China grades out of 100 with a pass at 60 and 85+ as strong work. There is no single official conversion 鈥?梅25 gives one number, the common 90/85/80 band tables give another, and the 鍖椾含澶у 4.0 algorithm a third. This converter runs all three side by side, because the method changes the answer and your university's own table should win.
A Chinese 85 is roughly a 3.3鈥?.7 US GPA.
That clears the common 3.0 floor and is competitive at many US master's programmes. Selective programmes look closer to 90+, roughly a 3.7鈥?.0. The exact figure depends on the method and the evaluator's course-by-course read, so treat it as a band, not a verdict.
Chinese universities grade out of 100 with 60 as the pass line, and there is no single official US conversion. The three common methods disagree on purpose:
A straight line. Simple and memorable, but it treats every point as equal 鈥?an 85 and a 98 get proportionally different GPAs even though both are strong Chinese marks.
Steps through common Chinese thresholds: 90+ 鈫?4.0, 85鈥?9 鈫?3.7, 80鈥?4 鈫?3.3. This is the table many Chinese universities publish for applications abroad.
And the 鍖椾含澶у 4.0 绠楁硶 sits between them: it interpolates within ranges (90鈥?00 鈫?4.0; 85鈥?9 鈫?3.7 plus a fractional bonus) rather than stepping or drawing a straight line. Three methods, three answers 鈥?which is exactly why you should use your own university's published table when one exists, and expect WES to apply its own course-by-course evaluation.
Grading culture matters here too: Chinese marks cluster higher than US marks for equivalent work, and a 90 in China is typically strong work, not a 'B'. That's why the band tables give Chinese students a fairer read than a naive percentage-to-letter mapping.
The Peking University algorithm, widely used for applications abroad. It interpolates within ranges, giving mid-range scores a slightly different (usually fairer) number than a plain ratio.
The common Chinese threshold table, matching what many Chinese universities print on their own application conversions.
Percentage 梅 25. The fastest and most common estimate, but it flattens the top of the scale and understates strong Chinese marks.
Many Chinese universities publish a GPA conversion table on the registrar's page for study-abroad applications. That table always wins over the generic methods here. If your transcript already states a GPA, report that as-is.
| Chinese % | Reading | 梅25 | 90/85/80 bands | 鍖楀ぇ 4.0 绠楁硶 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95 鈥?100 | Exceptional 鈥?top band, rare | 3.8 鈥?4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| 90 鈥?94 | Excellent 鈥?strong, competitive | 3.6 鈥?3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| 85 鈥?89 | Very good 鈥?clears most selective floors | 3.4 鈥?3.6 | 3.7 | 3.7 鈥?3.9 |
| 80 鈥?84 | Good 鈥?above average | 3.2 鈥?3.4 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| 75 鈥?79 | Satisfactory | 3.0 鈥?3.2 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| 70 鈥?74 | Pass with margin | 2.8 鈥?3.0 | 2.7 鈥?3.0 | 2.7 |
| 60 鈥?69 | Pass 鈥?near the 60 line | 2.4 鈥?2.8 | 2.0 鈥?2.7 | 2.0 鈥?2.7 |
| < 60 | Fail 鈥?resit required | < 2.4 | < 2.0 | < 2.0 |
'Typical' is doing real work here: evaluators vary by institution, subject mix and grading culture. The 鍖楀ぇ 4.0 绠楁硶 figures show representative interpolation within each range. Treat all of these as planning ranges, not guaranteed outputs.
Figures last verified August 2026 路 Band tables are reconstructions of common practice, not official WES output; always prefer your institution's published table