Support NeoGAF

[Instigator]

13: For the unusually independent and good performance.
11: For good and independent performance.
10: For good, but somewhat routine-based performance.
9: For a good performance, a little above average.
8: For an average performance
7: For the fair performance, slightly below average.
6: For the just acceptable performance.
5: For the insecure and unsatisfactory performance.
03: For the very insecure, very flawed and unsatisfactory performance.
00: For the completely unacceptable performance.

13 is an extremely good grade, only a few students get it each year, nationwide. 11 is considered the best realistic grade to score for non-geniuses, but it's also only for a top few. Some years I've been in classes where only one got an 11, the rest only scored as high as 10, and they were still quite proud of it. I don't know what that translates into on any of your scales.

Now they want to change it so it's compatible with other international scales.
Here's the new proposed one:

12: Excellent, no or few things to improve
10: Very good, a few less significant flaws
7: Good, several flaws
4: So-so, several significant flaws
2: Adequate, the minimum for acceptable
0: Inadequate
-3: Completely inadequate


-3????

 

[Do The Mario]

What vague and hard to understand system.

 

[Instigator]

How's yours?

 

[Seth C]

A - Excellent
B - Good
C - Average
D - Below Average
F - Failing

Oh, and we have percentage as well.

90-100 = A
80-89 = B
70-79 = C
60-69 = D
0-59 = F

In college/university, anything below 70 is effectively failing. You're going to have to take the course again to receive credit.

 

[Do The Mario]

Well school system in Australia is like


Lower then 50% -D
50-65% -C
65-75% - B
75+ - A


They are general numbers, scaling happens so marks get moved around.


At university

50-59 – Pass
60 – 70 – Credit
70 – 80 - Distinction
80+ High – Distinction

These marks get scaled, for example refradless of there marks only the top 5% of students get a HD, like 15% HD 30% a Credit 50% pass or fail. These numbers are rough.

 

[shibbs]

We like it simple

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10

 

[DrM]

School system in Slovenia :

From 5 (excellent) to 1 (aww, dude)

At Universty

from 1 to 10, 10 is excellent, but you need atleast 6 to pass an exam

 

[Instigator]

Thanks.

I don't for the life of me see how the changes they suggest makes our system more internationally understandable. Bizarre.

 

[Pellham]

in where I grew up, 90-100 was an A, but apparently in the northeast (specifically PA and NJ), an A is a 93-100, while a B is 83-92. WTF is up with that. That's probably the stupidest thing ever.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Spelling makes Maybe feel...ELVIS!

 

[Azih]

I think every country has a different percentage to letter grade mapping. For me it was

80-100 = A

70-80 = B

60 - 70 = C

50 - 60 = D

< 50 = F

this is Ontario, Canada btw.

 

[Desperado]

Texas [Houston area]:

90-100: A
80-89: B
75-79: C
70-74: D
Below 70: F

dunno why C's and D's split the 70's...

 

[Instigator]

Denmark doesn't use percentages. And in highschool it doesn't matter if you're on the math or the language line, math grades count as much for language students as language grades do when the average is calculated in the end.

 

[pestul]

I think every country has a different percentage to letter grade mapping. For me it was

80-100 = A

70-80 = B

60 - 70 = C

50 - 60 = D

< 50 = F

this is Ontario, Canada btw.

Same for University in Newfoundland..

nm

80-100 = A
65-79 = B
55-64 = C
50-54 = D & no credit

I think anyway..

 

[Raxel]

At my university (London, UK):

0-30 = Fail
30-40 = Narrow Fail
35-40 = E
40-50 = D
50-60 = C
60-70 = B
70+ = A

 

[LakeEarth]

My university has a 13 point grade system, but it's pretty simple.

13 - A+
12 - A
11 - A-
10 - B+

and so on. Get a 8+ average to not be on probation. Some people, yes, do have a solid 13 average which is insane.

 

[Desperado]

Denmark doesn't use percentages. And in highschool it doesn't matter if you're on the math or the language line, math grades count as much for language students as language grades do when the average is calculated in the end.

no percentages? so...say there were 50 problems on an assignment and you missed 8...how do you figure out the grade? and is your final grade selected by opinion? i'm confused.

and I don't know of anywhere where math and language grades are weighted differently..hell we don't even have "math/language lines" you just take the classes and your GPA [grade point average] is figured from there...

speaking of which...why the hell does my high school give 4.3's [so I've heard...and my GPA shows it. I have a 4.5 when it should be lower] for B's in PreAP/AP classes??

 

[pestul]

At my university (London, UK):

0-30 = Fail
30-40 = Narrow Fail
35-40 = E
40-50 = D
50-60 = C
60-70 = B
70+ = A

Looks like I have it easy compared to you guys, heh.

Holy crap.. I need to do a second major there!

35% is a pass. :X

 

[Instigator]

You get different kinds of grades in each course. One for how you do over the year, and in some classes you also get one based on a test at the end of the year. On top of that you get one for how you do orally and one for how you do in written tests. Written tests can be anything from essays to different kinds of projects. In the language line we hardly ever use multiple choice or tests like the one you mention, so it can rarely be calcualted as percentages in the first place.

 

[slayn]

its weird that so many people have such set percentages.

both in highschool and in college (in the US so A-F) the teachers just made up the scale as they saw fit. This is especially true in Computer Science classes in college. The difficulty of a certain class can vary so widely that having a set scale just doesn't make sense.

often times what is done is they calculate the average and standard deviation amonst all of that classes scores.

x represents your grade.

x > average+std_deviation -> yuou get an A
x > average -> you get a B
x > average - std_deviation -> C
x > average - 2*std_deviation -> D
otherwise you get an F

sometimes they'll shift it around and make average a C instead of a B, so all of those slide down and then you have be 2 standard deviations above the average to get an A.

I think they find thats just the easiest system when the average on the final is 14%

 

[AntoneM]

its weird that so many people have such set percentages.

both in highschool and in college (in the US so A-F) the teachers just made up the scale as they saw fit. This is especially true in Computer Science classes in college. The difficulty of a certain class can vary so widely that having a set scale just doesn't make sense.

often times what is done is they calculate the average and standard deviation amonst all of that classes scores.

x represents your grade.

x > average+std_deviation -> yuou get an A
x > average -> you get a B
x > average - std_deviation -> C
x > average - 2*std_deviation -> D
otherwise you get an F

sometimes they'll shift it around and make average a C instead of a B, so all of those slide down and then you have be 2 standard deviations above the average to get an A.

I think they find thats just the easiest system when the average on the final is 14%

exactly, I don't recall any course in Univ. where the instructor didn't "grade on a curve". Ok intro to psych. but I only showed up for the tests (yes it was that easy).

 

[xsarien]

I always hated the letter-based system, because one letter covering a *range* effectively covers up how well you actually did. Someone with an 89 gets the same same soore as someone with an 80, and even with the +/- system, it's still a little off. It basically rewards people for not trying hard enough.

I never had to deal with it until I got to college, in kindergarten, all the way through my senior year of high school, every grade I received was a number, and it rocked. But on the flip side of that: Do you know how embarrassing it is, at 18, to ask your friends, "So, if I got a 'B', what did I really get?"

 

[Zaptruder]

At my university (London, UK):

0-30 = Fail
30-40 = Narrow Fail
35-40 = E
40-50 = D
50-60 = C
60-70 = B
70+ = A

Looks like I have it easy compared to you guys, heh.

I think the difficulty scaling would be different around the world. In some countries, they have a large amount of pretty easy questions, but then have a smaller amount of questions that start ramping up in difficulty quite a lot. While other countries like australia and england have a larger band in difficulty.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

in where I grew up, 90-100 was an A, but apparently in the northeast (specifically PA and NJ), an A is a 93-100, while a B is 83-92. WTF is up with that. That's probably the stupidest thing ever.

*raises hand*

it was like that at my schools, and I agree it was the most retarded thing ever. WhenI got to college and realized that those 4 points were going to be given as A's, I was ecstatic. I cannot count the times I had grades in that range only to be told it was a 'B'.

 

[Instigator]

Anybody have or know of countries that uses negative grades?

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Thanks.

I don't for the life of me see how the changes they suggest makes our system more internationally understandable. Bizarre.

The changes aren't to the scores but what they mean. Most everyone else just uses Great/Good/Whatever, while your place had Unusually Independent or whatever.

 

[Instigator]

It's to both the scores and what they mean.
It just seems it would make more sense to use a letter scale, since they seem to be rather common, despite the differences in interpreting them.

 

[cybamerc]

They want to deduct grades if you flunk a course, taking away points you've earned in other classes???

No no. At least that's not how I understand it. -3 and 0 simply means that you've failed. Anything above and you've passed. I think that makes perfect sense actually. What I can't understand is the seemingly completely arbitrary numbers that they've picked. If they want to simplify the system stop using crazy numbers. It definitely shouldn't go higher than 10. Noone outside of Denmark will ever get it if they do. It won't be much of improvement over the current 13 scale.

 

[Instigator]

According to what I heard on the news, a -3 will actually deduct already earned grades.

We calculate the average of all the grades given, and that average is what's used to decide who gets into university, and who doesn't. If a -3 isn't actually a minus, then it will bring the average down less than the grade 0 will. And according to the scale, 0 is supposed to be better than -3.

But I think those numbers are crazy too.

 

[Dan]

*raises hand*

it was like that at my schools, and I agree it was the most retarded thing ever. WhenI got to college and realized that those 4 points were going to be given as A's, I was ecstatic. I cannot count the times I had grades in that range only to be told it was a 'B'.

Heh, it's the opposite for me. I had the 89-100 range for an A in high school, and in college I generally need a 93 for that 4.0.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

While getting a -3 seems bizarre, I don't think it's a big deal that it would "deduct" from your other grades. A -3 to 12 scale would work like a 0 to 15 scale, just shifted down three points. So after 10 classes a real vegetable might have a -30 instead of a 0, or a plain fool might have a 40 instead of a 70.

And this is because they want our grades to be understood internationally?

I'm afraid that's a -3 for you, Denmark school system.

 

[Instigator]

That's true, but I think it must have a very negative psychological effect, feeling that you're losing grades.

That comment is already getting old here. :lol

 

[Saturnman]

In Denmark the grade system at school is a bit weird, for the past 30 years or so they've used this scale:

13: For the unusually independent and good performance.
11: For good and independent performance.
10: For good, but somewhat routine-based performance.
9: For a good performance, a little above average.
8: For an average performance
7: For the fair performance, slightly below average.
6: For the just acceptable performance.
5: For the insecure and unsatisfactory performance.
03: For the very insecure, very flawed and unsatisfactory performance.
00: For the completely unacceptable performance.

13 is an extremely good grade, only a few students get it each year, nationwide. 11 is considered the best realistic grade to score for non-geniuses, but it's also only for a top few. Some years I've been in classes where only one got an 11, the rest only scored as high as 10, and they were still quite proud of it. I don't know what that translates into on any of your scales.

Now they want to change it so it's compatible with other international scales.
Here's the new proposed one:

12: Excellent, no or few things to improve
10: Very good, a few less significant flaws
7: Good, several flaws
4: So-so, several significant flaws
2: Adequate, the minimum for acceptable
0: Inadequate
-3: Completely inadequate


-3????

They want to deduct grades if you flunk a course, taking away points you've earned in other classes??? I'm pretty outraged, it seems completely unnaceptable to me to punish people like that. Imagine being able to leave school with a diploma that says you're now dumber than when you started.

And this is because they want our grades to be understood internationally? Does any of you even have a similar system?

 

[Loki]

Man, some of the grading systems mentioned in here are crazy. 75-100 = "A"? 80-100 = "A"? Not only is that ridiculous, but it's totally unfair to those students who are capable of maintaining 95+ averages, since they'll be getting the same grade as one who had an 84 average. Also, in terms of the ranges, 80 for an "A" seems absurdly low, though perhaps the material or pace of the course is more difficult in these countries than it is here, though I can't see it being an order of magnitude higher-- especially considering that these systems hold across entire nations (e.g., Australia, as mentioned above) and not just for elite institutions, where I could see such a thing holding true.


Anyway, at my university, 92.5 or better gets you an "A", while 90-92.4 gets you an "A-" (and I've lost out on an A based on 4/10 of a point, so it's not like it's just for show-- god I was pissed lol). Just go down by 10's for the other grades (except for a "D", which is set at 65; we don't have "D-"-- it's just an "F" if you average less than a 65). 65 is passing, but for most courses for most majors, to proceed to upper level courses or the next course in a sequence you need a grade of C (i.e., a 73+) or better.

 

[Phoenix]

I went to Xavier University of Louisiana - we did not grade on a curve. If an entire class failed, so be it. In one Discrete Math course over 75% of the students failed.

Grading on a curve is for the weak.

 

[jett]

0 to 20. Anything less than 11 is a failing grade. Pretty simple.

 

[Fresh Prince]

I still don't know how scaling works at our university, I think they only scale us down and not up

 

[maharg]

its weird that so many people have such set percentages.

both in highschool and in college (in the US so A-F) the teachers just made up the scale as they saw fit. This is especially true in Computer Science classes in college. The difficulty of a certain class can vary so widely that having a set scale just doesn't make sense.

often times what is done is they calculate the average and standard deviation amonst all of that classes scores.

x represents your grade.

x > average+std_deviation -> yuou get an A
x > average -> you get a B
x > average - std_deviation -> C
x > average - 2*std_deviation -> D
otherwise you get an F

sometimes they'll shift it around and make average a C instead of a B, so all of those slide down and then you have be 2 standard deviations above the average to get an A.

I think they find thats just the easiest system when the average on the final is 14%

Grading on a curve is retarded. Bell curves are diagnostic tools, not something to force a square peg into. If a class' grades are off the curve, that generally speaking means something went wrong with either the teaching or the environment and it should be fixed. When you grade on a curve, you completely mask any problems with the teaching environment, and that's to the detriment of the students.

 

[Dan]

Grading on a curve is for the weak.

I would agree, IF AND ONLY IF the professors do their job well and all the necessary materials needed to learn the course content are provided.

If a class' grades are off the curve, that generally speaking means something went wrong with either the teaching or the environment and it should be fixed. When you grade on a curve, you completely mask any problems with the teaching environment, and that's to the detriment of the students.

Of course, practically speaking, such problems are almost always only solved for FUTURE students, and not the ones who got screwed over, which is where I think a curve can be a reasonably fair fix for that set of students given the kinds of restraints on time and whatnot that professors have to deal with any problems that crop up.

 

[Fresh Prince]

I would agree, IF AND ONLY IF the professors do their job well and all the necessary materials needed to learn the course content are provided.

:lol Right now your speaking about 25-50% of my classes

 

[Phoenix]

Grading on a curve is retarded. Bell curves are diagnostic tools, not something to force a square peg into. If a class' grades are off the curve, that generally speaking means something went wrong with either the teaching or the environment and it should be fixed. When you grade on a curve, you completely mask any problems with the teaching environment, and that's to the detriment of the students.

IAWTP. You aren't doing the student any favors by taking a bunch of C-F grades and scaling them so that people are getting A's and passing. It completely overlooks the fact that the students REALLY didn't learn what they were supposed to learn.

 

[sonicfan]

Anybody have or know of countries that uses negative grades?

Not as a general school policy, but I had one prof in college that did it. In a history type of class. His exams were all short essay questions. Each question was worth 10 points, so a 10 was exactly right and scaled down from there. However,if you left a question blank, what you got was a zero, but you could get up to -4 if you were way way off. Kind of kept the people who thought they could BS their way through a bit more honest.
:lol

 

[slayn]

Grading on a curve is retarded. Bell curves are diagnostic tools, not something to force a square peg into. If a class' grades are off the curve, that generally speaking means something went wrong with either the teaching or the environment and it should be fixed. When you grade on a curve, you completely mask any problems with the teaching environment, and that's to the detriment of the students.

except that, a lot of CS professors think any test where even a single student is capable of getting >90% was a boring test that didn't correctly assess the students. Most professors 'aim' for all of their tests to have 50-60% averages but because they make completely new tests each year its extremely hard to predict how difficult any given test is actually going to be.

 

[slayn]

Not as a general school policy, but I had one prof in college that did it. In a history type of class. His exams were all short essay questions. Each question was worth 10 points, so a 10 was exactly right and scaled down from there. However,if you left a question blank, what you got was a zero, but you could get up to -4 if you were way way off. Kind of kept the people who thought they could BS their way through a bit more honest.
:lol

I had a CS theory calss like that. All the exams, are long written out proofs. Very little partial credit was awarded, but you get 25% credit for leaving it blank. So generally it was graded as:

correct - 100%
slightly flawed - 50%
blank - 25%
wrong - 0%

 

[Phoenix]

I had a CS theory calss like that. All the exams, are long written out proofs. Very little partial credit was awarded, but you get 25% credit for leaving it blank. So generally it was graded as:

correct - 100%
slightly flawed - 50%
blank - 25%
wrong - 0%

That's just retarded. You're being rewarded for not even trying. This is why I think universal GPAs are useless, especially in the US.

 

[Dan]

IAWTP. You aren't doing the student any favors by taking a bunch of C-F grades and scaling them so that people are getting A's and passing. It completely overlooks the fact that the students REALLY didn't learn what they were supposed to learn.

I'm sorry, this is just some idealistic bullshit where all professors are saints that teach flawlessly, create perfectly fair exams and assignments and don't screw students over one way or another. If a professor fucks up somehow, teaches stuff wrong or creates a completely unfair exam that doesn't test what students were learning, why should the students be punished? Fact is, most people are going to come across a course that is just truly unfair in its assessment of all students' abilities. When shit happens and it's recognized, there isn't much option in going back in time and doing it all correctly or redoing anything. The only remotely fair thing to do for the students is a curve.

Sure, there's the issue of someone having to determine when the professor was fair or not, but really, the concept that curves never, ever have a place in a learning environment is just dumb. This assumption that it can only be the student's fault for either not learning properly or not being assessed well is simply unrealistic.

 

[Instigator]

Most of the grades I've gotten have been unfair one way or the other. Either I didn't do as well at the exam as I was during the year, so the grade only reflected the shaky nerves I had at that time. At other times I've slacked all year and read it all up right before the exam. You can go in and get a good grade like that, but most of what you read has gone in few months.

Sometimes you pick an easy question and get lucky. In statistics we had what, 15-20 lessons, and there were 20 questions to choose from at the exam. The first one only had a tiny little equation, the 20th had a formula that took two blackboards to write down. Tough luck on who gets number 20.

Then there are teachers who are more positive towards you than others. In social science it can be hard not to have politics murking the waters. I suspect I've sometimes seen political differences between myself and teachers reflected in the grades. Both ways.

Grades only say so much about your actual skills. I think written statements would be much more useful.

 

[CrunchyB]

That's just retarded. You're being rewarded for not even trying.

OR: You're being rewarded for recognizing your shortcomings. If you really don't know what you're talking about, please don't even bother trying.

 

[sonatinas]

In china your grade is how much you pay off the headmaster

 

[slayn]

That's just retarded. You're being rewarded for not even trying. This is why I think universal GPAs are useless, especially in the US.

I think of it like japanese game shows

"here we don't reward knowledge, but punish ignorance!" =)

but the point of the leaving it blank was to provide motivation to do nothign over writing 3 pages of fluff trying to scam your way to partial credit. And 25% credit is not enough to pass. The methodoloy for the class was thus:

all people with <=25% on any test, or a total homework grade <=25%, or a final grade <= 25 is automatically failed. Then those people are removed form the curve. Then those that remained are curved on a scale across all grades so that even more people fail.

even WITH this 25% blank credit, most people ahve to take the class multiple times trying to get a halfway decent grade. I'd guess averaged across all CS major's the 'times taken CS373' would be somewhere around 2.