- Apr 23, 2005
- 1,091
- 0
- 0
So, last week I got an assignment back in a course I'm taking in university as an elective.
I got a B+, above the class average. Cool. But, on second glance, I'm not sure my mark is fair.
The topic of the paper was comparing the standard of living in various countries. We were to attach an appendix with all our data(i.e. GDP, unemployment, etc).
There's a rubric attached to my graded assignment in which it says:
Data: "Evaluate on completeness and accuracy of data. Deduct points for old data."
25/35
I really thought my data was good, and I worked really hard to get the numbers I needed. So, I went to my TA's office (he marked the paper) and asked him why I lost points. Was my data too old, or inaccurate? No, he said, there's nothing wrong with it. But, he said the Data criteria referred to how well I used my data in my assignment, how good my arguments were. I told him I was under the impression that that criteria was only whether the data was right. He then went on to say "Okay, look. You got a B+. Here's how we're told to mark it.... a B+ means that you used your data fairly well and made decent arguments. To get an A, you've really gotta impress me. The grading scheme is kind of arbitrary. If you want me to remark it, I will, but you mark may go down."
Sounds like BS to me. If my data is fine, why should I be losing 10% of my grade? Is it fair that they give a grading scheme for the assignment and give arbitrary subjective marks for each category?
Cliff's notes:
-Wrote paper
-TA said grading scheme was arbitrary
-Me = ???
I got a B+, above the class average. Cool. But, on second glance, I'm not sure my mark is fair.
The topic of the paper was comparing the standard of living in various countries. We were to attach an appendix with all our data(i.e. GDP, unemployment, etc).
There's a rubric attached to my graded assignment in which it says:
Data: "Evaluate on completeness and accuracy of data. Deduct points for old data."
25/35
I really thought my data was good, and I worked really hard to get the numbers I needed. So, I went to my TA's office (he marked the paper) and asked him why I lost points. Was my data too old, or inaccurate? No, he said, there's nothing wrong with it. But, he said the Data criteria referred to how well I used my data in my assignment, how good my arguments were. I told him I was under the impression that that criteria was only whether the data was right. He then went on to say "Okay, look. You got a B+. Here's how we're told to mark it.... a B+ means that you used your data fairly well and made decent arguments. To get an A, you've really gotta impress me. The grading scheme is kind of arbitrary. If you want me to remark it, I will, but you mark may go down."
Sounds like BS to me. If my data is fine, why should I be losing 10% of my grade? Is it fair that they give a grading scheme for the assignment and give arbitrary subjective marks for each category?
Cliff's notes:
-Wrote paper
-TA said grading scheme was arbitrary
-Me = ???