Convert a percentage grade to the US 4.0 scale three ways 鈥?the quick rule of thumb, a WES-style band mapping, and your university's own scale 鈥?and see the difference between them. One number from only one method hides everything that matters.
WES evaluates courses case by case, so these bands are typical values, not the official table 鈥?WES does not publish one.
Your university's published table always overrides presets. The 鍖楀ぇ algorithm is widely documented; the 90/85/80 bands reflect common practice across Chinese universities.
3.4 clears the common 3.0 floor 鈥?good standing for most US master's programmes.
Most programmes want a 3.0 minimum; selective ones start around 3.5. The raw number is a starting point 鈥?university selectivity, subject distribution and the evaluator's course-by-course read all weigh in.
A percentage is a single number. A US GPA is shorthand for the average of individual course grades, weighted by credit. Slope a straight line between them and you get 梅25 鈥?but that assumes a 100% is four points of anything, which isn't how grades work in any country.
In China an 85 is typically solid work and 90 is excellent; in India an 85 in engineering is genuinely strong. Evaluators map these bands up rather than flattening them against a US curve.
On a typical US letter scale 90+ is an A and 80鈥?9 is a B (3.0). A Chinese 85 converting to a US B by raw letter would badly understate the same work in context.
That mismatch is the whole reason credential evaluators exist and why they work course by course. WES, ECE and their peers read the transcript, the institution, and the grading culture together 鈥?and their output varies by institution, which is why no single published band table is authoritative. The three methods above are an honest picture of the range you're working with, not a claim to a single truth.
And if your transcript carries ECTS as well, grades aren't the only thing that needs translating 鈥?convert your European credits to US credits in the same pass.
Divide by 25. Fastest and most common, but it flattens the top of the scale: 100% becomes 4.0 and 60% becomes 2.4, with nothing in between doing justice to either end.
A threshold mapping in the style of credential evaluators, adjusted by country. Band midpoints from this page are typical values, reconstructed from practice 鈥?WES does not publish one table.
Your registrar's conversion is the number to actually use. Common Chinese presets here; if your university publishes its own, theirs overrides everything.
Report what your transcript says first. Most US programmes take the transcript as-is or require a professional evaluation. If you convert anywhere, state the method alongside the number 鈥?the honest number beats a smooth one.
| Percentage | Typical 4.0 | Letter | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 95 鈥?100 | 4.0 | A | Top of cohort |
| 90 鈥?94 | 3.7 鈥?3.9 | A鈭?/td> | Well above class mean |
| 85 鈥?89 | 3.3 鈥?3.6 | B+ | Solid work, most common 'strong' band |
| 80 鈥?84 | 3.0 鈥?3.3 | B / B+ | Meeting expectations |
| 75 鈥?79 | 2.7 鈥?3.0 | B鈭?/ B | Below 80, above the pass line |
| 70 鈥?74 | 2.3 鈥?2.6 | C+ | Passing, weaker |
| 60 鈥?69 | 1.0 鈥?2.2 | C / D | Pass line at 60 |
| < 60 | 0.0 | F | Fail |
| Percentage | Typical 4.0 | Letter | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 85+ | 4.0 | A | Exceptional |
| 75 鈥?84 | 3.3 | B+ | Strong, common top band |
| 70 鈥?74 | 3.0 | B | Good |
| 60 鈥?69 | 2.3 鈥?2.7 | C+ / C | Above average |
| 50 鈥?59 | 1.7 鈥?2.0 | D+ / D | Passing band |
| < 50 | 0.0 | F | Fail |
'Typical' is doing real work here: evaluators vary by institution, subject mix and grading culture. Treat these as planning ranges, not guaranteed outputs.
Figures last verified August 2026 路 Band tables are reconstructions of common practice, not official WES output; WES result is course-by-course and institution-specific