APC071017-6.2 University of Windsor Academic Policy Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APC071017-6.2 University of Windsor Academic Policy Committee 6.2: University of Windsor’s Grading Scale (Background) Item for: Information Rationale: See attached Page 1 of 9 Received by Senate March 21, 2002 Sa020321-7.5.2.3 7.5.2.3: APC Working Group Report on Re-Evaluation of the University=s Grading Scale Item for: Information Forwarded by: Academic Policy Committee Following the Academic Policy Committee=s appointment of working groups, the Working Group on Evaluating the University=s Grading Scale, consisting of Professor Jeff Berryman, Dr. Sirinimal Withane, Ms. Cathy Maskell and Mr. Jerry McCorkell first met on Tuesday, the 16th of October, 2001 in the Faculty of Law. In addition to the Committee members, Ms. Charlene Yates of the Registrar=s Office was seconded to the Committee to assist it. The Committee members wish to record their thanks to Ms. Yates for her diligence and assistance. At the first meeting of the Committee, the terms of reference were discussed. The main issue placed before the Working Group was to investigate whether the current 13 point grade scale, and corresponding letter grades, used by the University of Windsor disadvantaged our students when applying to graduate programs or other scholarship opportunities. In particular, the Working Group was asked to determine whether there was a widely adopted scale and grading scheme used by other Universities in Canada and North America. It was suggested to the Working Group that the four-point scale is used by more universities in Canada and North America, and that scholarship granting agencies and graduate programs are more familiar with this scale and can therefore make comparisons if student applicants come from a wide variety of academic disciplines as well as universities. In addition to this term of reference, Professor Berryman also asked the Working Group to investigate whether additional materials should be placed on Windsor University transcripts, and in particular, whether class averages and student course enrolment numbers should be placed on the transcript. This is a practice used by some universities and assists readers of transcripts to make a clearer appraisal of student performance. Following discussions over the terms of reference, the Working Group decided to secure information on four questions: (1) is there a widely adopted grading scheme used by universities in the United States, or particular schemes adopted by a majority of universities; (2) is there a particular grading scheme more widely adopted by Ontario and other Canadian universities; (3) what additional information is provided on transcripts by other universities and how many adopted that practice; (4) is there any available software package to translate marks between different universities? Ms. Yates undertook to secure this information for which the Working Group was extremely appreciative. The Working Group next met on November 5th, 2001 in the Faculty of Law building. Following receipt and discussion of the considerable amount of material provided by Ms. Yates, the Committee is able to make the following findings and recommendations. 1. There is no evidence to suggest that United States universities favour one particular grading scheme over any other. There is no evidence to suggest that a 4-point scheme is more widely used in the United States than in Canada. 2. There is no evidence that there is any predominate grading scheme operating within Ontario or Canadian universities. The attached undergraduate grading system conversion table identifies at least nine different grading schemes operating. While a majority of universities use a 13-point alpha scale, there is no consistency between the letter grade and the mark percentage which it correlates to. Certainly, there appears Page 2 of 9 to be no evidence to suggest that a majority of universities use a 4-point scale. In fact, the current University of Windsor grading scheme seems to fall into the majority group of Canadian universities. Based on this evidence, the Committee can not recommend, at this stage, any change to our grading scheme. 3. There does not appear to be a predominant software package for grade conversion. Most Canadian universities make manual determinations of equivalency between their own grade policy and the grade policies adopted at other Canadian universities. Once these determinations have been made they are then applied across the board to all applicants from a particular university without regard to particular academic discipline. 4. With respect to the issue of publication of class averages, class enrolment or other information on transcripts, the Committee noted that a number of universities provide this material. In particular, transcripts from Dalhousie, Queen=s, University of Toronto, McGill and the University of Prince Edward Island reveal that this information is provided at those universities. The benefit of this information is that it enables the reader to make a clearer appraisal of a candidate=s academic ability, particularly where there is a fear of some grade inflation, or different understandings over what constitutes appropriate grade levels of performance in unfamiliar disciplines. The Working Group has not investigated the issue further at this stage as it was not in its original terms of reference as provided by the Academic Policy Committee. If this practice was to be adopted at the University of Windsor, it would entail software changes to implement. Again, the Committee has not investigated these costs or any other difficulties with implementation at this stage. Because the issue is essentially on of policy, and because it was raised by a Committee Member, the Working Group believes it is appropriate to put it before the Academic Policy Committee for discussion before proceeding with any further investigation. If the Academic Policy Committee is of the view that this issue should be investigated, then the Working Group will be happy to proceed on that basis. If, on the other hand, the Academic Policy Committee sees no merit at all in the proposal, then it would be pointless for the Working Group to involve busy people in investigating the feasibility of such a plan. Excerpt from APC February 7, 2002 minutes: It was AGREED that: $ the points raised under #4 will be considered more closely by APC in the 2002-2003 academic year. When reviewing this the new Working Group should ensure that any recommendations that are made are 1) consistent with Bylaw 31; 2) address the possibility of making the alpha conversion table more accessible by placing it on the front of the transcript (rather than the back) making the transcript easier to read and; 3) consider the software needed, and the resources required, to implement changes to transcripts. Page 3 of 9 UNDERGRADUATE GRADING ECHELLES DE NOTATION AU SYSTEM CONVERSION TABLE PREMIER CYCLE Type Scale Numeric - Percentage - Pourcentage Alpha - Alpha Echelle Numérique OMSAS Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 OMSAS Value 1/4 Course Valeur OMSAS Valeur OMSAS cours1/4 4.00 9 8 90-100 93-100 94-100 94-100 A+ A A+ 4.00 2.80 3.90 85-89 84-92 87-93 85-93 A 3.90 2.73 3.80 A 3.80 2.66 3.70 8 7 80-84 75-83 80-86 80-84 A- A- 3.70 2.59 3.30 7 6 77-79 72-74 75-79 75-79 B+ B+ B+ 3.30 2.31 3.00 73-76 69-71 70-74 70-74 B B B 3.00 2.10 2.70 6 5 70-72 66-68 65-69 65-69 B- B- 2.70 1.89 2.30 5 4 67-69 64-65 60-64 60-64 C+ C+ C+ 2.30 1.61 2.00 63-66 62-63 55-59 55-59 C C C 2.00 1.40 1.70 4 3 60-62 60-61 50-54 C- C- 1.70 1.19 1.30 2 57-59 56-59 D+ D+ D+ 1.30 0.91 1.00 53-56 53-55 50-54 D D D 1.00 0.70 0.70 50-52 50-52 D- D- 0.70 0.49 0.00 3 1 < 49 < 49 < 49 < 49 E/F E/F E/F 0.00 0.00 Acadia 7 Laurentian 3 Ottawa 7 St. Thomas 7 Alberta 1 Laval 7 Prince Edward Island 3 Ste-Anne 3 Athabasca 3 Lethbridge 7 Quebec 7 Toronto 3,7 Bishop=s 3 Manitoba 7,9 Queen=s 3 Trent 3 Brandon 7 McGill 6,8 Redeemer 7 Trinity Western 7 Brock 3 McMaster 7 Regina 3 University of B.C. 7 Calgary 8 Memorial 6 RMC/CMR 4,7 Victoria 7 Cape Breton 3 Moncton 7 Royal Roads 7 Waterloo 3,7 Cariboo 7 Montreal 7 Ryerson 7 Western 3 Carleton 7 Mt. Allison 3,7 Saskatchewan 3 Wilfrid Laurier 7 Concordia 7 Mt. St. Vincent 7 Sherbrooke 7 Windsor 7 Dalhousie 7 New Brunswick 7 Simon Fraser 7 Winnipeg 7,9 Guelph 3 Nipissing 3 St. Francis Xavier 3 York 9 Lakehead 3 Northern B.C. 7 St. Mary=s 7 Page 4 of 9 Excerpt from Senate Minutes of March 21, 2002 7.5.2.3 Report on the Re-Evaluation of the University=s Grading Scale MOTION: That the APC Working Group Report on Re-Evaluation of the University=s Grading Scale be received for information. Lovett-Doust/Elman It was reported that the working group=s recommendation was to not change the current policy of using a 13- point grading scale. It was reported that there were as many variances in the United States as there were in Canada. It was suggested that APC follow up on the suggestion that the University of Windsor=s transcripts might be more useful if they included class size and class average.