I just got banned...by my professor

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Flubber



I agree with your wtf attitude toward the keeners but you should know that all grades are on a curve, one way or another. In a class of 20, would tou expect an "A" if there were 10 assignments clearly better than yours . . . even if yours was objectively of a very high calibre??

Yeah. Especially in college nowadays. No one is going to pay $30k+ a year at a good school for something less than As or Bs.

[Sava]

grading curves

grading assignments on their own merits

[Apocalypse]

Grading curves are only good for if a class accomplishes some greater goal. Like getting a really high score on some standardized test. You do learn a lot more if you are desperately trying to compete with many other students for the couple As and Bs available.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Yeah. Especially in college nowadays. No one is going to pay $30k+ a year at a good school for something less than As or Bs.

Thats sad-- likely true but sad all the same . . .

I believe I saw an article that indicated that Harvard was one of the easiest schools in which to score an "A"

I don't know if thats accurate.

My Canadian law school graded on a "C" curve. That meant that 50% of the class needed to be graded a "C" or below ( in a school where you needed an "A" average just to get in) That led to the school motto " C is for cookie and its good enough for me"

[Asher]

C means Degree

[loinburger]

My school's graduate program will drop you if you get three C's. Needless to say, you have to really **** up to get a C in a class.

Edit: "My School" makes it sound like I own the ****ing place. In case anybody was confused, no, I don't own a school. I just don't feel like saying "the school of which I attend hereuntoforthwith whereforartthou" or whatever. Though it would be fun to own the place, because if I own a state school then that implies that I own the state, and I'm sure that Ohio would earn me a pretty penny if I auctioned it off to the highest bidder. Wutang!

Edit Edit: Then again, it is Ohio we're talking about. Whatever, I'm sure I could at least buy a case of good beer with the profits after I gave the auction house their cut.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well I'd rather be graded on merits rather then on a curve, since that tends to drop my grade rather then the reverse. I'm sure there's a few folks who would be thankful for the curve though

Oh, and as for Asher, even if you aren't planning to go to court, do things by the book, on the expectation that you will. You never know.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Grading curves are only good for if a class accomplishes some greater goal. Like getting a really high score on some standardized test. You do learn a lot more if you are desperately trying to compete with many other students for the couple As and Bs available.

No.

Grading curves are stupid and pointless.

If you write a paper that is worthy of an A, you should receive an A, regardless of what other students in the class have done. This fostering of "competition" is complete bull****. Learning is not a competition.

All it does is create a competitive environment where the motivated, type-A personality psycho students will succeed, and the other students who would have normally gotten A's or maybe A minuses end up getting worse grades. The latter students don't benefit at all. They get screwed. All they learn is that their work was not judged based on merit. It doesn't motivate them at all because that is not their personality type. They don't learn anything. All it does is hurt their confidence and hurt their grades for the class, making it even harder for them to succeed.

So basically, grading curves make it easier for successful students to have more success, and harder for everyone else.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher
C means Degree

WE just used to say that

"A" students become professors
"B" student become judges and
"C" students make a hell of a lot of money

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sava


No.

Grading curves are stupid and pointless.

If you write a paper that is worthy of an A, you should receive an A, regardless of what other students in the class have done. This fostering of "competition" is complete bull****. Learning is not a competition.

All it does is create a competitive environment where the motivated, type-A personality psycho students will succeed, and the other students who would have normally gotten A's or maybe A minuses end up getting worse grades. The latter students don't benefit at all. They get screwed. All they learn is that their work was not judged based on merit. It doesn't motivate them at all because that is not their personality type. They don't learn anything. All it does is hurt their confidence and hurt their grades for the class, making it even harder for them to succeed.

So basically, grading curves make it easier for successful students to have more success, and harder for everyone else.

Sava-- I don't understand your rant

I am no big fan of set curves but REALITY dictates that what constitutes a "good" or an "excellent" paper is determined, to some extent, comparitively.

I'll ask this, if a prof used an objective standard and failed an entire class, is that acceptable grading??

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger
My school's graduate program will drop you if you get three C's. Needless to say, you have to really **** up to get a C in a class.

That is similiar to how my graduate school is. Most classes you have to really **** up to get a C. One professor (maybe more then just him.. but I know it is true of him and not of any others I have heard about) is more then happy to give Cs.. and gives out a number a semester (He would generally give out more Cs in his class then the rest of the graduate professors combined).

He even gives out Ds to those who do the HW and Tests (I can understand giving out a D or an F to someone who just didn't come to class... but in a system where C is a failure, giving out a D to someone who tried is just wrong).

Jon Miller
(The source of the only Cs in my life)

[Sava]

Originally posted by Flubber


Sava-- I don't understand your rant

I am no big fan of set curves but REALITY dictates that what constitutes a "good" or an "excellent" paper is determined, to some extent, comparitively.

I'll ask this, if a prof used an objective standard and failed an entire class, is that acceptable grading??

I think we may be talking about two different type of grading curves.

The type of curve I am talking about is the one I have had experience with. Where you may have an A paper, but get graded like a B or C because the class is on a curve.

Meaning, the teacher has already decided that out of 20 people, 5 people will get A's, 10 will get B's, 5 will get C's, etc... and people who write bad papers just get F's... there are no D's

I think that the teacher should lay out a set of parameters and each paper should be graded individually according to it's merits.

So if everyone in the class is smart, capable, and works their ass off; they could theoretically all get A's.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Flubber

I'll ask this, if a prof used an objective standard and failed an entire class, is that acceptable grading??

yes

JM

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Sava


No.

Grading curves are stupid and pointless.

If you write a paper that is worthy of an A, you should receive an A, regardless of what other students in the class have done. This fostering of "competition" is complete bull****. Learning is not a competition.

All it does is create a competitive environment where the motivated, type-A personality psycho students will succeed, and the other students who would have normally gotten A's or maybe A minuses end up getting worse grades. The latter students don't benefit at all. They get screwed. All they learn is that their work was not judged based on merit. It doesn't motivate them at all because that is not their personality type. They don't learn anything. All it does is hurt their confidence and hurt their grades for the class, making it even harder for them to succeed.

So basically, grading curves make it easier for successful students to have more success, and harder for everyone else.

Well, what if it isn't a paper class? What if it is a class where you have a test every week over an entire chapter? And there are mulitple choice questions that can be about the most random stuff in the chapter (but still useful information, just obscure). Then you have many people working hard every week to pass it. The Biopsychology class at my school is like that. Last year (when I took it) it started with 38 people enrolled. It ended up with just 16 who passed. And most of those people got Cs.

****ty, but my school pretty much aces the biopsych portion of standardized tests to get into grad school. Even the people who fail it the first time.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Well, what if it isn't a paper class? What if it is a class where you have a test every week over an entire chapter? And there are mulitple choice questions that can be about the most random stuff in the chapter (but still useful information, just obscure). Then you have many people working hard every week to pass it. The Biopsychology class at my school is like that. Last year (when I took it) it started with 38 people enrolled. It ended up with just 16 who passed. And most of those people got Cs.

****ty, but my school pretty much aces the biopsych portion of standardized tests to get into grad school. Even the people who fail it the first time.

I don't know.

Without actually being in the class and seeing how it is graded, I can't really comment on it.

But if the tests are standardized, shouldn't you just get whatever grade you deserve based upon the amount of answers you get right?

I don't have a problem with classes that have tough standards. I just want the grading systems to be fair. That's all.

I don't like the types of grading curves that penalize students just because their classmates wrote better papers or did better on tests/assignments.

You should be graded based upon the merits of your own work. Period.

Now being in the military, that is different. I would say that the military should encourage more of a competitive environment because the military should weed out people that do not have those kind of personalities.

But regular college is not the military. It is basically a place you go to get a piece of paper that says you know something. You pay the 30k a year, you go to the classes, you write the papers, you get the grade, and that's it. None of this bull****.

Most of this kind of bull**** happens in stupid classes that most people don't need for their major anyways. And most often by dumbass teachers on a power trip. I know the type. I had a guy at DePaul who pissed the ****ing **** out of me. The only B I got in my entire life on a paper, he gave me. And it was probably one of the best papers I have ever written too. The only reason he gave me is because he had this stupid ****ing "curved" grading system where he said he only gives 5 A's no matter how good the paper is.

His comments on the paper were... "GREAT PAPER!!! B"

I asked him why it was a B. He said that it is because he already gave out 5 other A's. He said that if he graded my paper first, he would have given me an A.



What a stupid *******.

I ended up with an A in the class... BUT STILL... WTF

That is a stupid policy.