Grading scale in the US

[NonparametricBananas]

Hello! I have been wondering about the grading scale in the US when compared to the typical Canadian scale. I've asked some of my American friends and they've offered some potential explanations, but I wanted to get some more thoughts on the topic.

 

I'll be attending an American university in August to start my PhD. I'm currently at a Canadian university completing my MSc (also completed my HBSc at a different Canadian university from my current one). 

 

In my Canadian education, I am accustomed to a B being around a mid-70 and professors tend to aim for a class average of approximately 65% (this is in a variety classes that I've both taken and TA'd myself). Now, the rationale for me asking re: the grading scale has to do with cutoffs and probation and whatnot. My upcoming American school requires a 3.0/B minimum in order to graduate and if you score below a 3.0/B in more than x credit hours, you get put on probation and then a few more than that results in you being kicked out of the program. Since I'm taking some difficult courses, this GPA requirement did scare me a bit. At this new school, a 3.0 or a B is a mid to high 80. When I asked around, the general responses that I got seemed plausible: courses have evaluations spread out more evenly as opposed to what I'm accustomed to i.e. in Canadian courses, an exam could be worth 40-50%. The other thing is the 65% average that profs aim for -- one of my friends told me that his profs aimed for a mid-80 in his courses in Vermont.

 

I have been told numerous times that grading in grad school is more lenient such that the range is typically in the A+ to B- range, but I assume this is typically expected from a seminar grad course as opposed to courses that have coursework that is either right or wrong.

 

Nonetheless, I look forward to reading your responses and hopefully, with your insight, I can have a little peace of mind Thanks! 

Edited June 19, 2015 by fuzzylogician
Typo in title fixed!

[Vene]

Well, I can say that the grades for my grad level biochemistry class last fall was from low 80s and up. The exams are designed so that a typical graduate student should get over 80% of what is asked correct. We had 4 exams which was worth the majority of the points for the class, with homework assignments for maybe 10% of the total grade.

 

There will be differences between different universities for the details, but I believe this is not outside the realm of what is normal.

[TakeruK]

The average range of grades in the B- and up applies to grad courses that are not seminar courses too (i.e. with homework that are "right or wrong"). 

 

In my program, grad students TA grad courses and I usually grade so that you get most of the points for using the right method and explaining yourself. But our courses also usually have weighting like 50% homework and 50% final project (no exams). So the final project part is where we can be more lenient if necessary.

 

Also, this is true even with courses that are all homework and exams. I took a course that was like this and got several 60% to 70% on some homework (just wasn't worth the time). I still ended up with an A-. This particular course's grading policy was to layout the distribution of scores and natural breaks in the curve corresponds to A, B, etc.

[sabq]

Multiple people-former TAs-told me that in grad school A is for Average and B is for Bad. In other, words it is difficult to get less than a B in grad school.

On the face of it, this makes sense: if every one is expected to maintain a B or higher, then the average will be more than a B.

[NonparametricBananas]

Multiple people-former TAs-told me that in grad school A is for Average and B is for Bad. In other, words it is difficult to get less than a B in grad school.

On the face of it, this makes sense: if every one is expected to maintain a B or higher, then the average will be more than a B.

 

That's the general thing I've while I've been in my MSc program. Here's hoping it holds true and that I don't get my wrecked by courses! I think one of the harder things will be falling back into the undergrad course style -- I've become accustomed to going to lab, doing what I need to do for the day, and going home and not doing any school-related stuff after I've left the lab/office. I suppose it'll take a little bit of time to wedge back into throwing studying back into the mix. Excited nonetheless!

[dr. t]

In humanities seminars at the graduate level, getting a B+ or worse means the professor is wondering how you got into the program in the first place.

[Marst]

What is the point of getting grades if they don't tell you how well you are doing? They might as well switch to a pass/fail system if they give out As to everyone who shows up.

[dr. t]

...what?

[Marst]

...what?

I genuinely want to know. My program grades harsher than most colleges, and it works quite well (for me, at least). An A is on track for a distinction, B is quite alright, and C is a sign you might want to put a bit more effort in. The average depends on the class. For instance, there was one class in which not a single student ever got an A on the problem sheets.

 

My question is: what is the point of a system where you give a vast majority of students an A and consider anything below that a subpar performance? IMO the point of grades is to get some feedback as to how well you are doing.

 

EDIT: It is worth pointing out that a minority ends up with a distinction, and transfer from masters to PhD is not unconditional. You have to apply for readmission and get a distinction in your masters. So, grades do matter here.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Marst

[dr. t]

I think the disjuncture here is that I'm talking about (doctoral) seminars in the humanities, and you're talking about something else.

 

Two things with respect to this. First: an A on a paper signals the instructor's satisfaction with your level of work, not that such work cannot be improved upon; my last paper came back with an A- and 4,000 words in comments. Second: what does it say about a doctoral program that its students cannot consistently turn out high quality (i.e. "A") work? Just because everyone in a class gets an A doesn't mean that A was easy to get.

Edited June 28, 2015 by telkanuru

[Marst]

I think the disjuncture here is that I'm talking about (doctoral) seminars in the humanities, and you're talking about something else.

 

Two things with respect to this. First: an A on a paper signals the instructor's satisfaction with your level of work, not that such work cannot be improved upon; my last paper came back with an A- and 4,000 words in comments. Second: what does it say about a doctoral program that its students cannot consistently turn out high quality (i.e. "A") work? Just because everyone in a class gets an A doesn't mean that A was easy to get.

Something else being STEM, yes.

 

The consensus here is more that if the average is an A, the class has been too easy, regardless of the quality of the work or the effort of the students. It is probably more natural in STEM than it is in the humanties to adapt the level of difficulty of a course, simply by covering more material (or in more depth) in the same amount of time.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Marst

[dr. t]

 It is probably more natural in STEM than it is in the humanties to adapt the level of difficulty of a course, simply by covering more material (or in more depth) in the same amount of time.

 

...what?

[Marst]

...what?

Such as simply covering a proof of some theorem that might otherwise have been skipped or skimmed over.

 

If this is your way of having a conversation, I will call it a day. I am trying to learn something here, and this is not helping. Thank you for the reply that did contain more than a syllable, and have a good day.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Marst

[rising_star]

Marst, I think telkanuru's last comment was to suggest that it isn't hard in a humanities (or social sciences for that matter) graduate course to adapt the level of the material to the skill of the students. That you would suggest that it is more natural to do so in STEM than in other fields is insulting, quite frankly. 

 

It also sounds like you (Marst) and telkanuru are working in different contexts/countries. Telkanuru is speaking about getting a PhD in the USA, not in another country. 

[dr. t]

My last comment was indeed what it looks like: a query for more information in order to figure out if the statement was accidentally or deliberately insulting. I believe this is a standard purpose to which "what" is put in English.

[Vene]

 It is probably more natural in STEM than it is in the humanties to adapt the level of difficulty of a course, simply by covering more material (or in more depth) in the same amount of time.

Now that's just bullshit, there's always more to cover in every field. Your freshman intro to the humanities class was not representative.

[TakeruK]

I also agree that it is ridiculous to assume that somehow, STEM fields are able to adapt course difficulty while this is not possible in the humanities!! 

 

But to address another point brought up:

 

The Graduate Dean position is changing this year at my school and the outgoing Dean recently gave a presentation to faculty and graduate students on some interesting stats / thoughts for the future. One interesting thing to see is the distribution of grades. It was a curve that was basically entirely contained between 3.0 ( and 4.3 (A+), with a peak at 4.0 ("A"). Or, for a better description, imagine an asymmetric distribution that looks like a Gaussian distribution at 4.0 with a sigma of 0.3, and then a long tail from 3.6 down to about 2.6, where it just cuts off basically. 

 

The recommendation from the outgoing Dean, which I strongly support and hope that our school adopts in the future, is to remove letter grades for graduate students completely. Instead, all graduate courses should be graded as "Pass / No Credit". If a student meets whatever requirements the instructor deems sufficient, they get a "Pass". If they do not, they get "No Credit" and allowed to retake the course. Note, this is NOT "pass/fail" because usually a fail grade in grad school has serious consequences. But students can effectively flunk out of grade school because there is a time limit (nominally 3 years) to advance to candidacy, which requires passing all required courses.