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>

[fallenchemist]

<p>

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

What?? We were never talking about curving or anything but taking the grades one gets for a course in high school and converting it to a GPA. This was just a bizarre thing for you to say.</p>

<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.

I really am having trouble believing you don’t get this. I will try one more time. Say the original grade on a test is a number from 0-100. You take a series of these tests and accumulate points. Let’s take a simple example. A course gives 3 tests and you score 264 points, for an average of 88. This is put on the transcript as a B+ for the course. This is then assigned a GPA value of 3.67. There is no way this is more precise than the original average score of 88. There is nothing superior in the 3.67 than the 88. Nada. Zilch. In fact it imparts less information, because someone that averaged an 87 also goes into the book with a B+ and therefore has a GPA of 3.67 (in this simple example). So the 0-100 system more finely discriminates these two students than the 4.0 GPA system does. That is the end of the story, proof made.</p>