04-28-2004, 06:02 PM
Hi,
Students should recieve the grade they earn, not the grade they are given.
And just what grade do students earn? How do you determine it?
For simplicity, let us suppose that the grade is based on one test consisting of 100 true-false questions. Further, let us assume that the questions are all based on statements from the required textbook, there is no room for ambiguity, and the book's "opinion" is used to determine "truth". Also, let us assume that the class consists of a large enough number to be statistically significant (say 100 or more) and that the people in the class all have met some minimum prerequisite.
Even with all those assumptions (many of which are unrealistic or idealized), a test could be designed so that the statistics are high or low and tight or loose. So, how is the person grading class to use those numbers? On a simplistic <60 = F, 60 to 70 = D, etc. scale, the whole class could fail (low and tight or very low), the whole class could get A's (high and tight) or there could be any number of distributions.
So, now, look at the case of the same course taught by two (or more) teachers. Assume all the same assumptions as above, but that each teacher makes up his own test. Some are "easy" the others "hard". Now, what is fair? To penalize those that got the hard tests?
You might say "Make all the tests the same difficulty", but if you do, then I'll say "You've obviously never made up a test". The only true way to know the difficulty of a test is to use the same questions over multiple classes and keep statistics on them. That is the ideal way of doing it, but fails miserably in an environment where old tests are available to the students. So, that technique works well in, for instance, the military where there are usually no overlapping classes. It fails in the typical college, university, or even high school. Thus, a teacher is in the position of using judgment, experience and gut feel to make up a "fair" test. And they don't always succeed.
You might suggest a "standard" test be given to all sections of that course. Frankly, that idea is often used and it sucks. First, there is the problem that some teachers for reasons good or bad will "teach to the test". But even if all the teachers had the integrity to put education before grades, there is the problem that in almost any subject there are a number of equally valid topics which can be stressed, skimmed, or skipped. Each teacher has his or her own opinions on what is "important". Thus, even if the teachers were completely ignorant of what the test covered, there is still the "luck of the draw". Any given section of the class might have emphasized more or skipped more of what was on the test to the student's advantage or detriment. This is even more likely since the test *is* created by a human, probably a teacher, who also has his or her opinions as to what should have been covered and how much it should have been emphasized.
So, for the above reasons and many others, it becomes necessary to grade on a curve. Now, to many (especially those who have had to pass through the propagation of ignorance that is the typically "Masters of Education" program), the "curve" means the "Bell Shaped Curve", which most of them use, knowing neither its correct name (it's a "Gaussian" or "normal distribution", folks) nor its properties. But for many cases, the "curve" is adequate.
Aside: Rant on "grading on the curve". A straight line is, mathematically, a curve (one with an infinite radius of curvature). Thus, any method used to convert one measurement (grade on a test, perception of "how hard he's trying", "I don't like his attitude", etc.) to another measurement (F through A, possibly decorated with pluses, minuses, or whatever nonsense the "educators" come up with next) is "grading on the curve". Our society's attitude towards brutal frankness doesn't allow anything else. The teacher who would have the guts to say, "Mrs. Jones, I flunked your Billy because he's a spoiled brat that you've failed to teach discipline." would be my hero and the administrations scapegoat.
Back to the topic.
Grading on the curve implies deciding (in advance or after the fact) how many of each grade will be issued. One commonly used method is that a C is one deviation from the mean (~68%), two deviations are a D or B (~18% each) and three are your A's and F's (~2.5% each). Many of the concepts based on grades are founded on these values. So, the C which is now looked upon as almost a failing grade is still defined in most grade manuals as "average". And the A is usually called "exceptional". And we now have the ridiculous situation of the bulk of the population being "above average". You know, if every *applicant* to every national team for the Olympics was given a gold medal upon application, the gold medal would be worth less than an honest dog's droppings. And that's the way of grades.
And the prof teaching a class of ten? They might each and every one of them think they are brilliant, and he's thinking "How did these morons get here?" Should they get the F he thinks they're worth or the A they feel they "deserved"?
So, pissed at the grades your getting? Profs are unfair? Then get your degree, get behind that podium and do better.
--Pete
Students should recieve the grade they earn, not the grade they are given.
And just what grade do students earn? How do you determine it?
For simplicity, let us suppose that the grade is based on one test consisting of 100 true-false questions. Further, let us assume that the questions are all based on statements from the required textbook, there is no room for ambiguity, and the book's "opinion" is used to determine "truth". Also, let us assume that the class consists of a large enough number to be statistically significant (say 100 or more) and that the people in the class all have met some minimum prerequisite.
Even with all those assumptions (many of which are unrealistic or idealized), a test could be designed so that the statistics are high or low and tight or loose. So, how is the person grading class to use those numbers? On a simplistic <60 = F, 60 to 70 = D, etc. scale, the whole class could fail (low and tight or very low), the whole class could get A's (high and tight) or there could be any number of distributions.
So, now, look at the case of the same course taught by two (or more) teachers. Assume all the same assumptions as above, but that each teacher makes up his own test. Some are "easy" the others "hard". Now, what is fair? To penalize those that got the hard tests?
You might say "Make all the tests the same difficulty", but if you do, then I'll say "You've obviously never made up a test". The only true way to know the difficulty of a test is to use the same questions over multiple classes and keep statistics on them. That is the ideal way of doing it, but fails miserably in an environment where old tests are available to the students. So, that technique works well in, for instance, the military where there are usually no overlapping classes. It fails in the typical college, university, or even high school. Thus, a teacher is in the position of using judgment, experience and gut feel to make up a "fair" test. And they don't always succeed.
You might suggest a "standard" test be given to all sections of that course. Frankly, that idea is often used and it sucks. First, there is the problem that some teachers for reasons good or bad will "teach to the test". But even if all the teachers had the integrity to put education before grades, there is the problem that in almost any subject there are a number of equally valid topics which can be stressed, skimmed, or skipped. Each teacher has his or her own opinions on what is "important". Thus, even if the teachers were completely ignorant of what the test covered, there is still the "luck of the draw". Any given section of the class might have emphasized more or skipped more of what was on the test to the student's advantage or detriment. This is even more likely since the test *is* created by a human, probably a teacher, who also has his or her opinions as to what should have been covered and how much it should have been emphasized.
So, for the above reasons and many others, it becomes necessary to grade on a curve. Now, to many (especially those who have had to pass through the propagation of ignorance that is the typically "Masters of Education" program), the "curve" means the "Bell Shaped Curve", which most of them use, knowing neither its correct name (it's a "Gaussian" or "normal distribution", folks) nor its properties. But for many cases, the "curve" is adequate.
Aside: Rant on "grading on the curve". A straight line is, mathematically, a curve (one with an infinite radius of curvature). Thus, any method used to convert one measurement (grade on a test, perception of "how hard he's trying", "I don't like his attitude", etc.) to another measurement (F through A, possibly decorated with pluses, minuses, or whatever nonsense the "educators" come up with next) is "grading on the curve". Our society's attitude towards brutal frankness doesn't allow anything else. The teacher who would have the guts to say, "Mrs. Jones, I flunked your Billy because he's a spoiled brat that you've failed to teach discipline." would be my hero and the administrations scapegoat.
Back to the topic.
Grading on the curve implies deciding (in advance or after the fact) how many of each grade will be issued. One commonly used method is that a C is one deviation from the mean (~68%), two deviations are a D or B (~18% each) and three are your A's and F's (~2.5% each). Many of the concepts based on grades are founded on these values. So, the C which is now looked upon as almost a failing grade is still defined in most grade manuals as "average". And the A is usually called "exceptional". And we now have the ridiculous situation of the bulk of the population being "above average". You know, if every *applicant* to every national team for the Olympics was given a gold medal upon application, the gold medal would be worth less than an honest dog's droppings. And that's the way of grades.
And the prof teaching a class of ten? They might each and every one of them think they are brilliant, and he's thinking "How did these morons get here?" Should they get the F he thinks they're worth or the A they feel they "deserved"?
So, pissed at the grades your getting? Profs are unfair? Then get your degree, get behind that podium and do better.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?