Late enrollment in introductory computing is common yet consequential. Analyzing two offerings of a \course course (Term 1: n=204; Term 2: n=79), we find sharply elevated failure rates for Week~4 enrollees (Term~1: 41% F; Term~2: 100% F) versus on-time peers (Week~0 failures: 10% and 2%). These outcomes coincide with markedly lower engagement in support resources (office hours, exam reviews). While some subgroups (e.g., URM late enrollees) show pockets of resilience, performance by gender experiences dramatic changes. Results suggest late entry beyond Week~2 in cumulative, fast-paced courses is a high-risk policy point, and that structured catch-up and mandatory early support are critical.

Late enrollment in computer science courses presents unique challenges that may impact student performance, engagement, and retention. This paper investigates the academic trajectories of late enrollees compared to their on-time peers, focusing on performance across different assessment types, the cumulative impact of coursework, and engagement with course resources such as office hours, discussion sections, and review sessions.

Equitable grading practices, particularly the ''A's for All'' approach, aim to enhance student success for a diverse set of learners through formative assessments, eliminating curving, cumulative exams, lower-stakes assessments with retakes, and flexible extensions. Yet there is no common language to compare initiatives. To address this, we are developing a rubric to highlight which equitable grading elements are implemented in a course. This could benefit departments, who might showcase rubric scores to highlight faculty efforts; and students and advisors, who could make data-driven scheduling decisions. This poster presents our work-in-progress ten-point rubric, an example scoreboard application to four courses, and future work. Our hope is that this can eventually become a community owned-and-adopted lingua franca when discussing equitable grading practices.