The letter grade system is basically this:
A - 80-100 B - 70-80 C - 60-70 D - 50-60 F - Less than 50%
In terms of rebuttal, what scott_s said.
A - 80-100 B - 70-80 C - 60-70 D - 50-60 F - Less than 50%
In terms of rebuttal, what scott_s said.
A 100-90 B 89-80 C 79-70 D 69-60 F 59-0
C's though were failing. Still, you had to try really hard to fail. The B's were inflated.
The difference is probably domains - a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience doesn't prepare you for much else than doing science. There, judgment for a tenure-track job begins and ends with publications. And no one will want to see grades and no CV ever includes them.
The CS departments I've been a part of don't expect students to publish much - if anything - until after most of their course work is done. That's usually about two years.
H (high pass),
P (pass), and
L (low pass).
Well, and and F, technically, but you are kindly asked to leave if you get an F.
You can have at most one L. You need to maintain a slightly above P average to be admitted to the PhD program.
When I was in grad school for physics, C+ was considered failing. Beyond that, we were specifically told, as long as we passed, grades didn't matter. It was of course quality of research that mattered.
I don't know how differently people faired with different GPA's coming out. I think employers mostly looked at publications and references. And I'm not far enough out to say who was "successful" yet.
I wish I had started out in departments like some of you described. I started doing research my first year, and my grades suffered for it. I got three of those Bs, and I had to take an extra course just to be admitted as a Ph.D. candidate in that program. Luckily, I have since transferred to a different school.