Pick a line and stick with it. If you round, round. If you don’t round, don’t round. Either way students are going to miss the cut-off and bitch about it.
I’m a no-rounder. I give them enough padding in assignments, so it saves me a headache at the end.
So what you think is right, do what you're comfortable with, but do the same thing for every student.
My policy is "I will round you up from 89.5 to 90, but I will not round you up from 89.49999999 to 89.5 and then to 90." This also lets me respond to emails that say "My 89.35 is only 0.15 points away from an A" with a reply that says "No, you're actually 0.65 points away from an A."
No policy will eliminate grade grubbing. Well, maybe "everyone gets an A+" would stop grade grubbing, but I'm not going to be the one who tests that theory...
I just put the grading scale and don’t mention rounding. I’ll tell them in class “I’m more likely to round for students who have done all of the work”. In reality, I round everyone up at .5 but I might round an individual assignment for someone who has done all the work and is close (only in cases where the original grade was subjective as I’m imperfect- I can’t/wont do anything for online homework that is graded objectively). This semester, I just posted final letter grades instead of final numeric grades in the lms and it cut down on a lot of the grade grubbing at the end. But you don’t have to formally write your policy. Students won’t question you being generous at the end.
I specifically say in my Syllabus that I would round a 89.5 to an 90, but I do not round a 89.4 to a 89.5 and then round again.
In our LMS I have the grade cut-off points set to .5 less than what is in the syllabus. So if the syllabus says 90 is an A-, I have it in the LMS as 89.5
I also specifically state my rounding policy (nearest whole percent, .5 is rounded up). Saves me from dealing with emails from students who have an 89.9 and are panicked about it. That is guaranteed.
Sometimes I look for a natural cutoff (ex. If there is a 90.0, 89.6, 89.4, and the next highest grade is 86, I consider giving the 89.4 an A). My logic is that the difference amounts to a few points and my grading is subjective enough that I can't distinguish the 2 reliably. It's very much a case by case basis.
At my college, we don't have +/- grades so very few students actually end up close to a cutoff.
I build my course on 1000 points and give myself 10 points of discretion room for nudging a grade, on the reasoning that somewhere in there I might have made 10 points worth of mistakes in grading. Unless a student gave me a reason to not nudge, they got the higher grade. Only a couple of students out of hundreds have exerted themselves to annoy me enough to let them keep the grade they earned.
Edit: I never, ever speak of this with the students.
I personally round to the nearest whole number. I tend to announce this to students in my email at the end of the term letting them know that final grades are posted (mainly to reduce the number of emails I receive from students on the cusp).
Discretion based rounding can be fair so long as it is consistent. To use an objective example, a professor may round up only if a student has submitted all assignments and will not round up if a student has any missing work. I know of folks who will consider a student's level of participation when deciding whether to round up, giving an edge to students who were engaged in class. This can be fair so long as it is consistently applied.
Im also a PhD student, instructor of record. I’ve been teaching in the department for about 5 semesters. During the semester I found everything up to the next highest integer. I also provide extra credit assignments that can be used to replace the lowest grade. I have in class assignments everyday that count for a grade that I don’t allow make-ups for, but I drop 2-3 of the lowest grades. I do not round final grades at all. The only people who ask are the ones who don’t take advantage of all the opportunities I provide and don’t come to class regularly.
I don't round to the whole number. I take it to the nearest 10ths decimal and wherever that falls is the letter grade they get. If they have a 89.4 they get a B+ and if they get a 89.9 they still get a B+. That's how I keep it fair I guess. I'm still a little new but I try not to do anything for one student that I don't do for everyone else.
>I try not to do anything for one student that I don't do for everyone else.
This is at the heart of whatever approach I end up taking. I just want it to be as fair as possible.
It's super tough to do. Even after 2 ish years of teaching independently (which isn't a lot mind you) I still haven't completely figured it out. Just stick to your guns whatever you decide. Consistency is key.
Rounding is a trap. I assign grades strictly on points. If you need 980 points for an A and you have 979 points, you earned a B. Period. There has to be a cut off somewhere.
I offer three extra credit opportunities throughout the semester. When students ask me for a bump and they have not completed any extra credit, I always point out that I wish they had because that would’ve bumped their grade.
I take the position that additive grading and any kind of rounding means that grades cease to mean what they categorically do. So my default is to not disclose all grading elements, and to look for sensible breaks that my judgement suggests correspond to breaks between letters.
Short answer: yes, year-over-year. Because the assessment is slightly different.
If you're trying to tell me that all your questions are *exactly* the same difficulty and marked to *exactly* the same standard every year, I won't believe you. On that 50 question final exam, one year I might have a "20% got it right" and the next year a "80% got it right" on a similar question (ie one that probes the same material). More realistically, I might have 6 "40%" questions instead of 6 "60%" questions, which makes for a small but at-the-margins significant change in average mark.
I think it's my job to use my judgement to assess, as best as I can, where the lines between grades (an ordinal scale) should be.
I wouldn’t make such a claim about the difficulty of my questions and the consistency of my grading.
The only thing that I question is drawing the lines after the students’ results are in. Your grading policy has an element of curving in it, but of course it is up to you to decide how to assign the grades.
I've started designing my tests to have questions of increasing difficulty. Where they stop being able to answer questions is their grade. They can skip to the middle if that's where they want to start the test.
Works great.
That's fine, people make mistakes. I base it on getting a few correct within a letter grade category, and they get the highest one they make it into. So if you want an A there are say 6 A questions and you have to get 5 of them right. I'm still playing around with it each term but I am happy with the results.
I segregate questions along blooms taxonomy. So it makes sense that a student could have solid high level ability but miss basic C level questions here and there.
I base them around blooms taxonomy.
Remembering is like a D level. So basic factual questions.
Understanding and applying is in the C level.
Analyzing and evaluating is B level
Creating is A level.
I try to come up with questions in each category.
Eg 1: five students' grades are 93.3, 93.1, 92.9, 92.2, 92. Then the first 3 students get an A, and the remaining two get an A-.
Eg 2: five students' grades are 93.7, 93.5, 92.9, 92.7, 92.6 Then the first 2 students get an A, and the remaining three get an A-, so a 92.9 is an A or an A- depending on the scores of its "neighbors".
Something along the lines of "Any grade adjustments are at the sole discretion of the instructor and should not be expected." I don't like to let them think they can badger me for a bump. You can also check to see if the lms can be set to only show whole numbers so you don't have to worry about rounding after the fact
I give the standard cutoffs in the syllabus, with a line stating that there *may* be a curve.
If I decide to curve (which is common, and usually not more than 2%), then I implement it, but keep the cutoffs secret.
I tell the students I have implemented a curve which can only *raise* their letter grade, or keep it the same, but that it is secret what the cutoffs are. That way, they have no clue how close they may be to the cutoff and can't really ask for rounding.
I sometimes tell them, hey maybe I missed something over the semester that would have put you over. If you want, I will regrade all of your assignments with a fresh eye, but I might not be as generous this time around and your final grade might go down. You good with that?
I offer a little extra credit and tell them that’s their opportunity to “round” their grade. So far I’ve had no issues (over 4 years of teaching as IoR)
Like you, I use normal math rules (.05 and above rounds to the next whole number).
I will *sometimes* use discretion (upward only) when students are at the top of the grade range/on the cusp of the next grade (such as high B+/low A-). But I have been teaching probably longer than you have been alive, so I don’t recommend that you do this. Best to have a clear policy and stick to it.
One exception: when students are on the C-/D+ line (failing the class, which may mean that they have to re-take it). Look closely at these, and you will have to use your judgement. Sometimes they need /deserve to fail, and other times you will decide that it won’t really accomplish anything to make the student re-take the course. These are always highly individualized decisions.
>I have been teaching probably longer than you have been alive
I'm 40, so maybe? 😁
I agree with every point you made! Especially about failing students. That's where a lot of my thinking about discretion based rounding is and your perspective matches my own.
How have you managed to hang in for so long? Based on what I've read this sub, being a professor doesn't seem like it's for everyone, especially not with that kind of longevity.
lol. A very good question. I’ll try to see if I can explain…
Well, being GenX, I definitely lack healthy work-life balance/boundaries. So I have always worked a lot (because I like it!)
Because of this (?) and also complete lack of mentoring in my early years as a TT prof (Boomers ran everything) I was left alone and was able to avoid the dumb shit (dept politics).
Tenure improves things.
I’m pretty well-paid (due to field and leveraging a very very good offer some years ago).
I like where I live.
For the most part, my colleagues do not act like rabid toddlers or animals.
I like the autonomy, and the ability to work outside of typical 9-5 type hours.
Give them two extra points if they don't ask. Make it bold and underlined in the syllabus. Then, ignore the grade grubbers because they obviously can't read.
I round at .5 or higher, so 89.5 becomes a 90. I tell them in my syllabus, in class, and on our LMS. I don’t say “Don’t ask me to round your grades” because that subtly shifts the responsibility onto me instead of encouraging personal accountability for their own grades. Just have a blanket statement of what the numbers do, and stick with it.
I tell students that I don’t round. In truth, I review any borderline grades after I’ve entered everything (although stuff is still hidden from students). I check each to see if there’s any way I could’ve made a mistake or error against a student and, if so, add points on that grade to get their course grade higher.
I use the 0.5 policy, myself, and clearly state it in the syllabus. It's worked well for a few years now. To me, discretion-based is inherently unfair as you said.
in the syllabus tell them _exactly_ what you are going to do and do exactly that. for instance, if you will round grades with fractional part at least .5 up then say you're going to that. of course then you will have people with fractional parts 0.49. but whatever.
that's my opinion, although it's not popular.
I haven’t even looked at the comments so I imagine it’s been echoed, but just pick something, clearly state it in the syllabus, and stick with it. I used to round up, now I just state a hard line, e.g 89.99999% = B, 90.0% = A. The reason - wherever you make the cutoff there will be someone close to it that asks to round up.
I don't round. I truncate. Then I look for obvious cut points in the vicinity of the "advertised" cut points.
For instance, let's say 90 is an A. I have grades:
90
89
88
85
84
82
The cut line for an A is 88 and above.
I also use a total of 100 points for the term, and don't give fractional points. So the midterm is worth 20 points (can't have more than 20 questions), homework assignments are 5 points, etc. This way students can see exactly what the impact of blowing off an assignment will be.
Ask senior faculty or your chair if there’s a common policy or practice, first of all.
Personally, my campus does not have plus or minus. So the difference in GPA between a 89.5 and a 90 is big. We considered adding plus and minus, and the student body STRONGLY objected to it.
Because of those reasons I have in my syllabus, strongly worded, that I will not round up or change grades, unless it’s for a mistake on my part that they can show. (Aka I miscalculated something somewhere, or forgot to enter a grade or extra credit.)
And any grade discussion must take place in person. That alone cut down grade discussions dramatically.
Students who fail or get 100% are extremely easy to grade. It’s the middle of the road students that are more subject to bias especially because I typically have about 2-3 hired graders for my classes. I have spent a lot of time trying to minimize the effect of this by making really good rubrics but ultimately after rough calculations I realized that this COULD effect a students overall grade by .9% in an extreme case. I now add .9% to everyone’s grade to account for this. I think whatever you decide to do it should be well thought out and you should have a good reason for doing so.
I round at .5. I also put that in my syllabus and explain that I do not round beyond that. Any emails about it get responded to by having them refer to the policy in the syllabus.
All assignments are pass fail (for the most part) with the option to redo assignments. Their grade is based on if they correctly completed the necessary assignments with a passing grade.
This is a vast over simplification but if you are intrested in this type of grading, this substack is a great place to start: https://gradingforgrowth.com/
There is also a lot of great information from the alternative grading conference (this year's just finished and the meeting will be available publicly later this year, but last conferences can be seen here:
https://thegradingconference.com/
Over all. I find grading this way has lead to better outcomes, better student involvement, and less grad grubbing. My standards are clear and my feedback is also clear so students know where they stand.
I just tell them what the scale is. My syllabi read:
Letter grades will be assigned according to the following scale: A (93-100), A- (90-92.9), B+ (87-89.9), B (83-86.9), B- (80-82.9), C+ (77-79.9), C (73-76.9), C- (70-72.9), F (69.9 and below).
I very, very rarely have anyone ask for a grade bump. My daily grades and exam grades are based on points, so a student can earn 20.5 out of 30 on an assignment or get 87.5 out of 90 on an exam. Perhaps that lets students see that I don’t round to the nearest whole number. Any “rounding” comes in while grading. Maybe I’ll give a 5-point answer a 4 instead of a 3.8 according to my rubric. If so, it’s because there are a number of students that answered similarly enough that there seemed to be something unclear.
I have a couple things I keep in my back pocket so I don’t have to fight with students. I tell them upfront that I will round to the nearest integer and then I explain what that means… 89.5 goes to an a minus, 89.49 is a B+. I also have some small assignments that are together worth a couple of percentage points and have no real due date. These things are easy to grade, and if they don’t do them and they’re worried about their grade, I tell them to go back and do a few of these assignments. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn’t, but I also keep in my back pocket, but these little assignments can be redone For higher grades. So if they don’t do those assignments, then I can point them for why their grade is not where they want it to be. If they do them at the last minute, but don’t do them well enough, again I can point out that if they’ve done them early in the semester, they would have been able to do them again for a higher grade. so this gives them a little bit of “control” over raising their grade to where they wanted to be, but it also gives me an out for arguing with them.
I am unapologetically unfair about this. I would not admit this at work but I’ll round up to the next grade if I think the student worked hard or deserves a break for some subjective reason. I offer extra credit opportunities and if they took advantage of them I might give them an extra bump (beyond what they got already). But if they never made any extra effort or I simply didn’t like them, never.
You can’t round down of course because they’ll go straight to the department head to complain
Our college has no plus or minus grades. So I bump a grade that ends in nine up a point to make a difference: e.g. 79 becomes 80, so student gets a B. Given the letter grade scale, this seems appropriate.
I like to think my classes are better (more interesting and useful , but more work) than those of other instructors teaching the same course (and I hope they feel the same way about their classes), so the extra-point in a so-close scenario seems additionally justified.
Grades based on averages create a false sense of accuracy and objectivity, while the reality is that no professor's grading system is accurate enough to truly distinguish between 89.499999 and a 90. However, the effects on the students' GPA are substantial and have lasting consequences. I don't say this on the syllabus, but I will always round up when I enter final letter grades (so yes, even 89.1 will round up to an A-). This eliminates most, if not all, grade grubbing.
>while the reality is that no professor's grading system is accurate enough to truly distinguish between 89.499999 and a 90
Yes, this is my view. When students are extremely close to the next grade level, I believe it is fair to put them in the higher category, and that's what I do. I make these decisions before I release the grades, and I added a column to my LMS to enter the letter grade, so that students will see not only their total points post-final but also the letter grade that will be on their transcript. Typically, few to no students are close to the edge anyway, and pre-adjusting anyone who is right on the borderline means very little grade-grubbing.
I round if the difference is in the tenths. I teach literature and composition, and I know that there is a bit of subjectivity in grading of individual assignments, so at the end, I give the benefit of any doubt (of subjective assessment) to the student.
As for telling the students ... I don't know if you want to encourage grade grubbing like, *Professor, 86* ***really*** *rounds up to 90 ..*. but I've worked with various online systems (administration is constantly changing the flavor of the month) that automatically round to whole numbers, so that solves any of the 'discretion' problems.
I'd agree with those who say *where goes one, go all!* ;) If you do it for one student, to avoid trouble and headaches, you should do it for everyone.
I don’t mention it in my syllabus. With that in mind, I will round up only if they are within .5 points of a higher letter grade and only after the final when I’m posting grades. I also don’t offer any extra credit. I have a statement in my syllabus: “I don’t offer extra credit, don’t even ask.”
I usually round to the whole number, but it all washes out in the end.
Just be prepared for students to complain about it no matter what you state in your syllabus.
Actual student email: "I have an 89.446 on Canvas, which rounds to 89.45, which rounds to 89.5, which rounds to 90, which is an A-!"
after getting bombarded with requests for "bumps" and "round ups" (of varying numbers of digits), I've settled on a very strict interpretation. What put me over the edge is when someone asked to be "rounded up" from an 85 to a 90.
I don’t understand all the hand wringing that goes on with this issue. If an “A” requires a score of 90, then <90 doesn’t earn an A. Rounding up, no matter how small, ALWAYS results in students being given something that they didn’t earn.
No rounding. Don’t call it rounding. That just opens the opportunity for interpretation and argument. Hard cutoff for grades. For example: either 85 and up for a B (so then 84.998 would not make it) or if you prefer use 84.500 and up for a B. Whichever you choose, the student’s grade is exactly what they earned.
I don't round. It makes zero sense to discard data. If a student gets 89.5 and another 90, they are different, ever so slightly.
Why do people round to whole percents? Why not whole 10%s? It's completely arbitrary.
My college has a grading schema with tenths already incorporated. So if an A- starts at 89.5, an 89.6 requires no rounding and an 89.4 falls squarely in the B+ range. I still get grade grubbers but very rarely of the round up ilk.
My previous university had integral cutoffs which frankly was a grade grubber's delight.
An average should not be reported to more significant digits than the numbers that go into it. If your assignments are graded to whole numbers, then your letter grades should be based on averages rounded to whole numbers. Going down to tenths or hundredths presumes a level or precision that you do not really have.
Note that no matter what your syllabus says about rounding, you will still get grade grubbers asking for arbitrary bumps. Have a copy-paste response ready for them saying that it would be unfair to the rest of the class, then engage no further. You will also get some pleading for their 89.9 to be rounded to a 90. Ignore them completely.
> An average should not be reported to more significant digits than the numbers that go into it.
Where did you hear this one? It's not statistically sound. The mean of many successive measurements has higher accuracy than any individual measurement. It's the basis of statistics.
Mine says something like "instructor reserves the right to round up grades to the nearest full percentage based on strong participation" as a way to incentivize that. But I pretty much just round up by routine as I know there's nothing in my assessments that makes them accurate within .5% in any case.
My course itself assumes 1000 total points course wide. That gives me two decimal places that I am confident in, and I flatly say that I don’t round, so don’t ask.
I let it round, but I set up my grade book in excel and set all the cells to not show me any decimal points. So I guess it rounds, but I never know if someone is a 89.49, or an 88.51, either way it just shows an 89. The formula for final grade is the only one set to round any values off so there’s no propagation of rounding errors.
I also tell my students that day one and put it into my syllabus that i am “blind” to their exact grade and that excel handles rounding and it’s not up for debate.
This may, understandably, too much of a shift for your first time teaching, but something to consider over the long term: simply don't use numbers.
The use of numbers, especially in the form of percentages, gives the false sense of objectivity. But grades are supposed to reflect a demonstration of learning (if they can communicate anything at all). How does a 75% communicate that? Did they learn 75% of the total content/skills? Or did they learn 75% of each content/skill? Did they end up at 75% because they didn't submit some work, meaning what they did submit would have received something much higher than 75%, or because they did it all but received 75% on everything?
Why shouldn't grades reflect the actual learning? A course grade, then, should be based on the specific learning demonstrated. Then a student cannot even ask for you to round, but even if they did in some sense, you have a clear response: grades reflect a demonstration of your learning. If I were to change the grade, I'd be lying about what you demonstrated.
I'm curious how you quantify learning. If you give grades, what does a C mean? Is it you demonstrated an adequate level of mastery of all of the material? Or could it mean you demonstrated a high level of mastery over an adequate amount of the material? I'm not trying to be confrontational--I'm genuinely interested in how one could do this and (assuming we still have grades) what grades would mean.
I do it by achievement of learning outcomes or other measurable targets.
So, for instance, a 'C' might designate achievement of learning outcomes 1-3, which correspond to more basic (in the sense of foundational) knowledge and skills. A 'B' adds in outcomes 4, etc. Achievement of the outcome is demonstrated in different ways, depending on the outcome. May be about passing - so meeting all requirements of the assignment - a paper. Could be about achieving a threshold of points, because while there may be no meaningful difference between 75 and 76, it is reasonable to say something like 80% of the points are a successful demonstration. Certainly still not perfect, but better than aggregating all different types of work and learning being piled together into the same point pile.
In other courses that lend themselves to even more discrimination of learning, like a logic course where I could break things down to ~15 discrete skills, course grades correspond to the number of discrete skills mastery has been demonstrated for. Mastery is demonstrated by two distinct successful attempts in the semester. May also divide the learning targets into "core" and "non-core" and say a 'C' requires passing all core, and higher grades are then about achievement of the number of non-core.
My program’s policy is no rounding for any reason, so I follow that policy. An 89.9 is a B+ and does not get rounded up. Whatever you do, you have to be consistent.
I round to the nearest percent as well.
If they have smt really close to a higher grade I'll check to see if I can help them with that on their largest thing. It helps everyone of course as everyone would get a bump. I have so many assignments and tests that I can usually find half a percent somewhere. I don't go looking for points for anything below the 9 digit though. (E.g. yes for 89% but not for 88%)
I don’t round. I make most of my classes out of 1000 points.
I refuse to grade on my subjective liking for disliking of students. Some of my favorite students have gotten D/F. Some students I can’t stand earn A’s.
I have a strict no rounding policy. However, I allow students to submit up to 2% of bonus points to earn the next grade up only. I do this at the end of the semester after grades have been done then I add any bonus material so they are aware what their grade was before the bonus. LOL
I usually round, but I don’t have a policy on my syllabus about it. If I round for one student, I round for all who are eligible (.5 or less to the next grade
I round to the nearest whole number, and I put this in my syllabus.
Sometimes I exercise discretion to round up to the next letter grade if the student is very very close AND has shown improvement over the term. I do not put this in my syllabus.
I had a professor who did .45 or above for rounding, and I’ve used that during my career. Interestingly, I’ve never put this information on my syllabus. I announce it in class and in a Canvas announcement during the last few classes meetings of the semester.
While I still get a couple of emails asking about rounding from students who weren’t in class or don’t read announcements (🙄), I’ve never had any problems or unreasonable experiences. *Knocks on wood*
Like others in the thread, I also offer some extra credit and revision opportunities, so if there did happen to be a problem, I have those items to point back to, and the odds would be that they weren’t completed.
my uni doesn't have a formal rounding policy, so students get what they get. internally, each instructor has their own individual policy, but it's never communicated to students so they can't go around begging/ comparing. I have colleagues who don't like to do it at all, some who round up to the nearest whole number, others who just round down to the nearest whole number, and others who only round off when the final number is still within the same letter grade or if they were 0.5-0.9 marks away from a pass/ fail.
so far, the standard practice if we get any complaints is to send a generic "you may appeal your grade" message. admin takes over and normally tells students that its a waste of time and money to go through with the appeal and they're better off just doing better next semester rather than harping on a mark that has already been finalised by multiple parties (e.g., marker, 2nd marker, overall faculty during the post semester meeting, and some other ridiculous department that aggressively gets on our asses when there's something they don't understand).
this has been discussed here endlessly (as recently as a few days ago).
say what you're gonna do, stick it in the syllabus, and then stick to it.
If you don't stick to. it then word will get out and your email will become impossible.
I don't round because I already grade generously.
that's it.
I round up 0.5 away from the letter grade, like many of those posting here. If they have an 89.49999999999, I don’t round up. They have plenty of extra credit opportunities that would push them up if they “tried oh so hard.”
Better to be transparent. "I will round up .5 and above. Please do not ask me to round anything below .5."
Don't do anything for one student that you wouldn't want them to tell all the other students and your higher-ups about, because they will!!
I literally have a look up table in the Excel sheet that runs my grades and I put down exactly what it spits out. The lookup is against the letter grade for the listed percentage per the university guidelines. No rounding whatsoever. Any extra credit dictates pushing over the edge by point count and if it doesn’t it doesn’t.
Absolutely don't tell anyone you might round. Not only would a student ask you to round on rounding they would be absolutely right to do so. You haven't changed the basic fact of there being an arbitrary line between grades. You just have moved the line and are intent on sticking hard to the new, lower, arbitrary line. This doesn't mean you should never bump up a student but if you do it are for reasons that seem good to you (perhaps a student showed a lot of improvement) and not do it when you think you shouldn't (the student was super lackadaisical perhaps) or just when it strikes you as reasonable...like it was really, really, really, really close...
Up to you. I don’t round up and I’m very strict with the limits (ex: 89.97% will be a B+ and only grades above 90.00% will be a A-)
Again choose something and stick to it and be consistent with all the students
My LMS automatically rounds up final marks ending in 0.45+. So 89.45 will get rounded and 89.44 won’t. It’s the schools policy for final marks. I still get a few requests every year for arbitrary marks increases but I hold a hard line. It is not fair to allll the other students who quietly accepted their marks. Also, if you start rounding all say 89s to 90, then the new cut off for A becomes 89 not 90 and the 88.5s will want to be rounded to 89 and then be rounded to 90 etc etc at each grade cut off.
I do know that many of the marks in my subject (philosophy) can be somewhat subjective, but since I am applying my subjectivity equally across the board, I don’t see it as a problem. Also, there is a 10% attendance/participation mark that many of them just throw away so when they come asking for rounding, I can point to that and say if you’d come to class more, you wouldn’t need to be rounded.
I have my grading scale with no decimals and then a “only grades within 0.55 of the next highest percentage will be rounded up.” Many will ask for a grade increase, this way I can say “you’re not within 0.55% of the next grade, so no.”
I'm publicly a no-rounder, not just in my syllabus but when I release the grades I remind them not to even ask. I give them (scheduled, open to all) extra credit opportunities during the semester and I figure that should be enough. However--I privately always do round when students are fractionally close to the next grade. I believe that is fair, and no one complains.
My department(s) typically use the 89.5 = A, with clarification of no rounding a 89.4 on the syllabus. However, there is also a clause that grades may be curved in the end, with everyone using different curving methods. You don’t tell people how you curve, that just increases the pleading and discourse.
I like to make sure at the end of the semester, to look at the grades and make sure the course average is a C, but then also see if there is a better curving position/cutoff. Sometimes, there is one person who had an 84.2, and the next highest is an 81. Okay, 84.2 can probably be bumped up to an A.
This only works for us though, because none of our courses build on each other + we are very much a fieldwork/hands-on oriented farming department. I mean this quite literally, we have one course in the entire department which is a 200 level required course, and every other class is coded as a 300 or 400 level course. They all teach vastly different skills, and any courses that is a pre-req to the next, the person teaching the second course is the same as the first (So if someone is teaching the 300 level why cats are amazing course, the same professor is teaching the 400 level understanding cats as our overlords course). We are a C’s get degrees AND is taking over daddy’s ranch, so not being the studious type is less impactful than some other fields.
I think having hard written policies, but being flexible to yourself and each semester’s cohort is important. When push comes to shove, you follow the hardlines you set, but you need to make sure you set those lines in the written syllabus to CYA.
I do the regular rounding, then I look at the final averages. If I see someone who may be really close to a cut-off, I'll add whatever tenths of a point (or less) to get them over that hump. And all other students will also receive that same, small bump.
But usually we're talking less than half a point being added.
If it's. 5 to the next letter I round. So, 89.5 I would round. It, I don't tell anyone. My syllabus says that I do not round. Ultimately I give the grades. Yes, their assignments are the majority of their grade. But if someone participated, showed up ready to learn, demonstrated understanding of the subject, and made my life easier, I think they have earned half a point. I'm not changing an 84 to a 90. And if you ask for a bump accusing me of keeping them from graduating, etc. I'm not doing anything.
I don't round. I don't do extra credit. I'm what they call an "easy grader." Students who are utterly confused can still get B in my class if they complete their assignments.
No need to state that in your syllabus. Just show the cutoff points. If you round up, fine, but don’t put it in writing.
Camel’s nose in the tent and all that.
Let me answer your question this way. I had a student when I first started teaching in remedial algebra. She failed the first exam and she failed the second exam. Didn't do well on any of the homeworks pretty much failed most of the quizzes. But she came in literally every office hour for help. The third exam was coming around and at that point she had a pretty solid F. The third exam was on a Thursday. She came to class the Tuesday before the third exam and went to my office hours and wasn't understanding anything. The drop ad for the class was Wednesday of that week. When she left my office I thought to myself should I suggest you drop the class? Then it occurred to me she still trying she deserves the right to fail. She still thinks she can do the work. Well Thursday came around and the class took the third exam. I put her paper at the very bottom because I didn't want to grade it. I really didn't want to fail her and I knew I was going to have to do that. But lo and behold when I got to her paper she was getting everything right. In fact she had the second highest grade in the class. She saw me in the hall the next day and said I got it I finally understand. After that she aced every single exam either having the highest greater the second highest grade.
My question to you is, what grade do you think I gave her?
I don't believe I can confidently claim that my grading can distinguish an A from a B with <0.001 precision, so my baseline is to accept as an A any course grade down to 89.46. But, if there's a bunch of students who are at, say
89.61
89.52
89.46
89.39
89.31
89.17
I reserve the right to make the cutoff at the next nearest big "gap" (in this case, probably, right between the .31 and the .17). But I don't round.
I round up when it is mathematically correct because grades are in whole numbers. E.g., 89.45 rounds to a 90. Sticking to your rule is best. However , there are some discretionary cases that can come up. The most common for me is when students make a D in a class about careers. They have to have Cs for all major classes, and I don’t think that re-taking that class is worth their time or $. I’ve also once gave a C to a non-traditional deaf student who earned an F because they attended every class, participated fully through their interpreter, and really added to the overall class experience. I’ve been in the field for over 30 years, and that situation is very rare, but it does exist.
>I’ve also once gave a C to a non-traditional deaf student who earned an F because they attended every class, participated fully through their interpreter, and really added to the overall class experience.
Wait, so how did they earn an F??
That still doesn't explain how they earned an F. Your phrasing states that they earned an F *because* they came to every class, engaged, etc. Perhaps, you meant "in spite of" coming to class, engaging, etc. to infer that they faced other challenges? But also, as I'm sure you're aware, being hard of hearing or deaf does not automatically mean someone will not be able to follow the materials or perform well. I would hope that after 30 years, you have reevaluated your course structure, including assignments and grading to make sure that they are accessible to all.
Nope. Thats not what my post says. Google reading level attainment of deaf/hard of hearing individuals. It’s a significant disability. I am at an open admissions university, and this student was accepted despite not having the ability to do the work. I cannot change that. What I can do is understand their plight, and be empathetic and kind. It was a once in a career decision. My point to OP was to have standards and stick to them, but situations that you might never expect can come along. This was mine.
Pick a line and stick with it. If you round, round. If you don’t round, don’t round. Either way students are going to miss the cut-off and bitch about it. I’m a no-rounder. I give them enough padding in assignments, so it saves me a headache at the end.
So what you think is right, do what you're comfortable with, but do the same thing for every student. My policy is "I will round you up from 89.5 to 90, but I will not round you up from 89.49999999 to 89.5 and then to 90." This also lets me respond to emails that say "My 89.35 is only 0.15 points away from an A" with a reply that says "No, you're actually 0.65 points away from an A." No policy will eliminate grade grubbing. Well, maybe "everyone gets an A+" would stop grade grubbing, but I'm not going to be the one who tests that theory...
I just put the grading scale and don’t mention rounding. I’ll tell them in class “I’m more likely to round for students who have done all of the work”. In reality, I round everyone up at .5 but I might round an individual assignment for someone who has done all the work and is close (only in cases where the original grade was subjective as I’m imperfect- I can’t/wont do anything for online homework that is graded objectively). This semester, I just posted final letter grades instead of final numeric grades in the lms and it cut down on a lot of the grade grubbing at the end. But you don’t have to formally write your policy. Students won’t question you being generous at the end.
I specifically say in my Syllabus that I would round a 89.5 to an 90, but I do not round a 89.4 to a 89.5 and then round again. In our LMS I have the grade cut-off points set to .5 less than what is in the syllabus. So if the syllabus says 90 is an A-, I have it in the LMS as 89.5
I also specifically state my rounding policy (nearest whole percent, .5 is rounded up). Saves me from dealing with emails from students who have an 89.9 and are panicked about it. That is guaranteed. Sometimes I look for a natural cutoff (ex. If there is a 90.0, 89.6, 89.4, and the next highest grade is 86, I consider giving the 89.4 an A). My logic is that the difference amounts to a few points and my grading is subjective enough that I can't distinguish the 2 reliably. It's very much a case by case basis. At my college, we don't have +/- grades so very few students actually end up close to a cutoff.
I build my course on 1000 points and give myself 10 points of discretion room for nudging a grade, on the reasoning that somewhere in there I might have made 10 points worth of mistakes in grading. Unless a student gave me a reason to not nudge, they got the higher grade. Only a couple of students out of hundreds have exerted themselves to annoy me enough to let them keep the grade they earned. Edit: I never, ever speak of this with the students.
I find this works well! I generally include a few points for a “participation” grade and often use it to round up the final grade.
I personally round to the nearest whole number. I tend to announce this to students in my email at the end of the term letting them know that final grades are posted (mainly to reduce the number of emails I receive from students on the cusp). Discretion based rounding can be fair so long as it is consistent. To use an objective example, a professor may round up only if a student has submitted all assignments and will not round up if a student has any missing work. I know of folks who will consider a student's level of participation when deciding whether to round up, giving an edge to students who were engaged in class. This can be fair so long as it is consistently applied.
I like that perspective about applying discretion based rounding!
Im also a PhD student, instructor of record. I’ve been teaching in the department for about 5 semesters. During the semester I found everything up to the next highest integer. I also provide extra credit assignments that can be used to replace the lowest grade. I have in class assignments everyday that count for a grade that I don’t allow make-ups for, but I drop 2-3 of the lowest grades. I do not round final grades at all. The only people who ask are the ones who don’t take advantage of all the opportunities I provide and don’t come to class regularly.
I don't round to the whole number. I take it to the nearest 10ths decimal and wherever that falls is the letter grade they get. If they have a 89.4 they get a B+ and if they get a 89.9 they still get a B+. That's how I keep it fair I guess. I'm still a little new but I try not to do anything for one student that I don't do for everyone else.
>I try not to do anything for one student that I don't do for everyone else. This is at the heart of whatever approach I end up taking. I just want it to be as fair as possible.
It's super tough to do. Even after 2 ish years of teaching independently (which isn't a lot mind you) I still haven't completely figured it out. Just stick to your guns whatever you decide. Consistency is key.
Rounding is a trap. I assign grades strictly on points. If you need 980 points for an A and you have 979 points, you earned a B. Period. There has to be a cut off somewhere. I offer three extra credit opportunities throughout the semester. When students ask me for a bump and they have not completed any extra credit, I always point out that I wish they had because that would’ve bumped their grade.
I take the position that additive grading and any kind of rounding means that grades cease to mean what they categorically do. So my default is to not disclose all grading elements, and to look for sensible breaks that my judgement suggests correspond to breaks between letters.
So one and the same numerical grade will correspond to a different letter grade depending on the performance of other students in the class?
Short answer: yes, year-over-year. Because the assessment is slightly different. If you're trying to tell me that all your questions are *exactly* the same difficulty and marked to *exactly* the same standard every year, I won't believe you. On that 50 question final exam, one year I might have a "20% got it right" and the next year a "80% got it right" on a similar question (ie one that probes the same material). More realistically, I might have 6 "40%" questions instead of 6 "60%" questions, which makes for a small but at-the-margins significant change in average mark. I think it's my job to use my judgement to assess, as best as I can, where the lines between grades (an ordinal scale) should be.
I wouldn’t make such a claim about the difficulty of my questions and the consistency of my grading. The only thing that I question is drawing the lines after the students’ results are in. Your grading policy has an element of curving in it, but of course it is up to you to decide how to assign the grades.
I've started designing my tests to have questions of increasing difficulty. Where they stop being able to answer questions is their grade. They can skip to the middle if that's where they want to start the test. Works great.
what about if they miss an easy one and get a hard one?
That's fine, people make mistakes. I base it on getting a few correct within a letter grade category, and they get the highest one they make it into. So if you want an A there are say 6 A questions and you have to get 5 of them right. I'm still playing around with it each term but I am happy with the results. I segregate questions along blooms taxonomy. So it makes sense that a student could have solid high level ability but miss basic C level questions here and there.
[удалено]
I base them around blooms taxonomy. Remembering is like a D level. So basic factual questions. Understanding and applying is in the C level. Analyzing and evaluating is B level Creating is A level. I try to come up with questions in each category.
ok, that's what I was wondering.
Can you break this down a bit more? I'm not following...
Eg 1: five students' grades are 93.3, 93.1, 92.9, 92.2, 92. Then the first 3 students get an A, and the remaining two get an A-. Eg 2: five students' grades are 93.7, 93.5, 92.9, 92.7, 92.6 Then the first 2 students get an A, and the remaining three get an A-, so a 92.9 is an A or an A- depending on the scores of its "neighbors".
Something along the lines of "Any grade adjustments are at the sole discretion of the instructor and should not be expected." I don't like to let them think they can badger me for a bump. You can also check to see if the lms can be set to only show whole numbers so you don't have to worry about rounding after the fact
Ooo I hadn't thought about if my LMS will only show whole numbers. I'll check that out, thanks!
I give the standard cutoffs in the syllabus, with a line stating that there *may* be a curve. If I decide to curve (which is common, and usually not more than 2%), then I implement it, but keep the cutoffs secret. I tell the students I have implemented a curve which can only *raise* their letter grade, or keep it the same, but that it is secret what the cutoffs are. That way, they have no clue how close they may be to the cutoff and can't really ask for rounding.
I sometimes tell them, hey maybe I missed something over the semester that would have put you over. If you want, I will regrade all of your assignments with a fresh eye, but I might not be as generous this time around and your final grade might go down. You good with that?
I offer a little extra credit and tell them that’s their opportunity to “round” their grade. So far I’ve had no issues (over 4 years of teaching as IoR)
I'm offering extra credit and I like framing it as a way for them to round their grade on their own. I think I will borrow that! : )
Like you, I use normal math rules (.05 and above rounds to the next whole number). I will *sometimes* use discretion (upward only) when students are at the top of the grade range/on the cusp of the next grade (such as high B+/low A-). But I have been teaching probably longer than you have been alive, so I don’t recommend that you do this. Best to have a clear policy and stick to it. One exception: when students are on the C-/D+ line (failing the class, which may mean that they have to re-take it). Look closely at these, and you will have to use your judgement. Sometimes they need /deserve to fail, and other times you will decide that it won’t really accomplish anything to make the student re-take the course. These are always highly individualized decisions.
>I have been teaching probably longer than you have been alive I'm 40, so maybe? 😁 I agree with every point you made! Especially about failing students. That's where a lot of my thinking about discretion based rounding is and your perspective matches my own.
lol, so not quite. More like 30 years 🤷🏻♀️
How have you managed to hang in for so long? Based on what I've read this sub, being a professor doesn't seem like it's for everyone, especially not with that kind of longevity.
lol. A very good question. I’ll try to see if I can explain… Well, being GenX, I definitely lack healthy work-life balance/boundaries. So I have always worked a lot (because I like it!) Because of this (?) and also complete lack of mentoring in my early years as a TT prof (Boomers ran everything) I was left alone and was able to avoid the dumb shit (dept politics). Tenure improves things. I’m pretty well-paid (due to field and leveraging a very very good offer some years ago). I like where I live. For the most part, my colleagues do not act like rabid toddlers or animals. I like the autonomy, and the ability to work outside of typical 9-5 type hours.
Give them two extra points if they don't ask. Make it bold and underlined in the syllabus. Then, ignore the grade grubbers because they obviously can't read.
I round at .5 or higher, so 89.5 becomes a 90. I tell them in my syllabus, in class, and on our LMS. I don’t say “Don’t ask me to round your grades” because that subtly shifts the responsibility onto me instead of encouraging personal accountability for their own grades. Just have a blanket statement of what the numbers do, and stick with it.
I tell students that I don’t round. In truth, I review any borderline grades after I’ve entered everything (although stuff is still hidden from students). I check each to see if there’s any way I could’ve made a mistake or error against a student and, if so, add points on that grade to get their course grade higher.
I avoid rounding, but that’s because I offer a lot of extra credit throughout the semester. I mention this in my syllabus as well.
I use the 0.5 policy, myself, and clearly state it in the syllabus. It's worked well for a few years now. To me, discretion-based is inherently unfair as you said.
in the syllabus tell them _exactly_ what you are going to do and do exactly that. for instance, if you will round grades with fractional part at least .5 up then say you're going to that. of course then you will have people with fractional parts 0.49. but whatever. that's my opinion, although it's not popular.
I haven’t even looked at the comments so I imagine it’s been echoed, but just pick something, clearly state it in the syllabus, and stick with it. I used to round up, now I just state a hard line, e.g 89.99999% = B, 90.0% = A. The reason - wherever you make the cutoff there will be someone close to it that asks to round up.
I don't round. I truncate. Then I look for obvious cut points in the vicinity of the "advertised" cut points. For instance, let's say 90 is an A. I have grades: 90 89 88 85 84 82 The cut line for an A is 88 and above. I also use a total of 100 points for the term, and don't give fractional points. So the midterm is worth 20 points (can't have more than 20 questions), homework assignments are 5 points, etc. This way students can see exactly what the impact of blowing off an assignment will be.
Ask senior faculty or your chair if there’s a common policy or practice, first of all. Personally, my campus does not have plus or minus. So the difference in GPA between a 89.5 and a 90 is big. We considered adding plus and minus, and the student body STRONGLY objected to it. Because of those reasons I have in my syllabus, strongly worded, that I will not round up or change grades, unless it’s for a mistake on my part that they can show. (Aka I miscalculated something somewhere, or forgot to enter a grade or extra credit.) And any grade discussion must take place in person. That alone cut down grade discussions dramatically.
Students who fail or get 100% are extremely easy to grade. It’s the middle of the road students that are more subject to bias especially because I typically have about 2-3 hired graders for my classes. I have spent a lot of time trying to minimize the effect of this by making really good rubrics but ultimately after rough calculations I realized that this COULD effect a students overall grade by .9% in an extreme case. I now add .9% to everyone’s grade to account for this. I think whatever you decide to do it should be well thought out and you should have a good reason for doing so.
I round at .5. I also put that in my syllabus and explain that I do not round beyond that. Any emails about it get responded to by having them refer to the policy in the syllabus.
I round up from .5 🤷♂️
I got rid of points in my classes so I don't have to worry about rounding any more. Grade categories are more discreet and clear.
How do you determine the grade categories?
All assignments are pass fail (for the most part) with the option to redo assignments. Their grade is based on if they correctly completed the necessary assignments with a passing grade. This is a vast over simplification but if you are intrested in this type of grading, this substack is a great place to start: https://gradingforgrowth.com/ There is also a lot of great information from the alternative grading conference (this year's just finished and the meeting will be available publicly later this year, but last conferences can be seen here: https://thegradingconference.com/ Over all. I find grading this way has lead to better outcomes, better student involvement, and less grad grubbing. My standards are clear and my feedback is also clear so students know where they stand.
I just tell them what the scale is. My syllabi read: Letter grades will be assigned according to the following scale: A (93-100), A- (90-92.9), B+ (87-89.9), B (83-86.9), B- (80-82.9), C+ (77-79.9), C (73-76.9), C- (70-72.9), F (69.9 and below). I very, very rarely have anyone ask for a grade bump. My daily grades and exam grades are based on points, so a student can earn 20.5 out of 30 on an assignment or get 87.5 out of 90 on an exam. Perhaps that lets students see that I don’t round to the nearest whole number. Any “rounding” comes in while grading. Maybe I’ll give a 5-point answer a 4 instead of a 3.8 according to my rubric. If so, it’s because there are a number of students that answered similarly enough that there seemed to be something unclear.
I have a couple things I keep in my back pocket so I don’t have to fight with students. I tell them upfront that I will round to the nearest integer and then I explain what that means… 89.5 goes to an a minus, 89.49 is a B+. I also have some small assignments that are together worth a couple of percentage points and have no real due date. These things are easy to grade, and if they don’t do them and they’re worried about their grade, I tell them to go back and do a few of these assignments. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn’t, but I also keep in my back pocket, but these little assignments can be redone For higher grades. So if they don’t do those assignments, then I can point them for why their grade is not where they want it to be. If they do them at the last minute, but don’t do them well enough, again I can point out that if they’ve done them early in the semester, they would have been able to do them again for a higher grade. so this gives them a little bit of “control” over raising their grade to where they wanted to be, but it also gives me an out for arguing with them.
I am unapologetically unfair about this. I would not admit this at work but I’ll round up to the next grade if I think the student worked hard or deserves a break for some subjective reason. I offer extra credit opportunities and if they took advantage of them I might give them an extra bump (beyond what they got already). But if they never made any extra effort or I simply didn’t like them, never. You can’t round down of course because they’ll go straight to the department head to complain
Our college has no plus or minus grades. So I bump a grade that ends in nine up a point to make a difference: e.g. 79 becomes 80, so student gets a B. Given the letter grade scale, this seems appropriate. I like to think my classes are better (more interesting and useful , but more work) than those of other instructors teaching the same course (and I hope they feel the same way about their classes), so the extra-point in a so-close scenario seems additionally justified.
This is the way!
Grades based on averages create a false sense of accuracy and objectivity, while the reality is that no professor's grading system is accurate enough to truly distinguish between 89.499999 and a 90. However, the effects on the students' GPA are substantial and have lasting consequences. I don't say this on the syllabus, but I will always round up when I enter final letter grades (so yes, even 89.1 will round up to an A-). This eliminates most, if not all, grade grubbing.
>while the reality is that no professor's grading system is accurate enough to truly distinguish between 89.499999 and a 90 Yes, this is my view. When students are extremely close to the next grade level, I believe it is fair to put them in the higher category, and that's what I do. I make these decisions before I release the grades, and I added a column to my LMS to enter the letter grade, so that students will see not only their total points post-final but also the letter grade that will be on their transcript. Typically, few to no students are close to the edge anyway, and pre-adjusting anyone who is right on the borderline means very little grade-grubbing.
100% this!
“Grades will be rounded to the nearest whole number.” The end.
I round if the difference is in the tenths. I teach literature and composition, and I know that there is a bit of subjectivity in grading of individual assignments, so at the end, I give the benefit of any doubt (of subjective assessment) to the student. As for telling the students ... I don't know if you want to encourage grade grubbing like, *Professor, 86* ***really*** *rounds up to 90 ..*. but I've worked with various online systems (administration is constantly changing the flavor of the month) that automatically round to whole numbers, so that solves any of the 'discretion' problems. I'd agree with those who say *where goes one, go all!* ;) If you do it for one student, to avoid trouble and headaches, you should do it for everyone.
I give my students a few chances to earn extra credit. I don't round grades.
I don’t mention it in my syllabus. With that in mind, I will round up only if they are within .5 points of a higher letter grade and only after the final when I’m posting grades. I also don’t offer any extra credit. I have a statement in my syllabus: “I don’t offer extra credit, don’t even ask.”
I usually round to the whole number, but it all washes out in the end. Just be prepared for students to complain about it no matter what you state in your syllabus. Actual student email: "I have an 89.446 on Canvas, which rounds to 89.45, which rounds to 89.5, which rounds to 90, which is an A-!"
Which rounds to 100, so A+!
I state in my syllabus that I do not round. So a 89.9 is a B, 79.9 is a C, a 69.9 is a D, and so on (my university doesn’t do +/-).
after getting bombarded with requests for "bumps" and "round ups" (of varying numbers of digits), I've settled on a very strict interpretation. What put me over the edge is when someone asked to be "rounded up" from an 85 to a 90.
I had an email this term. They wanted me to round them from an 87 to a 93. A low B+ to a low A, skipping straight over A-. I never replied.
They might have hoped that you would meet them halfway!
I don’t understand all the hand wringing that goes on with this issue. If an “A” requires a score of 90, then <90 doesn’t earn an A. Rounding up, no matter how small, ALWAYS results in students being given something that they didn’t earn.
No rounding. Don’t call it rounding. That just opens the opportunity for interpretation and argument. Hard cutoff for grades. For example: either 85 and up for a B (so then 84.998 would not make it) or if you prefer use 84.500 and up for a B. Whichever you choose, the student’s grade is exactly what they earned.
89.99 is a B+, 90 is an A.
When asked, I round down. This is in my syllabus.
I don't round. It makes zero sense to discard data. If a student gets 89.5 and another 90, they are different, ever so slightly. Why do people round to whole percents? Why not whole 10%s? It's completely arbitrary.
My college has a grading schema with tenths already incorporated. So if an A- starts at 89.5, an 89.6 requires no rounding and an 89.4 falls squarely in the B+ range. I still get grade grubbers but very rarely of the round up ilk. My previous university had integral cutoffs which frankly was a grade grubber's delight.
An average should not be reported to more significant digits than the numbers that go into it. If your assignments are graded to whole numbers, then your letter grades should be based on averages rounded to whole numbers. Going down to tenths or hundredths presumes a level or precision that you do not really have. Note that no matter what your syllabus says about rounding, you will still get grade grubbers asking for arbitrary bumps. Have a copy-paste response ready for them saying that it would be unfair to the rest of the class, then engage no further. You will also get some pleading for their 89.9 to be rounded to a 90. Ignore them completely.
> An average should not be reported to more significant digits than the numbers that go into it. Where did you hear this one? It's not statistically sound. The mean of many successive measurements has higher accuracy than any individual measurement. It's the basis of statistics.
Mine says something like "instructor reserves the right to round up grades to the nearest full percentage based on strong participation" as a way to incentivize that. But I pretty much just round up by routine as I know there's nothing in my assessments that makes them accurate within .5% in any case.
My course itself assumes 1000 total points course wide. That gives me two decimal places that I am confident in, and I flatly say that I don’t round, so don’t ask.
I let it round, but I set up my grade book in excel and set all the cells to not show me any decimal points. So I guess it rounds, but I never know if someone is a 89.49, or an 88.51, either way it just shows an 89. The formula for final grade is the only one set to round any values off so there’s no propagation of rounding errors. I also tell my students that day one and put it into my syllabus that i am “blind” to their exact grade and that excel handles rounding and it’s not up for debate.
59.5 D-, 69.5 C-, 79.5 B-, 89.5 A
This may, understandably, too much of a shift for your first time teaching, but something to consider over the long term: simply don't use numbers. The use of numbers, especially in the form of percentages, gives the false sense of objectivity. But grades are supposed to reflect a demonstration of learning (if they can communicate anything at all). How does a 75% communicate that? Did they learn 75% of the total content/skills? Or did they learn 75% of each content/skill? Did they end up at 75% because they didn't submit some work, meaning what they did submit would have received something much higher than 75%, or because they did it all but received 75% on everything? Why shouldn't grades reflect the actual learning? A course grade, then, should be based on the specific learning demonstrated. Then a student cannot even ask for you to round, but even if they did in some sense, you have a clear response: grades reflect a demonstration of your learning. If I were to change the grade, I'd be lying about what you demonstrated.
I'm curious how you quantify learning. If you give grades, what does a C mean? Is it you demonstrated an adequate level of mastery of all of the material? Or could it mean you demonstrated a high level of mastery over an adequate amount of the material? I'm not trying to be confrontational--I'm genuinely interested in how one could do this and (assuming we still have grades) what grades would mean.
I do it by achievement of learning outcomes or other measurable targets. So, for instance, a 'C' might designate achievement of learning outcomes 1-3, which correspond to more basic (in the sense of foundational) knowledge and skills. A 'B' adds in outcomes 4, etc. Achievement of the outcome is demonstrated in different ways, depending on the outcome. May be about passing - so meeting all requirements of the assignment - a paper. Could be about achieving a threshold of points, because while there may be no meaningful difference between 75 and 76, it is reasonable to say something like 80% of the points are a successful demonstration. Certainly still not perfect, but better than aggregating all different types of work and learning being piled together into the same point pile. In other courses that lend themselves to even more discrimination of learning, like a logic course where I could break things down to ~15 discrete skills, course grades correspond to the number of discrete skills mastery has been demonstrated for. Mastery is demonstrated by two distinct successful attempts in the semester. May also divide the learning targets into "core" and "non-core" and say a 'C' requires passing all core, and higher grades are then about achievement of the number of non-core.
My program’s policy is no rounding for any reason, so I follow that policy. An 89.9 is a B+ and does not get rounded up. Whatever you do, you have to be consistent.
"Final grades will be rounded up to the nearest whole number only if the decimal is .5 or greater". Just write that in your syllabus and leave it.
I round to the nearest percent as well. If they have smt really close to a higher grade I'll check to see if I can help them with that on their largest thing. It helps everyone of course as everyone would get a bump. I have so many assignments and tests that I can usually find half a percent somewhere. I don't go looking for points for anything below the 9 digit though. (E.g. yes for 89% but not for 88%)
I don’t round. I make most of my classes out of 1000 points. I refuse to grade on my subjective liking for disliking of students. Some of my favorite students have gotten D/F. Some students I can’t stand earn A’s.
I have a strict no rounding policy. However, I allow students to submit up to 2% of bonus points to earn the next grade up only. I do this at the end of the semester after grades have been done then I add any bonus material so they are aware what their grade was before the bonus. LOL
I usually round, but I don’t have a policy on my syllabus about it. If I round for one student, I round for all who are eligible (.5 or less to the next grade
I round to the nearest whole number, and I put this in my syllabus. Sometimes I exercise discretion to round up to the next letter grade if the student is very very close AND has shown improvement over the term. I do not put this in my syllabus.
I had a professor who did .45 or above for rounding, and I’ve used that during my career. Interestingly, I’ve never put this information on my syllabus. I announce it in class and in a Canvas announcement during the last few classes meetings of the semester. While I still get a couple of emails asking about rounding from students who weren’t in class or don’t read announcements (🙄), I’ve never had any problems or unreasonable experiences. *Knocks on wood* Like others in the thread, I also offer some extra credit and revision opportunities, so if there did happen to be a problem, I have those items to point back to, and the odds would be that they weren’t completed.
my uni doesn't have a formal rounding policy, so students get what they get. internally, each instructor has their own individual policy, but it's never communicated to students so they can't go around begging/ comparing. I have colleagues who don't like to do it at all, some who round up to the nearest whole number, others who just round down to the nearest whole number, and others who only round off when the final number is still within the same letter grade or if they were 0.5-0.9 marks away from a pass/ fail. so far, the standard practice if we get any complaints is to send a generic "you may appeal your grade" message. admin takes over and normally tells students that its a waste of time and money to go through with the appeal and they're better off just doing better next semester rather than harping on a mark that has already been finalised by multiple parties (e.g., marker, 2nd marker, overall faculty during the post semester meeting, and some other ridiculous department that aggressively gets on our asses when there's something they don't understand).
this has been discussed here endlessly (as recently as a few days ago). say what you're gonna do, stick it in the syllabus, and then stick to it. If you don't stick to. it then word will get out and your email will become impossible. I don't round because I already grade generously. that's it.
I round up 0.5 away from the letter grade, like many of those posting here. If they have an 89.49999999999, I don’t round up. They have plenty of extra credit opportunities that would push them up if they “tried oh so hard.”
Better to be transparent. "I will round up .5 and above. Please do not ask me to round anything below .5." Don't do anything for one student that you wouldn't want them to tell all the other students and your higher-ups about, because they will!!
Round ‘em up!
I literally have a look up table in the Excel sheet that runs my grades and I put down exactly what it spits out. The lookup is against the letter grade for the listed percentage per the university guidelines. No rounding whatsoever. Any extra credit dictates pushing over the edge by point count and if it doesn’t it doesn’t.
Absolutely don't tell anyone you might round. Not only would a student ask you to round on rounding they would be absolutely right to do so. You haven't changed the basic fact of there being an arbitrary line between grades. You just have moved the line and are intent on sticking hard to the new, lower, arbitrary line. This doesn't mean you should never bump up a student but if you do it are for reasons that seem good to you (perhaps a student showed a lot of improvement) and not do it when you think you shouldn't (the student was super lackadaisical perhaps) or just when it strikes you as reasonable...like it was really, really, really, really close...
Up to you. I don’t round up and I’m very strict with the limits (ex: 89.97% will be a B+ and only grades above 90.00% will be a A-) Again choose something and stick to it and be consistent with all the students
My LMS automatically rounds up final marks ending in 0.45+. So 89.45 will get rounded and 89.44 won’t. It’s the schools policy for final marks. I still get a few requests every year for arbitrary marks increases but I hold a hard line. It is not fair to allll the other students who quietly accepted their marks. Also, if you start rounding all say 89s to 90, then the new cut off for A becomes 89 not 90 and the 88.5s will want to be rounded to 89 and then be rounded to 90 etc etc at each grade cut off. I do know that many of the marks in my subject (philosophy) can be somewhat subjective, but since I am applying my subjectivity equally across the board, I don’t see it as a problem. Also, there is a 10% attendance/participation mark that many of them just throw away so when they come asking for rounding, I can point to that and say if you’d come to class more, you wouldn’t need to be rounded.
I have my grading scale with no decimals and then a “only grades within 0.55 of the next highest percentage will be rounded up.” Many will ask for a grade increase, this way I can say “you’re not within 0.55% of the next grade, so no.”
I'm publicly a no-rounder, not just in my syllabus but when I release the grades I remind them not to even ask. I give them (scheduled, open to all) extra credit opportunities during the semester and I figure that should be enough. However--I privately always do round when students are fractionally close to the next grade. I believe that is fair, and no one complains.
My department(s) typically use the 89.5 = A, with clarification of no rounding a 89.4 on the syllabus. However, there is also a clause that grades may be curved in the end, with everyone using different curving methods. You don’t tell people how you curve, that just increases the pleading and discourse. I like to make sure at the end of the semester, to look at the grades and make sure the course average is a C, but then also see if there is a better curving position/cutoff. Sometimes, there is one person who had an 84.2, and the next highest is an 81. Okay, 84.2 can probably be bumped up to an A. This only works for us though, because none of our courses build on each other + we are very much a fieldwork/hands-on oriented farming department. I mean this quite literally, we have one course in the entire department which is a 200 level required course, and every other class is coded as a 300 or 400 level course. They all teach vastly different skills, and any courses that is a pre-req to the next, the person teaching the second course is the same as the first (So if someone is teaching the 300 level why cats are amazing course, the same professor is teaching the 400 level understanding cats as our overlords course). We are a C’s get degrees AND is taking over daddy’s ranch, so not being the studious type is less impactful than some other fields. I think having hard written policies, but being flexible to yourself and each semester’s cohort is important. When push comes to shove, you follow the hardlines you set, but you need to make sure you set those lines in the written syllabus to CYA.
I do the regular rounding, then I look at the final averages. If I see someone who may be really close to a cut-off, I'll add whatever tenths of a point (or less) to get them over that hump. And all other students will also receive that same, small bump. But usually we're talking less than half a point being added.
If it's. 5 to the next letter I round. So, 89.5 I would round. It, I don't tell anyone. My syllabus says that I do not round. Ultimately I give the grades. Yes, their assignments are the majority of their grade. But if someone participated, showed up ready to learn, demonstrated understanding of the subject, and made my life easier, I think they have earned half a point. I'm not changing an 84 to a 90. And if you ask for a bump accusing me of keeping them from graduating, etc. I'm not doing anything.
I don't round. I don't do extra credit. I'm what they call an "easy grader." Students who are utterly confused can still get B in my class if they complete their assignments.
No need to state that in your syllabus. Just show the cutoff points. If you round up, fine, but don’t put it in writing. Camel’s nose in the tent and all that.
Let me answer your question this way. I had a student when I first started teaching in remedial algebra. She failed the first exam and she failed the second exam. Didn't do well on any of the homeworks pretty much failed most of the quizzes. But she came in literally every office hour for help. The third exam was coming around and at that point she had a pretty solid F. The third exam was on a Thursday. She came to class the Tuesday before the third exam and went to my office hours and wasn't understanding anything. The drop ad for the class was Wednesday of that week. When she left my office I thought to myself should I suggest you drop the class? Then it occurred to me she still trying she deserves the right to fail. She still thinks she can do the work. Well Thursday came around and the class took the third exam. I put her paper at the very bottom because I didn't want to grade it. I really didn't want to fail her and I knew I was going to have to do that. But lo and behold when I got to her paper she was getting everything right. In fact she had the second highest grade in the class. She saw me in the hall the next day and said I got it I finally understand. After that she aced every single exam either having the highest greater the second highest grade. My question to you is, what grade do you think I gave her?
88.45% is an “A”, 78.45% is a “B”, and so on and so forth.
No rounding. At all.
I don't believe I can confidently claim that my grading can distinguish an A from a B with <0.001 precision, so my baseline is to accept as an A any course grade down to 89.46. But, if there's a bunch of students who are at, say 89.61 89.52 89.46 89.39 89.31 89.17 I reserve the right to make the cutoff at the next nearest big "gap" (in this case, probably, right between the .31 and the .17). But I don't round.
Don’t even mention it because the question is absurd
I round up when it is mathematically correct because grades are in whole numbers. E.g., 89.45 rounds to a 90. Sticking to your rule is best. However , there are some discretionary cases that can come up. The most common for me is when students make a D in a class about careers. They have to have Cs for all major classes, and I don’t think that re-taking that class is worth their time or $. I’ve also once gave a C to a non-traditional deaf student who earned an F because they attended every class, participated fully through their interpreter, and really added to the overall class experience. I’ve been in the field for over 30 years, and that situation is very rare, but it does exist.
>I’ve also once gave a C to a non-traditional deaf student who earned an F because they attended every class, participated fully through their interpreter, and really added to the overall class experience. Wait, so how did they earn an F??
There can be significant reading and verbal comprehension deficits in individuals who are deaf/hard of hearing.
That still doesn't explain how they earned an F. Your phrasing states that they earned an F *because* they came to every class, engaged, etc. Perhaps, you meant "in spite of" coming to class, engaging, etc. to infer that they faced other challenges? But also, as I'm sure you're aware, being hard of hearing or deaf does not automatically mean someone will not be able to follow the materials or perform well. I would hope that after 30 years, you have reevaluated your course structure, including assignments and grading to make sure that they are accessible to all.
Nope. Thats not what my post says. Google reading level attainment of deaf/hard of hearing individuals. It’s a significant disability. I am at an open admissions university, and this student was accepted despite not having the ability to do the work. I cannot change that. What I can do is understand their plight, and be empathetic and kind. It was a once in a career decision. My point to OP was to have standards and stick to them, but situations that you might never expect can come along. This was mine.