I would say that grades are inconsequential in grad school classes. You're more or less expecting students to make an A, so that a B is basically a warning, and a C is failing (seriously--it doesn't count on your degree plan at most places).
I always found this odd. Why not just make every class pass/fail and save the trouble?
But at the grad school level it seems as if there's only two ratings. You either pass with an A or B (widely considered good grades), or you fail. There is no room for "average." So why bother keeping the same grading scale which is intended to show multiple ratings?
You have a flawed assumption here. The final pass/fail grade for the class is not the only feedback the student gets, it's merely the only result that goes on the student's record.
I think the harm is that it leaves less room for students to excel. If an A is expected, then what is above and beyond expected? You mentioned the problem if students get no feedback that they're edging closer to failure, well I see an equal problem when students aren't allowed to see when they have exceeded expectations. When letter grades are handed out, there is often less feedback beyond those grades than when it's pass/fail. So with letter grades, students in danger of failing know when they're dropping behind, but students who are excelling often have little to gauge how much beyond basic competency they actually are.
Well, I'm glad to hear that, but when the same grading structure trickles down the chain all the way to high school (or even just basic college courses), and it most certainly did in the high schools I attended and had friends at, and A is expected of all students, and a C is as bad as failure (but passes anyway), and there is no small and intimate feedback, the whole thing is royally messed up.
As long as it's not one of those situations where you curve down to hit that C-average. I've seen that before. Same line of thought processing that passes everyone, but running in reverse.
