Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
The Ministry of Education introduced letter grading system in 2004 for declaring results of the SSC and HSC examinations. This system gives the examinees a certificate in letter grades with a score sheet testifying their overall performance in respective exams as well as individual subjects.
The new system, however, has come under serious criticisms both in the print and electronic media; it also has survived a court challenge. The basic reason for all these criticisms is that the system has some inherent imperfections that might favour some students, while disfavour/victimise others. This critical point is explained in this article in the context of SSC and HSC grading systems by comparing the new system with the old one.
In the old system, each course was awarded 100 marks and the minimum pass mark was 33. Any number higher than this mark meant the student's higher learning ability. The total marks in each course were divided into four categories, called divisions: Fail (0-32); Third Division (33-44); Second Division (45-59) and First Division (60-100). Additionally, First Division was further sub-divided into two more categories called 'star mark' (75) and 'letter mark' (80). Thus, the examinees scoring 75 per cent or 80 per cent in all subjects were certified as receiving 'First Division' with 'star' or 'letter' marks. All these were done to recognise and distinguish the students' learning performances.
The main virtue of this system is that the qualitative or judgemental certification of the examinee's academic performance was made based on their quantitative achievements evaluated by the subject examiners. Accordingly, the system was fair to all students -- more and less meritorious. It was fair to more meritorious students (all-rounders) for two reasons. Firstly, the average mark indicated the exact status of their achievement. Secondly, and more importantly, the system distinguished differences in performance among the all-rounders. For example, the superiority of an examinee receiving 95 per cent marks is easily understandable from the one scoring 80 per cent marks, although both students are letter grade achievers.
These arguments also apply to students who show differential skills in mastering different subjects. For example, some students are good at mathematics and natural science subjects, while others are good at arts and social science subjects. Since the certificate of achievement is awarded based on average mark, higher and lower skills compensate each other. Accordingly, students can secure better certification even though they perform poorly in some subjects. For example, a student can secure a 'star mark certificate' even though he/she did not score 75 per cent marks in all subjects.
Compared to the old system, the letter grading system has some built-in mechanism that can produce biased certification. The current SSC and HSC certification system is described with the following table:
Like the old system, each course carries 100 marks and the exam papers are evaluated numerically, meaning the basic methods of evaluating the student's learning achievements are the same in both systems. The fundamental difference between the two systems lies in the qualitative certification of results: In the old system, results were certified based on average mark, while they are now certified based on grade point average (GPA). Since grade point (GP) and mark are two different things, the results certified by the GPA may not represent or reflect the student's actual performance. More specifically, the new system could unfairly favour some students while disfavouring and/or victimising others.
Consider grade 'A+'; it is the highest letter grade achievable in the system, meaning the maximum GP a student can earn in this system is 5. However, 'A+' ranges from 80 to 100 marks, suggesting a student may score any mark between 80 and 100. The unfairness in the system, reflecting its gross irrationality, stems from this fact. Although a student is awarded a maximum GP of 5, yet he/she might have achieved a perfect score, i.e. 100 marks. Naturally, the current letter system favours less meritorious students and disfavours more meritorious ones among the all-rounders.
Now consider a student scoring 79. This student will be awarded a regular grade 'A' certifying that his/her performance is 'very good' but not 'excellent'. Yet, there is little difference in merits between the students. The system thus has a tendency to victimise some students. Individual examiners might revise the marginal marks upward to overcome this system's inherent imperfection; but little can be done in the declaration of results. For, the student's overall academic achievement is certified based on GPA. An examinee receiving GPA 4.9 will be certified as an 'A' student, although his/her actual average mark might be more than 80 per cent.
This point unveils another serious irrationality in the new system; it rewards all-rounder students but penalises students possessing differential skills. As mentioned above, the vast majority of students possess differential skills. Besides, many external factors might cause variations in the students' performance in different tests. Accordingly, the conversion of numerical values into letter grades could be prejudicial to most students. For example, a student must receive GPA 5.0 in order to be certified as 'A+' performer. And he/she can receive the GPA 5.0 only if he/she scores 80 per cent or higher marks in all subjects.
The irrationalities inherent in the letter grading system described above have serious implications for admissions to post-secondary institutions. All post-secondary institutions use two criteria for admitting students in their programmes - combined GPA scores in SSC and HSC examinations, and admission tests. Dhaka University, for example, has fixed a certain combined GPA score as the minimum requirement for applying to its admission tests. This suggests some students might be deprived from getting admitted in their preferred programmes simply because their GPAs do not correctly reflect their actual academic performance. This is both a personal tragedy and a national policy debacle, because the system negatively affects the creation of the country's skilled human resources process.
Perhaps the Ministry of Education would like to have a closer look into the issue and find out the extent of the problem by undertaking a simple research.
Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi is former Professor of Economics and Finance at the Independent University Bangladesh.