system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The college 4.0 GPA scale is dysfunctional and poorly represents students.

Been wanting to do one of these for a while now.

&#x200B;

I find that the 4.0 scale leaves a lot of the students' academic work on the cutting room floor and presents them in a weird manner. 

A student can have a consistent  score of 89%, which equates to a B+, thus a 3.3 GPA.

*But* a student can have a consistent score of 90%, which equates to a A-, thus a 3.7 GPA. 

1% ( to \~5%) of a score in-class has the weight of about 10% on a 4.0 scale. 

And conversely, 88% has the same GPA value as a 89%.

90%= 3.7

1+/-

89%= 3.3

1+/-

88%= 3.3

This quantification is inconsistent, a student can increase their score by 1% and receive either a 0, 0.3, or 0.4 increase but decrease their score by 1% and receive a potentially different value change.  

 A subject that worsens this metric is when students request their professor to round up their grade (typically 89 to 90), as not everyone can benefit from a 1% boost no less have a professor who is willing to do so.

I simply think its inappropriate for a student to not be properly represented by the percentage they earned in-class. Students with a 3.7 aren't that different from those with a 3.3, but yet the scale appears to magnify their difference.
gpt
I would argue that a mitigating factor is that GPA isn't really used for individual classes, but over the whole education. In that time frame, we might assume that a student's course grades will be randomly distributed about their "true competence" in that class, so in fact an 89% student is only slightly less likely to get an A- than a 90% student. Thus, their average grade should tend to reflect that, where they'll both be hanging out around a 3.5 over the forty or so courses that constitute a degree.