| Assignment/Exam | Grade | Weight (%) | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
Customize the grading scale below. Changes will automatically update all calculations.
| Letter Grade | GPA | Min % | Max % | Actions |
|---|
In the late 18th century, American universities like Yale, William and Mary, and Harvard employed diverse and subjective grading methods. Yale ranked students as "optimi" (best), "second optimi," "inferiore" (lower), and "pejores" (worse). William and Mary used a simple binary system of No. 1 and No. 2, distinguishing between top performers and merely satisfactory students. Harvard initially utilized numerical scales ranging from 1-200 (or 1-100 for mathematics and philosophy), later transitioning to a class system (I-V) where Class V indicated failure.
The letter grading system we recognize today emerged in 1887 at Mount Holyoke College, which introduced A, B, C, D, and E grades, with E representing failure. This system was notably stringent—any score below 75% resulted in failure. The college later replaced E with F for failing while maintaining the 75% threshold. This innovation gradually spread across educational institutions, though significant variations persisted regarding what constituted each grade level and whether plus/minus modifiers would be used.
While letter grades efficiently summarize performance in quantifiable subjects like mathematics, they often fall short in providing meaningful feedback for more subjective assessments like writing assignments. Narrative evaluations offer richer insights but face practical challenges: students and parents may not thoroughly read detailed feedback, and teachers struggle to produce individualized analyses for large classes.
Institutions like Saint Ann's School in New York City have successfully implemented narrative-only assessment systems, focusing on learning and improvement rather than letter grades. Similarly, Sanborn High School has embraced more qualitative evaluation methods. However, these approaches remain exceptions rather than the norm, particularly in large university settings where hundreds of students per course make individualized feedback impractical.
The future likely lies in hybrid systems that combine standardized evaluation with meaningful feedback—preserving the efficiency of letter grades while nurturing the deeper learning that comes from personalized assessment.