These percentage cutpoints for letter grades certainly sound quantitative and 
precise. Can anyone follow them up with some sort of logical support for using 
these particular cutpoints as opposed to others? As Paul Brandon aptly asked, 
"By what criteria of knowing?" If you have a conceptual definition for each 
letter grade (e.g., A=Outstanding achievement, B=Very 
good,commendable,C=Satisfactory, D=Minimal), how do you get from a point score 
on a test to the corresponding letter grade? Isn't it necessary to consider the 
difficulty of the assignment, type of academic skill required, preparation of 
students by the instructor, etc. before deciding on the minimum percentage of 
points possible to use for assigning each letter grade? 
Consider: When I give my students a test composed of difficult items, nobody 
gets 90% of the points possible. Does that mean that nobody is "outstanding" 
(as in "standing out from the group" in relative performance)? And if the test 
is composed of fairly easy and predictable items, perhaps a third of the class 
will answer 90% correctly -- does that mean that a full third of the students 
deserve to be recognized as outstanding? Note that their grasp of the course 
material is the same under both scenarios -- what is different is (1) the 
difficulty of the items on that particular test, and (2) the proportion of the 
group getting 90% of the possible points. 
At this point, I just don't see a justifiable reason to apply an 
institution-wide "percentage of points possible" for course grading. It makes 
no psychometric sense to me. Perhaps someone can correct my understanding on 
this issue. 
--Dave 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Smith" <[email protected]> 
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> 
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:17:32 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: Grading Guidelines...Was [tips] Weighty problem 






We have the rather fine-grained: 


A+ 95–100 

A 90–95 

A– 85–90 

B+ 80–85 

B 75–80 

B– 70–75 

C+ 65–70 

C 60–65 

C– 56–60 

D+ 53–56 

D 50–53 

F 0–49 

Phew! 

--Mike 



-- 
___________________________________________________________________ 

David E. Campbell, Ph.D. 
[email protected] 
http://www.humboldt.edu/~campbell/psyc.htm 

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([email protected])

Reply via email to