A-range grades fall below 40 percent

The total percentage of undergraduate A’s fell from 40.6 percent for the period between September 2004 and June 2007 to 40.4 percent for the period between September 2005 and June 2008, as the University’s controversial grading policy inches slowly to its target.

“The committee congratulates the faculty on this accomplishment,” Malkiel said of the Faculty Committee on Grading.

Malkiel especially praised faculty from the humanities and engineering departments, which reduced the percentage of A-range grades they gave by 2 percent from the 2007-08 academic year. The percentages of A-range grades from the social-science and natural-science departments, however, have held steady, for the most part, over the last four years. Grades in the A-range from the social-science departments ranged from 37.1 percent to 37.9 percent, and A-range grades in the natural-science departments from 35.1 percent to 35.9 percent.

“The Grading Committee once again reiterated its confidence in the educational benefits of the faculty’s successful effort to bring grades under better control,” the committee said in a statement released on Monday.

Despite the progress made so far, the goal of the Faculty Committee on Grading is for the faculty, across all departments, to eventually give A-range grades at a rate of only 35 percent in undergraduate courses. The policy also states that less than 55 percent of the grades given for undergraduate independent work can fall within the A range.

In an interview with The Daily Princetonian after the meeting, Malkiel expressed confidence in the University’s ability to reach the 35 percent goal, noting that both she and the Faculty Committee on Grading are “working on it.”

In the period between September 2001 and June 2004 — the three academic years before the implementation of the grading policy — A’s comprised 47.9 percent of the grades in undergraduate courses. The effort to reduce the percentage of A-range grades for undergraduates began five years ago, and Malkiel said she is very pleased with the progress that has been made thus far.

In the midst of the efforts to curb the distribution of top grades for undergraduate work, however, Malkiel noted the importance of remaining committed to judging students’ academic efforts fairly.

“I should emphasize ... that along with the grading expectations is the clear understanding that students should be graded according to the quality of their work,” she said. “Being rigorous in the judgments you make but respecting the quality of the work that students actually do are the animating principles … of this policy.”

Also integral to the success of the University’s grading policy is that all departments commit to working together in their efforts to change grading habits, Malkiel said.

“We want departments to grade even-handedly,” she explained, “so that there isn’t an advantage to a student to be in Department A versus Department B.”