that is the question - I normally do not curve. That is, I set the bar for A, B, C and F during the first lecture and advertise it in syllabus - if entire class earns an A as a result, good for them. My A is typically about 85% of max, and my TA do all the grading - so I can't influence the outcome (much).
But Mrs. Ponderer was complaining to me when about 100 students out of 230 or so got A or A-, she thinks this is WAY too high. She thinks I should give A only to top 25% or so of all students, and that I am the cause of the all the grade inflation I complain to her about.
My view is different - if I am teaching E&M, then the goal of the class is to learn specific facts about electricity and magnetism. If the only requirement for Navy Seal is to run 100m dash in under 15 seconds, then everyone who runs 100m dash under 15 seconds gets a pass.
If we are talking about olympic trials where only top 3 in the country can represent, then instead of imposing arbitrary 15-second cut-off, you get to go to olympis only if you are among top 3 fastest sprinters in the world at the olympic trials.
I believe most of my job deals with making sure engineers have the skills and knowledge that makes them qualified to build bridges, rather than selecting top N engineers to build bridges.
If that is the case, then the absolute standards should be applied (and advertised well in advance), rather than similarly arbitrary relative curve standards.
Any thoughts?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I completely agree. I have never graded on a curve. I do not see any reason why I should be expected to fail a given fraction of the class. If they all perform adequately, I think that they should all pass. By the same token, I want to be free to give as many A's as I see fit.
And I also want my "A" to mean something to an outside evaluator, not simply be a relative assessment of the performance of the student against all others who happened to be taking the same class. So, being the best student in my class would not guarantee an "A" (but administrators can change grades, if they see it fit).
I certainly don't curve to maintain a preset proportion of As, Bs, etc. I curve a bit based on a rough estimate of how difficult the course/grading might have been relative to other sections or previous years. I'd be willing (neh, happy) to give a large fraction of As.
With that said, this is not grade inflation. You know such inflation when you see it, and this ain't it. I think much of grade inflation occurs not so much with the grade, but with one's expectations of the students.
I would say it's not so simple. Especially for courses with more than one section being taught by different professors, I think it's fair to adjust those grades to make them somewhat comparable in case one of the professor's assignments, for example, were much harder.
Other than that, I basically agree with you, but if you're giving a higher than average fraction of As, maybe the course itself should be harder? In your analogy, it would be like having Navy Seals run the 100 m in 30 seconds. Everyone would pass and you would conclude that the test wasn't difficult enough because they could do so much more.
Perhaps surprisingly to okham, I agree with him. I have not graded on a curve in many years and for precisely the reasons he gave. It turns out, that without actually deciding this, it is very hard to get an A in my class but likewise fairly difficult to out-and-out fail (though it has been done more often than getting an A). I adopted this method of grading independent of the fact that my college is rabidly anti-grade inflation (they keep some rough long-term stats on profs and have a rough distribution they prefer to see - personally I just go about my business and end up matching their expectations more or less).
Not only would I say your approach is reasonable but point out that in many universities, your approach is required, although with a twist that might make the difference. It was certainly the case in Australia when I was an undergraduate and grad student (although introduced while I was there). Lecturers are required to set standard of knowledge that is required to get the various levels of grades. Then they teach the course, examine the students, and set the numerical grades equivalent to an A,B,C, etc. based on the criteria they set at the beginning of the course. (They call it criterion-based assessment.)
How do you differentiate between an average and a brilliant student when both can get the same grade .......
Not grading on the curve is a developed-world phenomena, where it is easy for an "average" person to be considered "brilliant". And it is justifiable because raising the bar in a developed country will cause students to drop out.
The same will happen in a developing country when it becomes developed. Development brings comfort and convenience, but also laziness and incompetence. The cycle goes on ..... When the developed country becomes developing, people become more hard working and competetive.
US civilization is too new, and it may be difficult for you to understand this on the global/historical context.
Anonymous:
Not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that *not* grading on a curve can be discriminatory? While that might possibly hold in some circumstances, I fail to see how it would apply to a physics course where certain prerequisites generally exist. In short, it's not like we're blindly testing Germans for their knowledge of English.
Post a Comment