Chapter 10: Grading Systems in Universities

Examination system, as a measure of educational achievements of students, has been subjected to criticism since it was introduced in universities way back in the late 1850s. Reform of the examination system became the subject of deliberations of the all the committees and Commissions on education beginning with the Indian University Commission (1902). One of the issues which recurrently figured in their reports is the inadequacy of the numerical marking system to measure the achievement levels.

In examinations, at all levels, students are generally assessed on 101 point scale (0 to 100) for each subject, and aggregate marks in all subjects are classified into four categories viz., First, Second and Third Divisions and Fail on the basis of minimum percentage marks specified for each. For example, if the aggregate is 60% and above, the student is awarded a First Division. In some universities, candidates obtaining 75% and more area awarded “Distinction”. Otherwise, the aggregate mark is in the second or third division or the candidate has failed. Some universities do not award third division. It is also specified that in each paper students must get a minimum percentage of marks for passing the examination, the required minimum aggregate marks is higher than this.

Four decades back the UGC initiated a move to reform the entire examination system. It organised several seminars and workshops in this connection. The deliberations culminated in the publication of the Report of evaluation in Higher Education (1961). It was in 1971 that the Association of Indian Universities (AIU), (then known as the Inter University Board) recommended the grading system and workshops were organised in a number of universities to examine the nitty-gritty of the grading methodology. Briefly, the arguments in favour of grading system run as follows:

The practice of awarding marks lead to the acceptance of “raw scores” for “true scores” disregarding the established research findings that probable error of measurements in awarding marks in between five to six per cent. This is because of the variation in the standard of markings by different examiners. Thus, when a score of say 53 is awarded in a particular examination, the “true score” might be anywhere between 46 and 60.

Grades, on the other hand, classify students into “ranges” instead of “points” thereby reducing the error of judgement. The award of marks also does not take into confederation varying standards of question papers in different subjects. As marks in different subjects are based on different scales and measure different attributes, the total marks (aggregates) do not indicate an overall index of a student’s level of performance. Classifying on aggregate marks is, therefore, unscientific.

It is argued that use of grades would eliminate such anomalies because a grading system just shows relative positions, instead of absolute standards attained by students. Grades, therefore, provide a more meaningful profile of achievement levels. The grading system is based on three valid criteria, viz., accuracy, familiarity and simplicity. However, opinions differ. Those who oppose it, say that, although in terms of theoretical and academic consideration, the grading system may be effective and desirable, but it does not suit Indian environment. It is likely to create many baffling problems during its actual implementation.

As the grading does not show ranking of students, medals and prizes cannot be awarded to deserving ones. Many educational institutions still define the eligibility criteria for admission in terms of divisions or percentage of marks.

In 1975, AIU published the Monograph on Grading for Universities which presented a review of the literature on the subject and various suggestions made by educationists. A revised edition incorporating many useful suggestions was published in 1977. The University Grants Commission also published its report Examinations Reform – a Plan of Action (1973). It recommended the introduction of the grading system for postgraduate examinations beginning with the academic year 1976-77 and for all undergraduate examinations one year later. Some of the important points of the recommendations are:

A.  There should be no award of classes or division.

B.  Direct grading should be adopted wherever possible, e.g., papers containing short answers, internal assessment. Direct grading is essential when the number of students is small, say 100.

C.  Along with grades obtained in every paper, the grade point average (GPA) should also be indicated. In the case of questions of unequal weights, weighted CGPA may be given.

D.  Grades in internal assessment and end examinations may be shown separately.

E.  Students may be allowed to improve their grades in subjects they choose.

F.  A seven-point scale grading may be adopted: O = Outstanding, A = Very Good, B = Good, C = Average, D = Below Average, E = Poor and F = Very Poor. Degrees may be awarded to those obtaining the grade not below “C” in individual papers or subjects. In the alternative, a combined overall (cumulative) grade point average (OGPA/CGPA) of 3.00 would be necessary for awarding a degree with a minimum GPA in every subject of 2.50. Each university may set its own level.

G.  During the transition period, marks may be converted into grade with the help of Normative Standard Table to be constructed one for each subject taking into account the performance of students during past several years. The percentages to be adopted for this purpose are: 0 = 3%, A = 7%, B = 22%, C = 36%, D = 22%, E = 7%, F = 3%.

The letter grading system has been briefly explained in Annexure 1.

The AIU published the results of a survey undertaken by it, in its Status Report Services, the Grading in Universities by it, in its Status Report Series, the Grading in Universities (1979). The report said that the available “information with the Research Cell, (AIU), shows that 51 universities in the country have adopted the grading system only in certain faculties. Even in universities which have adopted the grading system, different grade point scale systems are followed at undergraduate and postgraduate level…” The grade point scale system in various universities range from three point scale Uttar Pradesh to eleven point scale.

Grading systems have been mostly adopted for agriculture, engineering and management programmes in different universities. Since not all the universities have adopted the system and since there is no uniformity in the system adopted by various universities, the equivalent on OGPA/CGPA in terms of percentage of marks are required by many institutions for admitting candidates.

Even agricultural universities which have by and large introduced grading system specify the eligibility requirements for admission to Master Degree programmes both in terms of OGPA/CGPA on different scales and equivalent percentage marks, obtained in the Bachelor’s degree, e.g., Assam Agricultural University – 2.6/4 or 6.7/10 or 50%, Chaudary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University 2.25/4 or 53%, Indian Agricultural Research Institute – 60% or 3.05 or 3/4 or 2.25/3, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vidyalaya 2.54/4 or 5.5/10 or 55%, Kerala Agricultural University – 52.6% or 2.25/4 or 7.3/10. Latest information about the status of grading system in universities in not available.

While the Universities Handbook gives this information mainly for undergraduate courses. The AICTE, in its Minimum Standards and Norms for Management Education, had suggested an eight-point scale. (See Annexure 2). It also says that the “details of evaluation of academic performance shall be given in the prospectus of the institute”. It may be mentioned here, that the Central Board of Secondary Education planned to introduce a nine-point grading scale (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2 and E) without any marks being awarded or “pass” or “fail” being indicated in the certificate. However, in the face of stiff opposition from several quarters, the plan had been kept in abeyance.

Since the grading system is widely prevalent in the USA, a brief account of the US System of Grading is given in Annexure 3.