What is more reliable collegeboard or the college's actual website?

[drax12]

<p>First, let me clean up what I stated previously…</p>

<p>

You make [legitimate] points. </p>

<p>…the given intervals of two 100-scale points would [map into a smaller intervals of 4-point] scale [the higher the grades attained], which would [should?] seem to be a natural [occurrence]. [Higher grades should be harder attained.]</p>

<p>2.0 is -.01 gpa point of falling into the “D” [category]. 3.0 is -.01 from the “C.”

</p>

<p>fallenchemist:</p>

<p>

I honestly have no idea what you mean about the people that made the conversion scales being lazy. It is Princeton Review and College Board, lol. You continue to use 70=2.0, but that is not the convention used by anyone else I know of. 75=2.0 in most peoples “book”.

</p>

<p>You’re not remembering what you stated previously. You said, the following:</p>

<p>

As I hopefully clarified later, it would really be a 110 point system, if done with the bonuses the way I imagine them. But I cannot see exactly how a system that makes a conversion from an 81 or an 89 to the same B=3.0 is more detailed than reporting that 81 or 89. I would be curious what you are thinking there. Also, remember, I was mostly talking about a school that doesn’t do + or - grades, although even then there will be some loss of information, albeit less. And yes, I think I was quite clear in my numerous posts that this only made sense if it were standardized.

</p>

<p>I’m too lazy to quote you before each point, so, I’ll just note the following:</p>

<p>First, please note where I said, that I could adjust to 2.5=C, etc, but doing this wouldn’t show forth the advantages of the 4-point scale.</p>

<p>Second, there are adjustments made for curve grading in college, so let’s consider this a high school.</p>

<p>Three, where do 70 and 80 map into gpa points according to both of your quotes and “the book”? 2.0 and 3.0, correct?</p>

<p>Four, if, three, then the authors of the conversion tables are indeed lazy, because, in a way I’m agreeing, that hammering 100-point grades of, say of 80-89 to 4-point scale as 3.0 is not taking advantage of the latter. </p>

<p>Five, wrt decimal points, I think that schools, colleges should be respectful of .01’s of gpa points. I cringe when I see a university report a mean frosh gpa of, say, 3.6. Is that 3.55 or could it be 3.64 or is it somewhere in between?</p>

<p>Six, related to five, it is your personal failing if you don’t heed .01’s of points wrt the 4-point. There are colleges that will indeed reject those with .01’s points difference within the 4-point, all other things being equal. This is because gpas are tightly distributed within the 3.8-4.0 range. </p>

<p>Seven, I believe the 100-point system is flawed. There should be a tighter interval to which one considers an “A,” or below, not 90-100. </p>

<p>Sub-point seven: In 4-point, the A’s are restricted to 3.67-4.00 (A- to A). B’s, 2.67-3.66 (B- to B+). C’s 1.67-2.67 (C - to C+).</p>

<p>Sub-point seven: In 10-point, forA’s, there’s too far a range from 90-100. The legitmate A students should be in the 95+ range. There is no designation for A+, even if grades achieved are over 100, which would be like 4.30 on a 4-point scale. </p>

<p>Eight, the prior is why I think the 4-point scale is better, added:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If people respect the .01 points, “take them seriously.”</p></li>
<li><p>If teachers diligently convert from test scores to letter grades to gpa points. I think the problem you’re noting is more the conversion of letter grades to gpa on both 100 and 4-point scale.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I’ll let your other explanations go as far as gpa scale (and example of and temperature scale) spacing relativism, as I understood them in the first place. ; )</p>