ECTS grading scale

The ECTS grading scale is a grading system defined in the ECTS framework by the European Commission. Since many different grading systems co-exist in Europe, and considering that interpretation of grades varies considerably from one country to another, if not from one institution to another, the ECTS grading scale has been developed in order to provide a common currency and facilitate the transfer of students and their grades between European higher education institutions, by allowing the different national and local grading systems to be interchangeable. Grades are reported on a carefully calibrated and uniform A–F scale combined with keywords and short qualitative definitions. Each institution make their own decision on how to apply the ECTS grading scale to their own system.

The ECTS grade is not meant to replace the local grades, but to be used optionally and additionally in order to effectively "translate" and "transcript" a grade from one institution to another. The ECTS grade is indicated alongside the mark awarded by the host institution on the student's transcript of records. The receiving institutions then convert the ECTS grade to their own system. Higher education institutions are recommended (though not forced) to provide ECTS grades for all of their students and to take into account the ECTS grades awarded by other institutions. A certain amount of flexibility is advised, since the ECTS grading scale was designed to improve transparency of a variety of grading systems and cannot, by itself, cover all possible cases.

Requirements

The main requirements for establishing ECTS grades are: the availability of sufficiently detailed primary data, cohorts of sufficient size to ensure validity, proper statistical methods and regular quality control of the results obtained through the use of the scale.

Description of the fundamental idea

The ECTS grading scale is based on the class percentile (similar, but not identical to the class rank) of a student in a given assessment, that is how he/she performed relative to other students in the same class (or in a significant group of students). The ECTS system classifies students into broad groups and thus makes interpretation of ranking simpler. This grouping is the core of the ECTS grading system.

The ECTS system initially divides students between pass and fail groups, and then assesses the performance of these two groups separately. Those obtaining passing grades are divided into five subgroups: the best 10% are awarded an A-grade, the next 25% a B-grade, the following 30% a C-grade, the following 25% a D-grade and the final 10% an E-grade.

Those who have not achieved a performance sufficient to allow a passing grade are divided into two subgroups: FX (Fail – some more work required before credit can be awarded) and F (Fail – considerable further work is required). This distinction allows differentiation between those students who have been assessed as almost passing and those who have clearly lacked the required knowledge and skills.

This system can be represented in a table, as follows:

Grade	best/next	Definition
A	10 %
B	25 %
C	30 %
D	25 %
E	10 %
FX		Fail - some more work required before the credit can be awarded
F		Fail - considerable further work is required

Ects Users' Guide: "The use of words like “excellent” or “good” is no longer recommended as they do not fit with percentage based ranking of the ECTS Grade Transfer Scale."

Since the passing and failing groups are evaluated separately, indicating the percentage of students who failed a course unit/module is not obligatory, but transparency is increased if the percentage failure rate for each course graded is given. It is recommended that these rates be included in the Transcript of Records.

Conversion from local systems

The degree of differentiation shown in marks varies greatly not only from country to country, but in many cases within a single country, or indeed within a single institution. Expression in terms of ECTS grades is simple where the local marks are highly differentiated (i.e., the local grading scale has as much or more possible values than the ECTS scale). However, a sizeable number of instances exist where the local marks are less differentiated than those of the ECTS grading scale. These cases fall into two categories depending on whether the primary assessment data allows establishment of a ranking list or not.

Where the original assessment can provide a ranking list, this ranking may be used directly to provide the appropriate ECTS grade. In this case, decisions must be made according to the distribution pattern of local grades trying to avoid injustice to students.

Where a valid ranking cannot be obtained from the primary assessment data, only an ECTS pass or fail should be recorded. This applies to local systems where assessment is aimed at only pass/fail or threshold criteria. In these cases a pass should be indicated, for example by inserting the letter P or the word ‘pass’ in the column for ECTS grades. Such institutions which award only pass/fail or threshold criteria should indicate this very clearly in their Information Package/Course Catalogue as this fact may have recognition consequences for visiting students returning to an institution with a more differentiated grading system.

Sample size

Being a statistics-based system, the size of the cohort used as a basis for arriving at the ECTS grades is of great importance. When large numbers of students are being assessed for the same course unit/module at the same time, the situation is straightforward as the results of the assessment can be used to arrive directly at ranking and therefore to ECTS grades. A cohort of students where at least 30 individuals achieve passing grades is suggested as the minimum number necessary for meaningful ranking, although larger numbers are to be preferred.

A variety of strategies are open to institutions where cohorts are not of sufficient size. Grades obtained at different sessions or in different, but related modules at the same session may be compiled in a variety of ways to arrive at suitably sized cohorts. For instance, experience shows that:

• the marks over several course units/modules of similar level often follow a similar distribution
• the distribution of marks over a five-year period is likely to produce a balanced result.

Equivalency to other grade systems

ECTS Scale	U.S. Grade (4.0 scale) equivalents	British Grade equivalents	BERN (Swiss) Grade equivalents	Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Grade equivalents	Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland
A	A to A+ (4.0)	70 or over	6	1.0 & 1.3 (or 92-100%)	5,0 (bardzo dobry)
B	B+ to A-	60 - 69	5.5	1.7, 2.0 & 2.3 (or 83-91%)	4,5 (dobry plus)
C	B (3.0)	55 - 59	5	2.7 & 3.0 (or 79-82%)	4,0 (dobry)
D	C+ to B-	50 - 54	4.5	3.3 (or 73-77%)	3,5 (dostateczny plus)
E	C (2.0)	40 - 49	4	3.7 & 4.0 (or 69-72%)	3,0 (dostateczny)
FX	F	30 - 39	3.5	4.1 (*depends on faculty)	2,0 (niedostateczny)
F	F	Below 30	3

Further reading

• General: Grade (education)
• Belgium: [2]; active links at ULB [3] and UCL [4]
• Denmark: Academic grading in Denmark, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
• Germany: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
• England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: [15]
• Finland: [16]
• France: [17]
• Italy: [18] [19]
• Lithuania: [20]
• Spain: Academic grading in Spain
• Sweden:[21] [22] [23]

Practical example

The following table exemplifies the application of the statistical distribution analysis to convert an existing grading system to the ECTS scale. It refers to the Faculty of Law of the University of Regensburg. The original table can be found here. Compared to the above table though, the result seems unnecessarily harsh (only the best 2.95% get an A compared to 10% above, and to get a B you still have to be within the best 14% , not the best 35% as above, and so on).

Law Grade	Definition (according to exam regulations for German law students)	Percentage of students achieving the grade in the First State Exam	ECTS Grade
18 – 16 = sehr gut	A particularly outstanding achievement	0,30%	A
15 – 13 = gut	An achievement that lies significantly above the average standard	2,65 %
12 – 10 = vollbefriedigend	An achievement that surpasses the average standard	10,94 %	B
9 – 7 = befriedigend	An achievement that fulfills the average standard	26, 90 %	C
6 – 5 = ausreichend	An achievement that fulfills the average standard despite deficiencies	29,81 %	D
4 = ausreichend			E
3 – 1 = mangelhaft	An achievement that suffers considerably from deficiencies, as a whole no longer useful	29,38 %	FX
0 = ungenügend	Indescribably bad performance, total absence or failure to take any exams or do any work.		F

External links

• The ECTS grading scale in Aberta University's website
• Lowagie, Bruno (2006). "ICT for ECTS: ECTS seen from the point of view of a software developer – The ECTS Grading Scale ([[iText]])". Ghent University. pp. 5–7. Retrieved 2007-10-21. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• The ECTS Grading Scale at the State Engineering University of Armenia website
• The ECTS Grading Scale at the University of Lille website
• ECTS Grading Scale at the Ankara University website
• ECTS Grading Scale at the New College Durham website
• ECTS Grading System at the Tilburg University website
• ECTS Grading System and ECTS Grade Interpretation System at the Faculty of Engineering LTH at Lund University website
• The Official Bologna Process Website 2010-2020
• A Simple Method for Distributing ECTS Grades using PHP