Mixing
U.S. grading system: Why discrete grades?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the U.S., many colleges adopt an A-F grading scheme, topped with pluses and minuses.
Professors vary in the way they assign A to F grades, but my sense is most rely on discrete "bins". For example, some professors use relative grading and (roughly) give an A to the top third or the class, a B to the second third, etc. Others will give an A to students who get between, say, 100% and 95%, and A- to students between 94% and 90%, a B+ to students between 86% and 89%, etc.
Using discrete bins necessarily implies some knife-edge cases where a student is right at the border with the next bin, and it would have taken very little for that student to jump into that next bin and improve their letter grade by one "level".
That would be all fine (I guess) if letters where only honorary titles, and what mattered was the actual underlying percentage grade. However, in most places (i.e., all the places I know), it is the letter grade --- and never the percentage grade itself --- that is attached to the student's academic record.
This could be an issue per se if a student wanted to show proficiency in a particular topic and got, for example, an A- that was in fact very close to an A. That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
Things get even worst when averaging through different courses and computing one's GPA, since most colleges then use a scheme like the following one:
Letter Grade --- GPA
A --- 4.00/4.00
A- --- 3.67/4.00
B+ --- 3.33/4.00
B ---3.00/4.00
B- --- 2.67/4.00
C+ --- 2.33/4.00
... ...
Again, this means that the half of a percent a student needed to jump from an A- to A will have a significant effect on that student's GPA, where really, the effect of getting one more half of a percent should be negligible, regardless of the baseline percentage one is starting from.
In a world where GPAs are taken so seriously, this means that half of a percent can make a significant difference in a student's life and career. Again, this can create understandable frustrations for students who "nearly made it".
My question
I know that there are "palliatives" to deal with the discrete grading scale and avoid some of these knife edge cases, such as rounding up decimals. In all fairness, I don't think those are real solutions (rounding up decimals just moves the problem from one threshold to another), but that's not what I am interested in here.
What I would like to know is:
- Whether there are any arguments in favor of using a discrete grading scheme like the one above, or whether this is just a produce of history and the difficulty to coordinate practices across the vast number of U.S. colleges.
- In other words, is anyone claiming that the discrete scale has virtues of its own other than the fact that it is used in so many places --- creating comparability --- and that it would be hard to coordinate a change at all those places at once?
united-states grading
asked 1 hour ago
Martin Van der Linden
35126
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the U.S., many colleges adopt an A-F grading scheme, topped with pluses and minuses.
Professors vary in the way they assign A to F grades, but my sense is most rely on discrete "bins". For example, some professors use relative grading and (roughly) give an A to the top third or the class, a B to the second third, etc. Others will give an A to students who get between, say, 100% and 95%, and A- to students between 94% and 90%, a B+ to students between 86% and 89%, etc.
Using discrete bins necessarily implies some knife-edge cases where a student is right at the border with the next bin, and it would have taken very little for that student to jump into that next bin and improve their letter grade by one "level".
That would be all fine (I guess) if letters where only honorary titles, and what mattered was the actual underlying percentage grade. However, in most places (i.e., all the places I know), it is the letter grade --- and never the percentage grade itself --- that is attached to the student's academic record.
This could be an issue per se if a student wanted to show proficiency in a particular topic and got, for example, an A- that was in fact very close to an A. That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
Things get even worst when averaging through different courses and computing one's GPA, since most colleges then use a scheme like the following one:
Letter Grade --- GPA
A --- 4.00/4.00
A- --- 3.67/4.00
B+ --- 3.33/4.00
B ---3.00/4.00
B- --- 2.67/4.00
C+ --- 2.33/4.00
... ...
Again, this means that the half of a percent a student needed to jump from an A- to A will have a significant effect on that student's GPA, where really, the effect of getting one more half of a percent should be negligible, regardless of the baseline percentage one is starting from.
In a world where GPAs are taken so seriously, this means that half of a percent can make a significant difference in a student's life and career. Again, this can create understandable frustrations for students who "nearly made it".
My question
I know that there are "palliatives" to deal with the discrete grading scale and avoid some of these knife edge cases, such as rounding up decimals. In all fairness, I don't think those are real solutions (rounding up decimals just moves the problem from one threshold to another), but that's not what I am interested in here.
What I would like to know is:
- Whether there are any arguments in favor of using a discrete grading scheme like the one above, or whether this is just a produce of history and the difficulty to coordinate practices across the vast number of U.S. colleges.
- In other words, is anyone claiming that the discrete scale has virtues of its own other than the fact that it is used in so many places --- creating comparability --- and that it would be hard to coordinate a change at all those places at once?
united-states grading
asked 1 hour ago
Martin Van der Linden
35126
Well, I would dispute that "GPAs are taken so seriously," but I digress. I have always thought of it as "Is a 92 really more meaningfully better than a 91 that the transcript should reflect that"? Basically, it reflects the fact that GPAs are not very sensitive by not overestimating their precision. And as you point out, edge cases are an unfortunate byproduct of this.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
2
Also, this system isn't unique to the US (Canada does it too) ... you could just ask about discrete scales, instead of asking about only the US
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". I don't understand your logic here, since A doesn't itself mean "perfect".
– Nate Eldredge
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the U.S., many colleges adopt an A-F grading scheme, topped with pluses and minuses.
Professors vary in the way they assign A to F grades, but my sense is most rely on discrete "bins". For example, some professors use relative grading and (roughly) give an A to the top third or the class, a B to the second third, etc. Others will give an A to students who get between, say, 100% and 95%, and A- to students between 94% and 90%, a B+ to students between 86% and 89%, etc.
Using discrete bins necessarily implies some knife-edge cases where a student is right at the border with the next bin, and it would have taken very little for that student to jump into that next bin and improve their letter grade by one "level".
That would be all fine (I guess) if letters where only honorary titles, and what mattered was the actual underlying percentage grade. However, in most places (i.e., all the places I know), it is the letter grade --- and never the percentage grade itself --- that is attached to the student's academic record.
This could be an issue per se if a student wanted to show proficiency in a particular topic and got, for example, an A- that was in fact very close to an A. That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
Things get even worst when averaging through different courses and computing one's GPA, since most colleges then use a scheme like the following one:
Letter Grade --- GPA
A --- 4.00/4.00
A- --- 3.67/4.00
B+ --- 3.33/4.00
B ---3.00/4.00
B- --- 2.67/4.00
C+ --- 2.33/4.00
... ...
Again, this means that the half of a percent a student needed to jump from an A- to A will have a significant effect on that student's GPA, where really, the effect of getting one more half of a percent should be negligible, regardless of the baseline percentage one is starting from.
In a world where GPAs are taken so seriously, this means that half of a percent can make a significant difference in a student's life and career. Again, this can create understandable frustrations for students who "nearly made it".
My question
I know that there are "palliatives" to deal with the discrete grading scale and avoid some of these knife edge cases, such as rounding up decimals. In all fairness, I don't think those are real solutions (rounding up decimals just moves the problem from one threshold to another), but that's not what I am interested in here.
What I would like to know is:
- Whether there are any arguments in favor of using a discrete grading scheme like the one above, or whether this is just a produce of history and the difficulty to coordinate practices across the vast number of U.S. colleges.
- In other words, is anyone claiming that the discrete scale has virtues of its own other than the fact that it is used in so many places --- creating comparability --- and that it would be hard to coordinate a change at all those places at once?
united-states grading
asked 1 hour ago
Martin Van der Linden
35126
In the U.S., many colleges adopt an A-F grading scheme, topped with pluses and minuses.
Professors vary in the way they assign A to F grades, but my sense is most rely on discrete "bins". For example, some professors use relative grading and (roughly) give an A to the top third or the class, a B to the second third, etc. Others will give an A to students who get between, say, 100% and 95%, and A- to students between 94% and 90%, a B+ to students between 86% and 89%, etc.
Using discrete bins necessarily implies some knife-edge cases where a student is right at the border with the next bin, and it would have taken very little for that student to jump into that next bin and improve their letter grade by one "level".
That would be all fine (I guess) if letters where only honorary titles, and what mattered was the actual underlying percentage grade. However, in most places (i.e., all the places I know), it is the letter grade --- and never the percentage grade itself --- that is attached to the student's academic record.
This could be an issue per se if a student wanted to show proficiency in a particular topic and got, for example, an A- that was in fact very close to an A. That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
Things get even worst when averaging through different courses and computing one's GPA, since most colleges then use a scheme like the following one:
Letter Grade --- GPA
A --- 4.00/4.00
A- --- 3.67/4.00
B+ --- 3.33/4.00
B ---3.00/4.00
B- --- 2.67/4.00
C+ --- 2.33/4.00
... ...
Again, this means that the half of a percent a student needed to jump from an A- to A will have a significant effect on that student's GPA, where really, the effect of getting one more half of a percent should be negligible, regardless of the baseline percentage one is starting from.
In a world where GPAs are taken so seriously, this means that half of a percent can make a significant difference in a student's life and career. Again, this can create understandable frustrations for students who "nearly made it".
My question
I know that there are "palliatives" to deal with the discrete grading scale and avoid some of these knife edge cases, such as rounding up decimals. In all fairness, I don't think those are real solutions (rounding up decimals just moves the problem from one threshold to another), but that's not what I am interested in here.
What I would like to know is:
- Whether there are any arguments in favor of using a discrete grading scheme like the one above, or whether this is just a produce of history and the difficulty to coordinate practices across the vast number of U.S. colleges.
- In other words, is anyone claiming that the discrete scale has virtues of its own other than the fact that it is used in so many places --- creating comparability --- and that it would be hard to coordinate a change at all those places at once?
united-states grading
united-states grading
asked 1 hour ago
Martin Van der Linden
35126
asked 1 hour ago
Martin Van der Linden
35126
asked 1 hour ago
Martin Van der Linden
35126
asked 1 hour ago
Martin Van der Linden
35126
asked 1 hour ago
Martin Van der Linden
35126
35126
Well, I would dispute that "GPAs are taken so seriously," but I digress. I have always thought of it as "Is a 92 really more meaningfully better than a 91 that the transcript should reflect that"? Basically, it reflects the fact that GPAs are not very sensitive by not overestimating their precision. And as you point out, edge cases are an unfortunate byproduct of this.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
2
Also, this system isn't unique to the US (Canada does it too) ... you could just ask about discrete scales, instead of asking about only the US
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". I don't understand your logic here, since A doesn't itself mean "perfect".
– Nate Eldredge
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Well, I would dispute that "GPAs are taken so seriously," but I digress. I have always thought of it as "Is a 92 really more meaningfully better than a 91 that the transcript should reflect that"? Basically, it reflects the fact that GPAs are not very sensitive by not overestimating their precision. And as you point out, edge cases are an unfortunate byproduct of this.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
2
Also, this system isn't unique to the US (Canada does it too) ... you could just ask about discrete scales, instead of asking about only the US
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". I don't understand your logic here, since A doesn't itself mean "perfect".
– Nate Eldredge
22 mins ago
Well, I would dispute that "GPAs are taken so seriously," but I digress. I have always thought of it as "Is a 92 really more meaningfully better than a 91 that the transcript should reflect that"? Basically, it reflects the fact that GPAs are not very sensitive by not overestimating their precision. And as you point out, edge cases are an unfortunate byproduct of this.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
Well, I would dispute that "GPAs are taken so seriously," but I digress. I have always thought of it as "Is a 92 really more meaningfully better than a 91 that the transcript should reflect that"? Basically, it reflects the fact that GPAs are not very sensitive by not overestimating their precision. And as you point out, edge cases are an unfortunate byproduct of this.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
2
2
Also, this system isn't unique to the US (Canada does it too) ... you could just ask about discrete scales, instead of asking about only the US
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
Also, this system isn't unique to the US (Canada does it too) ... you could just ask about discrete scales, instead of asking about only the US
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". I don't understand your logic here, since A doesn't itself mean "perfect".
– Nate Eldredge
22 mins ago
That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". I don't understand your logic here, since A doesn't itself mean "perfect".
– Nate Eldredge
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I am in favor of using the US discrete grade system. Some thoughts I will address.
As the OP mentions, in the US, the ABC grade system is relatively standardized and well understood by a large variety of institutions. It makes comparisons among students from a variety of schools more compatible (although, yes, not perfectly comparable).
Beyond this, I feel that the ABC system delivers the appropriate amount of granularity. After all, you have to truncate grade percentages somewhere. In some sense every system is discrete.
One method that I have used for my students in math classes in the US is a clustering system guided by the grade cutoffs. The percentages are guarantees. After that, I cluster students into grade groups, with students who barely missed the cutoff still usually getting adjusted up. For example, let's say that we have the following percentages:
93.23%, 93.17%, 92.88%, 92.81%, 92.08%
I would give the first four students A's and the final student an A- under normal circumstances. (It is usually more nuanced than that). I feel that the grades I gave my students usually very accurately described their proficiency relative to the stated outcomes of the course. This was also vastly true when I was a student. In fact there were times where I would prefer to take my A grade than my raw percentage. An 'A' sounds much better than "I got 83% raw, but I was the second highest grade in the course."
In my opinion, the ABC system actually is a stronger system than a raw percentage system. Is a 95% in Dr. Haskin's Calculus I class better than a 97% in Dr. Bodrel's Calculus I course? Both would result in an A grade. Or how would a 97% in Calculus I compare to a 97% in Floral Design? By using the ABC system, we effectively run a sort of "low-pass" filter on the grades. In my opinion this actually allows for a fairer comparison between students.
Let me also add that having a raw percentage system would be awful from the perspective of an instructor. Students already anguish about their grades. Now picture if they had to anguish about not just getting an A, but getting 100%. You would end up having students with 98% in the course worrying about getting 99%. It just becomes excessively fiddly. As a former student myself, I would actually hate a raw system. I was grateful for being able to get an A with 94% in a class without having to worry about pushing it up to a 95%.
I will close by saying that school and grades are not always fair. Such is life. No matter what system you use, there will be drawbacks from one perspective or another.
answered 1 hour ago
Vladhagen
3,49611633
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Consider the perspective of a transcript-reader. They're interested in scanning a school transcript with records of maybe 30 or 40 classes (for a bachelor's degree), with maybe half of those in the major, as quickly and efficiently as possible. The fact that there are a small number of different marks is a help in parsing the record.
- The A-F scheme is just a single glyph per class, instead of the
two-glyphs (or three) for a 0 - 100 system. - The granularity of letter grades is entirely useful to the reader; it is doubtful that the reader cares about the difference between 85% and 86%, and so that ones-place digit is often just wasted space and eye-strain.
- The A-F system seems compatible with "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" rule, which says psychologically people can juggle and assess around 5-9 discrete things in short-term memory at once.
Furthermore, many non-STEM classes have, by their nature, qualitative grading on assignments, performances, etc. Consider, e.g., the policies listed for Grading at Yale. The first possible protocol listed is "Letter grades for all assignments"; the second protocol listed is "Numerical grades on all assignments", and it asserts that this is the standard only for STEM courses. So in the first (possibly more common) case, presenting a number at the end of the course with two-digit precision would be vacuous.
answered 46 mins ago
Daniel R. Collins
16.6k44468
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
It’s worth keeping in mind that life outcomes are also discrete, and this also causes students (and everyone else) similar frustrations. You either get the fellowship/top grad school admission/job/promotion/whatever, or you don’t. So students would still experience the same frustrations even with continuous grades, and even under the completely unrealistic assumption that their grades are a perfectly accurate tool for measuring their level of knowledge, which obviously they aren’t.
I’m not a huge fan of the US grading system myself, but honestly I don’t think it matters very much whether grading is done on a continuous or discrete scale. Grades are a statistical tool and should be interpreted as such - when averaged over many scores they have some (limited) meaning, but any one individual grade doesn’t necessary mean very much.
answered 45 mins ago
Dan Romik
77k20170260
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are a number of issues here. One, however, is that the table you give doesn't seem accurate to me - or at least, I'm pretty sure it isn't used by most US colleges.
Second is that your assertion that a student can "miss" a higher grade by an insignificant amount, while true in theory, is less true in practice. I never let that happen, for example, always giving students the benefit if a point total for the course was insignificantly different from that of another student who got the higher grade.
Third, it is a tradition that A means "finest kind", B means "good but not finest kind", C means "acceptable", and D means "needs improvement". Yes those are bins but I don't think I can make a statement that a person with 3.22 is in any way better than a person with 3.20. The means by which I assign grades are not that fine grained. The grade is an aggregate, not an absolutely precise measure. So I can't even distinguish that finely between students.
Fourth, if we compare different courses, even by the same professor, but in particular by different professors in possibly different fields, does a 3.22 mean the same thing. Is a 3.22 in a basic philosophy course exactly the same as a 3.22 in an advanced math course. It would be foolish, IMO, to assert that they were the same.
All of the above indicates that indeed, the grades are just bins. And the bins are accurate enough that, for example, an employer or graduate school admissions system can make valid judgements about the prospects of a student. There are exceptions, of course, but in the main, simple bins represent reality better than giving a precise measure to something that isn't.
Don't confuse accuracy with precision.
Also note a psychological effect of "bin grading". If a student realizes that with just a bit more effort they can raise their grade from B+ to A-, they may just be wiling to put in the effort. That won't occur with grades that are purely numerical.
answered 1 hour ago
Buffy
17.5k55797
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
I am in favor of using the US discrete grade system. Some thoughts I will address.
As the OP mentions, in the US, the ABC grade system is relatively standardized and well understood by a large variety of institutions. It makes comparisons among students from a variety of schools more compatible (although, yes, not perfectly comparable).
Beyond this, I feel that the ABC system delivers the appropriate amount of granularity. After all, you have to truncate grade percentages somewhere. In some sense every system is discrete.
One method that I have used for my students in math classes in the US is a clustering system guided by the grade cutoffs. The percentages are guarantees. After that, I cluster students into grade groups, with students who barely missed the cutoff still usually getting adjusted up. For example, let's say that we have the following percentages:
93.23%, 93.17%, 92.88%, 92.81%, 92.08%
I would give the first four students A's and the final student an A- under normal circumstances. (It is usually more nuanced than that). I feel that the grades I gave my students usually very accurately described their proficiency relative to the stated outcomes of the course. This was also vastly true when I was a student. In fact there were times where I would prefer to take my A grade than my raw percentage. An 'A' sounds much better than "I got 83% raw, but I was the second highest grade in the course."
In my opinion, the ABC system actually is a stronger system than a raw percentage system. Is a 95% in Dr. Haskin's Calculus I class better than a 97% in Dr. Bodrel's Calculus I course? Both would result in an A grade. Or how would a 97% in Calculus I compare to a 97% in Floral Design? By using the ABC system, we effectively run a sort of "low-pass" filter on the grades. In my opinion this actually allows for a fairer comparison between students.
Let me also add that having a raw percentage system would be awful from the perspective of an instructor. Students already anguish about their grades. Now picture if they had to anguish about not just getting an A, but getting 100%. You would end up having students with 98% in the course worrying about getting 99%. It just becomes excessively fiddly. As a former student myself, I would actually hate a raw system. I was grateful for being able to get an A with 94% in a class without having to worry about pushing it up to a 95%.
I will close by saying that school and grades are not always fair. Such is life. No matter what system you use, there will be drawbacks from one perspective or another.
answered 1 hour ago
Vladhagen
3,49611633
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I am in favor of using the US discrete grade system. Some thoughts I will address.
As the OP mentions, in the US, the ABC grade system is relatively standardized and well understood by a large variety of institutions. It makes comparisons among students from a variety of schools more compatible (although, yes, not perfectly comparable).
Beyond this, I feel that the ABC system delivers the appropriate amount of granularity. After all, you have to truncate grade percentages somewhere. In some sense every system is discrete.
One method that I have used for my students in math classes in the US is a clustering system guided by the grade cutoffs. The percentages are guarantees. After that, I cluster students into grade groups, with students who barely missed the cutoff still usually getting adjusted up. For example, let's say that we have the following percentages:
93.23%, 93.17%, 92.88%, 92.81%, 92.08%
I would give the first four students A's and the final student an A- under normal circumstances. (It is usually more nuanced than that). I feel that the grades I gave my students usually very accurately described their proficiency relative to the stated outcomes of the course. This was also vastly true when I was a student. In fact there were times where I would prefer to take my A grade than my raw percentage. An 'A' sounds much better than "I got 83% raw, but I was the second highest grade in the course."
In my opinion, the ABC system actually is a stronger system than a raw percentage system. Is a 95% in Dr. Haskin's Calculus I class better than a 97% in Dr. Bodrel's Calculus I course? Both would result in an A grade. Or how would a 97% in Calculus I compare to a 97% in Floral Design? By using the ABC system, we effectively run a sort of "low-pass" filter on the grades. In my opinion this actually allows for a fairer comparison between students.
Let me also add that having a raw percentage system would be awful from the perspective of an instructor. Students already anguish about their grades. Now picture if they had to anguish about not just getting an A, but getting 100%. You would end up having students with 98% in the course worrying about getting 99%. It just becomes excessively fiddly. As a former student myself, I would actually hate a raw system. I was grateful for being able to get an A with 94% in a class without having to worry about pushing it up to a 95%.
I will close by saying that school and grades are not always fair. Such is life. No matter what system you use, there will be drawbacks from one perspective or another.
answered 1 hour ago
Vladhagen
3,49611633
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I am in favor of using the US discrete grade system. Some thoughts I will address.
As the OP mentions, in the US, the ABC grade system is relatively standardized and well understood by a large variety of institutions. It makes comparisons among students from a variety of schools more compatible (although, yes, not perfectly comparable).
Beyond this, I feel that the ABC system delivers the appropriate amount of granularity. After all, you have to truncate grade percentages somewhere. In some sense every system is discrete.
One method that I have used for my students in math classes in the US is a clustering system guided by the grade cutoffs. The percentages are guarantees. After that, I cluster students into grade groups, with students who barely missed the cutoff still usually getting adjusted up. For example, let's say that we have the following percentages:
93.23%, 93.17%, 92.88%, 92.81%, 92.08%
I would give the first four students A's and the final student an A- under normal circumstances. (It is usually more nuanced than that). I feel that the grades I gave my students usually very accurately described their proficiency relative to the stated outcomes of the course. This was also vastly true when I was a student. In fact there were times where I would prefer to take my A grade than my raw percentage. An 'A' sounds much better than "I got 83% raw, but I was the second highest grade in the course."
In my opinion, the ABC system actually is a stronger system than a raw percentage system. Is a 95% in Dr. Haskin's Calculus I class better than a 97% in Dr. Bodrel's Calculus I course? Both would result in an A grade. Or how would a 97% in Calculus I compare to a 97% in Floral Design? By using the ABC system, we effectively run a sort of "low-pass" filter on the grades. In my opinion this actually allows for a fairer comparison between students.
Let me also add that having a raw percentage system would be awful from the perspective of an instructor. Students already anguish about their grades. Now picture if they had to anguish about not just getting an A, but getting 100%. You would end up having students with 98% in the course worrying about getting 99%. It just becomes excessively fiddly. As a former student myself, I would actually hate a raw system. I was grateful for being able to get an A with 94% in a class without having to worry about pushing it up to a 95%.
I will close by saying that school and grades are not always fair. Such is life. No matter what system you use, there will be drawbacks from one perspective or another.
answered 1 hour ago
Vladhagen
3,49611633
I am in favor of using the US discrete grade system. Some thoughts I will address.
As the OP mentions, in the US, the ABC grade system is relatively standardized and well understood by a large variety of institutions. It makes comparisons among students from a variety of schools more compatible (although, yes, not perfectly comparable).
Beyond this, I feel that the ABC system delivers the appropriate amount of granularity. After all, you have to truncate grade percentages somewhere. In some sense every system is discrete.
One method that I have used for my students in math classes in the US is a clustering system guided by the grade cutoffs. The percentages are guarantees. After that, I cluster students into grade groups, with students who barely missed the cutoff still usually getting adjusted up. For example, let's say that we have the following percentages:
93.23%, 93.17%, 92.88%, 92.81%, 92.08%
I would give the first four students A's and the final student an A- under normal circumstances. (It is usually more nuanced than that). I feel that the grades I gave my students usually very accurately described their proficiency relative to the stated outcomes of the course. This was also vastly true when I was a student. In fact there were times where I would prefer to take my A grade than my raw percentage. An 'A' sounds much better than "I got 83% raw, but I was the second highest grade in the course."
In my opinion, the ABC system actually is a stronger system than a raw percentage system. Is a 95% in Dr. Haskin's Calculus I class better than a 97% in Dr. Bodrel's Calculus I course? Both would result in an A grade. Or how would a 97% in Calculus I compare to a 97% in Floral Design? By using the ABC system, we effectively run a sort of "low-pass" filter on the grades. In my opinion this actually allows for a fairer comparison between students.
Let me also add that having a raw percentage system would be awful from the perspective of an instructor. Students already anguish about their grades. Now picture if they had to anguish about not just getting an A, but getting 100%. You would end up having students with 98% in the course worrying about getting 99%. It just becomes excessively fiddly. As a former student myself, I would actually hate a raw system. I was grateful for being able to get an A with 94% in a class without having to worry about pushing it up to a 95%.
I will close by saying that school and grades are not always fair. Such is life. No matter what system you use, there will be drawbacks from one perspective or another.
answered 1 hour ago
Vladhagen
3,49611633
answered 1 hour ago
Vladhagen
3,49611633
answered 1 hour ago
Vladhagen
3,49611633
answered 1 hour ago
Vladhagen
3,49611633
3,49611633
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Consider the perspective of a transcript-reader. They're interested in scanning a school transcript with records of maybe 30 or 40 classes (for a bachelor's degree), with maybe half of those in the major, as quickly and efficiently as possible. The fact that there are a small number of different marks is a help in parsing the record.
- The A-F scheme is just a single glyph per class, instead of the
two-glyphs (or three) for a 0 - 100 system. - The granularity of letter grades is entirely useful to the reader; it is doubtful that the reader cares about the difference between 85% and 86%, and so that ones-place digit is often just wasted space and eye-strain.
- The A-F system seems compatible with "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" rule, which says psychologically people can juggle and assess around 5-9 discrete things in short-term memory at once.
Furthermore, many non-STEM classes have, by their nature, qualitative grading on assignments, performances, etc. Consider, e.g., the policies listed for Grading at Yale. The first possible protocol listed is "Letter grades for all assignments"; the second protocol listed is "Numerical grades on all assignments", and it asserts that this is the standard only for STEM courses. So in the first (possibly more common) case, presenting a number at the end of the course with two-digit precision would be vacuous.
answered 46 mins ago
Daniel R. Collins
16.6k44468
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Consider the perspective of a transcript-reader. They're interested in scanning a school transcript with records of maybe 30 or 40 classes (for a bachelor's degree), with maybe half of those in the major, as quickly and efficiently as possible. The fact that there are a small number of different marks is a help in parsing the record.
- The A-F scheme is just a single glyph per class, instead of the
two-glyphs (or three) for a 0 - 100 system. - The granularity of letter grades is entirely useful to the reader; it is doubtful that the reader cares about the difference between 85% and 86%, and so that ones-place digit is often just wasted space and eye-strain.
- The A-F system seems compatible with "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" rule, which says psychologically people can juggle and assess around 5-9 discrete things in short-term memory at once.
Furthermore, many non-STEM classes have, by their nature, qualitative grading on assignments, performances, etc. Consider, e.g., the policies listed for Grading at Yale. The first possible protocol listed is "Letter grades for all assignments"; the second protocol listed is "Numerical grades on all assignments", and it asserts that this is the standard only for STEM courses. So in the first (possibly more common) case, presenting a number at the end of the course with two-digit precision would be vacuous.
answered 46 mins ago
Daniel R. Collins
16.6k44468
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Consider the perspective of a transcript-reader. They're interested in scanning a school transcript with records of maybe 30 or 40 classes (for a bachelor's degree), with maybe half of those in the major, as quickly and efficiently as possible. The fact that there are a small number of different marks is a help in parsing the record.
- The A-F scheme is just a single glyph per class, instead of the
two-glyphs (or three) for a 0 - 100 system. - The granularity of letter grades is entirely useful to the reader; it is doubtful that the reader cares about the difference between 85% and 86%, and so that ones-place digit is often just wasted space and eye-strain.
- The A-F system seems compatible with "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" rule, which says psychologically people can juggle and assess around 5-9 discrete things in short-term memory at once.
Furthermore, many non-STEM classes have, by their nature, qualitative grading on assignments, performances, etc. Consider, e.g., the policies listed for Grading at Yale. The first possible protocol listed is "Letter grades for all assignments"; the second protocol listed is "Numerical grades on all assignments", and it asserts that this is the standard only for STEM courses. So in the first (possibly more common) case, presenting a number at the end of the course with two-digit precision would be vacuous.
answered 46 mins ago
Daniel R. Collins
16.6k44468
Consider the perspective of a transcript-reader. They're interested in scanning a school transcript with records of maybe 30 or 40 classes (for a bachelor's degree), with maybe half of those in the major, as quickly and efficiently as possible. The fact that there are a small number of different marks is a help in parsing the record.
- The A-F scheme is just a single glyph per class, instead of the
two-glyphs (or three) for a 0 - 100 system. - The granularity of letter grades is entirely useful to the reader; it is doubtful that the reader cares about the difference between 85% and 86%, and so that ones-place digit is often just wasted space and eye-strain.
- The A-F system seems compatible with "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two" rule, which says psychologically people can juggle and assess around 5-9 discrete things in short-term memory at once.
Furthermore, many non-STEM classes have, by their nature, qualitative grading on assignments, performances, etc. Consider, e.g., the policies listed for Grading at Yale. The first possible protocol listed is "Letter grades for all assignments"; the second protocol listed is "Numerical grades on all assignments", and it asserts that this is the standard only for STEM courses. So in the first (possibly more common) case, presenting a number at the end of the course with two-digit precision would be vacuous.
answered 46 mins ago
Daniel R. Collins
16.6k44468
answered 46 mins ago
Daniel R. Collins
16.6k44468
answered 46 mins ago
Daniel R. Collins
16.6k44468
answered 46 mins ago
Daniel R. Collins
16.6k44468
16.6k44468
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
It’s worth keeping in mind that life outcomes are also discrete, and this also causes students (and everyone else) similar frustrations. You either get the fellowship/top grad school admission/job/promotion/whatever, or you don’t. So students would still experience the same frustrations even with continuous grades, and even under the completely unrealistic assumption that their grades are a perfectly accurate tool for measuring their level of knowledge, which obviously they aren’t.
I’m not a huge fan of the US grading system myself, but honestly I don’t think it matters very much whether grading is done on a continuous or discrete scale. Grades are a statistical tool and should be interpreted as such - when averaged over many scores they have some (limited) meaning, but any one individual grade doesn’t necessary mean very much.
answered 45 mins ago
Dan Romik
77k20170260
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
It’s worth keeping in mind that life outcomes are also discrete, and this also causes students (and everyone else) similar frustrations. You either get the fellowship/top grad school admission/job/promotion/whatever, or you don’t. So students would still experience the same frustrations even with continuous grades, and even under the completely unrealistic assumption that their grades are a perfectly accurate tool for measuring their level of knowledge, which obviously they aren’t.
I’m not a huge fan of the US grading system myself, but honestly I don’t think it matters very much whether grading is done on a continuous or discrete scale. Grades are a statistical tool and should be interpreted as such - when averaged over many scores they have some (limited) meaning, but any one individual grade doesn’t necessary mean very much.
answered 45 mins ago
Dan Romik
77k20170260
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
It’s worth keeping in mind that life outcomes are also discrete, and this also causes students (and everyone else) similar frustrations. You either get the fellowship/top grad school admission/job/promotion/whatever, or you don’t. So students would still experience the same frustrations even with continuous grades, and even under the completely unrealistic assumption that their grades are a perfectly accurate tool for measuring their level of knowledge, which obviously they aren’t.
I’m not a huge fan of the US grading system myself, but honestly I don’t think it matters very much whether grading is done on a continuous or discrete scale. Grades are a statistical tool and should be interpreted as such - when averaged over many scores they have some (limited) meaning, but any one individual grade doesn’t necessary mean very much.
answered 45 mins ago
Dan Romik
77k20170260
This creates understandable frustrations from students who "nearly made it".
It’s worth keeping in mind that life outcomes are also discrete, and this also causes students (and everyone else) similar frustrations. You either get the fellowship/top grad school admission/job/promotion/whatever, or you don’t. So students would still experience the same frustrations even with continuous grades, and even under the completely unrealistic assumption that their grades are a perfectly accurate tool for measuring their level of knowledge, which obviously they aren’t.
I’m not a huge fan of the US grading system myself, but honestly I don’t think it matters very much whether grading is done on a continuous or discrete scale. Grades are a statistical tool and should be interpreted as such - when averaged over many scores they have some (limited) meaning, but any one individual grade doesn’t necessary mean very much.
answered 45 mins ago
Dan Romik
77k20170260
answered 45 mins ago
Dan Romik
77k20170260
answered 45 mins ago
Dan Romik
77k20170260
answered 45 mins ago
Dan Romik
77k20170260
77k20170260
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are a number of issues here. One, however, is that the table you give doesn't seem accurate to me - or at least, I'm pretty sure it isn't used by most US colleges.
Second is that your assertion that a student can "miss" a higher grade by an insignificant amount, while true in theory, is less true in practice. I never let that happen, for example, always giving students the benefit if a point total for the course was insignificantly different from that of another student who got the higher grade.
Third, it is a tradition that A means "finest kind", B means "good but not finest kind", C means "acceptable", and D means "needs improvement". Yes those are bins but I don't think I can make a statement that a person with 3.22 is in any way better than a person with 3.20. The means by which I assign grades are not that fine grained. The grade is an aggregate, not an absolutely precise measure. So I can't even distinguish that finely between students.
Fourth, if we compare different courses, even by the same professor, but in particular by different professors in possibly different fields, does a 3.22 mean the same thing. Is a 3.22 in a basic philosophy course exactly the same as a 3.22 in an advanced math course. It would be foolish, IMO, to assert that they were the same.
All of the above indicates that indeed, the grades are just bins. And the bins are accurate enough that, for example, an employer or graduate school admissions system can make valid judgements about the prospects of a student. There are exceptions, of course, but in the main, simple bins represent reality better than giving a precise measure to something that isn't.
Don't confuse accuracy with precision.
Also note a psychological effect of "bin grading". If a student realizes that with just a bit more effort they can raise their grade from B+ to A-, they may just be wiling to put in the effort. That won't occur with grades that are purely numerical.
answered 1 hour ago
Buffy
17.5k55797
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There are a number of issues here. One, however, is that the table you give doesn't seem accurate to me - or at least, I'm pretty sure it isn't used by most US colleges.
Second is that your assertion that a student can "miss" a higher grade by an insignificant amount, while true in theory, is less true in practice. I never let that happen, for example, always giving students the benefit if a point total for the course was insignificantly different from that of another student who got the higher grade.
Third, it is a tradition that A means "finest kind", B means "good but not finest kind", C means "acceptable", and D means "needs improvement". Yes those are bins but I don't think I can make a statement that a person with 3.22 is in any way better than a person with 3.20. The means by which I assign grades are not that fine grained. The grade is an aggregate, not an absolutely precise measure. So I can't even distinguish that finely between students.
Fourth, if we compare different courses, even by the same professor, but in particular by different professors in possibly different fields, does a 3.22 mean the same thing. Is a 3.22 in a basic philosophy course exactly the same as a 3.22 in an advanced math course. It would be foolish, IMO, to assert that they were the same.
All of the above indicates that indeed, the grades are just bins. And the bins are accurate enough that, for example, an employer or graduate school admissions system can make valid judgements about the prospects of a student. There are exceptions, of course, but in the main, simple bins represent reality better than giving a precise measure to something that isn't.
Don't confuse accuracy with precision.
Also note a psychological effect of "bin grading". If a student realizes that with just a bit more effort they can raise their grade from B+ to A-, they may just be wiling to put in the effort. That won't occur with grades that are purely numerical.
answered 1 hour ago
Buffy
17.5k55797
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
There are a number of issues here. One, however, is that the table you give doesn't seem accurate to me - or at least, I'm pretty sure it isn't used by most US colleges.
Second is that your assertion that a student can "miss" a higher grade by an insignificant amount, while true in theory, is less true in practice. I never let that happen, for example, always giving students the benefit if a point total for the course was insignificantly different from that of another student who got the higher grade.
Third, it is a tradition that A means "finest kind", B means "good but not finest kind", C means "acceptable", and D means "needs improvement". Yes those are bins but I don't think I can make a statement that a person with 3.22 is in any way better than a person with 3.20. The means by which I assign grades are not that fine grained. The grade is an aggregate, not an absolutely precise measure. So I can't even distinguish that finely between students.
Fourth, if we compare different courses, even by the same professor, but in particular by different professors in possibly different fields, does a 3.22 mean the same thing. Is a 3.22 in a basic philosophy course exactly the same as a 3.22 in an advanced math course. It would be foolish, IMO, to assert that they were the same.
All of the above indicates that indeed, the grades are just bins. And the bins are accurate enough that, for example, an employer or graduate school admissions system can make valid judgements about the prospects of a student. There are exceptions, of course, but in the main, simple bins represent reality better than giving a precise measure to something that isn't.
Don't confuse accuracy with precision.
Also note a psychological effect of "bin grading". If a student realizes that with just a bit more effort they can raise their grade from B+ to A-, they may just be wiling to put in the effort. That won't occur with grades that are purely numerical.
answered 1 hour ago
Buffy
17.5k55797
There are a number of issues here. One, however, is that the table you give doesn't seem accurate to me - or at least, I'm pretty sure it isn't used by most US colleges.
Second is that your assertion that a student can "miss" a higher grade by an insignificant amount, while true in theory, is less true in practice. I never let that happen, for example, always giving students the benefit if a point total for the course was insignificantly different from that of another student who got the higher grade.
Third, it is a tradition that A means "finest kind", B means "good but not finest kind", C means "acceptable", and D means "needs improvement". Yes those are bins but I don't think I can make a statement that a person with 3.22 is in any way better than a person with 3.20. The means by which I assign grades are not that fine grained. The grade is an aggregate, not an absolutely precise measure. So I can't even distinguish that finely between students.
Fourth, if we compare different courses, even by the same professor, but in particular by different professors in possibly different fields, does a 3.22 mean the same thing. Is a 3.22 in a basic philosophy course exactly the same as a 3.22 in an advanced math course. It would be foolish, IMO, to assert that they were the same.
All of the above indicates that indeed, the grades are just bins. And the bins are accurate enough that, for example, an employer or graduate school admissions system can make valid judgements about the prospects of a student. There are exceptions, of course, but in the main, simple bins represent reality better than giving a precise measure to something that isn't.
Don't confuse accuracy with precision.
Also note a psychological effect of "bin grading". If a student realizes that with just a bit more effort they can raise their grade from B+ to A-, they may just be wiling to put in the effort. That won't occur with grades that are purely numerical.
answered 1 hour ago
Buffy
17.5k55797
edited 3 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Buffy
17.5k55797
answered 1 hour ago
Buffy
17.5k55797
answered 1 hour ago
Buffy
17.5k55797
17.5k55797
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f117180%2fu-s-grading-system-why-discrete-grades%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Well, I would dispute that "GPAs are taken so seriously," but I digress. I have always thought of it as "Is a 92 really more meaningfully better than a 91 that the transcript should reflect that"? Basically, it reflects the fact that GPAs are not very sensitive by not overestimating their precision. And as you point out, edge cases are an unfortunate byproduct of this.
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
2
Also, this system isn't unique to the US (Canada does it too) ... you could just ask about discrete scales, instead of asking about only the US
– Azor Ahai
1 hour ago
That student's academic record will forever show "very good but not perfect" for that course, whereas it should really indicate "almost perfect". I don't understand your logic here, since A doesn't itself mean "perfect".
– Nate Eldredge
22 mins ago