Social Science Grading

[TheCrow]

I'm an undergraduate taking a quantitative methods graduate course in sociology. My understanding is that in graduate humanities fields, an A represents "You're doing what you're supposed to," an A- represents concerns, and a B+ or below indicates you should reinvent yourself or leave. In graduate STEM fields, however, B-range grades are both common and acceptable, and coursework is even seen as a distraction from research ("If you're getting all As, you should be in the lab more.").

 

I haven't been able to find much about grading in social sciences, however. I'm doing well in the class, but I was curious to better understand what grades mean and how they might be perceived by graduate programs. I'm also hesitant to ask the instructor questions how I compare to other students in the class or what the grade mean because I don't want to seem to focused on grading.

[pears]

My understanding is that in graduate humanities fields, an A represents "You're doing what you're supposed to," an A- represents concerns, and a B+ or below indicates you should reinvent yourself or leave. In graduate STEM fields, however, B-range grades are both common and acceptable, and coursework is even seen as a distraction from research ("If you're getting all As, you should be in the lab more.").

 

Eh… not quite. An overall GPA of a 3.0 is the threshold in my department for being allowed to graduate. A lot of grading is based on participation & writing, which can be hard to quantify; if you do the reading, you should have a lot to contribute to discussions & a lot to say in papers. In many instances, it's less about "wrong" or "right," because they're vague concepts; rather, the focus is on encouraging the incorporation of major theories & thinking creatively. The seemingly "lenient" grading may simply be a byproduct of the sources of grades.

 

That said, I don't know what the grading focuses in STEM fields are, but I can imagine it'd be a lot easier to give a B or C because someone's lab results fell short of or varied from the initial expectations; it doesn't mean it's bad or wrong, it just wasn't 100% right. In social sciences — at least in my field & program — you have to be doing next to none of your work if you can't come up with insightful questions or comments, & that's when the "bad" (sub-80) grades happen.

[Lisa44201]

B's are borderline in many psych programs; in my Masters program, two Cs and you were done.

 

Also, if you're an undergrad taking and getting a B in grad quant courses, you are well ahead of a great many undergrads, and a few grad students, as well.

[TheCrow]

So far, I have a fairly clear A. What I'm curious about--and I guess this might seem silly--is whether, in social science (specifically sociology) it's assumed that good performance is an A; so if I take a grad class, it's neither surprising nor particularly interesting that I get an A (and that if I got below that, it might be concerning that I'm not fit or prepared for doctoral study--which seems to be the case for many humanities graduate programs). On the other hand, if that's not the case, is an A (and perhaps methods courses are different than theory courses) something notable for graduate programs in sociology, particularly if my performance holds up in the second half of the sequence next semester? Or, finally, is it so program-specific that it's not possible to draw any conclusions?

 

If it matters at all for context, the class is part of the PhD program at a top-40 school in sociology--not part of a terminal master's program (which I understand PhD programs can, perhaps unfairly, assume to have grade inflation).

Edited October 19, 2013 by TheCrow

[fuzzylogician]

It doesn't matter what an A means to a graduate student in sociology. The important question is how an A translates for an undergraduate in a graduate class, and my guess is that there it's not trivial, even if it just translates to nothing more than "satisfactory" for a grad student. I'd also not worry about it too much, because you can't change how people will think about your grade and you can't know or guarantee that everyone will interpret it one way or the other. You can just do well and earn an A. If you do well and you have an interesting project, you could have that professor write a LOR for you, and then you are guaranteed to have someone say you did well (and that's more important than what the grade actually is).

[danieleWrites]

No idea if this might help you at all, but the department-designed rubrics in the three composition programs I've been involved in (as teacher or student) have defined the letter grades in this manner:

 

A: exceptional competence

B: competence

C: suggests competence

D: suggest incompetence

F: incompetence

 

Just doing what you're supposed to is the bare minimum of what one should do to pass. Following assignment directions without originality or creativity is a formula for a C. While this model doesn't unilaterally fit everything (you either remember the quadratic equation and can apply it or you can't), it does model a better manner of looking at grades than one where A is meeting standards, B is not quite meeting standards, C meets standards even less, D almost fails to meet standards, and F fails to meet standards. The A as meeting standards penalizes students for higher achievements in their coursework because it gives the same award to uninspired work as it does to original or creative work.

[juilletmercredi]

This varies from program to program.  In my program As are good and Bs are slightly less good but still good.  Nobody gets Cs.  The grades in between A and B are the expected variants, but literally no one cares.  My advisor has never asked me what my grades were in my classes and I am rarely asked about my PhD grade point average.  Even now, when applying for postdocs - I have been accepted into a postdoc and they never even looked at my transcripts.

 

But assuming that you're in a PhD program, it doesn't really matter much in the long run.  If you're getting an A, you're doing well; how well you're doing in your coursework isn't particularly interesting.  Are you understanding the material?  Are you getting what you need out of the class for future research projects and/or potential dissertation research?

[TheCrow]

The important question is how an A translates for an undergraduate in a graduate class, and my guess is that there it's not trivial, even if it just translates to nothing more than "satisfactory" for a grad student.

 

Yep, that's exactly my question. But it sounds like it varies from program to program. I guess I should ask someone in the graduate faculty under what conditions and to what extent it matters that an applicant completed graduate coursework while an undergraduate. I understand there are far more important things (e.g., fit, SOP, LORs), but I'm interested in this question because my first major is quantitative and graded on a curve, so my GPA is a bit lower than the standard 3.6/3.7+ for applicants to sociology PhD programs.

 

 

 

But assuming that you're in a PhD program, it doesn't really matter much in the long run.

 

I guess this is the point--I'm not in a PhD program (I'm an undergraduate), though the course is a graduation requirement for the PhD program here (in the field I'm planning to apply to).

Edited October 20, 2013 by TheCrow