
Calculated and reported under a dual system of letters and yrades. Hoa transeript is being, requested) by
someone interested only in the letter rade earned, programmers need only have the computer translate the
numerical grades, 1.7, 2.6, and 3.8, for example, back into the letler equivalents, ©, B, and A.

Third, there would be increased instructional "accountability" and greater accuracy in grading. Needless
lo say, there is much greater precision when one has 41 choices over and against only five. Plus, there
would be a tendency for instructors to be more exact in specifying objectives relative to specific point values
on the 41-point seale. After a while, it would be difficult for a faculty member to justify awarding 4.0, for
example, to every member of a certain segment of a class when actually within that particular segment there
is significant differentiation, ranging from the perfect student (if there is indeed such a creature!) getting a
4.0, down to those borderliners getting the lowest A-.

Fourth, there simply would be greater fairness shown to slower learners. It is very difficult for some
students to make enough A’s and B’s worth 4.0 and 3.0 points to offset previously earned D's and F’s worth
1.0 and 0.0. Motivated slow learners could accumulate enough points in that wide space between 2.0 and
3.0 gradually to pull up low averages to the minimum 2.0 required for graduation. Late bloomers, the
socially disadvantaged, and so-called "special students" would be able to function better within a more
predictable, more reliable grading system.

Fifth, admissions offices at graduate and professional schools and, eventually, employers would have a
more accurate indication of performance in individual courses and in a deflated cumulative G.P.A. Thus,
they could place more importance on grades earned over the years as opposed to those controversial
standardized tests—tests that involve only minutes in the taking and which, some experts argue, are
inaccurate and discriminatory. Presently, however, admissions officers and employers complain that as long
as grades continue to be misleading, they will have to place more and more emphasis on their own indicators
of competence.

Sixth, those solid A, B, or C students would not be inclined to coast the last few weeks of the course.
lirequently, under the present letter grading system, there is a temptation for safe mid-nineties, eighties, or
seventies students to relax—knowing full well that a reduced score on the final exam will pull them down
only in the range of low nineties, eighties, or seventies. They will still get the A, B, or C, and so they
question putting forth the extra effort. Resting on one’s laurels would be penalized under the numerical
system because one’s average might be reduced from a 3.8, 2.8, or 1.8, to a 3.7, 2.7, or 1.7. With a little
extra subject matter mastery, one might even earn a 3.9, 2.9, or 1.9.

Certainly colleges and universities need to reclaim their legitimate function as credentialing institutions. As
long, as they cling to the outmoded letter grading system, they will further encourage the loss of credibility
with a public that is already (rightfully or not) in an uproar over declining excellence in education. We
educators have established a long tradition of leadership in American life. It is time we took it upon
ourselves to make some strides in the important area of evaluation and credentialing of students—at least at
the college level.

Henry N. Carrier
Professor of Philosophy

Kor further information, contact the author al Brevard Community. College, 1519 Clearlake Road, Cocoa, FL
32922.

 

 

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor
April 1, 1988, Vol, X, No 10

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS Is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, EDB 348, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, (512)471-7545. Subscriptions are available to nonconsortium members for $35 per year. Funding in
part by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation. Issued weekly when classes are In session during fall and spring
terms and once during the summer.

The University of Texas at Austin, 1988
Further duplication Is permitted only by MEMBER Institutions for thelr own personnel. ISSN 0199-106X