Table of Contents
Introduction: The Simple Question That Unlocked a Deeper Truth
For 15 years, I’ve been an educator and curriculum designer, and I thought I understood what a grade was.
I could calculate one, explain it, and justify it using the standard rubrics and scales.
I was wrong.
The moment of revelation didn’t come from a textbook or an academic conference, but from the quiet devastation of one of my most brilliant students.
Let’s call her Maya.
Maya was in my 10th-grade history class.
The final project was a research paper on the Industrial Revolution.
It was a standard assignment with a standard, 100-point rubric: points for thesis statement, for citation format, for paragraph structure.
But Maya, captivated by the stories of factory workers, didn’t just want to write about history; she wanted to bring it to life.
She spent weeks teaching herself video editing, digging through archival footage, and composing a script.
Instead of a paper, she submitted a stunning, 15-minute documentary.
It was insightful, creative, and deeply moving.
It was also, according to the rubric, a failure.
She had no traditional thesis statement, her “citations” were credits at the end, and there were no paragraphs to evaluate.
I followed the “objective” criteria, and the math came out to a C+.
The grade crushed her.
The spark I had seen ignite in her eyes throughout the project was extinguished by a single letter on a report Card. That C+ didn’t reflect her learning, her passion, or her incredible effort.
It reflected her non-compliance with a rigid, outdated form.
In that moment, I realized the failure wasn’t hers; it was mine, and it was the system’s.
The “standard advice” on grading, the very framework I was trained to use, was not only inadequate but actively harmful to the true purpose of education.
This brings us to the question that likely brought you here: “What is the grade if it was 25 questions?” It’s a practical, necessary question.
You have a test, and you want to know the result.
But embedded within that simple question is the assumption that the answer—a single number or letter—holds a simple, objective truth.
My journey, sparked by Maya’s story, has taught me that the truth is far more complex, personal, and profoundly important.
This article will give you the tools to calculate your grade, but it won’t stop there.
It will offer a blueprint for understanding the entire architecture of assessment.
We will start with the immediate math, but then we will zoom out to deconstruct the grading systems we all take for granted.
We will examine their flawed foundations, explore their hidden history, and, most importantly, discover new designs—new blueprints—built not for the simple act of sorting, but for the beautiful, complex, and essential process of genuine, resilient learning.
Part I: The Immediate Answer: Your Grade on a 25-Question Test
Before we deconstruct the building, let’s answer the question at the door.
Calculating your percentage score on any test is a straightforward mathematical process.
The core principle is to determine what portion of the total you answered correctly and then express that portion as a number out of 100.1
Here is the simple, five-step process to calculate your score on a 25-question test:
- Count Your Correct Answers: Go through your test and count the total number of questions you answered correctly.
- Create a Fraction: Write your score as a fraction. The number of correct answers is the numerator (the top number), and the total number of questions (in this case, 25) is the denominator (the bottom number). For example, if you got 22 questions right, your fraction is 22/25.
- Convert the Fraction to a Decimal: Divide the numerator by the denominator. Using a calculator, you would compute 22÷25, which equals 0.88.2
- Multiply by 100: To convert the decimal into a percentage, multiply it by 100. So, 0.88×100=88.3
- Add the Percent Sign: The final step is to add the percent symbol (%) to your result. Your score is 88%.
To make this even easier, the table below provides a direct conversion for every possible score on a 25-question test.
Simply find the number of questions you answered correctly to see your percentage score instantly.
Valuable Table 1: Quick Grade Chart for a 25-Question Test
| Number of Correct Answers (out of 25) | Percentage Score | Number of Correct Answers (out of 25) | Percentage Score |
| 25 | 100% | 12 | 48% |
| 24 | 96% | 11 | 44% |
| 23 | 92% | 10 | 40% |
| 22 | 88% | 9 | 36% |
| 21 | 84% | 8 | 32% |
| 20 | 80% | 7 | 28% |
| 19 | 76% | 6 | 24% |
| 18 | 72% | 5 | 20% |
| 17 | 68% | 4 | 16% |
| 16 | 64% | 3 | 12% |
| 15 | 60% | 2 | 8% |
| 14 | 56% | 1 | 4% |
| 13 | 52% | 0 | 0% |
This table gives you the number.
But as Maya’s story shows, a number is just the beginning of the story, not the end.
Part II: The Epiphany: How Architecture Taught Me to Rethink a Grade
After the incident with Maya’s project, I was adrift.
I had followed the rules of my profession, yet the outcome felt profoundly wrong.
I had penalized creativity and rewarded compliance.
For months, I wrestled with this contradiction, stuck within a system that seemed designed to produce these kinds of heartbreaking results.
The standard advice wasn’t working, and I didn’t know where to turn.
The breakthrough came from a place I never expected: a late-night documentary on 20th-century design.
The narrator was explaining the foundational principle of modern architecture, famously articulated by the architect Louis Sullivan: “Form follows function.”
The idea is elegantly simple yet revolutionary.
The shape of a building or an object—its form—should be dictated by its purpose—its function.
A hospital, with its function of healing and efficiency, has a different form than a grand concert hall, with its function of acoustic perfection and communal experience.
A sleek, aerodynamic race car has a different form than a rugged, all-terrain jeep.
When the form is perfectly aligned with the function, the design is successful, beautiful, and true.
When they are mismatched—like building a hospital with the acoustics of a concert hall—the result is a failure, no matter how aesthetically pleasing the individual parts may be.
It was a lightning bolt.
I suddenly saw the problem in my classroom with blinding clarity.
Our educational systems are suffering from a catastrophic form-function mismatch.
We publicly declare that the function of education is to cultivate deep understanding, foster creativity, encourage critical thinking, and inspire a lifelong love of learning.
We want to produce resilient, adaptable, and innovative citizens.
Yet, the form we overwhelmingly use to measure this—the traditional, percentage-based, A-F letter grade—is a relic designed for a completely different function.
It is a tool of the industrial age, created not to measure learning but for the efficient sorting and standardization of a rapidly growing student population.4
Its primary function was to rank students against one another and certify their completion of a standardized process for colleges and employers.
This epiphany didn’t just give me an answer; it gave me a whole new way to see the problem.
I realized that to fix what was broken, we couldn’t just tinker with the details—arguing about whether an 89.5% should be rounded up to an A-, or whether a late penalty should be 10% or 20%.
That was like arguing about the color of the curtains while the building’s foundation was cracked.
We needed to become Assessment Architects.
We had to stop passively accepting the old blueprints and start critically examining them.
We needed to ask of every grading practice, every rubric, every scale: What is the function this is supposed to serve? And does its form truly support that function? This new paradigm became my lens, allowing me to deconstruct the flawed architecture of traditional grading and start imagining what a system truly designed for learning could look like.
Part III: Deconstructing the Old Blueprint: A Critical Look at Traditional Grading
Using the lens of “Assessment Architecture,” we can now dissect the components of the traditional grading system we all know.
We will see that its language, its foundation, and its historical scaffolding were never principally designed to support the function of deep, authentic learning.
Pillar 1: The Language of the Grade (The Façade)
The most visible part of any building is its façade—the exterior that gives it a recognizable look.
In grading, this façade is the language of percentages, letters, and GPAs.
It’s what we see on report cards and transcripts.
But a close inspection reveals that this façade is inconsistent, confusing, and built on a deceptively inequitable scale.
The primary system used in North America is the 100-point percentage scale, which is then converted into a letter grade (A, B, C, D, F) and often a Grade Point Average (GPA).6
While this seems straightforward, the specific percentage ranges for each letter grade vary wildly between countries, provinces, states, and even individual institutions.6
An “A” might be 93-100% in one school district, 90-100% in another, and 86-100% in a third.6
This lack of universal definition undermines the very idea of a standardized system.
The tables below illustrate this variability, providing a consolidated look at the most common scales in the United States and the provincial differences in Canada.
Valuable Table 2: Comprehensive U.S. Grading Scale Conversion Table
This table represents a common grading scale used in many U.S. high schools and universities.
However, it’s crucial to remember that these ranges can differ.
| Letter Grade | Percentage | GPA (4.0 Scale) | General Description |
| A+ | 97-100% | 4.0 | Excellent / Superior |
| A | 93-96% | 4.0 | Excellent |
| A- | 90-92% | 3.7 | Excellent |
| B+ | 87-89% | 3.3 | Good / Above Average |
| B | 83-86% | 3.0 | Good / Above Average |
| B- | 80-82% | 2.7 | Good / Above Average |
| C+ | 77-79% | 2.3 | Satisfactory / Average |
| C | 73-76% | 2.0 | Satisfactory / Average |
| C- | 70-72% | 1.7 | Satisfactory / Average |
| D+ | 67-69% | 1.3 | Poor / Passing |
| D | 63-66% | 1.0 | Poor / Passing |
| D- | 60-62% | 0.7 | Poor / Passing |
| F | Below 60% | 0.0 | Failing |
Sources: 6
Note: Some institutions use a simpler 90-80-70-60 scale, while others may not use plus/minus grades at all.
The GPA value for an A+ can also vary, sometimes being awarded a 4.33.12
Valuable Table 3: Comparative Canadian Provincial Grading Scales (High School)
Unlike the U.S., where scales are often set at the district or institutional level, Canadian grading is more consistently defined by provincial ministries of education, yet significant variations still exist between provinces.
| Province | Letter Grade | Percentage Range | Key Notes |
| Ontario | A | 80-100% | The “A” range is broad (80-100%), encompassing A-, A, and A+. Passing is 50%. 13 |
| B | 70-79% | ||
| C | 60-69% | ||
| D | 50-59% | ||
| F | Below 50% | ||
| British Columbia | A | 86-100% | The “A” range starts higher than in many other provinces. 10 |
| B | 73-85% | ||
| C+ | 67-72% | ||
| C | 60-66% | ||
| C- | 50-59% | ||
| F/IE | Below 50% | “IE” stands for Insufficient Evidence. | |
| Alberta | A | 80-100% | Similar to Ontario, with A+, A, and A- sub-ranges within 80-100%. 13 |
| B | 65-79% | ||
| C | 50-64% | ||
| D | 45-49% | Note: A ‘D’ is considered failing in some contexts. | |
| F | Below 45% | ||
| Quebec | (Percentage) | 60-100% | Primarily uses a percentage scale. 60% is the minimum passing grade. There is no “D” grade. 15 |
| (Percentage) | Below 60% | Failing. |
Sources: 10
Beyond the surface-level confusion of these varying scales lies a deeper, more fundamental design flaw: the mathematical inequity of the 100-point system.
Most North American systems define passing grades (A, B, C, D) within a relatively narrow 40-point window (from 60% to 100%).
In contrast, the single grade of ‘F’ occupies a massive 60-point window (from 0% to 59%).6
This creates what some educators call the “tyranny of the zero.” Mathematically, it is far easier to fail than to succeed.
A single zero on a major assignment can have a devastating and often mathematically irreversible impact on a student’s average, while a single perfect score can only lift the average so much.
The structure isn’t a neutral ruler; its form is inherently biased against recovery and growth.
It punishes mistakes far more than it rewards success.
This seemingly objective percentage scale masks a subjective and punitive design, a façade that looks precise but is fundamentally flawed.
Pillar 2: The Myth of the Single Number (The GPA Foundation)
Beneath the façade of letters and percentages lies the foundation of the modern academic transcript: the Grade Point Average (GPA).
The GPA is a single number, typically on a 4.0 scale, that purports to summarize a student’s entire academic performance.18
It is calculated by converting letter grades into quality points (e.g., A=4, B=3), weighting them by course credits, and then averaging them.12
This single number carries immense weight, often acting as the primary gatekeeper for scholarships, university admissions, academic honors (like
cum laude), and even eligibility for athletic programs.9
The problem with this foundation is that it is built on a myth: the myth that a single number can accurately represent the complex, non-linear journey of learning.
The GPA is a lagging indicator, an average of past performance.
By its very design, it cannot distinguish between two profoundly different learning stories.
Consider two students in a challenging math class.
Student A enters with a strong background, earns an A on the first exam, a B+ on the midterm, and a B on the final, coasting to a solid A- for the course.
Student B enters with a weaker background, fails the first exam, struggles to a C on the midterm, but after hours of extra work and office visits, achieves true mastery and earns an A on the final exam.
Student B’s final grade, an average of their performance, might be a C+.
The GPA system would report that Student A is the “better” student.
But who truly learned more? Who demonstrated more resilience, more growth, and a deeper final understanding? The GPA, as a simple average, inherently penalizes the student who struggles, makes mistakes, and eventually triumphs.
It rewards consistent, and sometimes superficial, performance over the messy, difficult, and ultimately more meaningful process of authentic intellectual development.18
The very act of learning from failure is punished by the mathematics of the average.
This foundation is not the flexible, supportive base needed for a structure of lifelong learning; it is a rigid, unforgiving slab that cracks under the pressure of real growth.
Pillar 3: The Industrial-Era Scaffolding (The Hidden History)
To understand why the foundation is so flawed, we must examine the scaffolding that was used to build it—its hidden history.
The modern grading system was not conceived by educational psychologists in a lab to measure learning.
It was forged in the administrative offices of universities and high schools in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to solve a logistical problem: how to manage and sort the massive influx of students during the Industrial Revolution.4
Before the mid-1800s, grading as we know it was rare.
Teachers in one-room schoolhouses reported progress orally to parents.21
But as enrollments swelled and schools became larger and more standardized, this personal system became inefficient.
High schools and universities needed a quick, uniform way to certify accomplishment and rank students for college admissions and the burgeoning industrial workforce.4
The A-F letter scale and the 100-point percentage system were adopted not for their educational efficacy, but for their administrative
efficiency.
The goal was to create a grade with a “cash value”—a standardized unit of achievement that meant the same thing at the University of Missouri as it did at Harvard.4
This push for standardization was part of a broader industrial-age mindset that valued averages, percentages, and mechanical efficiency.5
It was a system designed to sort people into roles in the economic hierarchy, much like an assembly line sorts parts.
From its very inception, this model had critics.
Educators like Horace Mann warned as early as 1846 that focusing on ranks and marks would encourage students to chase extrinsic rewards rather than knowledge, creating “moral hazards”.4
Modern research has overwhelmingly proven him right, showing that a focus on grades often diminishes intrinsic motivation, discourages risk-taking, and increases student anxiety.4
This historical context reveals the original sin of traditional grading: its form was designed to serve the function of sorting, not learning.
The entire blueprint is based on a flawed premise.
This is why simply redecorating—arguing over percentage points or rounding policies—will never fix the fundamental structural problems.
To build a system that truly serves students, we need a new blueprint altogether.
Part IV: Designing for Learning: Modern Assessment Architectures
If the old blueprint is flawed, what are the alternatives? As Assessment Architects, we can look to new designs that intentionally align their form with the function of learning.
These modern systems prioritize feedback, growth, and mastery over sorting and ranking.
They create classroom structures that are more equitable, motivating, and effective.
Design 1: The Mastery Blueprint (Standards-Based Grading)
The most robust and promising alternative design is Standards-Based Grading (SBG).
Instead of calculating a single, omnibus grade from a mixture of tests, homework, and participation, SBG measures a student’s proficiency on a set of clearly defined learning goals, or “standards”.22
The core principles of this blueprint are transformative:
- Clarity and Transparency: Learning goals (e.g., “Can analyze the causes of the Civil War” or “Can apply the Pythagorean theorem to solve real-world problems”) are explicitly defined and communicated to students from the beginning.24 Students know exactly what they are expected to learn.
- Focus on Mastery: Grades reflect what a student knows and can do, not their behavior. Factors like effort, attendance, or turning in homework on time are reported separately, ensuring the academic grade is a pure measure of learning.22
- The Power of “Not Yet”: SBG embraces the idea that learning is a process. A low score on an assessment is not a permanent failure; it is simply “Not Yet.” Students are given multiple opportunities to practice, receive feedback, and demonstrate their mastery through revision and reassessment.24
- Meaningful Feedback: Assessment is primarily formative, designed to guide improvement. Instead of a single percentage, students receive feedback on their progress toward each specific standard.23
This approach fundamentally changes the classroom experience, as the following comparison shows.
Valuable Table 4: Traditional Grading vs. Standards-Based Grading
| Feature | Traditional System (Form: Sorting) | Standards-Based System (Form: Learning) |
| Purpose of Grade | To rank students and certify performance with a single, average score. | To communicate a student’s current level of mastery on specific learning goals. |
| What is Measured | A mix of achievement, effort, behavior, and timeliness, combined into one grade. | Proficiency in specific, pre-defined academic standards only. |
| View of Failure | A permanent penalty. A low score or a zero damages the average and is hard to overcome. | A temporary state. “Failure” is “Not Yet” and serves as an opportunity for feedback and revision. |
| Role of Homework | Often graded for points, serving as a buffer for test scores. | Ungraded practice. It is a tool for learning, and feedback is given, but it doesn’t directly calculate into the final grade. |
| Final Grade Calculation | A mathematical average of all scores over time. Early failures permanently drag down the final grade. | Based on the most recent and consistent evidence of mastery. Growth and improvement are rewarded. |
Sources: 22
The most profound shift in the SBG blueprint is how it redefines the economy of the classroom.
Traditional grading creates an economy of points.
Students are driven to accumulate points, bargain for extra credit, and live in fear of losing points.
This system fosters a fixed mindset, where intelligence is a static trait to be proven.22
SBG, in contrast, creates an economy of learning.
The currency is not points, but mastery.
Failure is not a financial loss but simply an indicator that more work is needed—a signal to “revise and resubmit”.26
Some teachers even use a “token economy,” giving students a set number of tokens they can “spend” on opportunities like retaking a test or getting an extension, which gamifies the process of improvement itself.27
This is a fundamental rewiring of student motivation, shifting the classroom culture from one of fear and competition to one that values a
growth mindset, which research consistently shows is more effective for deep, lasting learning.4
Design 2: The Exploration Wing (The Strategic Use of Pass/Fail)
Another innovative architectural feature is the strategic use of a Pass/Fail grading option.
This system allows a student to take a course and receive either a “P” (Pass) or “F” (Fail) on their transcript instead of a traditional letter grade.28
Crucially, a “P” grade typically does not affect a student’s GPA, though a failing grade often does.29
This option is not meant to replace traditional grading entirely.
Instead, it functions like an “exploration wing” on a larger academic building.
Universities typically place restrictions on its use: it’s often limited to a certain number of courses and usually cannot be used for classes within a student’s major or minor.31
The function of this design is to act as an antidote to the specialization-induced myopia that high-stakes GPA systems can create.
As students advance, the intense pressure to maintain a high GPA often discourages them from taking intellectually enriching but challenging courses outside their comfort zone.32
A pre-med student might avoid a fascinating philosophy course for fear that a potential B+ could harm their medical school application.
The Pass/Fail option serves as a safety valve.
It creates a low-stakes environment where that pre-med student can explore philosophy, or an English major can dabble in coding, without risking their GPA.33
This is not about making college “easier.” It is a deliberate architectural choice designed to promote the very skills—interdisciplinary thinking, intellectual curiosity, and courageous exploration—that are most valuable in our complex, interconnected world.
It allows for the construction of a more well-rounded, intellectually robust graduate.
Design 3: The Co-Created Space (Contract Grading and Ungrading)
At the cutting edge of Assessment Architecture are designs that give students maximum agency in the construction of their own learning.
These approaches move beyond even SBG to create a truly collaborative and self-directed environment.
- Contract Grading: In this model, the instructor and students collaborate at the beginning of the semester to create a “contract” that specifies exactly what work is required to earn a particular grade.27 For example, a contract for a ‘B’ might require completing all major essays and participating in 80% of discussions, while a contract for an ‘A’ might add a leadership role in a group project or an additional research component. The focus shifts from subjective evaluation to the fulfillment of agreed-upon tasks.
- Ungrading: This is the most radical departure, decentering grades entirely. Instead of assigning marks, the instructor provides detailed, formative feedback throughout the semester. The core of the process is student self-evaluation and reflection.34 At the end of the term, the student often proposes their own final grade based on a portfolio of their work and a reflective analysis, which is then confirmed or adjusted in a dialogue with the instructor.27
These models represent the ultimate alignment of form and function.
If the function of education is to develop self-directed, metacognitive learners who can assess their own work and chart their own path, then the form of assessment must be a collaborative, reflective process.
These are not just new grading systems; they are new ways of structuring the power dynamics and goals of the classroom, turning it into a co-created space for learning.
Conclusion: Becoming a Learning Architect
Our journey began with a simple, practical question about a 25-question test.
It led us through the heartbreaking story of Maya, whose creativity was punished by a rigid system, and to a transformative epiphany borrowed from the world of architecture: form must follow function.
This principle became our lens, allowing us to see the traditional grading system not as an immutable fact of nature, but as a flawed human construction—an outdated building designed for the industrial-age function of sorting, not the modern function of learning.
We have deconstructed its unstable façade of inconsistent scales, its cracked foundation of the GPA, and its historical scaffolding built for efficiency over efficacy.
But we did not stop at demolition.
We explored new blueprints—the Mastery Blueprint of Standards-Based Grading, the Exploration Wing of Pass/Fail options, and the Co-Created Spaces of contract grading and ungrading.
These are designs for the 21st century, built to foster growth, encourage curiosity, and honor the true, complex process of learning.
We have moved from being passive inhabitants of a system that often fails us to empowered architects who can critique, design, and build something better.
This power is now yours to wield.
For students, it is the power to understand the system you are in.
It is the power to shift your focus from hoarding points to seeking mastery, to advocate for yourself, and to see a low grade not as a final judgment, but as a “Not Yet” on the path to understanding.
For parents, it is the power to ask different questions.
Instead of “What is my child’s grade?” you can ask, “On which standards is my child proficient, and where do they need more support? What is the plan for revision and growth?”
And for educators, it is the power to be courageous.
It is the power to experiment with a new blueprint, to start small with one new assessment practice, and to build a classroom culture where every student, like Maya, feels safe to take creative risks, to struggle, to grow, and to truly learn.
A grade should never be a final judgment carved in stone.
It should be a temporary marker on a lifelong blueprint for learning—a blueprint that we all have the power to help draw.
Works cited
- www.expii.com, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.expii.com/t/percent-test-score-examples-practice-9065#:~:text=You%20can%20find%20your%20test,points%2C%20then%20multiplying%20by%20100.
- Converting a score to a percentage – YouTube, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWCSdWFPR2g
- How To Calculate A Test Grade In 5 Steps – YouTube, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFJyv9Diz3k&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
- A Brief History of Grades and Gradeless Learning – Human Restoration Project, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.humanrestorationproject.org/writing/a-brief-history-of-grades-and-gradeless-learning
- A Brief History of Grading – Sage Publishing, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/129128_book_item_129128.pdf
- Academic grading in the United States – Wikipedia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_the_United_States
- Guide To The US Grading System In 2025 – UniAcco, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://uniacco.com/blog/us-grading-system
- International Grade Equivelency European Educational Institutions International Grade US Equivalent Note: ECTS US A A B B+ C B+ – IFMA Foundation, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://foundation.ifma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/International-Grade-Equivalencies.pdf
- USA Grading System In 2024: A Comprehensive Guide – LeapScholar, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://leapscholar.com/blog/usa-grading-system-understanding-us-grading-gpa-marking/
- Grades Criteria – Vancouver School Board, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.vsb.bc.ca/john-oliver/page/2187/grades-criteria
- United States Grading System – Scholaro, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.scholaro.com/db/Countries/united-states/Grading-System
- US Grading System 2024: Everything You Need To Know – University Living, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.universityliving.com/blog/admission-guide/us-grading-system/
- Academic grading in Canada – Wikipedia, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_Canada
- B.C. Education System Performance – Glossary, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://studentsuccess.gov.bc.ca/glossary
- Canada Grading System Explained: GPA, Letter Grades & More – Amber, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://amberstudent.com/blog/post/canada-grading-system
- Canada Grading System: The Simplified Guide – Erudera, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://erudera.com/canada/canada-grading-system/
- Canadian Grading System 2025 (For High School) – Mission: Graduate, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://missiongraduatenm.org/canadian-grading-system/
- The US Grading System Explained – mastergradschools, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://mastergradschools.com/master-study-destinations/us-grading-system-explained
- Collegiate Grading Scale: Everything You Need To Know – Campus Library – College Rover, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://collegerover.com/campus-library/news/21/collegiate-grading-scale
- A Century of Grading Research: Meaning and Value in the Most Common Educational Measure, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://tguskey.com/wp-content/uploads/RER-16-Research-on-Grading.pdf
- The Case Against Percentage Grades – UKnowledge, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=edp_facpub
- Standards-Based Grading: History, Practices, Benefits, Challenges, and Next Steps – University of Rochester, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.rochester.edu/warner/cues/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Standards-Based-Grading.pdf
- Everything You Need to Know about Standards-Based Grading – PowerSchool, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.powerschool.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-standards-based-grading/
- Alternative Grading for College Courses | Center for Transformative …, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://teaching.unl.edu/resources/alternative-grading/
- Standards-Based Grading for 2025: Definition, Benefits & Comparison With Traditional Grading | Research.com, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://research.com/education/standards-based-grading
- Implementation of Alternative Grading Methods in a Mathematical Statistics Course, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26939169.2023.2249956
- Alternative Grading – Academic Technologies – University of Miami, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://academictechnologies.it.miami.edu/explore-technologies/technology-summaries/alternative-grading/index.html
- collegesofdistinction.com, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://collegesofdistinction.com/advice/pass-fail-classes-guide-everything-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=In%20a%20pass%2Ffail%20class,didn’t%20meet%20the%20requirements.
- Pass/Fail Grade | College of Arts & Sciences – University of Pennsylvania, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.college.upenn.edu/pass-fail
- Do Pass/Fail Classes Affect Your GPA? What You Need to Know – UoPeople, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/do-pass-fail-classes-affect-your-gpa/
- What is a pass/fail grading system? – SoFi, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/what-is-pass-fail/
- Ask a Professor: When to Take a College Class Pass/Fail – BestColleges.com, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/pass-fail-classes/
- What is Pass/Fail Grading? – Scholarships360, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://scholarships360.org/college-admissions/pass-or-fail-grading-system/
- Alternative Approaches to Traditional Grading | Center for Teaching & Learning – Boston University, accessed on August 13, 2025, https://www.bu.edu/ctl/ctl_resource/alternative-approaches-to-traditional-grading-a-resource-for-instructors/
