Originally Posted by brendanp

whats the purpose of the 12 point system anyway? seems like no other schools have it, and we always have to convert to a 4.0 scale anyway. does anyone know why mcmaster changed to the 12 point scale in the first place?

0 = F
1 = D-
2 = D
3 = D+
...
10 = A-
11 = A
12 = A+

This is one of the problems of grading, but that's another topic.

I think we should just use a 4.0. Everyone know's what to expect, what to aim for, no discrepancy whatsoever.

What is the point of using a "standardized" system if each university uses their own, emphysizing different goals, and in the end, reconverting it to one "standard" system. Total irony.

Originally Posted by dynast

This is one of the problems of grading, but that's another topic.

I think we should just use a 4.0. Everyone know's what to expect, what to aim for, no discrepancy whatsoever.

What is the point of using a "standardized" system if each university uses their own, emphysizing different goals, and in the end, reconverting it to one "standard" system. Total irony.

I almost want to agree. I wish they'd give us our percentages. I don't know what I'm going to do for the schools that use them.

This makes me mad. Makes me almost want to be on the board of governors... if that's who makes these decisions.

Percentages would be kinda subject to too much individual bias from profs. 4.0 seems widespread enough to be a real standard. Who wants to appeal?

Originally Posted by dynast

This makes me mad. Makes me almost want to be on the board of governors... if that's who makes these decisions.

Percentages would be kinda subject to too much individual bias from profs. 4.0 seems widespread enough to be a real standard. Who wants to appeal?

I know that percentages have their problems, but I thought maybe they could do a dual listing (like we have for letter and 12 point now), as some schools do want percentages when you apply to them for med school.

From a percentage, you could always convert to any GPA system you want. From other GPA systems, you can't convert back to percentages...seems logical enough.

Why has this not been changed? Its been the system for a long time and I'm sure many students have brought it up to the SRA/MSU.

Who knows... nothing will be done if we keep just "complain" about it on forums. Its up to organized powers, supported by the masses.

Most students aren't even aware of this, which is very unfortunante since it is a big issue that affects all of us. 2 systems emphyizing different things... too complicated.

Instead of letting a few people on the forums know... this should be widespread. I'm sure students are very acute to these academic topics.

Public Campaign anyone?

so where is the problem?
Just read what Mowicz said. if you don't understand he basically says you (dynast) are an idiot.

and you spelled "emphasis" and "emphasizing" with a "y" instead of an "a"

Because having another grading system (our 12) makes a "emphasis" different than that of a 4.0 scale, thus leading to an incongruency. If you had read the posts above, you'd deduce that.

To do well in a 4.0 system, you want consistency, like Mowicz said. Emphasis is made on getting all A's (A-, A, A+), and punishes getting more varied grades (A+, A+, B). This is what many universities use, and what their students are used to.

In our 12 point scale, we want to advoid going from a 10 to a 9 (3.7 to 3.3). However, we are not affected by a more scattered/varied marks (12, 12, 8) as much as the 4.0 scale. Do the average of 3 marks yourself. It is a 10.6 overall.

BUT, my issue is with the conversion, because we take individual X/12 marks and convert them to X/4.0. We lose out because of this. If you had a 10.0/12 overall, you automatically think you have a 3.7, but you DON'T. Unless, you get straight 10's.

Basically, a 10 average with Mac doesn`t automatically mean a 3.7 with professional schools. Why would you want that.

http://careers.mcmaster.ca/students/...nversion-chart

Here's where ambiguity starts to kick in...when you say 'flawed conversion' what is it that you mean?

It's obviously not going to give you the exact same result in the 4.0 system...if it did the 12 point system would be obsolete and simply be 'three times the 4.0 grades."

As several people have pointed out, the 4.0 rewards/punishes consistency/spread. The 12 point system on the other hand, rewards (in a flawed way) 'letter grades' ie. it's a natural progression from highschool grades, and this is likely why the system is used.


Now when I think of 'flawed conversion' I think of something in which information is lost. For instance:

-Converting from percentages to the 12 point system is flawed, because you certainly can't convert back from a 12 point letter grade into a percentage: you've lost information.

-Converting from percentages to the 4.0 system is flawed for the same reason.

-However, converting from 12 to 4.0 is not flawed in this way because as I've pointed out, each letter grade on the 12 pt scale corresponds to a unique 4.0 value. You could then, convert the grades back without any loss of information.

Grad schools etc. can always do this, so I don't really see why this is a bad conversion, right? To be completely precise, I think what you mean to say is the grades are inconsistent upon conversion...which is certainly true, but to demand otherwise would be to demand that mean = median = mode...since the 12 pt scale rewards a high mean, and the 4.0 scale rewards a high mode, they are only consistent if mean = mode...

In other words, if your grades obey a normal distribution.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Here's where ambiguity starts to kick in...when you say 'flawed conversion' what is it that you mean?

It's obviously not going to give you the exact same result in the 4.0 system...if it did the 12 point system would be obsolete and simply be 'three times the 4.0 grades."

As several people have pointed out, the 4.0 rewards/punishes consistency/spread. The 12 point system on the other hand, rewards (in a flawed way) 'letter grades' ie. it's a natural progression from highschool grades, and this is likely why the system is used.


Now when I think of 'flawed conversion' I think of something in which information is lost. For instance:

-Converting from percentages to the 12 point system is flawed, because you certainly can't convert back from a 12 point letter grade into a percentage: you've lost information.

-Converting from percentages to the 4.0 system is flawed for the same reason.

-However, converting from 12 to 4.0 is not flawed in this way because as I've pointed out, each letter grade on the 12 pt scale corresponds to a unique 4.0 value. You could then, convert the grades back without any loss of information.

Grad schools etc. can always do this, so I don't really see why this is a bad conversion, right? To be completely precise, I think what you mean to say is the grades are inconsistent upon conversion...which is certainly true, but to demand otherwise would be to demand that mean = median = mode...since the 12 pt scale rewards a high mean, and the 4.0 scale rewards a high mode, they are only consistent if mean = mode...

In other words, if your grades obey a normal distribution.

So in layman's terms Mike: What's going on/ Are the students at a major disadvantage like someone above said(losing 0.1 in the grad school race)

I'm still lost! :S

no, students are NOT at any disadvantage if they know about what grad schools want in terms of averages beforehand.

Say a gradschool requires a 3.7/4.0, an idiot would take their cumulative average out of 12 and divide by 3. a "smarter" idiot would find what their cumulative average out of 12 is and convert that into the 4.0 system, so a 10.2 is a bit above a 3.7 and they would feel fine thinking they met the cutoffs for their grad school.

but a smart person would convert each of their grades into the 4.0 scale and then take an average.



There is no disadvantage, but if you get a 10.x CA and think that's the same as a 3.7+ on the 4.0 scale, you would be mistaken and it could cost you.