Did your graduate program utilize the whole grading scale ?

[MAJOR METAL]

Howdy Friends

To those who have been in Graduate School as well as those who are currently in it, did your graduate program utilize the whole grading scale ? Many Grad Prof's hold the grading scale between B-A+ but I have encountered several Professors who reguarly give C's to performing Grad Students.

[Angus]

Yes.

Many are actually switching to pass/fail. There are a number of medical schools like that. Grades are absolutely pointless in business school.

But for everything else, there should definitely be full grades just like any undergrad program. But really, it's hard to flunk out of grad school.

[Fontaine]

her at my college, its all numerical, but on your report say if get an 83 in the course it gets rounded up to 85...if it was an 82, then u got an 80.

[LiquidMidnight]

My professors use traditional grading schemes, but they generally eschew +s and -s. For example 100 - 90% is an A, and there is no A-. Some of my undergrad profs used that system. It can be beneficial or determental depending on where you fall on the percentage grade (i.e., you get a 91% and get an A rather than an A-, but if you get an 89%, you may just get a B, which is worth less quality points on your GPA than a B+).

As far as strictness of grading - I definitely notice less emphasis on performance evaluation and more emphasis on actually developing professionals. That's not to say that a professor won't dock you if you're slacking. However, the quality of student output is obviously higher here in grad school. There were some people in their senior year of college that were just plain idiots. That's not the case in grad school, in my experience. They wouldn't have been admitted into the program if they were slackers. I think that the exams to be pretty easy...at least in my program. I've taken exams that made some of my undergrad exams look like standardized tests. With that said, I find that the work to be over all more demanding and detail-oriented in graduate school. I find that it's more "work" than undergraduate, though it's not always more "difficult." As an above poster stated, you really have to be screwing up to flunk out of grad school. If you're a slacker, you wouldn't have been accepted in the first place. Plus, departments often are invested in you, especially if you are doing an assistanceship, so it's not always in their best interest to make the program nearly impossible.

My girlfriend's graduate school experience was different. Then again, she had a ***** for a thesis advisor. She liked her dissertation advisor a lot more.

[Pilgrim]

Most graduate programs I'm familiar with in Education use A, B and C as the only operative grades. Grad students are expected to perform at a level of A or B, and C is a very marginal grade. I wouldn't be surprised if some few graduate programs used the D as well, but at the graduate level a D would not generally be a passing grade.

At the grad level, if you're getting a C or lower the prof should be offering you a chance to re-do work and improve your performance rather than issuing that grade. The relationship between grad student and prof is much more of a one-on-one deal than the undergraduate students enjoy.

In my graduate course, I use only A, B and C, and if a student is earning a C I offer them extra work or an alternative project to raise the grade. The most common reasons that my students end up at the C level are lousy writing or not doing all the work.

I expect grad students to be able to write precisely, accurately, have perfect punctuation, use every word correctly, and commit zero misspellings. That's the standard for graduate writing. No excuses.

I probably sound like a hard-ass, but a lot of students ask me to be their capstone advisor because I care about their work and they know I will help them write a superior paper for their project.

[BartmanPDX]

Not at Stanford when I was there.

A "C" was equivalent to an F. Getting anything besides an A or B+ was considered struggling.

It was a BIG difference from undergrad (Swarthmore).

Yet apparently it wasn't the grades that motivated me in college -- I worked much harder as an undergrad at Swarthmore than in grad school at Stanford even though I wasn't graded my last two years at Swarthmore (I was in the Honors program which didn't give grades).

I think a big reason I worked harder as an undergrad was that everyone was so serious and the expectations were so high. It wasn't about grades as much as it was about achieving success in mastering the material and thus appearing competent to one's peers. The material was engaging and the standard of teaching/mentoring was very high. We weren't graded, but it's impossible to hide in a seminar of eight people if you haven't done the work. No one wanted to look like an idiot or a slacker. People who couldn't motivate themselves transferred out of the program.

Grades are a poor measuring stick, yet I guess some people seem to need the stick (both as a measuring device and as an instrument of punishment ) to get pushed into action. However, I think generally that type doesn't do so well in grad school -- you pretty much have to be a self-starter and self-motivator to succeed in grad school. No one will walk you through your Ph.D.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by BartmanPDX

Not at Stanford when I was there.

A "C" was equivalent to an F. Getting anything besides an A or B+ was considered struggling.

That's where I am and have been for a while now. Your description is as correct now as it was then, for grad or undergrad (the latter especially though).

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I probably sound like a hard-ass, but a lot of students ask me to be their capstone advisor because I care about their work and they know I will help them write a superior paper for their project.

No, on the contrary, you sound like anything but! Allowing and encouraging students to re-do their work if they've gotten C's (and not using anything below) is a privilege that I've never had and, frankly, don't understand. I don't think grades are particularly important (in fact I don't like the idea of them at all as it provides the wrong incentive, imo), but I also think allowing continual extra grade and makeups ruins the one saving grace that grades actually contribute.

[Toasted]

The grading at my University was % based, but realistically you couldn't achieve outside the 50% and 70% margins.

[mvw356]

Originally Posted by Toasted

The grading at my University was % based, but realistically you couldn't achieve outside the 50% and 70% margins.

same here.

+70% = distinction
60-70% = merit
50-60% = pass
-50% = fail

i think that all universities in the uk work with that sytem and it will only say distinction, merit or pass on your diploma.

[coreyfyfe]

My graduate classes the grading tends to fall between A and C but you can't graduate without a 3.0. My undergrad courses at the same school used the full scale as far as I know (I've stayed in the upper regions so I have to assume )

[Atoz]

Originally Posted by BartmanPDX

Not at Stanford when I was there.

A "C" was equivalent to an F. Getting anything besides an A or B+ was considered struggling.

Same at Utah when I was there for grad school. Getting a "B" was probably OK, but a "B-" meant you didn't do very well. Getting a "C" was a more or less a message that you should probably consider getting out of the program.

[MAJOR METAL]

Oh the joys of Grad School ! Imagine a quarters worth of government research and high quality intel breifings getting smacked with 1 grade below the minimum to attain the credits/units for the course ! Fight to the end it will be. So let it be written so let it be done.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Angus

Allowing and encouraging students to re-do their work if they've gotten C's (and not using anything below) is a privilege that I've never had and, frankly, don't understand. I don't think grades are particularly important (in fact I don't like the idea of them at all as it provides the wrong incentive, imo), but I also thinking allowing continual extra grade and makeups ruins the one saving grace that grades actually contribute.

It depends on why you're teaching. Some teachers make every grade a way to weed out those who haven't accomplished all they need to. Others - me included - think that grades are a way to track progress, and if a student hasn't gotten to where they need to be, then it's reasonable to offer them another shot. I don't believe in every grade potentially being 'sudden death" for a student who has a bad week.

My bottom line is this: my goal is for students to SUCCEED, not to for me to weed them out and drop them by the side of the road. I don't allow continual makeups and options, but I do offer students more than one chance to succeed - because that's why I'm there, and it should be why they are there.