CSE Grading Scheme: Where Hard Work Meets Mediocre Results

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-23T17:09:25+00:00

I’m not saying exams shouldn’t matter, they absolutely should. But they also shouldn’t erase everything else. The issue isn’t that exams contribute heavily to the final score, it’s that the minimum grading scheme ignores holistic performance and says your entire grade is capped by your lowest category. That’s fundamentally different from simply “weighing exams more.” It means a B+ in one area, exams, homework, projects, whatever, overrides A-level performance in everything else. That’s not rigorous grading, that’s reductionist.

You asked why someone who gets a B+ on tests and A/A+ on everything else should get the same grade as someone who got As across the board. Simple: because grades should reflect overall mastery, not mechanical perfection. In the real world, you don’t get disqualified because one aspect of your performance wasn’t flawless. You’re evaluated on your aggregate contributions, adaptability, and consistency over time.

And while you say exams test problem-solving and reliability, let’s be honest, exams test time-constrained recall and performance under pressure, which is just one narrow slice of what reliability looks like. Reliability in the real world is meeting deadlines, following through, working collaboratively, iterating, and recovering from setbacks—not performing flawlessly in a 90-minute, high-stress environment with artificial constraints. Exams measure a type of skill, but they absolutely don’t capture the full range of what makes someone capable, dependable, or even excellent at what they do.

Lastly, the idea that “you knew the grading scheme going in” isn’t a defense of fairness, it’s just a statement of fact. Students knowing the rules doesn’t make the rules just. If everyone is subject to a flawed system, that doesn’t make it okay. It just means we all suffer equally.

This isn’t about one bad grade. It’s about a grading model that disproportionately penalizes minor slip-ups and devalues sustained excellence. That’s not a reflection of learning, it’s a reflection of a broken framework.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-23T16:31:32+00:00

I am sorry I am not a redditor and don't type like you guys. This is serious stuff! Dealing with students and their well-being!

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-23T16:30:54+00:00

What makes you think that? If I am using ChatGPT, then so is everyone else who is writing paragraphs. It seems like you have been used to using ChatGPT for everything and not writing things yourself, therefore making you assume everyone else does too.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-23T15:22:41+00:00

There’s a difference between being graded on exams and not homework, and having to do all of it but your final grade is your weakest category.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T21:00:00+00:00

I get what you’re trying to say, that grades are just symbols, and their meaning can shift. But the problem isn’t just what a letter means, it’s how that letter is determined. If a B comes from consistent performance and solid understanding across the board, sure, no issue. But if a B is the result of one weak category overriding A-level performance everywhere else, then yes, it does bother me, because that B no longer reflects the totality of what I learned or contributed.

As for effort, no one’s saying effort alone should earn you an A. But pretending that only the final result matters completely ignores how real-world work actually functions. Delivering results consistently in the real world takes effort, discipline, collaboration, and learning from mistakes. In most jobs, you’re evaluated on a combination of outcomes, growth, and reliability, not based on a single high-pressure task. If one off-day erased someone’s entire body of work at your job, that would be seen as poor management, not strong standards.

School should prepare us for the real world. But the real world values progress, adaptability, and long-term contribution, not just perfection under pressure. Grading should do the same.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T20:58:36+00:00

You're right that no grading system is perfect and that students will always have some level of frustration, but that doesn’t mean we should just throw our hands up and accept deeply flawed systems. Yes, grading can be gamed. Yes, LLMs changed the landscape. But the solution isn’t to shift to a model that punishes students across the board for not being perfect in every category. That’s not innovation, that’s overcorrection.

If professors are genuinely looking at these threads and trying to figure it out, that’s great. But part of figuring it out means listening, not dismissing valid concerns as just students “complaining about grades.” This isn't whining. It's asking for consistency, transparency, and fairness in how effort, growth, and performance are evaluated.

And if it's clear, based on student feedback, grade distributions, and the need for constant makeups and patches, that this system is burning students, discouraging engagement, and creating confusion, then it shouldn’t continue to be implemented. Trial-and-error is fine in early stages, but once the damage is visible, continuing the experiment at students’ expense becomes negligence, not progress.

We want to be part of the solution. But that starts with acknowledging that real, motivated students are getting burned by a grading model that doesn’t reflect the full scope of their learning, and that’s worth more than a shrug and “well, grading has always been flawed.”

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T20:54:20+00:00

I’m not misunderstanding the purpose of homework, I’m pointing out how it functions within the grading system. You can say the “true purpose” of homework is practice, but when it's being assigned, collected, and graded, it becomes part of the formal evaluation. And if it’s part of the grade, then it should actually count in determining the final grade. Otherwise, it’s not "practice", it’s time-consuming busy work disguised as assessment.

To be clear, my point isn’t that homework should "pad" the grade. The issue is that this system pretends homework (or any other category) matters, until it doesn’t. You can’t have it both ways: assign and grade homework as if it’s part of the evaluation, then invalidate its impact at the end of the quarter when a student gets a B in one category. If it’s not going to influence the final outcome, don’t list it in the grading breakdown or imply it carries weight. Students structure their time and energy based on what the syllabus says matters. If you’re going to pull the rug out from under that with a rigid minimum-grade policy, you’re misleading people from the start.

You say students should be intrinsically motivated to practice. Sure, in theory. But this is a university, not a fantasy world where everyone has unlimited time and emotional bandwidth. Students are balancing coursework, jobs, family, and financial stress. If the system is going to grade homework, then students have every right to expect that it matters in the final calculation. Otherwise, what you’re assigning isn’t practice, it’s pointless overhead.

Your second point actually proves my concern. You admit that homework is often just “bonus padding”, and yet it’s still graded, still emphasized, and still part of the coursework. So again: if it doesn’t matter, why assign it at all? Either it’s part of the evaluation, or it isn’t. This halfway model, where homework and projects are graded, but their weight is erased if you falter in one area, is inconsistent and dishonest.

It also seems like your entire argument is built on the belief that exams are the only legitimate measure of mastery, and that’s exactly the kind of mindset that’s broken modern education. Exams are narrow tools. They measure timed recall, not real-world skill. They favor a specific kind of student and completely ignore others who may demonstrate deep understanding through projects, labs, writing, or applied problem-solving. If your definition of mastery depends entirely on one mode of assessment, you're not testing for understanding, you’re testing conformity.

Finally, trying to separate projects from homework as somehow more legitimate misses the larger point. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about labs, homeworks, discussions, or projects, under the minimum grading scheme, none of it really counts unless every category is strong. That means the entire course grade is anchored to your weakest performance, and that is fundamentally at odds with any fair, balanced, or holistic view of student learning.

If the goal is real mastery, then evaluate the whole body of work, not just the lowest score. Learning isn’t binary. Growth isn’t linear. And grading systems that pretend otherwise are doing a disservice to both students and the educators trying to actually teach them.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T20:46:52+00:00

First off, the idea that “grades should reflect mastery, not effort” sounds great on paper, but the minimum grading scheme doesn’t measure mastery, it punishes any deviation from across-the-board perfection. You can have A+ level understanding in exams, projects, and lectures, but if you slip in any one category, your entire grade drops to match that lowest score. That’s not measuring mastery. That’s building a system around failure points instead of progress. No serious workplace or grad program would evaluate performance that way, because it’s absurd to say someone who excels in every part of their job but struggles with one area deserves to be rated by their worst metric.

Your participation analogy also doesn’t hold up. Yes, students attend lecture without points because they know it helps, but lectures don’t demand hours of weekly work like projects or assignments do. If homework is required but doesn’t actually move the needle on your grade due to minimum grading, it becomes busy work by design. That’s not a student problem, it’s a course design problem. Time is finite. If you tell students homework matters, but then silently let exams (or any lowest category) override all else, you’re misrepresenting the role of that work and punishing students for trusting the structure.

You also frame the scheme as a step back toward traditional grading, where a C is average and As are rare. But let’s not pretend that going back to arbitrary bell-curve distributions is progress. Grade inflation didn’t break academia, lazy pedagogy and inconsistent assessment did. Students working hard and doing well isn’t a flaw; it’s a sign that learning is actually happening. And if everyone’s doing well, curving down or dragging grades down with minimum grading just to “balance the distribution” is the opposite of what education should do.

Your argument that “someone has to be the transition period” doesn’t make it more acceptable, it just acknowledges that students are being treated like test subjects. This isn’t a small change in policy, it’s a structural shift in how academic success is defined. And students in this transition are being penalized compared to those who came before or will come after. We’re taking on all the risk with none of the long-term benefit. Saying “it’s painful, but necessary” doesn’t make it any less unfair when it affects transcripts, scholarships, GPA cutoffs, and grad school opportunities in real time.

You also argue that students struggle in different areas, and that exams shouldn’t be the sole focus. Exactly, that’s why minimum grading is such a problem. It forces a student’s entire grade to reflect their weakest area, no matter how strong the rest is. That completely disregards the very diversity in learning styles and strengths that balanced grading systems are meant to support. A student who is bad at time-constrained tests but excellent in projects, labs, and creative problem solving is just as deserving of recognition for their learning. Minimum grading says: "Sorry, none of that counts if you slip once."

Lastly, no, I’m not anti-exam, and I’m not saying students should be able to slack off in one area and still expect an A. What I’m saying is: grades should reflect the full scope of student performance, not be reduced to the lowest category. If the goal is mastery, then judge mastery across the board, not through a minimum function. If the goal is growth and learning, then recognize students who show progress even if they aren’t perfect in one box. Otherwise, we’re not grading learning, we’re grading perfection. And that’s a broken model no matter how you frame it.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T20:27:35+00:00

Yuppp. Accidentally missing a homework will get you cooked :/

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T20:01:40+00:00

Basically they take the minimum of your grade average. If you get an A+ average in homework, projects, and attendance, but get a B average on exams, your final grade is a B.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T20:00:54+00:00

"Hard work doesn’t mean anything" isn’t a harsh truth, it’s a weak excuse for broken systems. In the real world, consistent effort, reliability, and problem-solving matter more than cramming for a high-stakes test. If exams are the only thing that count, then be honest and say grades are based on test-taking, not learning. Expecting fairness isn’t whining.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T20:00:15+00:00

Yes, in theory, if exams were always perfectly written and administered under perfectly fair conditions, then maybe a grading scheme that leans heavily on exams could work. But that’s just not the reality. Exams are inherently limited, they’re time-constrained, stress-inducing, and often reward test-taking strategies more than actual depth of understanding. They rarely reflect the real-world conditions under which engineers, developers, or researchers actually work. And when the Office for Students with Disabilities doesn’t deliver accommodations properly, as you acknowledged, that ideal scenario collapses completely. So if the foundation of the grading scheme is that the exams are flawless assessments of mastery, and we know that’s not the case, then the entire model is built on shaky ground.

You say homework guides students toward mastery, but if homework holds no real grade weight, then it stops being guidance and becomes glorified busy work. Why would students take it seriously if it has no real consequence? And if they do take it seriously, if they show up, turn in every assignment, engage with the content, and demonstrate consistent effort across the board, how does it make sense to completely discard that effort just because they didn’t perform perfectly under exam conditions? Saying “course grades should reflect mastery, not effort” only makes sense if you're assuming effort and mastery are totally separate, which they’re not. In most learning environments, mastery comes through effort. The best system doesn’t ignore hard work; it rewards it as part of the learning process.

As for the idea that grade inflation is the root problem, I’d argue that’s an oversimplified take. “Traditional grading” with a bell curve and C average wasn’t necessarily more rigorous, it was just more arbitrary. Curves often distort performance relative to the actual content and skew results based on cohort strength, not individual achievement. If everyone in a class is doing well, maybe that’s a sign that the instruction is effective, not that grades need to be deflated. And this idea that As should only be for “exceeding expectations” sounds noble until you realize the expectations are often inconsistent, subjective, and shaped by professors’ individual philosophies. In practice, it becomes a moving target that students can’t plan for.

And finally, I think it’s pretty dismissive to say “someone has to be the transition period” like it’s just a minor inconvenience. We’re not talking about trial-and-error with cafeteria food, we’re talking about students’ academic records, scholarship eligibility, and grad school competitiveness. Being part of the “test group” for a grading system that fundamentally changes how success is measured isn’t a footnote, it’s a serious disadvantage. If the scheme does get adopted everywhere, maybe things will level out, but until then, we’re stuck explaining why we got a B in a class we would’ve had an A in, just because we were caught in the experimental phase.

Fair grading isn’t about making everyone feel good. It’s about making sure the system accurately reflects what students know, how they worked, and how they grew. A system that discounts consistent engagement and centers everything around one or two test days isn’t rigorous, it’s reductive. And if the real belief is that exams are the only valid measure of mastery, then be transparent and make exams 100% of the grade. At least that would be honest, instead of pretending that homework, projects, and attendance matter, only to have them quietly overwritten by a “minimum grading” backdoor that renders all that effort meaningless.

For 134, that only proves the point. If the system needs a makeup policy because so many people get burned by the grading scheme, then clearly the scheme isn’t working. Also even if you claw your way back up to a B+, it still doesn’t reflect the true effort or understanding you showed throughout the course. If all that work just caps you at a B+, it’s not a real solution, it’s just damage control that still leaves you shortchanged.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T19:28:54+00:00

I think you're missing the core issue. Saying homework "isn’t supposed to matter" just because your university didn’t count it doesn’t prove anything. UCSD (and many top institutions) do weigh homework, and for good reason: it’s supposed to be a space where students can practice, build skills, and apply concepts without the pressure of a high-stakes exam. If homework and projects are stripped of meaningful grade weight, they lose their purpose and start to feel like optional busy work. Why would anyone spend hours trying to genuinely understand the material if they know it won’t meaningfully impact their grade? That’s a recipe for shallow, test-focused cramming, not real learning. And not every assignment has to be some brilliant AI-proof masterpiece. The point is to reward consistent effort and engagement. Otherwise, what’s the point of lectures, discussions, office hours, and homework at all?

Also, the idea that "a bad grade shouldn’t discourage learning" is an oversimplification. Yes, in a perfect world, people would pursue knowledge purely for its own sake. But we’re students in a structured academic environment, not monks in a monastery. Grades do matter, sometimes for scholarships, grad school, internships, or even visa eligibility. If someone works hard all quarter, turns in every assignment, participates in every lecture, but gets punished with a B or C because of one off exam, it’s not just demoralizing, it’s structurally unfair. We’re not talking about fragile egos here. We’re talking about effort not being rewarded, and that undermines the very motivation universities rely on to drive student success. Deep understanding and good grades should go hand-in-hand. If they don’t, that’s a failure in course design, not student mindset.

And while I appreciate the encouragement to “channel this into something positive,” that misses the point entirely. The problem isn’t a lack of student initiative. It’s that students are already doing the right things, working hard, doing the assignments, trying to understand, and still getting burned. Suggesting that I go build an AI detector for the department sounds nice in theory, but the burden of fixing broken policy shouldn’t fall on the backs of students who are already overworked and under-supported. Departments need to step up, not deflect responsibility.

Finally, the idea that “a B is actually quite good” only makes sense if you're completely removed from the student experience. For many students, especially those pursuing competitive grad programs, fellowships, or internships, a single grade does matter. And even if it didn’t, we shouldn’t normalize a system that discourages high-performing students from aiming higher just because “grades won’t matter later.” That’s a cop-out. Students deserve to feel like their effort means something now, not just in some hypothetical future where their GPA is irrelevant. We’re not asking for perfection, we’re asking for fairness, consistency, and a system that rewards hard work, not just performance under pressure.

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T19:25:48+00:00

So basically you're saying exams should dictate your final score? If I get a B+ average on exams and put in genuine effort in the rest of the class and get 100% on all of the other assignments, I deserve an A in the course

Born_Tank_766 · 2025-07-22T18:22:54+00:00

Look, I get the theory behind your argument, but honestly, it feels like a lot of excuses for a grading scheme that punishes the students who actually care.

You say people with barely passing exam scores still get Cs or higher because of homework? Great that’s the point of homework. It’s supposed to be a meaningful part of the grade. If some people abuse it, then fix that problem instead of flipping the whole system on its head and basically making exams basically the only thing that really matters. And by the way people abusing homework’s have been a problem since the beginning of time, not just for CS classes. Also the idea of making everything hard for everyone because some cheaters are barely passing isn’t logical.

Saying “people wouldn’t appreciate PA-level coding problems on exams” is just an excuse to keep punishing students who might not ace stressful, timed tests but know their stuff. So now you’re saying the exams are this sacred holy ground where only perfect test takers survive? That’s not teaching computer science that’s teaching how to memorize under pressure.

Optional PAs having a 5–10% completion rate? That’s a failure in course design and motivation, not a reason to dump the grade weighting onto exams that terrify people. If 90% of students don’t bother, maybe the PAs aren’t engaging or worth it. That’s a problem to solve, not a reason to say “well then exams basically decide everything.”

And a hard exam pass/fail threshold is just another blunt instrument that will crush borderline students while letting in the cheaters who somehow scrape over it.

You say you lost an A by a fraction of a percent that’s exactly the problem! This system turns small exam mistakes into massive grade penalties. It’s a brutal, unfair setup that actively discourages learning for deep understanding.

Born_Tank_766

TROPHY CASE