grades (unsubstantiated opinion)

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

> Joel Rauber wrote:
> > Our most recent catalog (years 2000-2002) describes the
> following grade
> > system. (Note: at our school there are no provisions for +- grades)
> >
> > A = Exceptional 4.0 grade points
> > B = Superior 3.0 grade points
> > C = Average 2.0 grade points
> > D = Passing 1.0 grade points
> > F = Failure
>
> Teaching at the University of Winnipeg last year I was constrained to
> use the following scheme:
>
> A+      90-100%
> A       80-89%
> B+      74-79%
> B       67-73%
> C+      61-66%
> C       53-60%
> D       50-52%
> F       <50%
>
> The thing that struck me when I saw this breakdown was that
> the practice
> of "C is average" must be long gone.  To have a class average
> of C would
> mean either a very small standard deviation, or a huge number
> of fails.
>
> In my undergraduate years (early 80's at UBC) there was very simple
> grading scheme:
>
> First Class     80-100%
> Second Class    66-79%
> Pass            50-65%
> Fail            <50%
>
> I'm not sure about the rationale behind this (or if they
> still use this
> scheme) but one thing it accomplished was to break the expectation of
> what a particular letter means.

Interesting.  This is the kind of scheme I went through in my high school
years (the numbers for the percentages being different.

My personal preference would be for an expectation of what letters mean,
rather than a defined percentage for letters.  As percentages on tests (and
hence for courses) are so easily manipulated.

Joel Rauber
Joel_Rauber@sdstate.edu