The game theory around grades is interesting. I went to a well regarded US CS school for a masters, and we were told essentially that "Being good enough to get in here means you're smart and capable, and being middle of the pack here is still doing very well. In order to communicate that to companies doing hiring, the minimum allowed average is a B".
I don't know for sure, but I expect most of my decent, but not truly exceptional cohort had GPAs much above a B. There were a couple courses that bucked the trend. Which ones theses were was well known, and many folks, looking to work at FAANG, dodged them because of it. I already had employment figured out, and optimized for things besides GPA. I was a bit too ambitious, receiving a number of Bs, but also learned a ton. Maybe that will bit me if someone cares to look back 5+ years at my grades, but that's a separate problem.
If you're a professor assigning grades, with little ability to communicate the intricacies of your grades to those looking at them, what do you do? Accurately assigning grades hurts your students, and getting everyone to change is a collective action problem.
I don't know for sure, but I expect most of my decent, but not truly exceptional cohort had GPAs much above a B. There were a couple courses that bucked the trend. Which ones theses were was well known, and many folks, looking to work at FAANG, dodged them because of it. I already had employment figured out, and optimized for things besides GPA. I was a bit too ambitious, receiving a number of Bs, but also learned a ton. Maybe that will bit me if someone cares to look back 5+ years at my grades, but that's a separate problem.
If you're a professor assigning grades, with little ability to communicate the intricacies of your grades to those looking at them, what do you do? Accurately assigning grades hurts your students, and getting everyone to change is a collective action problem.