<p>You make legitmate points wrt one-to-one mapping. </p>
<p>(And I got up “early” today so I could answer your post, and I knew you would make some valid points…)</p>
<p>But if you think about it, the higher up the grades, the harder attainable towards the magical 4.0. Therefore the spacing of one 100-scale point would mean less of an interval wrt the 4-point scale, which would seem to be a natural occurence.</p>
<p>2.0 is -.01 gpa point of falling into the “D” catagory. 3.0 is -.01 from the “C.”</p>
<p>Most people think of 90 as an A- designation. </p>
<p>THis is the flaw of the 100-point system where the demarcation between B and A is different than C to B. THe 4-point system manifests grades and levels better.</p>
<p>Here would be my “final” adustment, with adjustment to 90 as 3.67, A- designation:</p>
<p>70 2.00
71 2.10
72 2.20
73 2.30
74 2.40
75 2.50
76 2.60
77 2.70
78 2.80
79 2.90
80 3.00
81 3.07
82 3.13
83 3.20
84 3.27
85 3.33
86 3.40
87 3.47
88 3.53
89 3.60
90 3.67
91 3.70
92 3.73
93 3.77
94 3.80
95 3.83
96 3.87
97 3.90
98 3.93
99 3.97
100 4.00</p>
<p>Again, I think the 100-point system is flawed. I look at someone with a 92 gpa and I think “good,” but not “great,” wrt A’s.</p>
<p>I look at someone with a 82, and I think sold “B” student.</p>
<p>“B” student can be various ranges as can be shown in the 4-point scale.</p>
<p>Those who made conversion scales I would say are probably pretty lazy. (I haven’t had a chance to look at them yet.)</p>
<p>And this scale could be adjusted for 2.5 “C,” 3.5 “B,” though I would consider those in the + catagory.</p>