Daily Staff Writer

The following is part of a continuing series of historical articles which appeared in Iowa State’s student newspaper. This article, which appeared in the Wednesday, Oct. 8, 1975 issue of the Iowa State Daily, describes the beginning of Iowa State’s switch to a plus-minus grading system, a relatively recent addition to the traditional letter grading system. Today, only a handful of schools do not use the plus-minus system.

---

A proposal to change the academic grading system is currently being studied by ISU faculty. If the proposal is adopted, next year’s ISU students will receive pluses and minuses alongside the letter grades they earn.

The proposal was drawn up by an ad hoc committee appointed by the University Academic Standards Committee (UASC). Its plans would set “A” as the top letter-grade and “F” as the lowest, but in between would be A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+ and D. No grades of A+ or D- would be given.

Quality-point earnings would also be altered by the new plan. A student who earns a B in a class would still receive three quality-points. Someone who gets a B-, however, would be awarded two and two-thirds points. From A to D, each decreasing mark costs a student one-third of a quality point.

Under the proposal, a 4.0 grade point average remains the highest a student can receive. A cumulative quality-point average of at least 2.0 would still be required for graduation.

The reason for the grading change is concern by the graduate college that the present system is not fair. On the graduate level, a high number of “As” and “Bs” are issued, and the graduate college has indicated that a finer distinction between letter grades would be more fair.

The graduate faculty had voted more than a year ago to adopt a plus-minus system, but this proposal was not approved because the university did not want graduate and undergraduate students on different systems.

Subsequently, the ad hoc committee was told to consider the merits of adopting the graduate college proposal of pluses and minuses on an all-university basis. If that was found unsatisfactory, they were to come up with an alternate proposal, but one that retained the traditional letter grading system.

The committee held its first meeting in February and made recommendations to the UASC at the end of winter quarter.

The system proposed is similar to the proposal advocated by the graduate college. Description of the proposal is being circulated in a memo among ISU faculty for their consideration. UASC chairperson Dennis Hotchkiss, statistics, said he hopes faculty members will discuss the proposed change and contacts him with their opinions.

Students are also encouraged to examine the proposal. If either students or faculty feel they have a better plan, Hotchkiss hopes they will tell him so it may be considered in addition to the one advanced by the ad hoc committee.

An open meeting to discuss the new proposal will be held Oct. 28 at 4:10 p.m. in 101 Carver Hall. Sometime after the meeting, probably near the end of fall quarter, the general faculty will vote on whether to accept the new proposal, or any others that appear between now and then.

The new plan also would not require instructors to use pluses and minuses in their grading system — it would be optional.

The committee’s report, as well as the report of the graduate college faculty, are available in the main office of each faculty department and also in the reserve room of the university library if anyone wants more information.

Ad hoc committee approval of the graduate proposal came more quickly than many people expected, Lewis said.

When the proposal is voted on by the general faculty, a simple majority is all that will be necessary for the change to be adopted, Lewis said. Voting will be held either at the general faculty meeting itself, scheduled at the end of the fall quarter in Lush Auditorium in Kildee Hall, or by mail ballots. Faculty members eligible to vote include all assistant, associate and full professors. “If I had to predict, I’d predict it would pass,” Lewis said.

Ad hoc committee chairperson Brown concurred in the judgment. “The committee seemed to feel it [the grading proposal] would be a good system for the university to go to,” he said.

Other schools have been using the plus-and-minus system for some time. The University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls; Michigan State University, East Lansing; Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; are among those who use this system, according to Associate Director of Admissions Bill Yungclas.

Faculty reaction to the proposal is varied. Mathematics department head Wilfred Barnes favors the change. He said the plan would enable faculty members to better make the needed grading distinctions, particularly at the graduate level where most grades are now either A or B. The significance of the move on the undergraduate level, he feels, will not be as important.

Physics department head C.A. Swenson discussed the change at a faculty lunch and said that many faculty members were in favor of the plan. Swenson said he welcomed its implementation.

English department head Donald Benson said he felt there were other things needing attention more than the grading refinement that the new proposal would bring about.