[sgupta]

"Making the tenth of a percent from 89.4 to 89.5 worth immensely more than the 9.4 percent from 80 to 89.4 is idiotic."

I got an 89.4% in a CS class and asked the professor, whose office hours I frequented, if he could bump me up to an A since I was so close.

His response was: "If you truly understood the material and deserved an A, you would have earned an A by a large margin rather than missing it by a small one."

[sidsavara]

And what of the person who correctly guessed, or perhaps had a program misgraded slightly in his favor and made the A?

I agree with the sentiment, which is why I liked some of my professors who graded in statistical clusters (of course, economic professors). They graded on a curve, so everyone's grade was bumped up by the process, never down - and the clusters of A's, B's and C's were usually obvious. If you were in between a cluster (an outlier case) most gave you the benefit of the doubt and bumped you up.

Of course, I may have liked it less if I wasn't always in (or above) the top cluster =P

[katz]

Higher percentages should count a lot more than lower percentages. It is more difficult to go from 94-98 than it is to go from 54 to 58.

[baddox]

Then your teacher is admitting that my design only the few tenths of percents surrounding the letter grade cutoffs are worth anything. I suppose it's just a matter of opinion, but I find this system remarkably arbitrary.

[sgupta]

Even if the grading system is arbitrary, it's usually fully transparent and disclosed ahead of time.

I knew that the cutoff for an A was 90%, and I also knew that the grade would be calculated based on my projects and exams. I knew the exact weight of each project and exam too, all within the first few days of class.

I knew what was expected of me in this situation and didn't deliver, so it was my fault for not getting the A - not the grading system's fault. But my 89.4% was so close to an A that I somehow felt entitled to getting one, but as his quote points out, I didn't really deserve it.

[baddox]

For college, which is voluntary, full disclosure would excuse the practice, although I still think it's foolish. However, in high school, which isn't voluntary, and where grades can affect your ability to get into college, it's worse.

I think the point isn't whether or not it's ethical (full disclosure in college would make it so), but whether it's a smart way to do things. I claim it isn't.

[sethg]

Well colleges use a combination of factors--grades, class rank, standardized-test scores, extracurricular activities, football talent--to decide who they are going to admit, and the practical difference between a first-tier and second-tier college degree is much less than most people are willing to admit. So one flukey B is not going to doom you for life.

[anamax]

There's always a cutoff in a discrete system.