Faculty Of Public and Global Affairs Grading Guidelines

Carleton University’s Undergraduate Calendar (Academic Regulation 5.4: The Grading System) outlines the 12-point grading system used by the University. It also stipulates that “standing in a course is determined by the course instructor, subject to the approval of the Faculty Dean”.

The University does not formally provide a definition of the standard for each grade level. Typical understanding is that an A grade denotes excellence, a B is good to very good, C is acceptable, and a D grade is barely a passing grade. Most undergraduate students in FPGA are admitted to Honours programs in which the minimum Major CGPA (cumulative grade point average) for graduation is 6.5 (between a C+ and a B-).

The following guidelines reflect current Faculty practice and the expectation that most students have the capacity to successfully meet the requirements for continuation and graduation. There may be variation from year to year and between units. The following data represent current FPGA practice, based on OIRP grades data from 2018-19.

• In 1000 level courses, the current practice is to allocate about 27% of grades in the A range, 27% in the B range, about 20% in the C range and 10% in the D range.
• At the 2000 level, about 30% of grades are typically in the A range and 30% in the B range. C grades predominate over D grades at 20% and 8%
• At the 3000 level, about 35% of grades are in the A range, 35% in the B range, while no more than 20% should be in the C and D range with C grades predominating over D grades (15% C vs 5% D).
• At the 4000 level, about 52% of grades are in the A range, 35% in the B range and only 5% in the C range.

The Dean’s office will be concerned about courses that have an unusually high percentage of D, F, and WDN grades. If the combined D/F/WDN grades are above 30%, units should consider steps that might be taken to promote greater student engagement and improvement of student performance.

Further note that:

• Grades of A+ should be awarded where merited, but sparingly, for outstanding work that goes beyond the excellence represented by an A.
• Senate medals for outstanding academic achievement by undergraduate students are awarded as follows:
  1. To the top 3% of the graduating class in each degree, subject to the requirement that the Overall GPA is at least 10.60
  2. To all graduating students with an Overall GPA of at least 11.00

When computing final grades instructors should normally use the letter grade-percentage conversion table (UG Academic Regulations, Section 5.4). The practice of curving grades is strongly discouraged. If you calculate grades in a way that deviates from the University grading system, the alternative grading scheme must be carefully detailed in the course outline and clearly communicated to students at the beginning of the course. Instructors are also advised to confirm in advance with the Associate Dean (Academic) that any proposed alternative grading scheme is appropriate and consistent with University regulations.

Academic units are encouraged to take measures to increase the likelihood of consistent grading standards in multiple section courses. This may include the establishment of a grades review committee where the instructors of multiple sections would meet to develop common approaches to grading, and to review grades from multiple sections before they are submitted to the Dean’s office for approval.

Final Grades must be approved by the relevant Chair/Director, and by the Dean’s office before they become official. The Dean’s office, in reviewing grades, is concerned about maintaining equity among students, whether in different sections of the same course, among students in similar courses in the same department, or among similar courses offered by different academic units. Where grades differ significantly from Faculty and departmental experience and expectations for similar courses, instructors should provide an explanation for the difference. Where significant differences are noted, Chairs and Directors and/or the Dean’s office may request clarification, explanation or justification of the submitted grade distribution. In the absence of a satisfactory response and/or justification, the Chair, Director or Dean may request the instructor to modify the grading distribution.

Was this page helpful?