Throughout my years as a student, I have always wondered if the academic grading scale used by the USA is an appropriate way to gauge student achievement. Here is the typical grading system as used by American colleges:
Letter Grade Percentage GPA
A 93-100 4.00
A− 90-92 3.67
B+ 87-89 3.33
B 83-86 3.0
B− 80-82 2.67
C+ 77-79 2.33
C 70-76 2.0
D 60-69 1.0
F 0-59 0.0
In Canada, however, they have a wider range. This is one example from the region of British Columbia. As you can see, it is a much different story than in America.
Letter Percent
A 86–100
B 73-85
C+ 67-72
C 60-66
C- 50-59
I 0-49
F 0-49
Newfoundland & Labrador seems even more lenient with the highest grades:
Letter Percent
A 80–100
B 65–79
C 55–64
D 50–54
F 0–49
And here is a grading scale that compares scores in the Netherlands with those in the UK and the USA. As you can see, the UK seems even more strict than the USA.
Grade Qualification Description UK USA
10 uitstekend excellent A* A+
9.5 uitstekend excellent A* A+
9 zeer goed very good A* A+
8.5 zeer goed very good A* A+
8 goed good A A
7.5 ruim voldoende more than sufficient A- A
7 ruim voldoende more than sufficient B B+
6.5 voldoende sufficient C B
6 voldoende sufficient D C
5.5 matig mediocre E D
5 matig mediocre F F
4 onvoldoende insufficient F F
3 ruim onvoldoende strongly insufficient F F
2 slecht poor F F
1 zeer slecht very poor F F
What do YOU think is an appropriate way of measuring student performance? Is the academic grading scale of the United States too harsh?
the range for an A is too short imo, and it doesn't take into account how hard the test is, how many questions each test has, and the points their worth
so you could miss 1 question on a 25 question test and still get a B because it was worth a ton of points
Oh, and I don't remember all the numbers, but in middle school my class was the guinea pig for a new system in which 65 and below was failing. Yeah, it was awful.
Oh, and I don't remember all the numbers, but in middle school my class was the guinea pig for a new system in which 65 and below was failing. Yeah, it was awful.
I had 65 and below for both middle school AND high school. Never had to worry about that, but there were many who needed that extra cushion.
A sharper range like that zeroes in on who puts in the extra work for the A and who doesnt.
I like it the way it is (tho grading also depends on the class as well). It's not the best way to gauge someone's ability in a subject but it's what we got that has worked so far
Oh, and I don't remember all the numbers, but in middle school my class was the guinea pig for a new system in which 65 and below was failing. Yeah, it was awful.
97-100 = A+
93-97 = A
90-93 = A-
87-100 = B+
83-87 = B
80-83 = B-
etc etc.
I'm not sure where our failing threshold is. I've never even thought about that. I would guess it's between 50 and 60 though.
However, as a poster already mentioned, I believe that grades are an extremely poor method of quantification and judging people, and they have far too wide of an influence in America's wretched-at-times public education system.
I can relate. I'm a perfectionist. For me anything between like 90 and 95 I shrug off and view as 'normal.' Above 95 and I'm happy. Below 90 is concerning.