Re:How about... (Score 1)

Well thats just the thing isn't it. The letters are arbitrary. Sure there are 'standards', but in my experiences through highschool, college and grad school, is that every teacher/professor does it differently. IF this meant that every class was forced to operate on a flat curve of: 90-100% = A 80-89% = B 70-79% = C 0-69% = F AND there was no such thing as extra credit, then it would make sense. This would mean that students would need to achieve grades 10% higher than the previous minimum in order to pass classes. I'm in favor of that. Sadly regarding grade inflation, this also tells me that this school district doesn't grade on a curve. Or at very least, doesn't grade on a C-average curve. Remember when C's used to be AVERAGE... by both definition and statistical practice? A=Excellent, B=Above Average, C=Average, D=Below Average, F=Insufficient for Credit (Fail)? Curved grades are a good thing. Not everyone gets 100% on everything, difficulty on a per-test basis isn't always standardized. How do I know this? Because the questions are different on each test. Not everybody gets As, but nobody HAS to fail, given standard deviations and the way the curve is constructed... But that gets to the heart of the matter... Because teachers are hesitant to give poor grades, this (theoretical 10%) buffer is nonexistant. By removing the bottom 10% of passing grades from the passing scale, one would expect to show more students failing classes, by getting the same scores they would have previously, which are now insufficient. Except now teachers will be pressured by the administration: to keep grade point averages up to secure better state funding, by their conscience: not to fail 'slow but otherwise good kids', and as it increasingly happens nowadays, by parents: "HOW DARE YOU GIVE MY CHILD AN F?!?!?"