Talk:Latin honors

American-centred

The system of Latin honours has been in practice at European universities since the Middle Ages. There are five grades: Summa Cum Laude (I), Insigne Cum Laude (II), Magna Cum Laude (III), Cum Laude (IV) and Rite (V). Some universities only use four, others a completely different system. --194.230.122.67

Precisely! The article needs to discuss the topic from much wider angle. --The Merciful 18:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

194.230.122.67, do you have any references showing the use of Latin honors at European universities in the Middle Ages? If so, put the information into the article. The Merciful, Wikipedia is not a research team working at your behest. If "the article needs to discuss the topic from a much wider angle," then get cracking.

BTW, I took off the NPOV note, since there's no (apparent) NPOV problem with in the article. -Rjyanco 15:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The POV problem is in that the article is far too focused on the American system, when in fact it used in other countries, and is more universal than the text makes it out. Lack of relevant facts is bias too. I personally don't have the expertise to fix the article, but I do know as a native that in Finland we have latin honors for graduation exams of our high-school equilevant and universtity graduation thesis, and university studies are divided into abropatur, cum laude and laudatur levels. Note also previous commentator's notes of history of latin honors dating back to Middle Ages - after all, Latin was the language of higher education at that time in Europe.

It may be that other template, like {{disputed}} - which is stronger than {{NPOV}} - might be more correct, but at least NPOV-notice informs readers that the article has severe problems. --The Merciful 17:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Since no one is stopping you from doing so, why don't you rewrite it to meet your concerns instead of just putting a POV template on the page? You say that you don't have the expertise to do so, but it sounds like you know something, at least, about the Finnish system which you could add. —Lowellian (talk) 00:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge of Finnish system doesn't mean knowledge of the issue in general, and the article tittle is general. Besides, that "fix it or shut up" attitude isn't very productive in forming well working co-operative volunteer effort such as Wikipedia. After all, I did give some pointers that somebody, for example you, could use as a springboard to write a better article. --The Merciful 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It specifies it's talking about the American system. Why not stick a paragraph saying sometihing like "Non-American countries also use latin honors, which may be in a different sense" and take off the tag? Michael Ralston 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The article title is "Latin honors", not "Latin honors in American academia". Content should match the title. --The Merciful 17:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the article should be expanded to discuss use of Latin honors in other countries, to the extent that this benefits the article. Furthermore, I would love to see evidence confirming the claims of our anonymous friend about Latin honors being in use in Europe during the Middle Ages. The 1894 book quote (which I added to this article) is from a relatively contemporaneous book that doesn't otherwise overstate much, and if Amherst College merely borrowed the idea of Latin honors from Europe, I suspect that would have been noted in the book, rather than the book calling the system "original and peculiar". Certainly many of the author's peers (college professors) studied abroad, and the supposed creator of the system at Amherst had studied at Halle, Germany. [1]

Tracing the use of Latin honors seems like tracing the origins of baseball. If you want to claim that monks were playing baseball in Göttingen in 1528, maybe some evidence would be in order. -Rjyanco 18:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What is it actually that is called original and peculiar? Quote: The new system of administration, of which the above is a part, is so original and peculiar that it is known as the Amherst System. I don't read it as it's the use of Latin that is original! So basically what we have here is two conflicting assertions:

1. Latin honors were used in medieval Europe. This is supported by the well known fact that Latin was the language of higher education at the time.

2. (Not explicitly stated, but implied) An American school started, out of blue, using Latin honors on the brink of the 20th centry.

Furthermore, I already noted the Finnish use of Latin, and given the historical ties between the two countries, I strongly suspect the same is or was true in Sweden.

So, please don't remove the NPOV-tag before the issue is proberly resolved. So far none of my or 194.230.122.67's conserns have been invalidated. --The Merciful 08:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You've not noted the Finnish use of Latin at any time but in the present day. 194.230.122.67 has given no evidence to support his claim, which may simply be an assumption. Regardless, NPOV is an inappropriate label and is going away... again. You're welcome to add supported evidence to the article. -Rjyanco 15:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The modern ylioppilastutkinto was 150 years old in 2002 [2] and use of academic latin honors in Finland dates at least to 1886 [3]. The german wikipedia notes an Austrian system of Latin honors. The current article suggests the use of latin honors originated in america, but doesn't prove it. If NPOV is inappropriate, replace it with a better tag. And pleace don't make anymore insulting and condescending suggestions that I have an obligation to edit the article. --The Merciful 10:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I change History to History in America as to not conflict with the fact that Europe probably used it first. Don't take this personally The Merciful, but if you have a really problem with an article and it matters the most to you, you should take it upon yourself to fix it. the research you presented on this Talk page is good...you should incorporate it into the article though. I am suggesting you do so because you seem to be the most familiar with it. having a revert war is not productive and it really does seem like you are outnumbered on this one. i hope i came across as clear and not insulting, but persuasive. -- Bubbachuck 19:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I added an "expand" tag. I don't care about the article enough to edit it, but I do care enough about the potential reader to inform her that the article may be lacking. Plus, it might get attention of someone who does care enough to research properly and to edit the article. Surely all these tags exist for a reason? --The Merciful 08:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not just list out the different honours in an nonparticulated order, and then discuss how the different systems rank them? Finish... Austrian... Canadian... Curran919 19:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Proportion of graduates receiving honors

So what proportion of graduates achieve summa, magna etc? It'd be nice to have more information in this article. ZephyrAnycon 21:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Each university has different standards. It varies (often a great deal) between different universities. —Lowellian (reply) 07:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Answers.com

Answers.com has this article almost word for word. Just figured I would point that out in case it is of concern. Answers.com article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.88.180.182 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 April 2006

Answers.com is a known wiki mirror. Their article is copied from here. Millancad 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Relation to the British system

Can any academic who has worked in both the US and UK explain the relation between Latin honours and the British system of 1st, 2:1, 2:2 and 3rd? Adambisset 11:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have worked both at Ivy league and Oxbridge universities. The equivalents are those listed in the main body of the article, i.e., summa and magna cum laude = first class honors, cum laude a 2.1. The comment made below that a third-class honors degree is equivalent to graduating cum laude in the States and that taking an ordinary degree is "ordinary" in the ordinary sense is specious. Roughly 5-10 percent of students receive a third nowadays and an ordinary degree accounts for roughly 7-10 percent more. They comprise the bottom 20 percent, at most, of a graduating class. Hardly an honor, one might say.

I disagree very much with the comparison made between US and European Honours degree classifications in this article, and with the above statement as it too appears to be a bit under- stated and mis-informed. "Honours" means just that. Therefore, 3rd Class Honours is just what it states- Honours, if not it would be considered a "pass or ordinary" degree... Ask anyone who earned an Honours degree, if he would have liked to have earned a Passs or Ordinary degree, or a Pass earner, the reverse? I too have law degrees from the US, UK, and Switzerland, and I also have taught university in both Continents. Actually, it mostly depends upon the university and programme awarding the degree in the UK & EU. The US has summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude. Both the US and the UK have also ordinary and/or pass degrees. Although this is not an exact measurement, as the UK has a different grading & credit system than that of the US. Honours in Western Europe has more to do with the programme and the university attended and awarding the degree, and not strictly or only with GPA as it is the US. In most US/UK universities, it is usually measured thus, Summa = 1st, Magna = 2nd, and 3rd = Cum laude, which actually means "with honours,merit, or praise". Like the US,in the UK, the rest of the degrees are merely "Pass or Ordinary". —Preceding TEMPLEBARRISTER comment added by66.181.4.150 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the rough comparison of summa cumm laude + magna cum laude = first class honours. Asserting an equivalence between a cum laude degree (which in the US is generally in the top 25-30% of the class) to a third is specious. A third class honours degree is no honours degree really, as anyone in the UK knows. An ordinary degree is what a basic passing graduating average in the US would be (a C-average). Currently 10% of students at UK universities receive a first, much less rigourous than a summa cum laude or, at top US universities, even a magna cum laude degree. Another measure: Oxford and Cambridge graduate divsions look for either a summa or a magna cum laude degree from an applicant from the US. They all but require a first (nowadays) from a UK applicant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.55.102 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that the U.S. system and the U.K. system are even comparable. In the U.K. people can graduate with First Class Honors with only a grade average of 70%, and can get a 2:1 with 60%, so unless the British education system is more rigorous than that of the U.S. they are definitely not comparable, because in the U.S., to graduate with the lowest form of honors (cum laude) in most schools you must graduate with roughly a 90% GPA, which is a lot more rigorous to do. I think the grading scales are totally different and cannot be compared. Having an honors degree in the U.K. is definitely easier than having one in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.24.192 (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is more rigorous, actually. At least in many of the traditional universities. As a person who has marked papers at Newcastle University, I can tell you that the marking scheme in the UK is such that you mark upwards or downwards from 50%, and the scheme does not even go beyond 70-79%. i.e. in the British system 70%-79% is typically considered the highest grade if one has mastered all the relevant course material to perfection. Only exceptional students who seep originality out of every pore are typically given anything above. There are exceptions where some universities use a more American scheme. I am not sure, but I think Warwick does. In the US on the other hand a person gets marked down from 100%, so the full range of marks get used.

A First Class at a good university also means you're pretty much guaranteed any PhD at a top university. One engineering job posting I saw was particular telling. Intel asked for a microelectronics engineer with either a) a First Class Honours for a BEng(Honours) Electrical & Electronic Engineering with a strong Microelectronics component, OR b) PhD in Microelectronics. I doubt you'll find a similar offer for an American graduate where the standard engineering programmes do not have similar depth. The reason for the difference in the UK and USA is probably this: In the British education system we specialise early (through O Levels and A Levels). Then in university we intensely study a particular field. In the UK, non-honours degrees are 2 years, studying more general topics and they are no longer awarded in England. Honours degrees are 3 years. Only a student getting worse than 3rd class grades will end up with a non-honours degree. In the USA a 4 year degree is typically non-honours, however the top graduating class are said to 'graduate with honours'. Contrast this with the UK where the degree itself is an honours degree and only those who do very poorly are not awarded their honours (i.e. it becomes equivalent to a 2 year non-honours degree). Comparing the Oxbridge requirements for US students doesn't really help because UK universities typically have lower requirements (or more flexible requirements) for foreign students as opposed to students in the British education system, i.e. they are more lax with foreigners. I also know many students at good UK universities who got First Class degrees and had their pick when it came to fully-funded PhD programmes at the Ivy League or MIT, stateside. Consider also that a 2:1 is usually sufficient to get directly into most PhD programmes in the UK. Consider also that in the UK you don't mess around for a few years in the PhD - as soon as you enrol you're actively engaged in research and usually publish in 2-3 years. Usually a minimum of a 2:2 is required for a Master's. I am talking about the demanding courses like engineering, physics, mathematics as I don't have experience with the other fields. I think First = Summa Cum Laude, 2:1 = Magna cum Laude, 2:2 = cum Laude could be an accurate comparison. However, the systems are very different so making comparisons in the first place might be a mistake. Rlinfinity (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The UK first class honours degree starts at the level of cum laude (based on percentage of success for all subjects it would go up to summa cum laude), and all other comments are baseless conjecture. Second class honours and below are not honours in the US education scheme. Any statement such as: "I taught on both continents," is anecdotal, and cannot be confirmed nor yield relevant data. Further, a statement such as: "grading starts at 50%," indicates that the grading system is irrelevant and a farce, since there would be no grading scheme to evaluate a given population of students to perfection.

To add something anecdotal, discussions with UK graduates has yielded that they are not tested with the same rigour on each subject as their US counterparts, being that UK students are not tested per each subject area covered (each topic covered in a particular course for credit in the US), but on the module as a whole. Next, the UK education system has the feeling that any graduate is almost entitled to an honours diploma unless the student drastically fails. This indicates that the UK system is not statistically accurate with honours grading. Note, there would be a large number of normal (ordinary) students with a small percentage of top (honours) and bottom (pass) level students. In the US, only the top level students at an institution would be granted honours diplomas since they would stand out statistically from the expectation of completion. The systems are totally different since the UK system has economic class status built into its thought of an honour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.76.199.197 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

unreferenced

I tagged the article because it doesn't feature a published source other than for the "History of usage in the US"-section, as far as I can see. Kncyu38 05:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

By that standard you could add an unreferenced tag to 95% of the articles in Wikipedia. When encyclopedias talk about things that are generally common knowledge, there is (in my opinion) no need to give a reference. e.g., here's a line from the logarithm article:

The logarithm of a number x in base b is the number n such that x = bⁿ.

No source is given. Is that an unreferenced article in your opinion? Not in mine.

I know Wikipedia has problems with people intentionally slipping in false information, but unless the article being modified is obscure, there is a reasonableness line that needs to be considered. An article about something as common as college honors is not an obscure topic; most of what is in the article is either common knowledge or (in the case of the history, which is not common knowledge) it is cited.

Perhaps this is the test: "Is it the case that, if the article were incorrect, a randomly-selected reader of the article could notice that the information is incorrect?" If not, then you definitely need references. (If I assert that the Duchy of Kncyu38 existed in central Europe between 942 AD and 953 AD before being annexed by Hungary, then I would argue that a randomly-selected reader of Wikipedia has no way of verifying that assertion, which of course is false. But if I assert that clementines are orange, a reference wouldn't be necessary.

Do you see what I mean? -Rjyanco 12:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. - OK, I see your point, but there are two problems I have with those self-evident commonsense facts: 1) Where do we draw the line between self-evident and not-quite self-evident? 2) Simple facts about e.g. Latin honors should be easy to back up with sources, and every article can and should set an example for all other articles. So if an article like this isn't thoroughly referenced, how can anyone expect the same from Cheating in counterstrike? Kncyu38 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

re-tagging the article as unreferenced

I re-tagged the article, hoping for more and better references to be introduced. We should work to avoid any "self-evident facts". —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam filters

The "Spam filters" section is interesting, but is it really relevant to Latin honors per se? Should a similar cautionary note be added to every other article with "cum" in the title? Decagon 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also used by high schools

I don't know how many High Schools award graduates, but I just returned from the Niceville High School Commencement in Florida. Approx 20% of their graduates were awarded Summa Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, or Cum Laude, complete with differently colored "sashes?" over their gowns.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.131.62 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2007

• At Niceville? I hafta admit, that is pretty nice!
  --Jerzy•t 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  

Spelling

Are "Sum Cum Laude" or "Suma Cum Laude" accepted alternate ways to spell the phrase? -kslays 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not how you spell the Latin word, so I would think not.

"sum cum laude" means "I am with praise". So I wouldn't accept this as a correct spelling.

What about the difference in spelling honors v honours 136.186.1.186 (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistranslation

I think, those grades are wrongly translated, and I wonder why everyone actually uses those misleading translations.

While "cum laude" indeed means "with praise", "magna cum laude" actually doesn't mean "with great praise". That would be "cum laude magni". "magna" is a Nominative and thus can't be an attribute to "laude", which is an Ablative. In Latin, substantive and attribute are in the same case. Thus "magna" is a solitude substantive, meaning "the great", or in this case "the great part of the work".

"magna cum laude" thus means "the great part with praise", indicating that only some smaller parts have some weaknesses, but for the most the work can be praised.

The same is valid for "summa cum laude", in this case meaning "the whole with praise", indicating, that all of the work can be praised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.38.230 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly: the word 'laus' is feminine. Secondly: the feminine singular ablative of 'magnus' is 'magna', like the feminine singular ablative of 'summus' is 'summa'. Thirdly: 'magni' can only be either masculine singular genitive or masculine plural normative (and vocative of course) of 'magnus'. Forthly: wouldn't it be irrational that the wording of "magna cum laude" would give less praise to the work than "cum lade", while it is intended that more praise is given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.144.60 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

not at all, these grades are indeed wrongly translated, however this has been since decades, maybe centuries not only in the english speaking world. "cum laude" really has the meaning of "you did it, and you got some praise" (in the sense of here and there something was to praise). "magna cum laude" means "yeah, most of it deserves praise" while "summa cum laude" means "yeah, all of it deserves praise". Its just if you order some ice. you say "with extra cream" or "with much extra cream" or "with really really much extra cream" leaving the "lowest" amount of cream without any special extra wording (who would say "with a normal amount of extra cream"?)

I'm wondering whether you actually read what the other contributor has written above. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are entirely wrong, and the grades are not mistranslated. Your whole sentence above saying magna/summa is nominative in this context, is wrong. It is ablative feminine singular, according with the ablative feminine singular 'laude', see here for reference: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/magnus, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/laus#Latin (the 'f' stands for 'feminine'). Simply because magna *can* be feminine nominative, does not mean it is here. Saying it should be 'cum laudi magni' to mean 'with great praise' shows that you do not grasp the cases, considering - as the contributor before me pointed out, and as you will see in the reference provided - magni would be a masculine/neuter genitive singular or a masculine nominative plural or a masculine vocative plural, while your laudi is a dative not an ablative. Your sentence 'cum laudi magni' would mean 'with to praise of the great' (and actually would just be nonsensical Latin, as for cum to mean 'with' it always needs to be + ablative, not your suggested dative, see here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cum#Latin) I suggest you increase your proficiency in Latin before claiming that centuries of scholars before you were mistaken. I hope you have not taken the fact that no one responded to this in ten years as a confirmation that you were right! --User54321012345 (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hysterical praise

One of Fordham University’s student newspapers translated this as “with hysterical praise,” and so the university dropped the distinction and awards such degrees with summa honors, and a notation In cursu honorum, “in the honors course.” This latter notation is used by some other schools as well.

Anyone have a source for this? All I can find are ones that seem to come from this article.--Insomniac By Choice (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong information on Germany

I just noticed that you write, that in Germany, "these degrees are mostly used when a doctorate is conferred, not for diplomas and the newly introduced bachelor and master degrees."

This is wrong, as it has in fact been used for diplomas. I just got mine, so I know this info first-hand ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.188.220 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I find, as an example of bad organization,

The Finnish Matriculation Examinations at the end of high school equivalent lukio uses the grades of improbatur (I, failing; "not accepted"), approbatur (A; "accepted"), lubenter approbatur (B; "willingly accepted"), cum laude approbatur (C; "accepted with praise"), magna cum laude approbatur (M; "accepted with great praise"), eximia cum laude approbatur (E; "accepted with excellent praise") and laudatur (L; "praised"). Finnish universities, when grading Master's theses and Doctoral dissertations, use the same scale with the addition of the grade of non sine laude approbatur (N; "not without praise accepted") between lubenter and cum laude.

which is damn near unusable. I was interested in the ranking of the honors, but how could anyone be expected to use the material from the article without recasting it? E.g., so:

Finnish universities grade Master's theses and Doctoral dissertations as follows:

• improbatur (I, failing; "not accepted")
• approbatur (A; "accepted"),
• lubenter approbatur (B; "willingly accepted"),
• non sine laude approbatur (N; "not without praise accepted")
• cum laude approbatur (C; "accepted with praise"),
• magna cum laude approbatur (M; "accepted with great praise"),
• eximia cum laude approbatur (E; "accepted with excellent praise") and
• laudatur (L; "praised").

The Finnish Matriculation Examinations at the end of the lukio (equivalent to high school) use all of these, with the exception of N (italicized above).

This would be worthwhile, if only bcz it makes manifest the inconsistent style of translation, but in my case, it lets one count to find that third- and fourth-class honors are called magna cum laude and cum laude respectively.
Hopefully those with more time for the subject than i will be inspired to use this style, or something a bit better, throughout the accompanying article.
--Jerzy•t 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Honoris causae

Honoris causae redirects here, but "Honoris causa" redirects to the Wikipedia article Honorary degrees. There should be mention made of honoris causae, with a link to the proper article.BlueMesa171 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Belgium numbers are incorrect

The named distinctions are correct, the percentages needed for those distinctions differ from university to university, within a university and even to a small extend from year to year (same for schools) and are for Leuven roughly 70%, 75%, 80% and 90%. Also important: the facuties do not only consider the grades but also take into account whether or not the grades have been earned on the ´first` (not attended) attempt or the second attempt of the examination since many students had the habit to deliberately not attend a few subject at the end of the academic year so they could get higher grades. For most subjects at universities it's not possible to get more than 90% (you need to show a greater knowledge and/or insight than can be obtained with the mandatory studymaterial, the philosophy behind this is that only the professor himself can get a perfect score) which is why only a very small percentage of students receive the highest distinction (felicitaties = congratulations; 1% is a good estimation) since you need to get the highest possible score for each examination. To receive the second highest distinction you need to score for the average examination 1/20th point lower than what is needed to earn the highest distinction since in Belgium they use a discrete scale from 1 to 20. For the other distinctions it strongly depends on the study and the faculty what percentages of the students get what distinctions. For medicine, which uses a somewhat challenging entrance exam, for example roughly 20% gets high distinction, for engineering (burgelijk ingenieur), for law school and applied economic studies also a large percentage of the students get high distinction (companies strongly select on those grades), for engineering that percentage is a lot lower. In conclusion: the percentages of student which receive a certain distinction should be deleted, the percentages which are needed to get one of those distinctions should be edited whith the notion that these apply to a specific university in a specific year. 82.170.40.166 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

German grades were incorrect

insigni cum laude (with decorated honors) is not a German grade, but instead a SWISS grade. In Germany grades are instead summa cum laude, magna cum laude, cum laude and rite. While specific schools are free to divert from the rules, German statistical office ("Statistisches Bundesamt") has defined magna cum laude as "1.0", cum laude as "2.0" and rite as "3.0". The additional best grade summa cum laude, is considered to be better than "0.5". As normally students cannot exceed the 1.0 grade, this "0.5" is reserved asa special doctoral level grade for absolutely outstanding work.

In any case there is no insigni cum laude which is why I deleted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.167.4 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Maxima cum laude

At Latin honors#Types, it says:

A rarely used distinction, maxima cum laude, "with very great honor", is an intermediary honor between the summa and the magna honors. It is sometimes used when the summa honor is reserved only for students with a perfect academic record (4.0 / 4.0 GPA).

Maxima means "greatest", not "very great". I don't know if the description that follows it is correct, either, since it would seem that maxima should be higher than all others. Right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.up.edu/registrar/default.aspx?cid=2912& how U of Portland does it:

   summa cum laude will be awarded to all students receiving a 4.00 GPA;
   maxima cum laude to the next 3%;
   magna cum laude to the next 7%;
   cum laude to the next 10%.

maxima clearly is less than summa (as in summit - the top)

The Netherlands

In the section concerning the Netherlands, it is stated that three types of cum laude are used. This is in fact untrue for universities. Only cum laude is used, and it is somewhat equivalent to, as is correctly stated in the section, a US summa cum laude or magna cum laude, or a UK first. If one would disagree with me, please insert a citation in the section referring to the university in question that officially does make the distinction.

Wiki page duplication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_Laude is a redirect to this page but it seems somebody has created another page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_laude, the other page is 3 small sentences and provides no information that isn't present here. I presume it should be deleted but I'm new to wiki and have no idea how to go about it. mycorrhizal.network (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Beligum: why translate into French and Dutch?

In the Belgium section, we are told the French and Dutch translations of the Latin honours. That's strange, because this is the English Wikipedia. If the French and Dutch phrases are used in Belgium, the article should say that. Buster79 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pronunciation Respelling?

Seriously? People who need Wikipedia Pronunciation Respelling will not come to this article or those of related subjects. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Latin honors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this due to the sheer amount of unsourced claims, as evidenced by the tag that dates from 2007... JAGUAR  16:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed percentages from lead

As the entire article shows, the percentages and requirements for the different honours vary wildly from country to country. Therefore it was wrong and misleading to give "typical percentages" in the lead, as these would only be typical for certain countries, and far too high for many. EDIT: second section, not lead section. My bad. Fgf10 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit! I think it was unnecessary to remove the percentages altogether, though--a quantitative referential point for each of the honors was extremely helpful, and I've added some qualifications to address your concerns. The North American standard, I think, is particularly notable because it is uniquely prevalent and uniformly used across almost all universities in Canada and the U.S. Ravenclaw0127 (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin honors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170402165847/http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/order/2016/DO_s2016_036.pdf to http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/order/2016/DO_s2016_036.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Classification of Singapore

As a country where the lingua franca is English, shouldn't Singapore be grouped together with the English speaking countries on top of the article, i.e. North America and the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArticCynda (talk • contribs) 11:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

United States / Valedictorians?

Should the article stop at Summa cum laude, or should it mention, below Summa Cum Laude, the last step of being valedictorian