<p>Here is a thought problem for the mathematically inclined. Letter grade equivalents are usually reported as two significant digits (e.g., 3.3 or 4.0) but GPAs are often reported to three significant digits (e.g. 3.45). Isn’t this incorrect (unless one considers the equivalent an exact number, but this doesn’t seem right)? Shouldn’t the 3.45 be rounded to 3.5? </p>
<p>Seems like there are practical consequences for this, as specific GPAs thresholds are required for scholarships, Dean’s list, etc. (Interestingly, these thresholds are usually reported only as 2 significant figures).</p>
<p>Both my son and I graduated from college with GPAs where the third digit was a 9 (3.X9, and I’m not going to tell you what the X was in either case). Neither of us rounds up. That would be faking it.</p>
<p>Huh? Its a mathematical process, not a philosophy question. Rounding is more accurate than truncation. Shouldn’t that be the primary consideration in a grade report?</p>
<p>Following standard sig fig rules, 3.44 would round down to 3.4; 3.46 would round up to 3.5, and 3.45 would round up because the preceding digit is even and 3.55 would round down because the preceding digit is odd. </p>
<p>I have long maintained that GPAs should have only ONE sig fig by the way most teachers grade. You cannot average 6 As and 3 Bs as if they are ((6x95)+(3x85))/9… because the true range is from the As as 90s and the Bs as 80s (average 87) to As as 100 and the Bs as 89 (average 97)… and yet most teachers try to do exactly that.</p>
<p>I think it is also an ethics question. I have always thought the best answer is to report as many digits as the school reports. So if the school says my GPA is 3.99 then that’s what it is.</p>
<p>“Feel good”? Its math! The school may “report” 3 digits - my point is that it is incorrect to do so, if the constituent grades contain only 2. Shouldn’t an institution of higher learning be expected/required to make accurate calculations?</p>
<p>drb - you are correct. It is math and proper math.<br>
My kids’ high school uses three significant digits for GPA - i.e. a B+ is a 3.33 and an A- is a 3.67. Yet on the transcripts they are carried out to 4 decimal places - it makes me crazy!</p>
<p>For scholarships, awards and computing class rank they should have the proper number of significant digits.</p>
<p>I know one thing, at D’s school GPA=4.0 places the kid on President list. EVERYTHING below up to certain grade down places them on Dean’s list. You absolutely cannot round up here, because 3.96 cannot be on President list, they belong on Dean’s list. So, truncation in this case is the ONLY solution. The point is that Math cannot be disconnected from other requirements.</p>
<p>MiamiDAP - then the rule should be a 4.00 get’s Presidents list.</p>
<p>In the world of math where there are only two significant digits, a 3.96 = 4.0. There is no difference. If only two digits are used to calcluate an average then the answer must have two digits. Kids are being denied their due.</p>
<p>Students Desi and Lucy are both required to maintain a 3.50 average to keep their merit scholarships. Desi has 24 credits with a letter grade of B+ and 24 with a B-. Lucy has 4 credits with a letter grade of A, 16 with a B+ and 28 with a B-. Both have 48 credits. If GPA is reported to 3 significant figures, then letter grades should be correspond (B+ = 3.67, B- = 3.33). In this case, Desi would have a GPA of 3.49 and Lucy would have a GPA of 3.50.</p>
<p>However, Desi and Lucy attend math-challenged U, where letter grades are reported as 2 significant figures (B+ = 3.7, B- = 3.3) but GPAs are calculated to 3. As such Desi has a GPA of 3.50 and Lucy has a GPA of 3.49. (You can do the math yourself).</p>
<p>Desi gets to keep a scholarship he did not qualify for, and Lucy loses one she earned.</p>
<p>Back in the dark ages at my school you got an A or a B–none of this wimpy plus-minus stuff. An A was worth 4 points, a B was worth 3. As I recall, my transcript showed a GPA of 3.63. Obviously they should only carry a single significant digit–no decimal places! Now we have to ask whether they should truncate my GPA to “3” or round it to “4”. The decision to round or truncate to a single significant digit is more arbitrary than reporting a couple of decimal places in this case.</p>
<p>(Geek alert: In digitizing an analog signal like music, you can actually use an N-bit A/D converter to get more than N bits of resolution if you add a ramp or random noise, sample fast enough, and average multiple readings.)</p>
<p>Look, when I’m reviewing your resume to consider you for an engineering internship, I really don’t care if you have a 3.2 or a 3.3475. In my book you have a B+ average. Now tell me what school you went to, what classes you took, can you describe your senior project to me coherently, etc. </p>
<p>Now if my son’s GPA drops to 2.99, he will probably lose his scholarship. THAT I care about!</p>
Its not a decision, its math! There are rules! if you want to add random noise to increase resolution beyond that inherent in the assigned value, fine. Just don’t pretend that 2 significant digits can be translated to 3 significant digits by fiat.</p>
<p>Your GPA should be a 4. A 4 doesn’t denote perfection - it just denotes A work.
Look at it this way - if a 90-100 = A and an A is a 4.0 then you don’t have to be “perfect” to get an A. All your work must merely average an A.<br>
The GPA is just a way to quantify an A. </p>
<p>It does indeed have an affect on valedictorian and salutatorians. Our school uses three significant digits. If the two top students have GPA’s of 3.992 and 3.988 - they should both be co-valedictorians as they should have identical GPA’s of 3.99.</p>