It’s a circumstance familiar to many Carleton students—your final percentage grade in a course sits between two letter grades. A 76.5 per cent, for example, is halfway between a B and a B+. You might see your grade on cuLearn, and assume anything .5 and above would be rounded up. That is, until the marks are updated on Carleton Central and you’re shocked to see your 76.5% is represented as a B, rather than the B+ you expected. This is a serious flaw and inaccuracy in the percentage to letter grade equivalency system at Carleton that can impact students’ education and postgraduate opportunities.
Professors often begin the term with an overview of the course syllabus, and liken it to a contract between professor and student. In each course syllabus, there is a marking scheme that illustrates which percentages are equal to which letter grades, and this is where the issue lies.
When percentage equivalents are converted to letter grades—and in turn grade points—the current system does not account for decimals. Following the rules of mathematical rounding, 76.5 per cent is in theory rounded up to the nearest whole number, but this isn’t necessarily so at Carleton.
Instead, professors choose whether to round the final grades up or down, thus determining a student’s final grade in their class. Not only is this system random, but it isn’t fair and it isn’t transparent because every professor can do it differently according to their own whim.
To solve the problem, Carleton must develop a university-wide policy to either round grades 0.5 and above up, and 0.4 and below down, or to at least specify in the course syllabus how final grades will be rounded.
If professors would prefer to retain the discretion they currently have, it should be clearly delineated in the course outline. This would entail a change in the percentage to letter grade equivalents scheme that includes decimals, therefore 73-76.9% would equate to a B, while 77-79.9% would be a B+, as opposed to 73-76 and 77-79, respectively.
If there was a modification implemented that changed the equivalent percentages to include decimals, the professor would still have the discretion to round up a grade if they felt a student deserved it. The professor could also leave the grade as is if they felt the student does not deserve to be nudged up. In this scenario, the student’s grade in the course would be a better reflection of their academic efforts. While I do believe professors should have the discretion to round up a grade, my issue lies with the professor’s discretion in terms of rounding a grade down based on factors outside academic efforts, such as a personal preference.
If a student has earned a grade of 76.5% in this system, it should—according to mathematical conventions—be rounded up to a 77%, which equates to a higher letter grade, and in turn one whole grade point.
One grade point can make a big difference in a student’s CGPA, which is why the current system’s inaccuracy must be changed. A high GPA has never been so important, as more and more students are furthering their education through postgraduate programs, for which they need high undergraduate grades to attend.
To promote the utmost impartiality in the grading system and the integrity universities are intended to hold, Carleton should look at implementing one of these solutions. At the very least, students should know how their grades are being calculated, and have access to the information in the course syllabus—it’s only fair.
