Despite the overwhelming opposition to altering the grading systems, I support the conversion.

To date, I have yet to hear a valid reason why there shouldn’t be a change. This conversion would actually help students to be rewarded for better work, rather than being lumped in with lower performers.

By fracturing each letter grade into three levels, those that do better within that range will be rewarded for it. A student who has earned an 80 percent in the class shouldn’t be given the same credit as someone with an 88 percent. There’s a difference in the quality of work and equating them is inaccurate.

In response to yesterday’s letter to the editor from Andrew Schuck, the change to a plus/minus system shouldn’t make work harder for students.

They should already be trying to do as well as they can and not to get by with the minimum. Successful study habits won’t have to be changed, but blasé studying will have to be rethought. There is no requirement for students to work harder; they will just receive the grade they deserve.

Not everyone is cut out for graduate school and using a relaxed grading system as an excuse to get into a program is akin to cheating.

Finally, the possibility of cheating is an uncertainty and shouldn’t be used as a reason. This system gives credit to those that deserve it.

It won’t hurt everyone’s grades, and some will benefit. I would request then that students carefully consider why they oppose this; maybe they will realize the benefits.

Andrew Thompson

senior biology major