Academic grading in the United States
Academic grading in the United States commonly takes on the form of five, six or seven letter grades. Traditionally, the grades are A+, A, A−; B+, B, B−; C+, C, C−; D+, D, D−; F; with A+ being the highest and F being lowest. Numeric to letter grade conversions generally vary from system to system and between disciplines and status. In some cases, grades can be numerical, from 0 to 4, with 0 being the worst and 4 being the best.
- 1 Numerical and letter grades
- 2 How grades are assigned to students
- 3 Standards-based grading
- 4 Rank-based grading
- 5 The 1-2-3-4 system
- 6 The E-S-N-U system
- 7 Alternative approaches to academic grading
- 8 Additional collegiate grades
- 9 Standards of Academic Progress (SAP)
- 10 References
Numerical and letter grades
The typical grades awarded for participation in a course are (from highest to lowest) A, B, C, D and F. Variations on the traditional five-grade system allow for awarding A+, A, & A−; B+, B, & B−; C+, C, & C−; D+, D, & D−, and F (E). In primary and secondary schools, a D is usually the lowest passing grade, however, there are some schools that consider a C the lowest passing grade, so the general standard is that anything below a 60 or 70 is failing, depending on the grading scale. In college and universities, a D is considered to be an unsatisfactory passing grade. Students will usually still earn credit for the class if they get a D, but sometimes a C or better is required to count some major classes toward a degree, and sometimes a C or better is required to satisfy a prerequisite requirement for a class.
Below is the grading system found to be most commonly used in United States public high schools, according to the 2009 High School Transcript Study. This is the most used grading system, however, there are some schools that use an edited version of the college system.
|Letter Grade||Percentage||Grade Point Average (GPA) (out of 4.0)|
|A+||97–100%||4.33 or 4.00|
How grades are assigned to students
The 1000 point scale is a percentage based grading system In a percentage-based system, each assignment regardless of size, type, or complexity, is given a percentage score: nine correct answers out of ten is a score of 90%. The overall grade for the class is then typically weighted so that the final grade represents a stated proportion of different types of work. For example, daily homework may be counted as 50% of the final grade, chapter quizzes may count for 20%, the comprehensive final exam may count for 20%, and a major project may count for the remaining 10%. Each are created to evaluate the students' understanding of the material and of their complex understanding of the course material.
In elementary school, grades may represent rewards from teachers "for being friendly, prepared, compliant, a good school citizen, well-organized and hard-working" rather than mastering the subject material. Schools in the United States have been accused of using academic grades to penalize students for being bored, uncooperative or for talking out of turn. Usually, this behavior leads to poor or non-existent studying habits which most likely are to blame for their grades. Some teachers use self and peer assessment to evaluate some of a student's progress and how bad they are.
With the adoption of standards-based education, most states have created examinations in which students are compared to a standard of what educators, employers, parents, and other stakeholders have determined to be what every student should know and be able to do. Students are graded as exceeding, meeting, or falling below the standard. The advantage is that students are not compared against each other, and all have the opportunity to pass the standard. However, the standard is typically set at a level that is substantially higher than previous achievement, so that a relatively high percentage of students fail at least some part of the standards in the first year, including an especially high percentage non-college bound students.
As an instrument of systemic reform, the tests are targeted to items and skills not currently in the curriculum to promote adoption of methods such as constructivist mathematics, inquiry-based science, and problem solving.
For an example of standard-based grading, see "The 1-2-3-4 System" below.
Grading on a curve is any system wherein the group performance is used to moderate evaluation; it need not be strictly or purely rank-based.
In the most extreme form, students are ranked and grades are assigned according to a student's rank, placing students in direct competition with one another.
|Grade||percentage of students |
One model uses percentages derived from a normal distribution model of educational performance. The top grade, A, is given here for performance that exceeds the mean by +1.5 standard deviations, a B for performance between +0.5 and +1.5 standard deviations above the mean, and so on. Regardless of the absolute performance of the students, the best score in the group receives a top grade, and the worst score receives a failing grade.
- Grade inflation, which is a serious problem in education  in which more students receive high grades, is mathematically impossible in a rank-based system, because the teacher cannot rate all students as being better than all of the other students: someone must be ranked better, and someone must be ranked worse. Historical measures of performance in the subject matter may no longer apply, as human knowledge has increased substantially over time. Rank-based grading compares current students to each other, rather than to a standard that may have been set decades before.
- Rank-based grading may push some students to their greatest performance potential by appealing to their competitive instincts.
- Rank-based grading shows how the student compares to other students, who all had the same instructor with the same lessons and homework during the same time period. If grades are meant to represent the student's relative ability to learn, rather than to certify that the student knows and can do certain things, then rank-based grading shows clear superiority in methodology to non-curved methods of grading. However, if the purpose of grading is purely to indicate abilities learned, then a non-ranked system is more appropriate.
- As many corporations used rank-based evaluation measures, sometimes even related to termination (see: rank and yank) such grading prepares students for the corporate world. By limiting success and recognition to the top-performing students, the grading system becomes a relevant measure of student performance in relation to their peers. In this way, rank-based grading prevents the illusion that students are competitive in areas in which they are actually only competent.
The arguments against rank-based grading are similar:
- Rank-based grading only measures performance relative to a given group, but not the real achievements of a given student. A student with moderate skills could be the best of a bad group or the worst of a good group. For example, in a generally good class, the pressure to assign grades along the curve would produce an artificial 7% of F students, although all students actually performed quite well. This also works the other way round: in a class with generally bad performance, the students whose performances are not totally bad would be singled out to form an artificial group of A-students, although in another context they would never get these grades.
- There is no actual evidence that a given group really performs along the normal curve. The distribution may not match the pattern at all.
- Rank-based grades become meaningless when taken out of the context of a given class or school. To understand what a rank-based grade indicates, it is necessary to understand the overall performance of the entire group on an absolute scale.
Numerical values are applied to grades as follows:
- A = 4
- B = 3
- C = 2
- D = 1
- F = 0
This allows grades to be easily averaged. Additionally, many schools add .33 for a + grade and subtract .33 for a − grade. Thus, a B+ yields a 3.33 whereas an A– yields a 3.67. A+s, if given, are usually assigned a value of 4.0 (equivalent to an A) due to the common assumption that a 4.00 is the best possible grade-point average, although 4.33 is awarded at some institutions. In some places, .25 or .3 instead of .33 is added for a + grade and subtracted for a − grade. Other institutions maintain a mid-grade and award .5 for the grade. For example, an AB would receive a 3.5-grade point and a BC would receive a 2.5-grade point.
The industry standard for graduation from undergraduate institutions is a minimum 2.0 average. Most graduate schools have required a 3.0-grade point average since 1975 (the transition began two decades earlier), but some schools still have 2.75 as their pass standard. Some doctoral programs do not have a formal pass standard, but it is unlikely that they would retain a student who is doing work below 'B' quality.
Most American law schools require no more than a 2.0-grade point average to qualify for the professional doctorate in law. This is because law school grades are usually based on a strict bell curve system which typically results in the failure of 10–30% of first-year students. A few law schools require 2.3 or 2.5 for post-doctoral degrees, such as the American LL.M. or S.J.D. degrees. Regular graduate schools have commonly eliminated the D grade because anything below a C is considered failing.
Some high schools, to reflect the varying skill required for different level courses and to discourage students from selecting courses that are considered a source of easy 'A's, will give higher numerical grades for difficult courses, often referred to as a weighted GPA. For example, two common conversion systems used in honors and Advanced Placement courses are:
- A = 5 or 4.5
- B = 4 or 3.5
- C = 3 or 2.5
- D = 2 or 1.5
- F = 0
Denver Public Schools uses a different system in honors and AP courses to get weighted GPA values; the scale is as follows:
- A = 5.2
- A− = 4.77
- B+ = 4.33
- B = 3.9
- B− = 3.47
- C+ = 3.0
- C = 2.6
- C− = 2.17
- D = 1.3
- F = 0.0
Another policy commonly used by 4.0-scale schools is to mimic the eleven-point weighted scale (see below) by adding a .33 (one-third of a letter grade) to honors or advanced placement class. (For example, a B in a regular class would be a 3.0, but in honors or AP class it would become a B+, or 3.33).
Sometimes the 5-based weighting scale is used for AP courses and the 4.6-based scale for honors courses, but often a school will choose one system and apply it universally to all advanced courses. A small number of high schools use a 5-point scale for Honors courses, a 6-point scale for AP courses, and/or a 3-point scale for courses of below average difficulty.
Although weighting GPAs is a widespread practice in the United States, there is little research into whether weighted GPAs are better than unweighted GPAs. In one study, weighted GPAs were not suitable for predicting any college outcomes, but unweighted GPA were strong predictors of college GPA. However, standardized test scores were better predictors than either type of GPA.
At least one boarding school in the United States uses the six-point system, Phillips Academy at Andover. While there are approximate equivalents to the 100 point system, grades are most often described as follows:
Although described above, grades below a 3 are rarely dispensed in practice.
Phillips Exeter Academy and a few other high schools in the United States use an eleven-point system. Numerical values are applied to grades as follows:
Very few American high schools use a twelve-point system, which differs from the above only in using the grade A+, to which the value 12.0 is applied.
The 1-2-3-4 system
Some school districts use a 1-2-3-4 rating system for grades at the elementary (K–5) level, notably many California school districts including The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) which switched with the class of 2000. The four-point scale more clearly indicates proficiency levels in core subjects by segmenting students who are proficient (4&3) and ready to advance, from those who are not meeting all required standards (2&1) and should not advance. Most notably this removes the "C" rating which did not clearly partition students who should advance from those who should not.
|Percentage||Grade/mark||Assigned meaning||Numeric grade|
The E-S-N-U system
- E (Excellent)
- S (Satisfactory)
- N (needs improvement; "NI" was also used interchangeably)
- U (unsatisfactory)
This system has largely been replaced by the five-point system discussed above, but is still encountered quite often at the elementary school level, particularly in kindergarten and Grades 1 through 3 (these levels comprising the lower division of primary school). It is also occasionally used at schools for older children, including high schools, especially in the issuance of conduct or citizenship grades.
There are a few variations to this system, including the use of an O (for "outstanding") grade, which is even higher than the E; the use of an O instead of the E; a G (for "good") placed between the E and the S; the use of a G (again for "good") instead of the E; and the lack of a U grade. In this version, E stands for "exemplary" and P proficient, with AE and AP for work that approaches the E and P levels. "Credit" is equivalent to the D level and "No Credit" is equivalent to F.
The use of M (for "mediocre") in place of the N and I (for "insufficient") in place of the U was used in some places, and included the F.
- E (Excellent)
- S (Satisfactory)
- M (Mediocre)
- I (Insufficient)
- F (Failure)
The S grade may be so modified with an S+ or S−, but otherwise plus and minus are rarely used.
A similar system is used to rank practical work in the certain science department of Oxford University; however only with the grades S (Satisfactory), S+ (more than satisfactory, and may be used in the allocation of degree grades) and NS (Not Satisfactory).
Alternative approaches to academic grading
Alternatives to letter-grading assessments have been tried in some schools, but still remain a marginal approach due to the heavy emphasis and history of letter grading. Alternatives to standard letter grading are able to evaluate the students skills and understanding of the course material. The flaws in the standard letter grading system are major and require a lot of attention. These issues include ways for students to achieve high grades without actually understanding the course material. They don't have any real understanding of the complex information taught in the class. Kyle Spencer discusses an issue a high school teacher discovered during his time teaching. The issue was on test his students were able to achieve high grades yet when presented with a complex question they couldn't get it correct. Showing him that they only have a general understanding of the material which wasn't reflected by the grades they received.
A number of liberal arts colleges in the U.S. either do not issue grades at all (such as Alverno College, Antioch College, Bennington College, Evergreen State College, New College of Florida, and Hampshire College), de-emphasize them (St. John's College, Reed College, Sarah Lawrence College, Prescott College, College of the Atlantic), or do not calculate grade point averages (Brown University). In many cases, narrative evaluations are used as an alternative measurement system. Saint Ann's School in Brooklyn is one of several secondary schools to eschew grades in favor of narrative reports, while still managing to be the number one high school in the country for having the highest percentage of graduating seniors enroll in Ivy League and several other highly selective colleges.
Additional collegiate grades
- FN = Failure for Non-Attendance
- W = Withdrawal
- DW = Disciplinary Withdrawal
- WP = Withdrawal (had a passing grade at the time of withdrawal)
- WF = Withdrawal (had a failing grade at the time of withdrawal)
- UW = Unofficial Withdrawal
- X = Audit/Exemption
- NR = Not Reported by Instructor
- E = Excellent
The FN grade indicates that a student has failed a course due to non-attendance. It is calculated as an "F" in the student's grade point average. For students receiving financial aid, failure for non-attendance may require the student to refund to the College all or part of his or her aid. The FN grade will be assigned by the faculty member at any time following the final withdrawal date for the course. Students who are in a failing status because of non-attendance but return to the course prior to the withdrawal date may elect to withdraw from the course.
A grade of "W" indicates that a student has elected to withdrawal from a course prior to the course's withdraw deadline. It is not calculated in the student's grade point average, which would keep the student from facing possible academic disciplinary action if he or she was to fall below the required Standards of Academic Progress (SAP). For students receiving financial aid, a grade of "W" may require the student to refund to the College all or part of his or her aid. Some schools indicate whether the student was passing or failing the course at the time of withdrawal by placing WP or WF grades on the transcript; policies vary as to whether a WF counts as an unsatisfactory grade when determining if a student is in good standing.
Standards for Academic Progress in Florida, for example, require a student to maintain a grade point average of 2.00 on the 4.00 scale. The student must also successfully complete 67% of the courses attempted, which includes previous failures, re-takes, and withdrawals. Additionally, a student may not attempt a course more than three (3) times.
Students may elect to audit a college credit course or workforce credit course by completing the audit form. Students may not change from credit to audit or from audit to credit after the drop deadline. A grade of 'X' will be assigned for all courses taken in audit status.
No credit will be awarded and fees for college credit courses taken on an audit basis are the same as those taken on a college credit or workforce credit basis.
Courses taken for audit do not count as hours enrolled in the following areas: veteran certification, financial aid awards, Social Security certification, international student enrollment requirements or early admission program enrollment requirements.
Standards of Academic Progress (SAP)
Standards of Academic Progress are the standards set by the school, state, Board of Education, or other agency which are required of students to adhere to in order to continue to attend classes. A student who falls below the SAP may have disciplinary action taken against him or her or denial of financial aid until the student has met the required SAP. In Florida, Standards of Academic Progress require a student to maintain a grade point average of 2.00 or above on the 4.00 numeric grading scale. The student must also finish 67% of the courses attempted, which includes previous failures, re-takes, and withdrawals. Additionally, a student may not attempt a course more than three (3) times.
- "How is Grade Average Calculated?". National Center for Educational Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. Archived from the original on 3 May 2015. Retrieved 14 February 2015.
- "Dutchess Community College Grading System". Dutchess Community College. Archived from the original on 3 April 2015. Retrieved 14 February 2015.
- "Grading Practices | Academic Policies | Policies | Academic Catalog | | Kalamazoo College". www.kzoo.edu. Archived from the original on 2017-12-05. Retrieved 2017-12-04.
- "Carleton College Grading System". Carleton College. Archived from the original on 15 February 2015. Retrieved 14 February 2015.
- "Wellesley College Grading System and Policies". Wellesley College. Archived from the original on 27 February 2015. Retrieved 14 February 2015.
- "InstructorLink Teaching in Centers Grading Chart and Grade Descriptions - UC Berkeley Extension". instructorlink.berkeley.edu. Archived from the original on 2017-10-23. Retrieved 2017-11-30.
- "File S1: Supplementary 3D PDF of synchrotron-based micro-CT". doi:10.7717/peerj.5174/supp-4. Cite journal requires
- Tyre, Peggy (27 November 2010). "A's for Good Behavior". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 7 November 2016.
- McKeown, Joe (13 July 2015). "The Problem with Standards-Based Grading". Archived from the original on 2017-04-15. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
- Webb, Norman L. (2006). Handbook of Test Development. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum. p. 1.
- Lucas, Sandra Goss; Bernstein, Douglas A. (2004). Teaching Psychology. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-4051-5150-4.
- Robert E. Slavin, Educational Psychology: Theory into Practice, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1986, p.556–57
- Valerie Strauss, "Why grade inflation (even at Harvard) is a big problem," The Washington Post, December 20, 2013. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-11-07. Retrieved 2017-11-01.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- "GPA Calculator 4 Point Scale". StudentsPreunited.com. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
- "High School GPA Calculator", Studentspreunited.com. Accessed 19 November 2011.
- Warne, R. T., *Nagaishi, C., *Slade, M. K., Hermesmeyer, P., & Peck, E. K. (2014). "Comparing weighted and unweighted grade point averages (GPAs) in predicting college success in diverse and low-income college students." NASSP Bulletin, 98, 261–279. doi:10.1177/0192636514565171
- "Academic Curriculum" (PDF). Phillips Academy. 27 April 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 28 April 2018.
- Kondo, Annette. "LAUSD Switches From Letter to Number Grades". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2014-04-24.
- Kohn, Alfie (1999). "From Degrading to De-grading". High School Magazine.
- J., Marzano, Robert (2000). "Transforming Classroom Grading". Cite journal requires
- Tippin, Gregory K.; Lafreniere, Kathryn D.; Page, Stewart (2012-03-01). "Student perception of academic grading: Personality, academic orientation, and effort". Active Learning in Higher Education. 13 (1): 51–61. doi:10.1177/1469787411429187. ISSN 1469-7874.
- "Standards-Based Grading - ProQuest". search.proquest.com. Retrieved 2018-10-29.
- Brown University (March 2004). "Statement on Grade Point Average" (PDF). Brown University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 February 2015. Retrieved 7 April 2015.
- April 2, 2004 Wall Street Journal, Cover Story (Personal Journal)