Last spring, the Faculty Senate once again entertained discussion on changing the grading system at RPI to include modifiers, and the issue is continuing in the body’s Curriculum Committee with Senate President Cheryl Geisler hoping to see the subject decided by the end of next semester.
“The sense that I hear from the faculty is that we have a five-letter system that doesn’t accurately reflect the gradation,” said Geisler. “There is a big gap between an A and a B. It’s a very coarse measurement.”
Professor Steinbruchar, chairman of the Curriculum Committee, agreed. “It would allow for better distinction between grades,” he said. “What may seem to be a difference of one mark may be as little as 1.7 points.”
The issue was brought to the table last spring by then-Senator Ellen Esrock. Esrock gave a presentation to the full Senate on how the issue has been handled at other schools, and what experiences they have had with it. The topic was passed to the body’s Executive Committee following the presentation, and then passed on again to the Curriculum Committee. “[That’s] where the expertise on this is,” Geisler explained.
Steinbruchar said that the committee has been gathering data and discussing the issue since the beginning of the semester, but that most of the details have not yet been finalized. Before the committee can make a report to the Senate, it will have to decide on how to implement a change, whether it would take effect for all students or just new ones, and how to solicit formal input from the student body on the issue.
“It seems like it would be a good idea to have it only take effect with new students rather than switch midstream for current ones, but we have to look at the feasibility of that,” Geisler said.
The committee has investigated the issue a number of ways. Each faculty member on the committee, for example, was asked to re-grade their classes as if the modifiers were already in use to see how it played out. They found after doing so that the addition made no real difference on average, with roughly equal numbers of pluses and minuses.
The group also examined policies at other schools. “We are in a substantial minority,” said Steinbruchar. “Most schools, including ones that we compare ourselves to academically, have plus-minus.”
The way these other schools have implemented the modifiers differs widely, however. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology began using modifiers in 1995, but only on internal transcripts. External ones continued to use the five-letter system.
Geisler and Steinbruchar both described how widespread support for the change is in the faculty. “I wouldn’t say it’s 100 percent support,” Geisler said, “but informally I’ve seen a lot of support.”
Of just as much concern as faculty input, however, is that of the students. The committee continues to wrestle with how to approach the students on the issue, but remains committed to it. “It’s sort of a principle to get student input on this,” Geisler emphasized.
One of the major points that the committee has noticed, Steinbruchar said, is that no one has given them a reason to not go through with the change. “From our point of view, and this is anticipating what the students’ concerns may be, there isn’t a downside.”
Students have had not been formally made aware that the change was being discussed, but a few feel very strongly on the issue already.
“I think the grading system at RPI is unfair to begin with,” said freshman Diana Desai.
Katherine Muto ’07 agreed with a definite “no” as soon as the question was asked. “It’s unfair to change it because it gives an advantage to students who have been here for a few years already.”
“There should be a reward for people who do well,” said sophomore Mitul Kanzaria. “And it would be a better representation of your grade.”
“The Senate recognizes that this discussion is at a point that would benefit greatly from student input, and I’m looking forward to working with Professor Steinbruchar,” said Grand Marshal Mike Borzumate.
