←back to thread

674 points peterkshultz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
joshvm ◴[] No.45636243[source]
One really important factor is the grading curve, if used. At my university, I think the goal was to give the average student 60%, or a mid 2.1) with some formula for test score adjustment to compensate for particularly tough papers. The idea is that your score ends up representing your ability with respect to the cohort and the specific tests that you were given.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/current/teach/general/...

There were several courses that were considered easy, and as a consequence were well attended. You had to do significantly better in those classes to get a high grade, versus a low-attendance hard course where 50% in the test was curved up to 75%.

replies(5): >>45636312 #>>45636394 #>>45636437 #>>45636823 #>>45639950 #
storus ◴[] No.45636437[source]
That won't work at elite schools like Stanford where a hard class average is like 98% and 94% will give you B+ due to the opposite curve being applied.
replies(1): >>45636875 #
m-ee ◴[] No.45636875[source]
I went to Stanford and that was absolutely not the case. I once got an A on a midterm with a 65%
replies(1): >>45637116 #
1. storus ◴[] No.45637116[source]
What I mentioned was the case in some hard CS classes I took there.