Talk:ECTS grading scale

Impossible to implement in Sweden among other countries

I have taught for almost 30 years at a Swedish university and can say that what is missing from this article is the inherent problem caused by the fact that the ECST is a relative scale and that scores in Sweden are absolute. This is, in general, the main problem with the ECTS (grading system).

"Relative" in the sense that only a certain percentage of students can get the best grade, regardless of how much they learn and how good they perform relative to the learning objectives/course requirements. In such a system each student will strive to end up in a class with poor class mates (that will perform worse) and will not benefit from cooperating with other class mates for increased mutual learning. The individual can not fully predict what the final grade will be based only on his or her own achievement.

"Absolute" in the sense that everyone that meets the formal requirements for a certain grade also gets this grade (which could mean that all fail or all get the best grade possible - neither of which happens in reality). In such a system each student strive to end up in a class with good class mates with whom cooperation would be beneficial. The result is solely in the hands of the individual.

The same fundamental problem exists in all EU countries where grades are not relative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.125.173 (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Class rank?

I have slapped on an {{accuracy}} on the section describing the grading scale. That grades are handed out by class rank is, at best, inaccurate, at least for Norway which uses the ECTS scale ("A" to "E" for pass and "F" for fail).

First, personal experience: I have handed out grades for fairly large math courses four times, and we do not base them on class rank. They are generally based on percentage-criteria, with some modifications to compensate for particularily easy or difficult exams. On undergraduate-level courses, where there are a large number of students, the intention is for 8-12% of the students to get an A, and so on, but only over a period of time. On a graduate level course, where the students are generally from the better-than-average pool of undergraduates, the grades are routinely skewed to the A- and B- side of the scale.

Now for some sources, to illustrate that I'm writing this based on something more credible than personal experience (all articles are in Norwegian unfortunately, try a Google translation if you cannot read it.):

• This article from 2003 claimed that grades would be distributed before the exam, and handed out strictly on class rank. The article notes that students are negative to the idea. Although the source meets all criteria for being a reliable source, it is not a reliable source for how grades are handed out today (or were handed out in 2003, if we look further.)
• This article from the NTNU newspaper, plainly shows a graph where C is not a constant average. The professor who wrote it plainly states that if half the class deserves an "A", half the class will get an "A". On a entry-level course, the average is frequently placed at around "D".
• A guide to graders for the law faculty at the University in Oslo tells that the Gaussian curve cannot be used if an unusually number of the candidates are weak. (For example, if many candidates are repeating the exam.)
• This article from the University of Oslo newspaper says that half the master-students (graduate level) get "A" or "B".
• This article from a bulletin for law schools in Norway discuss the bell-curve, and confirm that they are not hard and fast rules, but somewhat fuzzy guidelines.

Since I am not sure about the practice in other countries using ECTS grades, I am waiting with rewriting the section for now. If Norway is an odd-out country with not implementing strict class rank based grading, then the section should reflect that, if not, the article should not state that grades are based on class rank. Any input here would be very helpful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help here, but I believe both the practical example in the article (took from [1], as noted) and the second reference ([2]) may be of help. --Waldir ^talk 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the description used in the ECTS Users Guide:

"In the framework of ECTS a grading scale has been developed to facilitate the understanding and comparison of grades given according to different national systems. It has no national reference point and aims at an objective evaluation of student abilities relative to those of other students within the same system. It was not designed to replace national systems, but to enhance the understanding of them in other countries.

The ECTS grading scale is based on the rank of a student in a given assessment, that is how he/she performed relative to other students. The ECTS system classifies students into broad groups and thus makes interpretation of ranking simpler. It is this grouping that lies at the heart of the ECTS grading system.

The ECTS system initially divides students between pass and fail groups, and then assesses the performance of these two groups separately. Those obtaining passing grades are divided into five subgroups: the best 10% are awarded an A-grade, the next 25% a B-grade, the following 30% a C-grade, the following 25% a D-grade and the final 10% an E-grade.

Those who have not achieved a performance sufficient to allow a passing grade are divided into two subgroups: FX (Fail – some more work required before credit can be awarded) and F (Fail – considerable further work is required). This distinction allows differentiation between those students who have been assessed as almost passing and those who have clearly lacked the required knowledge and skills."

( http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/ECTS_DS_Users_guide_en.1094119167134.pdf )

At my university we have a minimum at around 40% of the total points. So, if you get them, you will be in the first group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.231.159.204 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Waldir please remove the sample on the german law degree or amend it. It is incorrect and leads to a virulent confusion: I actually applied to a foreign university with the first state exam, they read your article,then the regensburg table and finally downgraded my degree. Took me weeks to clarify the matter. The table in Regensburg and its SCALE refers to SINGLE GRADES a student receives during studies ( as laid down in §1 Verordnung über eine Noten- und Punkteskala für die erste und zweite juristische Prüfung; http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/jurprnotskv/gesamt.pdf). So far the article is correct. But YOU added a column about the percentage of people passing the first state exam, which is not in the Regensburg source and wrong in this context. For THE EXAM GRADE, §2 (see source above) applies. This makes a difference because §2 has another scale as §1 (the regensburg table). Thus your selfmade table mixes two scales, even if the elevations should be the same. So please decide for one or the other and name it as such.. best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.91.124 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry for the troubles caused. But, as I noted in my reply to Sjakkalle above, I am no expert in the subject. I expanded the article as much as I could, but hoped that other editors interested/knowledgeable in the subject would show up and help out. I even contacted Bruno Lowagie, author of one of the sources referred to in the article, who happened to have an account on wikipedia (you can see the message I sent him here), but had no response until today. My only knowledge of the subject comes from personal interest on the subject of student assesment, and written material I had access to while I had a seat in my university's pedagogical council, last year, as one of several students' representatives.

That said, I must clear out that I would never make up a table with data I wasn't sure about, especially in a subject like this which admittedly I don't dominate. The table as is presented in the article was extracted integrally from the website pointed, and although they changed it now, it did indeed include the percentages at the time, as you can confirm through the (very handy) services of the Web Archive.

Once again, I am sorry to have heard that you had troubles because of this. As a member of my university's pedagogical council, I tried to clear out this issue as I noted that everybody seemed to be a little unsure about how this system should really work, but unfortunately achieved nothing (mainly due to overly long meetings that had other issues in the schedule), and the account of events you shared seems to indicate other universities are in doubt as well (otherwise why would they look wikipedia up for information?). I really hope you, Sjakkalle, Bruno and/or others can help making this article factually correct and a reliable reference summary of the ECTS grading system. --Waldir ^talk 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of the ECTS grades (2003 grading scale)

Hello,

Is there a source for the “definitions” of the grades in the 2003 ECTS grading system? (‘A’ meaning “outstanding performance with only minor errors”; ‘B’ meaning “above the average standard but with some errors”; etc.). I guess this is merely a way that some contributor found to make the system of division into subgroups clearer to the reader; however, one might find that such “definitions” would contradict the official recommendation of not using words like “excellent” or “good”... Remsirems (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit: It appears that the modification was done by IP 147.32.82.128 on 15th March 2012‎; the fact that this contributor erased the percentage numbers (10 %, 25 % etc.) clearly shows that their goal was to explain what these percentages meant (then, other contributors got the percentages back, but still keeping the “definitions” of 147.32.82.128). No sources were added by this anonymous contributor. So, now the question is: shall we keep these “definitions”, or shall we consider them as too subjective to express the division system properly? Remsirems (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ECTS grading scale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070627043805/http://www.essex.ac.uk:80/socrates/incoming/Gradingscale.htm to http://www.essex.ac.uk/Socrates/incoming/Gradingscale.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)