Rb/Ic

/t:7

Paper S46

To: Senate

From: Registrar

22 September, 1967

Subject: Undergraduate Grading System.

The Necessity for a Fine Structure

The following table portrays the present grading system:

Letter grade

Permanent Record

Scholarship

Numerical Value

A+

4.5

4.0

B+

3.5

3.0

B-

2.5

2.0

C-

1.5

1.0

DEF

The justification for a finer scale of numerical values for

the determination of scholarships is its spreading effect. That is,

of X students achieving a GPA of 3.5 on the 4 point scale, some may be

over 3.5 and some below 3.5 on the finer scale. This spreading effect

is necessary in the case of scholarships such as the B.C. Government

awards where the number of awards is limited in number.

The proposal of the Arts Faculty to further increase the fine

structure would provide an increased spreading effect, but the spreading

effect we have now is sufficient.

2. "Administrative" Aspects of Change

. .

There are no objections to changing the present grading system

based on administrative criteria. There would be some costs involved

in re-programming for the computer and reprinting certain forms, but not

sufficient to affect the decision one way or the other,

/3....

• ;••

-2-

External Views

The grading system at Simon Fraser has been changed once since the

University opened two years ago. To change it again probably would not be

a serious concern to other Universities or award-granting agencies, but I

suggest we do establish some period of time during which the system would

exist unchanged for fear outsiders might begin to have doubts about our

competency, and judge our students accordingly.

Use of the Grading System

Whatever grading system we use is a matter of little importance

compared to how we use it. The recent report of the Examination and Grading

Practices Committee showed some wide fluctuations in grading practice.

In this day of "money for marks" it is obviously of vital concern to the

student that there be some common standard in the use of the grading system.

In addition to the problem of skewing the distribution of grades

to one end of the scale or the other, there is the further problem of

instructors who do not use the fine scale. There is no evidence that this

is happening now, but it has often been suggested that those who want a

4 point scale can have what they want by assigning only A's, B's, C's, D's and F's.

If this suggestion is put into practice it would undoubtedly have an effect

on students' chances of securing financial assistance.

5. Recommendation for Change

If Senate does change the Grading System I would strongly urge

that the letter grade N be dropped. The N grade was originally intended

to cover those students who did not write the final examination. It is

a carry-over from a system where final examinations were universal and

counted for the majority of the final grade assigned.

Since Simon Fraser has a wide range of practices ranging from

no final examination through variations of weight placed on the final

to 1007,, of the grade being assigned on the final, the letter grade N is

anomalous. If a student does not complete the work required in a course and

the instructor sees no reason to grant a DEF grade, then the student should

be given an F grade, since has has indeed failed the course.

D.P. Robertson

Registrar

DPR/md

'.A 1.iErT

j iVJL_Fi

AL kU

ILA & IL) L

V 1a

MEMORANDUM

The 1cq i strar

From

John

it 11"w,

Lein of Art,;

Subject.

cr(JdeS A- and C+

Date

Sep tp

inncr

fl ,

As rcru I red by i he

Cha

I man

of thc

last meet i

n'i

¶on

.sibn i

t ht

at t)che(1 paper

in support

the motion table(] a I I h-t I

r'e

tl:l

grad-7. A- and C+ be added to

the

oxisi trig

cnIi'

'f ;r.inq

for

crujr,r';.

(A— ------

i l e ———

J .1 .

CI S

enc I.

Ltk

/67

Grading for Evaluation

of Courses

I have e

out in the minutes

as follows.

1. Def:inition of

(a)!11 point

Kamined the relevant arguments

of earlier meetings of Senate

terms for the purpose of this

scale

1 2 3

45 6

A+A A- B+B B

on this question as set

and my submission is

paper.

7 8 9 10

C+C C- D

(b)

4 point scale

2. Usage.

In the 1966/67 calendar, p.38, a 10-point scale was laid down, C-

being excluded. In the 1967/68 calendar, p.44, appeared the 9-point

scale now in force. A- and C+ were omitted, and C- reinstated.

These facts prompt the following observation. A member of faculty

who has had some years of marking, according to a particular scale,

has great difficulty in changing to a scale differing by one or two

points from that with which he has been familiar. Novitiates into

teaching would not experience this difficulty. The permutation

practiced in the above two calendar entries seems to have been

calculated to throw everyone, experienced and inexperienced, into

such a confusion in their task of grading student attainment as

could hardly have been bettered.

3. On June 6, 1966 Dean Cunningham reported to Senate the Arts

Faculty's earnest request for restoration of the A- and C+ grades, i.e.

for the 11-point scale as set out above. Discussion at that meeting

of Senate and again on August 29., 1966 showed that the Science Faculty

in general preferred a 4-point scale. Points made in discussion were

that the Scholarship and Awards Committee requires a fine structure to

guide their decisions; that the grading system used ought to be

compatible with percentage systems, and with the 4-point system used

in American universities. It is not clear what was envisaged as a percentage

system. Below the pass mark, whatever that may be, there can only be one

point. Above the pass mark grouping can be arranged in various ways. It is

submitted therefore, that percentage systems cannot be considered relevant

to this question. On August 29, 1966 Senate endorsed the 4-point grade

system for external use. The Registrar and the computer could, if necessary,

ignore all pluses and minuses in their records. I have consulted with

members of the Arts Faculty and the general consensus appears to be that

a 4-point system would be preferred to the present system

/The....

cA/I

/6 7-

-2-

The following conclusions are submitted.

The 11-point system and the 4-point system can easily live

together.

Either is preferred to any compromise between them.

For scholarship and other award decisions either the 11-point

system must be used or the Scholarships and Awards Committee

must in almost every case have recourse to departments for

additional information to enable them to reach just decisions.

In conclusion I wish to stress the importance of custom to

individual members of faculty if they are to achieve maximum

justice in their grading of student performance. The 11-point

system can be easily adapted by individuals to any course or

scale to which they may be accustomed.

I submit that this consideration and conclusion 3 above tilts

the balance of argument in favour of the motion now before Senate.

(Sd.) John Matthews

September 19, 1967.

SIMON

FRASER UNIVERSITY.

S-46

M21AC RJZI.1

4.%Z^ UXI

/so/,

J.F.

Ellis

Mr.

D.P.Robertson

From

..............................................

Subject

...

yem

..................................

Date..... . ...... .......

$ptembcr ... 2, ... l9,67

....................................... .....

14733—PC

The Senate, at its meeting on September 11,

1967,

requested comments from

the Faculties on the proposal by the Faculty of Arts that the

grading

scale

at Simon Fraser University be changed in the direction of providing the

opportunity for finer discriminations on student performance.

The existing grading system was accepted by the Faculty of Education at its

meeting of April

1966. The voting in favour of the scale was 16 for,

against.

I think it is fair to say that the Faculty of Education is as

aware

as any group, and more aware - than some, of the limitations of any

grading system. Our pessimism about devising a "perfect" grading scale arises

from

at least the following:

No evaluation can

ever

take into account all aspects of a learner's

performance.

2. All

evaluation procedures are subject, to a greater or lesser degree,

to the biases of the evaluator.

Many grading systems can be destructive of the relationship between

teacher

and

student.

Many of the devices used for. evaluation in universities do not uncover

some of the most

important

objectives that the professor may have.

For these reasons and for many others, the Faculty of Education at its April

4 meeting, agreed to support the present grading scale - though with a greater

or lesser degree of uneasiness.

The attention of Senate should now be directed to the

following

consideration:

The Uhiversity is two years old. The present grading scale is the second

system that has been used since the University opened. A change in the

present scale will undoubtedly lead to confusion among students and difficulty

in the interpretation of student records, both on this campus

and

on other

campuses.

JFE/ph

• .

. II

S-4ó

STATEMENT TO SENATE ON GRADING PRACTICES

I have been asked to set out the reasons why the present nine

point grading system in use in the University does not include A- and

C+. The reasons are relatively simple. The simplest grading system

which the University could use, and which would be in keeping with

that used in other North American universities, would involve the

passing grades ABCD. When the Committee met in the spring of 1966

to consider grading in Simon Fraser University, an important issue

was the need to differentiate between students with similar grade point

averages in the awarding of scholarships. No doubt the Registrar can

amplify the reasoning behind this statement more fully than I can. We

therefore argued that the most likely place where problems will arise

will be in the B grade, which was therefore divided into B+, B, and B-.

As additional fine structure in the system, C and A both had extra

grades placed within them to identify the exceptionally bright student

at A+, and the one who has got a bare pass at C-. In other words,

this does not represent the removal of A - and C+ from an eleven-point

scheme, but rather the insertion of A+, B+, B- and C- around a four-

point scheme.

Having identified the rationale, however, I must say that the

present argument does not appear to be taking place along rational

lines. The Science Faculty is used to the A.BCD scheme, and believes

that this is the scheme that it can-work most efficiently. The Arts

Faculty on the other hand, as I understand their views, are used to

working with an eleven-point scale; when faced with a paper which

they intuitively feel merits A- or C±, they are forced to give another

grade which they feel is wronging the students in some way. It is

relatively easy for sorntbody with a mathtnuttical background to point

out that the

difference

between

the

present scale and that to which

many members of the Arts Faculty have an allegiance is the difference

between nine points and eleven points; unfortunately, this statement

seems

to be rather meaningless to many people.

As I have pointed out previously, the present grading system

is the result of a compromise. I think we should give the compromise

every opportunity to work and allow everybody to get used to it for a

few years before we throw it overboard. As a representative of the

Faculty of Science, I must point out finally that to reject a compromise

which was arrived at by supposedly democratic methods is not likely

to increase the faith of the Faculty of Science in the outcome of any

future negotiations on similar matters.

D. G. Tuck