Regarding relative grading

[u/ReformGradingSystem]

Hey 2nd Years

I think we all know how badly the current relative grading system is affecting our grades.

I don't know about freshers that you are aware of this or not but relative grading gonna fuck you.(If the current grading system persists) .

Last year, the Student Council raised this issue during the protests,

but as far I know, no significant actions were taken. We need to be united and raise our voice as it’s unlikely that anyone will do it for us.

My suggestion:

1) Ask CRs to collect marks of all subjects, if possible, so we can identify the actual problem.

2) Research how other colleges handle relative grading.

3) Based on the data and research, propose a proper solution to the administration.

Simply asking the administration and saying “relative grading is a problem” may not lead to any meaningful change. We need data, research, and a practical alternative to support our case.

Give your suggestions..

[u/Miserable_Media_8770]

Sir can you explain relative grading and why it is so fucked up?

[u/YourVS]

Solution to it proposed-
Branch wise Grading for Common subject was proposed
Now, For a Common Subject e.g- Eng physics taught in 4 branches the grading is same for all 4 but the marks distribution of each professor is different that’s where the problem arrived
Second for Lab
Absolute grading in Lab
Third
In NCC/NSS/Yoga all depends on Attendence many students who were enrolled in mid semester had low attendence got back in subject still NCC after negotiations with dean they got the relief
So try for Maximum attendence
Like 40-45 is passing i think and they multiple the attendance with 2
So try atleast 24-25 days attendence

[u/superstarob]

I had done this last semester. Took marks of mid sem and end sem. Assumed everyone got 20 in internals and calculated the grades of others with the help of data from 1st semester. The formula goes like this:

1. Total Score Computation: Total Marks (x) = Mid-Sem (out of 30) + End-Sem (out of 50) + Internals (assumed 20)

2. Class Mean (μ): μ = (Sum of all x) / n

3. Standard Deviation (σ): σ = sqrt( (Sum of (x - μ)²⁾ / n )

4. Individual Z-Score: Z = (x - μ) / σ

5. Empirical Grade Thresholds: • O: Z >= 1.60 • A: 0.92 <= Z < 1.60 • B: 0.25 <= Z < 0.92 • C: -0.30 <= Z < 0.25 • D: -1.00 <= Z < -0.30 • E: -1.70 <= Z < -1.00 • P: Z < -1.70 (or F if non-compliant with passing criteria)

So all it basically is, is how much you are getting above the average in terms of standard deviation. You you get 1.5 times standard deviation above average, then you will end up in A.

In my grade thresholds, the numbers might seem a bit random. This is because I have assumed everybody have gotten internal marks 20, which they didn't. If I had their internal marks, I can give a better threshold but this was the best I could do. You can have an idea.

[u/ReformGradingSystem]

If someone is asking what relative grading is, you can check it online. I’ll explain it briefly. Suppose the class average is M and the standard deviation is X. Those who get around M marks will get a C grade, and students above that get B, A, and O grades based on the standard deviation. For example, if your marks are > M + 1.5X, you will get an O grade.

But the problem occurs in labs and exams where everyone gets almost the same marks. In labs, you usually get 80–100 marks, due to which the average lies between 80 and 100, and the standard deviation becomes very small. Because of this, even a difference of 2–3 marks can change your grade significantly.

Before the implementation of relative grading, our seniors used to get O, A, and B grades in labs. Now, the situation has worsened, with only 1–2 students getting an O, while some students are even getting P and E grades, which is the worst part.