THE ATENEO Higher Education Cluster (HEC) proposed a unified grading system, adding an “A–” grade equivalent to 3.75 in all grading structures. With its target implementation by AY 2027–2028, the University described the reform as part of a “broader effort toward academic alignment and mobility” across the HEC.

Notably, the new letter grade of A– will have the numerical equivalent cutoff of 91–95, while “A” will have a 96–100 cutoff, in contrast with the current system of 92–100 for an “A.”

Expounding on this change, Vice President for Higher Education Maria Luz Vilches, PhD shared that the current grading system across undergraduate to graduate-level programs poses a transitional difficulty for students due to the use of three distinct grading schemes—letter grades, Quality Point Index (QPI), and numeric grades. 

With this, Vilches specified that the lack of a unified grading framework may complicate the interpretation of academic standing and performance, requiring students to navigate differing evaluative standards as they progress across programs.

Rationale behind reform

Given the plans for the unified grading scheme, Vilches stated that the University formed the Task Force for Grades—consisting of faculty members representing the nine HE schools—to streamline the grading scale endorsement.

With the creation of a Task Force, students expressed concerns regarding the lack of student consultations prior to the announcement of the change to the grading system. 

To this, Vilches assured that the proposal has undergone continuous presentations to various councils and committees, including school deans and faculty bodies, before receiving approval for implementation.

Moreover, Vilches explained during a consultation with the Sanggunian on February 11 that students were not invited to become part of the task force, as the administration will already be presenting the reform to the student body once approved by the School Council.

In the same consultation, Scholars’ Sectoral Board (SSB) Representative Hxyll Almonguera expressed concerns about how the unified grading system will affect the welfare of the scholars.

“Another factor of a stable well-being of scholars is the stable and supportive academic environment […] ultimately, the stress or anxiety of the scholars will increase, especially for those who are grade-conscious,” Almonguera shared in a mix of English and Filipino.

In response to this, Vilches expressed that while she understands the concerns about the new grading system, the current grading system of having 92–100 for an A is a “huge range.” Thus, she mentioned that the new grading system aims to uphold the standards because “if the caliber of the student is an A, that student will get an A.”

Despite this, she assured that the current students will not be affected by the said grading system, as it will only be applied for the incoming freshmen starting AY 2027–2028.

Additionally, she shared that AY 2026–2027 will be the transition year for faculty members to pilot the new system “for familiarity,” while continuing to use the current grading scale for official records.

Challenging the shift

Raising apprehensions over the proposal, Sanggunian President Annika Torres emphasized that adding “A–” could promote an unhealthy educational environment between students due to the reform’s nature of “favoring precision and competition.”

Similarly, students voiced reservations about the proposed unified grading system in a survey released by the Sanggunian on November 25, particularly regarding the increased difficulty of attaining an “A” grade.

Expounding findings from the survey, Torres explained that the students “did not understand” the purpose of the grading system proposal. She also mentioned that during consultations with department chairs, they were also at a loss about its implementation because departments follow different grading thresholds and standards.

With this, the Sanggunian released a statement in November 2025, recommending other grading reforms, such as having A+ and A rather than A–, which recognizes exceptional performance rather than raising the bar for “A” grade.

Likewise, the SSB released a statement in response to the proposed unified grading system, urging the administration to remain “grounded in cura personalis (person for others)” through University policies that align with students’ lived realities and contexts.

Almonguera also emphasized that having good grades gives the scholars “a sense of security and assurance,” both in maintaining scholarships and accessing opportunities beyond the Ateneo.

To ensure stronger representation of the student body, Almonguera acknowledged the challenge for the Central Assembly in consolidating and unifying each student sector’s opinions before raising concerns to the administration.

Subsequently, Almonguera shared that SSB launched SchoCheck—a survey on scholars’ views regarding various University concerns, including the unified grading system. He added that the findings will be consolidated into a report that will be sent to the Office of Admission and Aid.

Standardization or support

With the transition period for the faculty starting next academic year, Vilches acknowledged broader concerns over the students’ continued “grade-consciousness.” However, she emphasized that competition is “within the self” rather than with others because grades will ultimately no longer matter in the workplace.

“The duty of the institution is to maintain standards […] [and to] help [students] measure success realistically. […] [If students] fulfill their academic responsibilities well, [they] should be able to protect their academic standing and welfare,” Vilches assured.

Beyond his concerns for the policy, Almonguera expressed hope for stronger and consistent communication with the administration on major academic reforms. “[I hope that] before announcing a memorandum, it must be ensured that the student body and the Sanggunian are involved in the decision-making process,” he reiterated.

Likewise, Torres underscored the importance of student involvement in major University proposals. She shared that consultations would feel “tokenistic” if students are not equally involved in developing proposals as the administration.

Moving forward, Torres hopes that the administration will remember that maintaining academic standards should not come at the expense of students’ ability to engage effectively with their education.