Is a "C" a bad grade? When did this happen?
 

I was reading a thread in parenting regarding grades, in which a parent was concerned about a child who had gotten a "C" in a class and was considering making the child retake the class. I didn't want to hijack that thread, as it was relating to a very specific problem with a specific person, but I am interested in discussing the general issue of what makes for a good and bad grade.

I teach middle school. I also teach a summer course at the local branch of the state university system and an evening course during the school year.

In my classes, a "C" is not a bad grade. Neither is it a good grade. It is average, the baseline grade that indicates adequate but not outstanding performance. The average student, and the majority of my students in any class at any level get C's. B's are unusual, and indicate that a student has performed at a high level. A's are very rare, earned only by the top students. This grading system is perfectly in line with the district grading policy handbook. A student earning a C has certainly mastered the material well enough to move on to the next level and does not need to retake the class.

I've crunched the grade distribution numbers for the past two years, and this is what I get on average for a class of 25 for a typical grading period in my middle school classes:

A: 2 (about 8%)
B: 5 (about 20%)
C: 12 (about half)
D: 2 (8%)
F: 4 (16%)

My college classes tend to skew a bit higher, with fewer D's and F's and more C's and B's, but with A's still about 8-10%.

Average isn't bad, it's just normal, ordinary, just like everyone else. Most people are average in most things they do.

I have parents and students who obsess over getting all A's and B's, and students who celebrate a C.

That's my view as a teacher.

Now, I can understand it a little bit of it from the other side. The nearly three years that I had Sissy while she was in high school, I would have been disappointed at seeing a C on her report card, while a B would have been acceptable to me. She on the other hand would have considered a C a disaster and a B a disappointment, so there was never any need for me to put any pressure on her. I can remember when she was a junior taking calculus, desperately wanting to get into AP Calc 2 her senior year, and coming home with a B- on one of her tests upset that she was going to spoil her nearly perfect gpa, and spending hours each night studying with Grace to make sure she didn't slip again, or occasionally studying with me if Grace wasn't available.

But Sissy is extraordinarily smart, much more so than I am, on about the same level as Grace, and very hard working. She spent an average of three to four hours a night studying and doing homework, so given her extraordinary intelligence and work ethic, extraordiary results are what should be expected.

Do you consider a "C" a bad grade? Why or why not?

My entire life my view of getting a C was that C's sucked. This was fostered by my father who called them 'hooks' and C's were never good enough.

As an adult I kept this concept as I needed to be in the top 5% of my class to do what I wanted to do. C's were failures.

So yes C's are bad grades.

The thing isn't whether or not parents think a C is a bad grade, but rather colleges. I think the pressure just to go to college has skewed the overall parental views on grades, and instead of rewarding their children for having passed a class, they either punish or hold back their rewards from their children for not being the best. Another idea that has been skewed is "doing the best you can." Many parents feel that if you're not doing the best, then you're not doing the best you can. But what they don't realize is that interest level has a lot to do with their child's motivation. If they're not interested in the material, then they are less likely to push themselves to be the best. That's why you have some students getting C's in math, but getting A+'s in Social Sciences. The reality is that they ARE doing the best they can, only based on their level of interest.

One of the problems is that any given school's curriculum is not based on reality, but rather personal achievement within subjects. So students go to school, and they're not preparing for life, but rather preparing to compete with other students to go to college. A friend of mine was valedictorian at my high school. She went on to college undeclared. I assume that's because she was so busy trying to master a system that she didn't actually spend any time preparing for what she actually wanted to do in life. Let's get real; it is a rarity to find a profession that requires you to convert equations into graphs, classify various species, know who fought which battle with who and when and where, type a 25-page analytical essay of a fictional book (double-spaced), run a mile within a given time-limit, and if you have time leftover, paint a masterpiece and then perform in an orchestra in front of your parents.

It's a system that we've accepted to guide our children; to guide us. It's not perfect, but it's not horrible either. It's the best we've been able to come up with and agree to so far. But that doesn't mean we can't improve upon it.

So, based on all this jibba-jabba: I would not penalize my (future) children for getting C's, but I will encourage them day-to-day to strive to do better, because in the long run, you're either living paycheck to paycheck, or you're comfortable financially. Lots of times that is based on how well you matched the system's expectations of you.

A C is only a bad grade if the student in question is capable of doing better. An average student should not be expected to earn above average grades or else the grading system is flawed.

This is, I believe, why C's are considered to be bad grades by many. The standard for grading seems to have lowered in recent years so that A's and B's are easily achievable by otherwise average students and a C is taken as a sign of failure. This obviously isn't the case everywhere, as many teachers, yourself included, seem to apply the grades the way they were meant to be applied. Unfortunately this comes as a shock to students who have become accustomed to earning A's and B's for average work.

I always thought it was a good idea to view C's as bad grades, because knowing that C's are in the range of 60%-69%, that means that the opportunity of a university education for whatever it is you want to do is closed.

Overall, I'm not impressed with school (excluding colleges and universities). It's not hard to get an A if you really try, because all you do is follow formulas that are either given to you or ones which you have to figure out on your own (and for every subject too, like the process of putting together a good essay can have it's own 'formula' if you get me) as CityOfAngels pointed out. I've met so many students who are actually intelligent but perform poorly in school, and tonnes of dull and unperceptive students who sacrifice everything to get more time to study and perform well in school, and I get disappointed everytime I see something like that.

Besides that point, I think (or maybe my parents thought and therefore I think) it's necessary for C to be seen as a bad grade to force students to study harder and achieve more in school because they may not be able to judge the consequences of putting less effort in school as well as adults.

Cs have always been a bad grade for me, but I just figured that was a by-product of ethnicity. My parents are pretty stereotypical Asian, and grades and school are paramount. I was expected to get As and Bs in everything except PE, since that wasn't counted in the GPA, according to my parents.

C is not bad. i was getting As most of my life till i stoped giving a shit. then it went to Ds. for me, once i got my D, i was satisfied. and my parents just wanted me to pass so they didnt care. I know I'm an A but my laziness gives me a C. average person. so i guess it's up to the person to decide if they think it's bad or not. ... but if you're BEST grade is a C, then theres a problem. (i got 99.9% in a college class 2 years ago and 95% this year... the class that i didnt give a fuck about were Cs.)

Post secondary education is meant to separate the elite (whether it be in the realm of intelligence, work ethic, or a combination thereof) from the masses, though this is less true with trade schools and certain colleges. As such, they have limited capacities and especially with universities, need to keep numbers lower. To do this, they increase the entry requirement, which parents then think their child automatically must get in order to "succeed" in life. They've been brainwashed by media into thinking that a post secondary, and more specifically a university or equivalent college education, is an absolute requirement for their child to do what they consider to be "well" in life later. Hence with increasing requirements and more enrolment caps, the grade expectation for parents raises.

rainheart just provided a perfect example of the "post secondary education for happiness" mind-set that plagues our societies.

I personally found C to be less than satisfactory simply because I was used to getting higher marks. I tend to understand what I'm being taught fairly well, so if I get a mark below about a B- it can be a bit frustrating.

C is average. The average person is a dumbass. C is bad

I once defended a "B" I got on my report card. I said, "Dad, B means 'above average.' That's good."

"No," he replied. "'Above average' is another way of saying 'mediocre.'"

My parents told me my entire life that C's are bad. If I got a C on my report card, my parents strongly considered having a conference with the teacher. I suppose it differs from student to student and parent to parent. If I brought home a C on my report card, I was usually grounded indefinitely. I made 2 C's and 2 D's in high school and was punished heavily for both. The rest were A's and B's across the board.

In college, I've made 1 C so far, and I do consider it my "bad grade." I've debated retaking the class to make a B or up in it (the reason I made a C was the teacher being a dickhead, plain and simple...it's my one and only C, I'm able to judge what caused it). As a matter of fact, I'd retake it in a heartbeat if I had enough room in my schedule, but I don't.

Many of my friends consider C a "good grade." That goes back to my point of it differing from family to family. In my family, C is and will always be a failing grade. In other families, students are praised for making a C. I'm not sure how each of these evolved through the years in each family though. I guess I just always strived for the best from the get-go. If a student never tried his or her hardest, then perhaps the parents would be accustomed to the student getting a C. My parents both made astronomically bad grades in school, so I know it's not their standards...maybe it's just the standards I've set myself for always trying my best? I guess it doesn't help that I have an identical twin brother to compare myself to everyday who is taking the same classes and tries as hard as I do. If I do worse than him then the entire family starts the, "well your brother got higher than you, you're not working hard enough, do better" routine.

-Lasereth

It's all relative to difficulty.

If you get a C in something like pre-algebra, then yeah, there's a prob. If you get a C in Calculus 3, you'll still better than the "average" because most people don't even take that high of a course.

So in that case, you'd be "average of this very select few who even make it this high to qualify for this course."

I don't find that bad at all.

I agree with most here that C's are in general bad or, at least, if you want post graduate education C's are the quick way away from it.
Sort of still on topic, I've always been mildly bugged about the idea of in a given class:
x get As
y get Bs
z get Cs etc.
It really seems like luck of the draw how difficutl your class will be.

This is a very valid point, but the ironic thing for me was by the time I was with a group who were all about my level, the grade itself meant very little and I could not tell you what grades I had in any but one class for those three years. Likewise there was no curve, we were just expected to KNOW it. A or C didn't matter at that point, while prior to that, a few C's would have been life changing for me.

I think it depends on how high you aim your academic goals.

Yep. In college it really is pure luck on how hard you have to work in a class. I've had people tell me this or that class is an "easy A," then find myself worrying the entire semester because it's so hard, and at the very end barely pulling out a B-. It's all about the professor.

-Lasereth

I agree. Post-graduate applications in my major were extremely competitive. One 'C' in undergraduate work might have been enough to knock me out of the running.

The only classes where I felt somewhat comfortable with a C were my AP Chem/Calc classes last year. Even then, I felt like "Ok, so most of the class got in the 60s or below. But I could've gotten a B."

It's not really that I'm an overacheiver, it's that the (non AP) classes in many/most primary schools are designed for underacheivers. I felt bad getting a B, let alone a C even in honors classes. My worst grade was one C+ in Calc, and I'll remember it for some time.

My English teacher had his Masters at 23. He had a record of perfect A's in college except for one B+. The one B+ kept him from getting in to 3 different schools for his doctorate. A C would basically fuck you over at getting your doctorate at a semiyoung age if it's as strict as his situation.

-Lasereth

This is my thinking.

Teachers should make their grading policies clear at the beginning of their classes so that students know what level of performance is expected of them. In my classes I make it abundantly clear that grades are based on performance. Getting a B is hard, and an A requires truly outstanding work. Any student of mine who claims to be surprised at this when they get their grades at the end of the grading period is either lying or hasn't been paying attention.

Gilda

I don't know of any teacher at any level who gives a C for 60-69%. The standard scale in US public schools uses a 10 point range, with 90-80-70-60 being cutoff points for A-B-C-D. My grading scale skews a little higher than that. The cutoff for a passing grade in my middle school classes is 67%, and in my University classes 75%.

I agree with you at least partly here. I'm not impressed with any school or class where getting an A isn't difficult.

I'm not sure what your other objection is. Certain classes, particularly physical science and math, are about learning step by step procedures and how to apply those prodecures to a novel situation. As you say here, this can even apply to writing an essay. Knowing the basic procedure for how to perform a task is the foundation on whichs students can build and develop advanced skills.

We're just the opposite here. I celebrate hard work that results in outstanding performance. We can't control how smart we are, but we can cotrol how much effort we put into things. Smart people who don't work hard don't deserve to succeed solely because they are intelligent.

My experience is that there are a great many students who will do what is necessary to get a C- to keep parents off their backs. There are high achivers who will do whatever is necessary to get a minimum of a B for personal reasons or to please parents, and there is a tiny minority for whom A is the threshhold of acceptible.

This is exactly the reason why I think we should raise the standards students need to meet to get these grades and expect students to meet high standards rather than lower standards to match student performance. If we expect more work to get a C, students who want a C will do better work to get that C, and so forth for A's and B's.

Many people are applying the standard of C's being bad because they interfere with being able to get a post secondary education, or a graduate degree.

First, there are extensive opportunities for students with mediocre grades to attend college. The US has an extensive junior college system and has many more four year colleges that are accessible to the average student than selective Universities or Elite schools.

Yes, these selective and Elite schools use grades as one standard for admission, because they want only the best students. This does not mean that students who do not meet the standards for such institutions are bad students, or that grades that don't meet their criteria are bad grades, it just means that they are not outstanding.

Why exclude a middle area that is neither good nor bad?

As a student, I would have been very disappointed at getting a C if I'd ever gotten any, and I considered a B on a paper or a test a wakeup call that I needed to work harder. Being disappointed with a C doesn't mean I think it was a bad grade, though. It just means that I didn't want to be average. Average, ordinary, mediocre, these aren't bad things. Especially if we raise expcetations for what it takes to be average, if we require more for a person to be average.

Gilda

In difficult science classes, the C range may well be a 40-50% based on the curve. This is very true with professors who like to give near impossible tests to get 90%+ on in order to get a true seperation of the students.

I think my lowest 'passing' score (it was a C, never have your GF break up with you the night you are trying to study) on an exam was a raw 35%.

I completely agree that that competetive curving is a bad system for grading. Take Sissy, for example. Put her in a typical high school physics class with typical high school students, and she's going to be one of the elite students in the class. Put her in the same class, but make the other students Newton, Copernicus, Eienstein, Hawking, and Kepler, and she'd be the worst student in class, even with the same performance. Evaluation should be criterion based, not competetive.

Gilda

I agree with this part. These days, even the so-called "best" schools have been dumbed down. It's become common knowledge that it's harder to get into Harvard than out of it.


Gotta disagree. If I need a brain surgeon, I want the one who gets the best results, regardless of whether it's easy or hard for him. That's true in most other scenarios that come to mind. Why in the world would a person be downgraded for "A" work that he or she happened to be able to accomplish easily?

To get back to the subject of the post, I think Cs suck. They would have kept me from getting where I wanted to go, and the standards I have for myself and my kids are to be better than average.

Put another way, I don't want my water 50% pure, my airplane to land properly 80% of the time, or my pharmacist to get things right 80% of the time.

BTW, what do you teach?

At my college, studying for a test for 3 hours max, going to class, and turning in thoughtful papers will usually net a B or above. It's sad that most people at college net straight Cs because they won't go to class, don't write thoughtful papers, and simply don't study for tests period. In college, grades aren't a symbol of how smart, clever, or intelligent you are...it's simply a symbol of how hard you're willing to work. I'm almost glad it's setup that way. I work for my grade and I usually get it. The "smart people" who don't go to class and do the aforementioned careless things are the C range people.

-Lasereth

I don't know what you're arguing with here, as what you say agrees with what I said. I neither said nor implied that I think someone should be downgraded for doing "A" work if that comes easily to them.

Here is the statement to which I was responding, and my response:

Rainheart referenced two specific groups. Those are smart but perform poorly, and those who aren't as smart, but do well due to hard work, and complained that that was a bad thing. I disagreed. Rewarding performance due to hard work is a good thing. Smart people who don't perform shouldn't be rewarded just because they are smart.

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here.

This is exactly the reason why getting good grades should be hard, and B's shouldn't be seen as the baseline performance. Airline pilots and pharmacists and PhD's are among society's elite when it comes to their respective professions, and the standards for these jobs should be very high because we routinely expect outstanding performance of their duties.

6th and 7th grade humanities and 8th grade life skills at the middle school level, and children's literature at the college level.

Gilda

In a class of 10 I agree.

In a class of 200+ I tend to disagree. The sample size is big enough there to even the distribution.

My folks had seen the results of my standardized tests before those were released to the parents as a matter of course--my dad was a school adminstrator--so they knew what I was capable of, and when I didn't measure up. C's were bad grades for me, because everyone, including me, knew I could do better. Even B's were frowned on in high school and college. As a result, I didn't make any C's (on the transcript, that is) until law school, and most of those I think I deserved!

But as has been said, there are some students in some courses that won't do any better than a C, no matter how much effort is expended. Parents (and the student, if older and caring) need to recognize this.

Interesting topic, Gilda. I am also a teacher. During parent conference, I had a mother argue with me for over 1 hour because her son got a "C" in reading.

My argument went: C is an average grade. In a class of 24 students, it should be expected that at least 12-14 students will get a C, with the remaining students spread out over the rest of the grade spectrum.

Her argument went: He's been on Honor Roll since the 1st grade. This is the first time he's ever, ever gotten a C. I don't think you're being fair.

I explained to her that a lot of teachers either simply bump up grades to avoid confrontations with parents or their work is so easy that getting As and Bs is as simple as showing up. I explained to her that giving her son As and Bs just to make him happy will end up making him more of a disappointment later in life when he finds that mediocre work is not rewarded well.

Now, on to whether a C is a bad grade or not: no, it isn't. Just like Gilda explained, it is an average grade. It is supposed to indicate that a student has performed adequately enough to pass, no better, no worse. It is to denote acceptable performance. Unfortunately, we live in a society where good enough isn't good enough. Everybody has to be in the top 5 and no one accepts less. The problem with grade inflation is that it makes the value of a B or an A worthless. And seriously, just how many people can be the best, anyways?

I grade as scientifically as I am able based upon what I learned about grading in college. In a class of 25 students, there should be no more than 2 or 3 students earning As. Other teachers in my school are always amazed at me during any awards assembly because, while they are calling up 11 or 12 students to receive honor roll, I've never had more than 4 receive it, and sometimes none.

Twice in one day I have agreed with Ustwo. :lol:

Graduate classes tend to be very small, so applying a curve grading system to them is artificial at best.

Intro undergraduate classes held 300 or more students at Cal. Even so, I prefer specific standards of performance to determine a grade, rather than using a bell curve. Cal wasn't San Jose, the "party" school. The "curve" was already skewed to the right.

Unless! Unless there was serious sampling error. Riposte!

This is where either I don't understand you, we're not in agreement, or we're discussing opposite ends of a concept. Or maybe a little of each.

I have been in higher-level classes where everyone was very bright, and pretty much the entire class mastered the course objectives. However, when test time rolled around, it contained what we used to call "Guess what I'm thinking" questions. These questions even tripped up PhDs on occasion.

It seems you're saying that we shouldn't be "dumbing classes down." Agreed, but as related above, I experienced more "smartening classes up," which seemed to be an attempt by faculty to achieve more prestige. Maybe that's not as common now.

Just so I'm clear--you've mentioned that As in your classes are not terribly common. Have you never experienced a situation in which you had quite a few more of them than normal, just because smart students happened to be clustered in that class?

Or did Hawking get a "C?" :)

Edit: P.S. Thanks for an interesting post.

Which is always true if you assume a normal distribution, when in fact it is skewed. Riposte back atcha! :thumbsup:

Absolutely. When I taught at the local college, I told my students from the first day what it would take to make an A in my class, and there was none of that "well, I've already given 3 A's, therefore you don't get one" thinking. I wasn't bothered to give one A or 10 A's--it just didn't matter to me. The individual was judged against MY standard, not that of others.

It's discouraging at best and sadistic at worst to use a strict curve--only a set amount of A's and a set amount of D's--and while I agree that gradeflation is out of hand, a skilled teacher can make individual judgments that don't rely on an unfair system of evaluation.

Permit me to clarify. Grading should be based on performance, and nothing else. The smart student who doesn't perform well as a result of unwillingness to do the work doesn't deserve a good grade. The less intelligent student who does perform well because he or she put in the time and effort to do the work and do well on the work deservs a good grade.

I've had parents come to a conference and say their child deserved a better grade because she knows the material, she just didn't get all the work done, did a poor job on her work portfolio, didn't participate in class discussion, did a poor job on her presentations, and didn't put much effort into her research paper. But she deserves a good grade because she did well on her tests. I point out that it takes A and B and C and D to get a good grade in my classes, so if your child only did A well, she hasn't earned a good grade.

That's a bad test. If everyone in the class mastered the course objectives at a high level, they should all get high grades. I write my tests before beginning instruction for a unit and make sure every item on the test is covered either in assigned reading or lecture and discussion.

Sure. I have two, two-hour humanities classes. The typical class of 25 might produce 2 or 3 A's over the long haul, but any individual class during a given grading period might have 5 or 6 A's or just one, depending upon how the best students are distributed. Some years I get most of the top students and the other humanities teacher gets few, sometimes I get few and he gets a bunch. Most years it's a relatively evenly spread.

I don't grade on a curve, I use an absolute grading system with a slight upwards adjustment based on what the highest score in the class is.

In the sciences I found that the bell curve is the norm since no one really masters the material. The exams tended to be very hard, often insanely hard and as such those who knew the material best got the A's. They would even state ahead of time that IF you got a 90% or whatever you would get an A regardless of the curve, but the funny thing is it had yet to be an issue due to the difficulty of the testing (if you got a 90% odds are you were already well into the right of the curve).

Now I did have some profs who went with the good old straight 70-80-90 type grading but I found those classes almost laughable by comparison. Instead of stretching me to my limits and rewarding me for REALLY understanding the material, I could get by just learning their expectations, which were always lower than my ability.

Wow, you're asking me if C's are bad grades? As far as my parents were concerned, B's were bad grades. I should probably note that my grading system was as followed: C = 60-69%, B = 70-79%, A = 80%+. My parents yelled at me for hours for every B I got on my report card. I used to be a straight A student until I stopped caring, and until I fell into depression.

As for do I think C's are bad grades. No, they are not bad grades unless you plan on going to university/college. If you don't plan on doing those, then by all means, get 50's. But in today's society, grades are what count. A university isn't going to take a student who works hard but get's 70%. They're going to take the slacker who gets 90%. As to which one stays in, well, that's up for discussion. The point is, the higher your marks, the more likely you will get in. The higher your marks, the more choices you have.

Ironically, I know lots of C students who now make more money then their university graduate friends. I'm not sure about other places, but in Ontario, skilled trades (in my opinion) is a much better choice than the majority of university programs.

I was grounded my entire sophmore year in high school because I got a C in my american government class the last quarter (yeah back then we were still on the quarter system) of my freshman year of high school.

I had never in my life gotten anything but A's and my parents thought a C was as bad as failing.

A full year? Thats a wee bit harsh.

Haha, I remember once when I had a report call FULL of B's... prob 6th or 7th grade.. my mom had the nerve to say somethign like, "Why aren't they all A's?". Um yeah, all B's is pretty damn good.

I think I said something along the lines of, "yeah, it's really not that bad at all, so you can kiss my ass."

Next report card period, I purposely did bad to get lower grades (and in 6th grade, low grades don't really matter) and told her, "I bet those B's are lookin pretty good right about now, huh?"

To this DAY I make fun of her for that. My little brother is 8.. sometimes I'll crack jokes like, "Wow, hope you don't cut his head off for doing better than 80% of the other students!!"

If you dont mind an average college with an average major, an average career and an average lifestyle, a 'C' is fine. For those of us who wanted better and in some cases the best, a 'C' sucks.

'C's suck and everybody knows it. Carlos Mencia had a great line..."Why do I gotta work at T-T-Taco Bell? Well, maybe its your rr-rr-rr-report card. You got straight D's, what does that spell? Duh Dduuh duhduhduh.

Statistically speaking, half of the people you meet are below average. :thumbsup: :lol:

But seriously, I was obsessed with grades as a kid. My dad would lose his mind with bad grades. I knew I was in for a beating if the teacher said "Ben could be doing better."

When I went to university, I was surprised to find that the material was more interesting than the grades I got. I found peace in knowing the subject matter. When I hear you guys talk about not being able to get into grad school if you have one B on your transcripts, I cringe. If that was the case, I don't think I would have even applied.

Teachers and Professors quickly get a reputation on their grading.
"I got an 87% in that class, but Smith was my prof, so it doesn't really matter" or
"You got a 60% in Jones' math class? Holy shit, Isaac Newton couldn't swing a grade like that..."

In high school, the teachers artifically inflated the grades, because they knew that every other teacher was doing the same thing so that their students could get into university. I don't remember many C grades being given out at all (btw, we use the percentile system where I am, and the letter grade thing is weird to me). It was funny to see the kids show up at university with a 90% average (yes, you read that correctly, it was commonplace) out of high school and get back their first assignment in english 110. They would see a 60% on the paper (which is a good grade at that level and experience) and jump off a fucking bridge. "I've never got a 60% in my LIFE!!!" they scream to their friends.
Enter a 4th year student, who quickly looks at the paper, complete with spelling and grammatical errors: "I would have failed you. You got off easy."

Students learn that a 60 in university is like an 85 in high school.

When applying for a job, does the employer look at transcripts where you guys are? I think that the companies only care that you have the letters by your name.

You know what they call a person who graduated last in medical school? Doctor.

In my family, a C has always been a bad grade. I never got the impression it was becuase my parents thought I was a genius, they enforced it simply because of the numbers. I'm not happy with saying "well, I know 70% of the material." Seventy percent? When did I decide that that other 30% wasn't worthy of me knowing? I'm an all-or-nothing kind of person, and it feels like I've arbitrarily decided not to learn something if I get less than 95%+. I won't even turn in a homework assignment unless its 100% complete, because if I do things, I complete them. I absolutely loath the idea of turning things in that are half-assed or half-complete, and that doesn't (or shouldn't) work in the "real world." Luckily for me, I've always been smart enough that my "best" was good enough or represented a complete understanding.

depends on the level of education. up to college level, a c was a bad grade for me. i wouldn't have been punished for it, but i'd have been ashamed. a's were expected, b's were ok if they were few and far between. that was my personal standard. school was not difficult and i didn't have to work that hard. pretty much just show up and i could get an a. i didn't have to study because book learning came easy to me. all my classes were honor and above. the one time i didn't have an honors class (one wasn't offered, they had phased it out) was for freshman english. the teacher took 4 of us and put us in the back of the room--we had a seperate lesson plan and taught ourselves the material. she answered questions and went over things with us while the rest of the class was doing their busy work. this was awesome--really pushed us to do our best and rather than being spoon-fed information we had to learn it on our own. by far, the absolute best class i've ever taken at any level of education.

then came college. i was preoccupied with the social aspect and grades weren't as important to me. my first semester was a wake-up call and i learned my lesson. i had to attend class and i had to do the homework--no more one or the other. granted, i still didn't bother to study but i could still pull off mostly b's with a few a's and the rare c thrown in for good measure. exception to a&p lab which you didn't get credit for but the tests were impossible, i literally memorized the chapter the night before taking the weekly exams in order to get a's and b's--the fail rate for lab was insane and since it was required (but you didn't get credit for it) we lost a lot of students due to that one. granted, i couldn't tell you half of anything from it since i didn't actually "learn" anything, but my grades were good. i was more forgiving of a c simply because i didn't feel that i needed good grades in college like i did in high school. if i felt i knew the material, i was happy regardless of the grade.

as to what i'd expect of my (non-existent) children--depends on the kid. if they were like me, i'd have high expectations and a c would be bad. if they were like my nephew (who really struggles with school) then i'd be ok with it because i'd know it wasn't for lack of effort.

whether or not a C is a good grade depends on the student. School came pretty easy, and got As with little trouble. I know people in classes wiht me that struggled with a C -

I'm not even sure that it's working to a person's potential, or doing the best they can, that i sthe deciding factor, because I know I didn't work to my 'potential' - I could have actually worked harder but the A's came pretty easily;.

C's aren't bad, if the person tried and got C's then it's not a bad grade, if a person just coasted by and got C's -- then it's not a good grade.

For me, a C is good or bad depending on the situation. For instance, I would happily settle for a C in some of the classes I've taken, simply because of the difficulty of the material or tests. For instance, in the English department here, it's well-known that one professor's C is equivalent to another professor's A, simply because he's such a hard professor and he grades hard.

So there you go.

Like a lot of the members here, if I got a 'C' in middle school or high school, is was basically "eternal damnation destruction rains from the heavens" from my parents. It wasn't even an option. Bs were cutting it close, my parents expected As no matter what, no matter hard the class. I think it helped out a lot too in the long run. So far my GPA is 3.72 at my university, having made only a few Bs and mostly As, no Cs at all. The opportunity was there to make Cs....but I pulled through and made As because of how bad I felt making a C (aftershocks of my parent's ridicule). I've seen a lot of people (in college especially) make Cs because they just don't care enough and weren't ridiculed by their parents to make As. So I consider Cs to be really bad in almost all situations.

I consider Cs to be average, just getting by, basically plain lazy. I was a C student all through grade school. I spent all my time hanging out with my friends and playing video games. I got shitty SAT scores but somehow got into a good state university due to affirmative action. I was chosen to be part of a program for minority students. I felt that I didn't deserve to get into this particular college being opposed to affirmative action but took it as an opportunity to improve myself and get ahead. So I worked my ass off through college. I maintained a 3.5 GPA. I even transferred to another school after my sophomore year with a scholarship to pursue the field I'm currently working in. So looking back I wish I had worked harder in grade school. Maybe it would opened up more opportunities than I already have now. Who knows. Cs aren't bad but they're not great either.

yeah I thought so too....but I couldnt date yet since I wasnt 16 so it wasnt "as bad" as it could have been.

I was allowed 20 minutes worth of phone calls a day....whether I used it all on one call or more was up to me.

I could go out once a month for 3 hours on something not family related.

Needless to say that was the last grade I got that wasnt an A.

Saw it, loved it, laughed like hell.

I'm certainly with you on everything you said.

As a personal standard, a C is a disaster. I expect to always get A's and B's. I won't hate anyone who has more lax standards, but those standards don't work for me.

In primary/seconday school, yes, because there is a ton of busy work that you can earn points on, and most teachers just check off homework, etc. and you get those points. That makes it easier to get a better grade.

In college, I would say that it's an average grade.

Personally, a C is not my best. As an advanced student, I feel that I should and can strive to get higher grade than that.

Sorry, but i think having a curve that is basically majority of hte class = C and the rest have to be filled, etc, is damning...As in, say 6 people get a C, 3 get B and 3 get D, 1 F and 1 A just seems wrong and arbitrary. It also screws up the average for the other classes, etc. By those standards, yo ureally would have only 5% in upper tier of the class, but you would also demand that 5% would be lowest when the least performing person really didn't deserve it. I've known teachers that started out class by saying there would only be 3 A's in a class and everyone else had to fight for their spot on the rest of the chart. It was harsh, arbitrary, and unrealistic and somehow, we ended up with 6 people getting A's..thankfully...

That said, in grad school, a C would almost automatically bar you from graduating..no do-overs, no retakes, nothing, just bam, you got a C, you're going to hell, basically. We weren't competitive with each other for the higher grades, we were just doing the best we could. Fortunately, there was only one C and one D given in my class, both dropped out by next semester..

As I high school student I really wish the points were spread out waaaaaay more. It's stupid, because as others have probably said millions of times, it's dumb having everyone crammed up and making A's look like the average. It should be spread out a LOT more.

That will never happen though :( Just speaking from experience.

Just because the grade was marked at 80% doesn't mean that he's performed better than 80% of the students. I wish, but not the case :(

Heh, and an 80% here is a C+ ..... man, that's NOT fun.

btw, what were the point values for grades mentioned? everything before college broke down as : 0-69=F, 70-76=D, 77-84=C, 85-92=B, 93+=A

College was/is: 0-59=F, 60-69=D, 70-79=C, 80-90=B, 91+=A. Grades have always been a percentage of correct answers given, ie, 15 of 20 questions correct=75=D in highschool, C in college. Essay tests were graded based on the proff's assessment of the student's mastery of the subject given.

Pretty much, grades were given w/out much concern for how 'other' students did in the classroom. pretty cut and dry, really, so i'm not sure where a lot of the "only so many people in this class will get an A" comes from.

I gotta agree, I've never settled for average. I've gotten like, two C's in 4 years of college, and I almost want to retake the classes just to get those C's off my record. I used to be satisfied with B's but I can't stand to see them anymore. I don't consider a C to be an indication that I've mastered the material at all.

You weren't a science major obviously :lol:

In humanities type classes what you state is true, but most science classes (for science majors) are based on the concept of competitive grading. For all the whines about it, I don't have a problem with this sort of system (provided the class size isn't to small).

I agree. If a kid is a D student and gets a C, it's time for celebration and praise. The school where my son goes gives 2 grades for each subject - one for result and one for application/effort. I don't care much about the result. I do care if he hasn't applied himself.

(climbs on soapbox...)The education system is fundamentally flawed in my view. We (society) stream and praise kids according to their results in maths, english, etc, as if academic results are the mark of success. But I don't think they are. Do you really care if your neighbour graduated suma cum laude when he's an inconsiderate @$*&^? What's important in my view is not whether someone gets straight As in everything, but how they contribute and relate to others. Whether it's the thoughtful neighbour who brings your garbage bin in for you, or the person who lets you go before them in the supermarket because you've got 2 items to buy and they've got 20, to the person who dedicates their life helping the disadvantaged, etc. It doesn't take graduating head of your class to do things that make the world a better and more enjoyable place to live.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying academic achievement is unimportant. It is important, but it's not the most important thing in life. I've lived long enough now to realise that discipline and application are more important than talent, and that the brightest ain't necessarily going to be the best. Personally, I think effort should be praised more than results, and that's what I do with my son. You can have great talent and get nowhere if you do nothing with it. But you can really go places with a little talent and lots of work. That's why I praise my son when he gets great marks for effort, and I encourage him to try harder when he doesn't. Of course I realise you get your geniuses when you combine both talent and hard work!

But too many people put too much pressure on their kids to get results, say at maths or whatever, and make them feel it's the end of the world or, worse; that they're losers, when they don't. So if you do that I would encourage you to thing about this...probably 95 percent of jobs don't require maths any more difficult than fractions and percentages - (ie mid-primary school maths). So why make such a fuss about great maths results?

Actually, ustwo, from my dealings with the sciences, poli-sci, comp sci, bio, etc, the grading was just as i stated. The only class i remember having that was based on competitive grading was a photography class.

ah vell

My friend going to a school in france said that he needs to get a 100 out of 200 to graduate and that its dam hard and that only 40-50% of the students make it.

Even in my own experiance grades were to easy to get until i reached Calc. based physics and Calculus 3.

The fact that you put poli-sci in as a science tells me you weren't taking the classes meant for science majors.

Trust me we do things differently.

for that, ustwo, i'm incredibly happy :)


what did you take that was so competitive, if i may ask?

Well for starters my biology 110 class, which is the main core class for pre-med freshman, had about 600 students in it, all graded on a curve. By default some students would fail.

After that EVERY class I had in sciences were graded on a curve like that, physics, chemistry, bio-chem, micro-bio, etc. The classes got smaller and smaller as you moved up due to attrition and specialization, but the curve remained. The only class I took which didn't have a curve was a 500 level genetics class, which was a very small class.

I look around and see stupid people.

Wherever I go.

It annoys me that people so stupid exist.

Then I realize that I am being graded on a curve.

And I thank them for making me look so damn good..... :)

This was something that I learned over the course of time in high school. The American public high school education has become ridiculously easy. I put in hardly any effort, and was able to make an "A" in every class that I took.

Okay, so I may be naturally smarter and, more importantly, more logical than the average bear - but there's nothing that any 'average' kid couldn't succeed in. Basically, to get an A, all one has to do is remember a mediocre amount of information and be able to bullshit a half decent essay.

By my senior year, I realized that I could do practically nothing and get away with it. Between reputation and reasoning sense, I was easily able to ace every class. Those that recieved C's or lower simply weren't trying (the only exception was a photography class - you either had it or you didn't. But then again, the mechanics were a big part of the grade, and anyone can learn mechanics through practice).

Anyway, I would have to postulate that, in America, a "B" is average. Anything below is really poor work. Remember, in high school, most grades are participation and homework completeness. As long as you work, recieving high marks is not difficult.

Fast foward that to college - that can go either way, depending on your major. I majored in Econ, which is mainly a theoretical social science which you either are taking because A) you love it and live to study or B) You're Business Ad. and need it for your major. A's and C's are common.

However, if you're a Bio or Engineering person, a C is about top in your class. If you're an Ed major, you'll be kicked out with less than a 3.5. Go figure.

i'm a total perfectionist. i don't even like taking A-'s, and that's a personality flaw, not a sign of excellence.

i think it really depends on the culture of the school. where i went, it was mostly rubric grading, not curves, and grade inflation was generous if not absurd. As one of the better students there, i expected to get at least 3 A's a term, the last grade usually being outside my major, and up for debate. I think the lowest i got was a B- in Econ.

Wow, C at the top is really harsh. I guess our profs are more generous here. I just got a bachelors in mechanical engineering and needless to say quite a few engineering friends graduated with a 3.7-3.8 GPA.

Throughout our time in college, Cs werent too good. For tough freshmen courses like differential equations, Cs put you in the 50-60 percentile. By the time we started junior courses, Cs put you in the lower 10-25 percentile because a lot of the people you did better than during those freshmen courses have dropped out. In order to take junior courses, people had to have a minimum of 2.5 GPA for your freshmen and sophomore courses. On our system, A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0.

As far as grading goes, I noticed that curving was quite common. If a set quota of As and Bs was not met at the end of the term, a curve was applied until the quota was met. If As and Bs were far exceeded the quota, no action was taken and everyone got what they earned.

The strict curve where the students are graded against a defined set of standards is probably the most fair, because the reward to receive the best grade is available to all and likewise the failure in the worst grade. However, from the standpoint of promoting society, I can see how the bell curve produces better results. As a country, just because one generation of students happened to be of above average aptitude doesn't mean we should let them slide and perform at a lower capacity. The bell curve forces a small percentage to still push themselves to their peek potential which will hopefully lead to the innovations that carry us into the next era.

I'll admit that I was one of those kids that took advantage of the strict curve and just coasted with little effort.

As others have pointed out, grades say as much about the teacher and school policy as it does the student. Some A's are very easy, some C's are very hard.

As I understand it, today grade inflation is so rampant that probably high grades just separate the normal students from the failures. I would think that standardized tests may be a better way of determinating scholastic ability and knowledge.

I got my ass kicked for C's..

As a parent now, as long as I know that my kid did the BEST they could I'm ok with a C...but we would hire a afterschool tutor to help.

As I went through various levels of education, I found that grades really don't mean all that much (unless we're talking about math). To keep it short and sweet - I think a C should be replaced with "you could do better, you know".

If you just take C as average, then C is ok.
If you consider that average is "ok", then it's at least "not bad".
If you want to go through life striving to be "average", then C might be ok for you.
If you are smart enough to get A's and B's, but fail to apply yourself and get a C, that is bad.
If you consider that you will fall behind all the A and B people if you ever want to get into post-graduate studies, then C IS "bad".

Bottom line: I think C is bad because "average" benefits no one. If everyone always settled for average, we'd still be in the bronze age.

C's here are 60-69%, and thus not a very good mark. If they were 70-79%, I could see them as being OK.

I, personally, would consider a B (70-79%) a decent mark, and an A (80+) an excellent one, and that's something that I've applied to myself throughout high school and university (though we always go by percentage grades). C's are for classes I hate, and even then I'm disappointed in myself.

Another "got my ass kicked for a B+" here. And I'm thankful for it. I didn't become a doctor or a lawyer or a .com zillionare but I did learn to bust my ass and do my best. There's a practical benefit too, with scholarships that I earned from being an A student in HS and kept by making As in college, I was able to dramatically reduce the cost of going. My student loan bill was "only" 10k when I graduated but could have been 4x or 5x that. I've known several people who either couldn't get a scholarship or lost it, and ended up with a 50k loan tab by the time they were done. Can you imagine having that debt staring you down while you're looking for your first real job? Scary.

So yeah, whether you agree with it or not, grades matter.

I loved my 1st algorithms class where the test averages were between 30 -40. I was getting B's on some tests with a 38%.

I totally agree with this point. It is a case of able/unable and willing/unwilling. A C may be an A to the individual. However, in the world a C may not be good enought for whatever someone is trying to do. At that point, they need to find a role that works with the C.

In a perfect world, an average grade of C would be just an average grade of C. If the grades were based on reproducable criteria and the tests standardized, then a C on a test would be a C on that test on that day. unfortunately, higher education looks for higher marks and parental expectations are all over the place. I don't think there is an answer as to whether a C is a good mark.

To me it always depended on what class the C was in. I've never been a "math guy". I have always struggled with math (thankfully calculators are allowed in the real world lol). So for me a C in a mat class was just fine. I knew full well that I just wasn't strong in that area.
A C in a history class however was horrible. I usually got A's or B's, and a C meant that I was totally slacking off.

Speaking from my own experience, yes, a C is a horrible grade. My parents didn't rain damnation on me or anything, but the expectations were made quite clear. By the time I got into college, I expected nothing less for myself. My "average" grade was an A. I remember I got a B one time (in a painting class, of all things) and I was so upset I quit school for a year. I hate to think what would have happened if I had got a C. I probably would have figured I was useless as a human being, moved out of town, and got a job at a carwash.

just got one on a midterm.

yeah, it pretty much felt like the end of the world. i'm drinking beer until i feel better, which should be in another pint or two. :)

C's are average, no more, no less. People should not be offended when they get one, unless they have been absolutely superior students and did not get recognized for that fact. The whole sense of entitlement that people have these days REAAAAALLLLLY drives me nuts... one of my huge pet peeves.

That said, as a student, I had the closest thing to a nervous breakdown that I've ever had when I got my first B in my senior year of high school. Looking back, I'm so glad it happened then, so that I could learn that I wasn't the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. I remember one of my teachers actually apologizing for having to give me the grade, he felt so bad. The other teacher, I am still friends with and I respect him all the more for being a hard-ass and grading me on my performance. I have never had much respect for teachers who didn't give me what I deserved, bad or good.

When I got to college, I let my studies slide since I didn't know what grad school was (I'd given up on med school by my 2nd quarter) and there was just too much fun to be had. Got a C in calculus (acceptable; I have always sucked at math), and a C+ in World Literature (unacceptable, since I was in love for the first time, but also an English major!). Still, I didn't really care that much, since my identity revolved around a lot more than just my grades, after those first B's in high school. And, in terms of grad school, it didn't really matter anyway, since I took a lot of post-bacc courses and proved that my 3.55 undergrad wasn't a true representation of my ability. (Have been getting darn near 4.0's ever since, yay!)

Now, let me say that as a high school teacher and a college teaching assistant: a C is AVERAGE. And that is not a judgement on someone's intelligence; we just can't have the majority of the population running around thinking they are A students, when really they are average. People should be okay with who they are, not feeling inadequate and needing teachers to validate their existence with an unearned "A." I believe in the normal curve, with a little room for people at the bottom to redeem themselves after the first hard knocks.

I don't care what kind of insane inflation takes place, I do not see any reason for giving an average student anything higher than a C. If they have not gone out of their way to be an excellent student, and by that I mean giving up certain social activities before things are due, not coming in stoned or drunk, seeing me during office hours and obviously making a huge effort to BE A GOOD STUDENT, then they do not deserve a higher grade. Now, of course, if some idiot manages to pull off really high scores on everything while still being a horrible student (somewhat like myself :lol: ), then I won't deny them the A. But those who are smart enough to do that are few and far between... the rest, IT'S OKAY TO BE AVERAGE, jesus. Take your C like a man/woman and move on.

... and yes, I am almost SURE I got a C (or worse) on my recent Statistics test. This makes me feel like crap, not because of the C, but because I know I deserved that C. I know I am an above-average student, but I let myself be average on this test, and that is why I feel bad. It is not shameful to have the C, but it is shameful that I did not apply myself more efficiently.

I thought I would give the perspective from the other side, if you will permit.

I am what is generally considered to be the poorest sort of student as illustrated above.

In college since enrolling I have 60 hours of credit. I am 19 years old. This makes this the first semester of my junior year currently. My GPA is 2.5 and my major is neurobiology.

I have failed, on average, one course a semester. I get more C's than D's and consider that a success.

I don't give a shit for grades, or this whole system. I am just plodding along to get my degree at this top-ten rated college because I frankly can't think of anything else better to do, yet. Some of you adults probably are thinking, what a waste.

Well it is a waste. College is a waste of my time, and everybody else's. The whole system of American education is bullshit and has been for a few hundred years. Standardized tests are a joke and I put no effort in because none is required, and when an essay is required I just write something and forget about it.
I've known people that fail multiple choice tests, and others who ace courses they don't go to. If you want to be yet another horse rode hard and dumped to the side when they're done with you then work hard and get your A and go to graduate school. It doesn't mean shit.

Lots of things affect grades such as ability to concentrate, type of major and how well it suits you, if you are working on things on the side while you are supposed to be going to school - people have mentioned girls, video games - whatever. People who do well want to, and those who do poorly don't.

My parents rail at me for wasting my education, but I haven't learned anything so far and the only reason I don't make A's is because I don't care about the details. I follow concepts and patterns, and couldn't care less about the specifics. I don't care to follow in the footsteps of my predecessors. Fuck memorization and true/false. This country is fucked and the values are all in the wrong places and nobody gives a shit. So fuck getting a job, and fuck America. I work hard, and I have in the past. But not for this. Not for this. Ustwo is probably now calling me anti-american and a bum, saying that I will change my mind when I go out and experience the starving masses outside, but I can't say I care. I'm just trying to share my feelings here and if I get banned for that, that's up to the mods.

It doesn't have to be this way. Our world is set up to fuck 90% for the benefit of 10% and we have the gall to toss words like utilitarianism around. There is some depressing shit floating around and most people do all they can to ignore it. I contemplate dropping out but I can't see any advantages as long as I am progressing at college, and despite everything, I should graduate within the standard four years thanks to the full year of advance credit I got in high school.

Academia is a fucking fantasy world with little application to reality. Yes, I reject it. You can't quantify anything worth having, and grades are definetly not on that list. We are substituting grades for reality in the workforce, and I've talked to both employers and professors in my field who would prefer me, a shitty student to the constant stream of memorization queens the colleges currently produce in mass quantities.

By the way, I have tried transferring but the other college that purported to be open-minded and accepting of alternative students didn't like my grades, or apparently my essay. Sometimes in the depths of my dillusions I consider myself a writer of sorts. I should wash my hands of this now.

So, Gilda, is a C a bad grade? No. It's passing.

But see above for the attitude of a C student. Would you want this to be your son or daughter?

Cs are average. They arent bad, or good, they're fine.

How bad or good a grade is all depends on the student. If they're capable of better and do much less than their best it's a disappointment.

If ALL of the class gets c's on a test when normally the grades would be more spread out then that's the TEACHER'S fault. If the students all did poorly then the teacher failed to teach.

I don't think I'd ever make a student retake a class if they got a C unless they wanted to and feel they could do better. Otherwise they suffer from their lack of effort if it is less than standard for that particular person.

I personally have had failed college course or D's in college courses, that I studied the books for all summer, can back and squeezed out a B in the course second time around. A grade of B was about as good as an A+ for some students - My average was around C+ or B- in highschool and college. C's weren't my best usually but it depended on the class too. In Science a C was poor - in Math a C was actually quite good.

Grade inflation is a horrible problem and the big schools are the biggest offenders. Schools like Harvard hand out A's like they are candy. Because of this all the other schools have to do the same otherwise it looks like their students aren't as good as other schools.

For instance here is something that pisses me off. I'm working on my phd and in my program anything lower than a B is considered failing and all core classes must be passed with a B+ or higher.

Now my advisor argued that this is because in graduate school everyone is a lot smarter and need to be held to a higher standard. But if everyone has the same grade you do you distinguish between the good students and the average students?

For instance on the GRE analytical writing section it is scored out of 6 points with .5 increments. Seriously can you tell anything about a group of applicants with that scale? all your applicatants are going to probably be a 5.5 or a 6...

I have a moderate scholarship to a school at the low end of the top 100. To keep it, I need a 3.2. That's one A and four Bs in a typical five-course semester. There is very little room for C grades, and a single failure is damning.

...which isn't much of a problem, since C's are definately below average here. It takes a hearty amount of skipped classes, missed assignments, and tests gone completely unprepared for to pull a C in most classes. I get perhaps one teacher for whom B and A grades are reserved for excellent performance. B's can almost always be achieved with only the most minimal of effort, and many times A's are given to half the class or more. I coasted through my first semester to a 4.0, and now that I've taken the odd class here and there where a B actually does indicate superior performance and an A is given to only the top handful I've settled to around a 3.7. I am not the best student in the world, but this is the level of difficulty I've experienced college classes are now on.

The same was true in high school. I'd say something between a quarter and a third of my class graduated with perfect 4.0's, since a cumulative average of 93% or better in all classes across all 4 years was scored as one. An 100% grade was far from unattainable in most classes, and anything in the 80s or below was seen as very shoddy. Sure, there were kids that threw it all out the window and just skipped and did drugs all day, but even the most average of students that more or less did they work they were supposed to easily graduated with something in the middle 3's on a 4.0 scale.

In the great race for admissions and scholarships to higher schools, the emphasis has shifted away from grades because of the fact that a 4.0 means almost nothing now. In talking to high school counselors about college scholarships and college counselors about graduate school scholarships, I've been told time and again that students need to really beef up their brag sheets beyond just good grades in order to get recognized for anything. Do extracurriculars. Do something academic over the summer even if you don't get credit for it, or try to look like you'll eventually make your would-be school look good by doing volunteer work. Make sure your personal statements or essay responses are top-notch, because there is where they'll be looking for the 4.0 who actually has a soul over the 4.0 who went to Kaplan looking for the formula sure-thing essay. Standardized tests. If school is now easy enough that everyone can get a perfect score, ACTs and LSATs are not yet. Some people cry foul. My kid doesn't test well is a common wail. I think, though, that the argument that the dedication implied by a high grade is more important than the raw aptitude demonstrated by a test should hold water. The problem is that those consistent high grades don't mean anything these days. The sharper fellow that screwed around a lot in school knowing he could pull A's on the ease of the system has a 4.0 and a 32 where the slower guy who was determined to bust his balls and get the good grades no matter the cost has a 4.0 and a 26.

I think this is just the result of a system in which we've decided that the best schools have the kids with the best grades. There are still some checks in place to make sure schools don't just give A's to -everyone-, but each school is quite strongly motivated to give out the highest grades it can get away with.

A "C" is a bad grade for parents who have very high expectations from their children. As for me, it doesn't really matter if I would have a child who's not so smart as long as I can see that he is doing his best.