Studied at the University of California?

[RobFett]

If you have studied at the University of California as part of your St Andrews degree, please email EDU@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK

Thanks,
Rob Fett
SRC Education Officer

[novium]

why? (out of curiousity)

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[BasilSeal]

Quoting novium from 09:59, 14th Jun 2007
why? (out of curiousity)

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

yes, why

[RobFett]

I am researching grade translations and need to find out exactly how UC grades have been translated, given that they operate on a 4.0 GPA system.

[novium]

I can't help you there. I can tell you how the UC translates St Andrews grades, but the other way around....

Actually, I am curious now. As I recall, a 14.5 in a third or fourth year class could get you an A- (3.7) in an upper division class. But each course was worth 12 UC credits, almost as many credits as you'd take per trimester ("quarter")... seems much easier for the UC to translate St Andrews grades and credit, but how would the university here deal with nine 5-UC-credit courses? Or grades, for that matter, because surely the UC didn't have anything truly corresponding to a 16.5+. Perhaps they read the syllabi and evals (if the UC campus in question does evals. Or maybe that was just UCSC).

Does anyone know? And if they do, would they be so kind as to share the details here, as well as with the original poster?

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[David Bean]

Didn't Darshan Sanghrajka go to UCL? I swear he did, because he met my ex-girlfriend whilst he was there (she was a JYA studying here). Actually, yes, I've checked, and he did. You can find him on Facebook.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[novium]

UCL?

Quoting David Bean from 19:41, 14th Jun 2007
Didn't Darshan Sanghrajka go to UCL? I swear he did, because he met my ex-girlfriend whilst he was there (she was a JYA studying here). Actually, yes, I've checked, and he did. You can find him on Facebook.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[RobFett]

Novium, do you have any kind of table which shows how the translation from UC to St Andrews works. If so can I have it?

[David Bean]

Oops, I meant UCL*A*.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[novium]

Quoting Robfett from 20:02, 14th Jun 2007
Novium, do you have any kind of table which shows how the translation from UC to St Andrews works. If so can I have it?

I'm afraid I don't. How the UC interpreted St Andrews' marks depended a lot on evals we had to ask the teachers to fill out for us at the end of term. Plus, as I said, it was St Andrews to UC, not the other way around, so I don't think it would be much use. But roughly it went:
A)Mark Achieved(at st andrews) B)Grade Received (at the UC):
A)14.5-16.5 B)3.7-4.0 (i.e. A- to A+ (they never gave credit for A+s, don't ask me why)
A)11.5-14.5 B)2.7-3.7 (i.e B- to B+/A-)

I don't know about below a 11.5. I would assume that C level was around 9-11, and below that would be a D, with a 5 and being an F.

But once again, this is the wrong way round for what you are doing.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[nalgene]

The translation we were given last year was different:

16+ = A
15 = A-
14 = B+

...I do not remember how it went from there. The grades did take into account professor evaluations and were subject to some variation if an individual was between marks.

I might call the UC Study Centre in Edinburgh should you require better information:

Address:
50 Buccleuch Street
Edinburgh EH8 9LP
Scotland, UK

Phone: +44 (0)131 662 8988
Fax: +44 (0)131 662 8060
Email: staff@uceapedinburgh.org.uk

[novium]

well, I got a B- for a class I got an 11 point something in, and an A- for a class with 14.7. But I don't know. Either way, it's the wrong way round. The UC is going to be translating the grades differently than St Andrews will deal with UC classes.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[RJ Covino]

Quoting David Bean from 19:41, 14th Jun 2007
Didn't Darshan Sanghrajka go to UCL?

Given he's among the new Uni webpage's poster boys, you'd think he'd never left...

[RJ Covino]

Quoting David Bean from 19:41, 14th Jun 2007
Didn't Darshan Sanghrajka go to UCL?

Given he's among the new Uni webpage's poster boys, you'd think he'd never left...

[RobFett]

Thanks Novium, what you said about how UC translated the grades was interesting, they seem to be doing it the same way as St Andrews which I was hoping they wouldn't.

You said that UC don't give credit for anything above 16.5 -- St Andrews have been using a conversion scale based upon maximum GPA of 4.33 even though some US universities work to a 4.0 scale. This means that however hard you work at a US 4.0 Univerity (ie. you manage to get a 4.0), it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anything above a 17 at St Andrews.

http://foi.st-andrews.ac.uk/Publication ... erv?id=814

This is the point that I am trying to understand and nobody has yet been able to explain it to me. Anybody who can PLEASE get in touch ASAP! Thanks for the UC contact details nalgene. Novium, which UC do you/did attend?

[novium]

Well, the UC doesn't have any way to give credit for above 16.5. A's are the best you can do, gradewise, and are at a level where it would be technically possible for everyone to get one (i.e. getting all the answers right, whatever)

As to the 4.0 thing...I never understood why the UC didn't do 4.3 either. Some schools don't bother with the +/-, the just have ABCDF. Logically, they should have a 4.3. But they don't. Oh well. I went to UC Santa Cruz.
I would think the university here should pay more attention to the letter grade than the grade points. For surely, an A+ is the closest thing the UC has to the above 16.5s. They just don't change the weight of your GPA - but they are exceptional. I only had 1 out of 27 classes taken, of which roughly almost half were As. I also had a professor write in an eval that he never gave out A+s, but he was tempted to make an exception for me. (quite a compliment). So, given how hard they are to get, you'd think the university would just think A+ = 17, even if A+ = 4.0

Quoting RobFett from 13:59, 15th Jun 2007
Thanks Novium, what you said about how UC translated the grades was interesting, they seem to be doing it the same way as St Andrews which I was hoping they wouldn't.

You said that UC don't give credit for anything above 16.5 -- St Andrews have been using a conversion scale based upon maximum GPA of 4.33 even though some US universities work to a 4.0 scale. This means that however hard you work at a US 4.0 Univerity (ie. you manage to get a 4.0), it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anything above a 17 at St Andrews.

http://foi.st-andrews.ac.uk/Publication ... erv?id=814

This is the point that I am trying to understand and nobody has yet been able to explain it to me. Anybody who can PLEASE get in touch ASAP! Thanks for the UC contact details nalgene. Novium, which UC do you/did attend?

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[RobFett]

The way it's been explained to me is that the difference between A and A+ at a 4.0 uni is negligable -- it doesn't affect you're GPA and whether a professor gives one out is an arbitrary decision. So to all intents and purposes they ARE the same thing.

On the other hand, at a 4.33 Uni an A+ is equivilant to a GPA in the range 4.0 - 4.33 and these DO affect your GPA.

Therefore, when converting between grading systems:
1) the GPA not the letter grade should be used
2) whether the university uses 4.0 or 4.33 is RELEVANT and so there should be two seperate conversion scales!!

Novium, are you sure it was UCSC that did the conversion and not st andrews?

[nalgene]

Grade translations from the St. Andrews 20-point scale to letter grades are done by the director of the UC Study Centre in Edinburgh. This person is a professor from one of the campuses of the University of California and spends two years at the site. The director receives transcripts from St. Andrews and translates the grades according to certain standards whilst giving consideration to professor evaluations.

A+ grades are given at the discretion of professors and do not have any effective impact on GPAs; however, they do look nice on transcripts and make graduate schools happy). Most American universities operate on a 4.0 scale.

If there is confusion as to what the translation policy is from UC to St. Andrews grades, there ought to be some coordinator to ask for clarification. Unless, of course, you're objecting to the policy and desire to change it.

[novium]

nalgene answered about the study center.
I think you are missing the point about A+s, especially in schools that have them equal the same thing as a regular old A. The difference is not negligible. It does not affect your GPA at the University of California(although, logically, it should, because for every other grade, it gives/takes points away for +/-).... but because of that, it is *rare* and special. It is a mark of distinction. Which is why you would think they would count it, at least for upper division/honors level translations of grades into st andrews marks.

The thing is, the way the system works in the states, GPAs are well, just that, for averages. But for individual classes, it is the letter grades that matter. The system is really the issue. It is different at the UCs; there is no true equivalent of 17-20 , since an A just means that you've done all that was reasonably expected of you.Getting A's is easy at home. It's a cakewalk compared to getting 16s in 3rd/4th year and taught postgrad classes. At home, there are no points given out for doing above and beyond the professors' wildest expectations. Under the UC grade/gpa system, 100%= A.

So, as I said, A+s are exceedingly rare, and only doled out when you have amazed the hell out of a professor.
So if i were doing the grades for UC to St Andrews, I'd make A+s = 17-20, depending on what the class was.

I'd say it would be damn near impossible to tell the difference between an A+ that should earn a 16 and an A+ that should earn a 17-20 at a university that made A+s worth 4.3 (because then, 4.3= 100 %, so how do you tell if it is going beyond that?)

[RobFett]

I disagree with your point that an A+ should be equivilant to a 17-20. I suppose it depends on the course you are doing, but certainly in the science faculty it is perfectly possible to get in that range and you certainly don't have to go beyond the professors wildest expectations to get it. So you might have a St Andrews student who often gets a 17 or 18. But when he does a year in America it is virtually impossible to get an A+, and he will probably only achieve an A. Therefore when their A grades are translated to the St Andrews system they are prevented from ever getting over a 16 which is grossly unfair.

I do agree with you though that it is unfair on a clever/hardworking American Student who ends up with the same GPA for either a 16 or a 20 -- the system should allow them the reap extra rewards for the extra work. Although the current translation system is of course benificial to the American Student because it means they only need a 16, rather than a 20 to get the highest American 4.0 GPA.

Therefore the current translation system benifits Americans and disadvantages St Andreans.


[The above is all based on the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that say out of a class of 100 students: in An American 4.0 School only about 3 or 4 would be awarded an A+ whereas at St Andrews there would be about 10-15 students with a 17-20]