Do you consider letter grades to be unfair?

[Anarchist420]

I do. If a [90-94)% is an A-, then it's not fair to the person who made a >90%, but <94%.

Why do they do that? Do they do it because of simplicity or because it can help the lower achievers?

In addition to being unfair, it can cause extra credit not to count at all or it can cause extra credit to count too much.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

No.

 

[Pia]

Focus on testing is an artifact of a mass education system. If the focus was on learning, I believe there would be more interactive examinations, and teachers would individually certify the student's abilities and understanding in a particular area.

Summing up test scores of different subjects is incredibly stupid.

 

[lxskllr]

Focus on testing is an artifact of a mass education system. If the focus was on learning, I believe there would be more interactive examinations, and teachers would individually certify the student's abilities and understanding in a particular area.

Summing up test scores of different subjects is incredibly stupid.

Pretty much this. Additionally, grades shouldn't be a concern. Who gives a shit whether it's an A, B, C, or anything else. You're there to learn, not compete in some grade game. If you're making As, you're unchallenged, and working under your potential. Take harder classes. If you're busting ass, and making a C, that's about where you should be.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Pretty much this. Additionally, grades shouldn't be a concern. Who gives a shit whether it's an A, B, C, or anything else. You're there to learn, not compete in some grade game. If you're making As, you're unchallenged, and working under your potential. Take harder classes. If you're busting ass, and making a C, that's about where you should be.

From my personal experience (undergraduate at mediocre state college, so possibly not representative of the many Ivy League scholars here), this post is highly disagreeable. Within the context of undergraduate studies, there ultimately aren't that many options within a given major. There is a rough path that most people (at least in the sciences and engineering) follow, and people take what they need when they've taken the prerequisites. Depending on ones mathematical aptitude out of high school, it is possible to take anything from remedial algebra to calculus II the first semester. I got into calculus I even though I didn't achieve the "necessary" score to do so, and ended up with a C+, my only C so far in college.

Having learned from that experience, I was better prepared for calculus II in which I got a B+, which is all I need for my biochemistry major. Now I get A's and A-'s in all of my classes, and it's not like there's much room for an easy bullshit chemistry class. In that major I could elect to take advanced physical chemistry when I'm kind of shitty at math and forgo additional biochemistry research electives. Were I to do so, I would undoubtedly receive lower grades, and struggle a lot more. Is that challenge overall productive to my education?

 

[lxskllr]

Having learned from that experience, I was better prepared for calculus II in which I got a B+, which is all I need for my biochemistry major. Now I get A's and A-'s in all of my classes, and it's not like there's much room for an easy bullshit chemistry class. In that major I could elect to take advanced physical chemistry when I'm kind of shitty at math and forgo additional biochemistry research electives. Were I to do so, I would undoubtedly receive lower grades, and struggle a lot more. Is that challenge overall productive to my education?

The whole system's flawed, as Pia stated. If your goal is to learn, and be the best scholar you can be, then yes, greater struggle, and lower grades is more productive. The problem is everyone is fixated on the grade system, and that doesn't even tell half of the story. Grades are the coarsest measure of a person's skill, and a lazy way of judging performance.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Focus on testing is an artifact of a mass education system. If the focus was on learning, I believe there would be more interactive examinations, and teachers would individually certify the student's abilities and understanding in a particular area.

Summing up test scores of different subjects is incredibly stupid.

Kind of hard to do that with the ratio of teachers to students. And most Americans don't want to pay for more teachers, let alone pay teachers more, incentize teachers to be better, etc.

In fact, most parents are 100% clueless as to the costs involved in public education. Then again, the congregated form of education is so outdated as to be akin to the IRS system and tax code.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Focus on testing is an artifact of a mass education system. If the focus was on learning, I believe there would be more interactive examinations, and teachers would individually certify the student's abilities and understanding in a particular area.

I wouldn't trust the majority of the teachers today to be able to "individually certify" a student's ability and I definitely wouldn't trust today's school administrators to come up with any reasonable guidelines or critera for this evaluation.

 

[Scotteq]

I have an opposing view: IMHO it's unfair that huge numbers of students can't be bothered to apply themselves to their education, yet expect everything handed to them anyhow. Fix that, and I'd support doing away with (letter) grades. Until then, there needs to be a means to measure whether or not a student is doing the work.

 

[manlymatt83]

I have an opposing view: IMHO it's unfair that huge numbers of students can't be bothered to apply themselves to their education, yet expect everything handed to them anyhow. Fix that, and I'd support doing away with (letter) grades. Until then, there needs to be a means to measure whether or not a student is doing the work.

Even though grades are inflated anyway at schools around the country, because teachers are too paranoid about upsetting the parents, and no one wants to feel "left out" or "left behind". Competition is now a bad word. Everyone needs to "win" at something.

 

[Jumpem]

Focus on testing is an artifact of a mass education system. If the focus was on learning, I believe there would be more interactive examinations, and teachers would individually certify the student's abilities and understanding in a particular area.

Summing up test scores of different subjects is incredibly stupid.

I sgree completely. I have always had trouble on tests because it is hard for me to memorize large amounts of information. In college I would usually score very high on homework, projects, and papers; and my test scores would be lower.

In the workplace, you don't need to do much based solely on memorization. You always have notes, reference material, coworkers, and the internet available to resolve problems.

 

[saratoga172]

I sgree completely. I have always had trouble on tests because it is hard for me to memorize large amounts of information. In college I would usually score very high on homework, projects, and papers; and my test scores would be lower.

In the workplace, you don't need to do much based solely on memorization. You always have notes, reference material, coworkers, and the internet available to resolve problems.

Almost exactly what I came in to post. Seems to be more focus on memorizing large information quantities, rather than understanding and applying the material.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Almost exactly what I came in to post. Seems to be more focus on memorizing large information quantities, rather than understanding and applying the material.

I disagree. Tests that involve memorizing large amounts of information were all extremely easy. Memorization is just memorization, its simple to do.

All my exams require you to understand the material. You could have three pages worth of equations and still fail because if you had no idea what you are doing, you're not going to be able to use them.

 

[Icepick]

I sgree completely. I have always had trouble on tests because it is hard for me to memorize large amounts of information. In college I would usually score very high on homework, projects, and papers; and my test scores would be lower.

In the workplace, you don't need to do much based solely on memorization. You always have notes, reference material, coworkers, and the internet available to resolve problems.

Conversely, the coworker that the people who don't know the facts continuously go to for help is the one who will end up being promoted to the senior position while the others are left behind. Over the last 10 years as IT jobs have become more scarce this should be a consideration since this field is being left with the cream of the crop.

 

[kinev]

Study harder next time...

 

[SKORPI0]

I do. If a [90-94)% is an A-, then it's not fair to the person who made a >90%, but <94%.

So if you got 91, 92, or 93 you feel it's unfair to get rated A-? Which is within the [90-94%] and >90%, but <94%.

I'd feel cheated if someone got 95 and rated A-.

 

[Anarchist420]

Kind of hard to do that with the ratio of teachers to students. And most Americans don't want to pay for more teachers, let alone pay teachers more, incentize teachers to be better, etc.

In fact, most parents are 100% clueless as to the costs involved in public education. Then again, the congregated form of education is so outdated as to be akin to the IRS system and tax code.

I agree. The centralized education system is screwed up, and homeschooling or private schools (no national standards) would probably be a lot better.

A lot of education can just be done via the internet, and once online education is factored in (as well as other things), public education is way overpriced.

I wouldn't trust the majority of the teachers today to be able to "individually certify" a student's ability and I definitely wouldn't trust today's school administrators to come up with any reasonable guidelines or critera for this evaluation.

I agree with this also. Teachers are individuals and that says a lot about an "individual certification".

 

[Ghiedo27]

Teachers would individually certify the student's abilities

That would just be a nightmare. Social promotion is bad enough as it is.

First and foremost I think it's the students responsibility to focus on learning. Teachers have an obligation to explain the concepts, but how many times has someone complained about how the teacher never went over a specific problem but never asked any questions because they were on cruise control? If they end up with a lower GPA which puts them at a disadvantage it's their own fault, imo.

 

[nageov3t]

unfair? no.

but they've always seemed dumb.

all grades in my high school were based on 100&#37;... if your average in a class was a 91/100, you got a 91% on your report card.

I've never really understood why any school would do it differently.

 

[waggy]

The whole system's flawed, as Pia stated. If your goal is to learn, and be the best scholar you can be, then yes, greater struggle, and lower grades is more productive. The problem is everyone is fixated on the grade system, and that doesn't even tell half of the story. Grades are the coarsest measure of a person's skill, and a lazy way of judging performance.

i agree.

when i was in college it was all about getting A's. not learning for the sake of learning.


Also i think we need to get away from Standardized testing. As it is schools teach "how" to take the test. so they are taking time away from learning what the test covers to how to game the test to get a better score..

I wouldn't trust the majority of the teachers today to be able to "individually certify" a student's ability and I definitely wouldn't trust today's school administrators to come up with any reasonable guidelines or critera for this evaluation.

I wouldn't either. between "no child left behind" and many places tieing pay raises into grades i can't see them being honest.

 

[waggy]

That would just be a nightmare. Social promotion is bad enough as it is.

First and foremost I think it's the students responsibility to focus on learning. Teachers have an obligation to explain the concepts, but how many times has someone complained about how the teacher never went over a specific problem but never asked any questions because they were on cruise control? If they end up with a lower GPA which puts them at a disadvantage it's their own fault, imo.

that's not fair either.

I have been in classes where there is NO time to ask questions. IF you do you are told to read the book. That does not always help.

to many students in the class, to many classes the kids need to learn and idiots wasting time are the big issues.

 

[DrPizza]

A- Ughhhh. I had an A- once; it ruined my GPA.

I'm amused by all the bullshit in this thread about how tests aren't a good measure. Pick any course I took (except Art). I got an A (or A+). That was based on tests. You cannot come up with any alternative form of measurement that's going to show that any other student knew more on the subject matter.

Now, what's important, is the format of tests. I don't put much weight on multiple choice tests most of the time. Someone said "interactive" - what's the difference between a teacher/professor asking a question and a student giving an oral response vs. writing an essay as the response?

 

[rcpratt]

Doing just enough to get an A- (or a B- in college, for me...) is an art that took me many years to perfect.

 

[thebomb]

A- Ughhhh. I had an A- once; it ruined my GPA.

I'm amused by all the bullshit in this thread about how tests aren't a good measure.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that tests aren't a good measure [of a students understanding of the subject matter]. To whom is your statement directed at?

Someone said "interactive" - what's the difference between a teacher/professor asking a question and a student giving an oral response vs. writing an essay as the response?

It's a lot harder to bullshit your way through an oral test than a written one.

 

[nageov3t]

It's a lot harder to bullshit your way through an oral test than a written one.

I think it just requires a different skill set

my complaint about essay/paper grading was always inconsistent criteria... I was a mediocre student in high school because I wasn't great at regurgitating facts verbatim.

then, without changing any of my writing habits/style, I excelled in college because all of a sudden, my unconventional takes on different subject matters were suddenly appreciated as being able to think outside the box.