Or they could work on policies that reward significant improvement throughout the year. A rough start can be just that. Mandating that everything is at least 50%, even when a student gets a 0%, is a terrible idea.
My school did this w/ gym. The resulting structure basically rewards students for not giving it their all early on and conversely punishes students who don't game the system. I'm not saying that improvement based grading is inherently bad. You can add 'effort' to counter this flaw but it can become pretty subjective.
Lisa: I _have_ to join the team or I'll get an F that will haunt me for the rest of my life.
[in the future, Lisa is being sworn in]
Man: I now pronounce you President of these United -- Reporter: Stop the inauguration! I just discovered our President Elect got an F in second grade gym class!
[crows gasps; Lisa is handcuffed]
Man: In that case I sentence you to a lifetime of horror on Monster Island. [to Lisa] Don't worry, it's just a name.
[Lisa and others are chased by fire-breathing monsters]
Lisa: He said it was just a name! Man: What he meant is that Monster Island is actually a peninsula.
I would argue that gym should be pass / fail, with pass meaning you participated.
Either that, or you have to do some pretty stupid stuff to "level the playing field" for those that are physically gifted in the select sports that your gym has decided to test.
My brother completely rocked in ping pong back in high school (could play for days without dropping a single game), that should more than make up for his inability to hit a baseball, or his less than stellar basketball skills.
I would argue that gym is different than academic courses, and therefore should be graded differently.
I'll take that challenge!! I would argue that you were obviously a 98-lb weakling in high school, and therefore your personal experience with humiliation in aforementioned gym class has prejudiced you beyond the ability to conduct a rational argument. I win.
Ad hominem is an argument. Technically.
I was an average sized kid and lettered in soccer, but still got picked on by this thug named Tommy Newsome. It wasn't anything special to me; he hated anyone who breathed through their nose. One day, I waited until he was in the shower, stole his towel, threw it in his locker, and filled the combination lock with superglue. And then retreated to a safe distance. He wasn't very happy to be naked and dripping wet and find his hand glued to his own lock.
Tommy, if you've learned to read and they have compu
Indeed. I was captain of my cross country team, and set some course records even. I got a 'C' in gym that year. No kidding. I always went to gym class, and always accomplished what they wanted. It was a popularity thing, and at my redneck school, football, baseball, and wrestling were all that mattered. I was also a 'band fag' which probably contributed to the bigoted low mark.
Why? In my high school, all classes were graded based on four things.
1) Quizes and Tests. 2) Homework. 3) Attendence/Participation. 4) Improvement over the course of the class.
My gym class was based on three of the four (no homework obviously). Tests were acedemic tests about the rules and scoring of whatever sport you were currently studying. Participation was the amount of effort you put into the class. Improvement was based on the 'standardized' physical tests (presidents fitness tests and the like)
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @11:56PM (#25131031)
Given the fact that one makes a successful career in America by gaming the sociopolitical system at work, I see nothing wrong with teaching kids how to game the system. Successfully manipulating through your environment to your own advantage is one of the most important skills a kid can learn to do good in life.
Given the fact that one makes a successful career in America by gaming the sociopolitical system at work, I see nothing wrong with teaching kids how to game the system. Successfully manipulating through your environment to your own advantage is one of the most important skills a kid can learn to do good in life.
To do well in life. To do good in life, you need the opposite set of skills.
I wish I had mod points for you sir. Not only catching the incorrect use of English, but also turning it completely around on the parent was genius.:: hat off::
Given the fact that one makes a successful career in America by gaming the sociopolitical system at work, I see nothing wrong with teaching kids how to game the system. Successfully manipulating through your environment to your own advantage is one of the most important skills a kid can learn to do good in life.
To do well in life. To do good in life, you need the opposite set of skills.
Um, you are slightly wrong. To make the most income and social status you generally do the first. Now you go to church to f
If you could clarify which part I was wrong about, that would help. Your point was really tangential to mine, since I didn't talk about influencing others' actions, but rather self actualization.
If I had wanted to make your point, perhaps I should have gone with something like: it is impossible for one to acquire substantial wealth without exploitation, which most people agree is morally repellent.
I agree with D Ninja. I first laughed at your comment, then read it again and nodded. I tip my cap to you, sir. If only more more people would recognize the difference between doing well and doing good.
While 'gaming the system' is an important skill, are you sure it is something that we should encourage unconditionally? Isn't the whole ongoing economic crisis caused by too many people trying to game the real estate system?
how does it punish students for not gaming the system? that's like saying welfare punishes those who aren't impoverished.
school is meant to help students learn. it's about social welfare, not commerce. when a student studies hard and turns in their homework, they're not simply trading labor for a good grade. doing homework and studying hard have inherent value to a student. it's not like a job where you work simply to get paid.
so when a student who doesn't study gets 50% by default while another student stu
well, a failing grade isn't exactly sliding by. you can slide by with an F for doing nothing as well.
students who don't want to make an effort to learn won't learn regardless. this simply allows those who change their mind or simply had a rough start to actually catch up.
making a passing grade more attainable would convince more "poor" students to turn over a new leaf rather than just give up hope completely. either way it really doesn't punish anyone for actually studying.
Considering that they were previously sliding by with 0%; how does sliding by with 50% motivate them?
I understand the "second start" idea; but in a university that means you have to drop out of school for around ten years and come back. What exactly in high school provided them with the new insight as to the importance of the grading game? Why should they get a "second start" in every class? Why should it be available witout the harsh life lessons that a decade of living with your mistakes can provide?
If you can slide by with a 50% for doing nothing, people will do exactly that.
Actually, probably the biggest "externality" will be that high-achieving students will really, truly blow off the last quarter of their senior years. What you're basically telling them is: "You can work your tail off for the quarter and your transcript will reflect an A, or you can just not show up at all and your transcript will show a B."
You're already accepted to college at that point. Well, duh, what would you do?
giving poor students a better chance of catching up doesn't lessen the inherent value a good student gains from his hard work.
No, bending all the resources towards the slackers and dullards while ignoring the bright ones does that. This is a lowering of standards, and time and time again, people rise (or sink) to the level of expectations.
"how does it punish students for not gaming the system?"
Student A has trouble with math but they work their tail off in pre-calc to get through with a 65%. Student B copies their homework from someone else and does not study for the test (thus getting a 50)
Its possible for Student B to swing the same grade..
This is a crap system because it does not consider the disposition of the students and its insulting to teachers to make them give an unwarrented grade (even a 50%) to some pisspot who did not study...
maybe my perspective is different because i used to tutor other students in high school, but not all poor students are "pisspots" who did not study. some lack studying skills, some simply need a little extra attention or different teaching methods. it's hard to say why students do poorly.
besides, what's a warranted grade is subjective. this simply changing the grading scale. there's still the top percentile and bottom percentile. it's just more forgiving for struggling students.
anyway, i just wanted to respond to the claim that this would somehow lump kids in the middle/low end with the kids at the bottom.
i don't see how that could happen unless you're saying that middle/low end students are consistently getting E/Fs. D students would still be getting 60% at the very least with this scheme, which would still be a semi-passing grade compared to a 50% failing grade.
yea, the 50% students might be lumped with the 0% students, but that's the
D students would still be getting 60% at the very least with this scheme, which would still be a semi-passing grade compared to a 50% failing grade.
A D student would be getting their own 60 but an F student who, for example, copies home work could parlay that given 50 on exams into the same grade as the kid who is working.
Most Classes I took in HS had distributions like this:
Homework 10% Project 10% Quizzes 10% MidTerm 30% Final 40%
Assume Student A is a D student they will pull a 60% avg in these areas..
Now Ass
Disobedience: The silver lining to the cloud of servitude.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Or more reasonable policies (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they could work on policies that reward significant improvement throughout the year. A rough start can be just that. Mandating that everything is at least 50%, even when a student gets a 0%, is a terrible idea.
Re:Or more reasonable policies (Score:1)
Re:Or more reasonable policies (Score:5, Funny)
Lisa: I _have_ to join the team or I'll get an F that will haunt me for the rest of my life.
[in the future, Lisa is being sworn in]
Man: I now pronounce you President of these United --
Reporter: Stop the inauguration! I just discovered our President Elect got an F in second grade gym class!
[crows gasps; Lisa is handcuffed]
Man: In that case I sentence you to a lifetime of horror on Monster Island. [to Lisa] Don't worry, it's just a name.
[Lisa and others are chased by fire-breathing monsters]
Lisa: He said it was just a name!
Man: What he meant is that Monster Island is actually a peninsula.
Re: (Score:2)
*claps* Is it bad I would have been relieved knowing it was a peninsula?
Re:Or more reasonable policies (Score:5, Interesting)
I would argue that gym is different than academic courses, and therefore should be graded differently.
Re: (Score:1)
When I was going to grade school, there were
"President's physical fitness tests" that were required of everyone. I think that was Dick Nixon's idea.
Re: (Score:2)
JFK, I think.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ... like if you show up you pass....
Stupid gym class....
Re: (Score:2)
Either that, or you have to do some pretty stupid stuff to "level the playing field" for those that are physically gifted in the select sports that your gym has decided to test.
My brother completely rocked in ping pong back in high school (could play for days without dropping a single game), that should more than make up for his inability to hit a baseball, or his less than stellar basketball skills.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I would argue that gym is different than academic courses, and therefore should be graded differently.
I'll take that challenge!! I would argue that you were obviously a 98-lb weakling in high school, and therefore your personal experience with humiliation in aforementioned gym class has prejudiced you beyond the ability to conduct a rational argument. I win.
Ad hominem is an argument. Technically.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, an expert witness! But sir, I question your impartiality. Dear jury, this man has karma to gain!
Re: (Score:2)
I was an average sized kid and lettered in soccer, but still got picked on by this thug named Tommy Newsome. It wasn't anything special to me; he hated anyone who breathed through their nose. One day, I waited until he was in the shower, stole his towel, threw it in his locker, and filled the combination lock with superglue. And then retreated to a safe distance. He wasn't very happy to be naked and dripping wet and find his hand glued to his own lock.
Tommy, if you've learned to read and they have compu
Re: (Score:2)
And if he doesn't accept the ad hominem argument, then we'll just kick his ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I was captain of my cross country team, and set some course records even. I got a 'C' in gym that year. No kidding. I always went to gym class, and always accomplished what they wanted. It was a popularity thing, and at my redneck school, football, baseball, and wrestling were all that mattered. I was also a 'band fag' which probably contributed to the bigoted low mark.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? In my high school, all classes were graded based on four things.
1) Quizes and Tests.
2) Homework.
3) Attendence/Participation.
4) Improvement over the course of the class.
My gym class was based on three of the four (no homework obviously). Tests were acedemic tests about the rules and scoring of whatever sport you were currently studying. Participation was the amount of effort you put into the class. Improvement was based on the 'standardized' physical tests (presidents fitness tests and the like)
Re:Or more reasonable policies (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the fact that one makes a successful career in America by gaming the sociopolitical system at work, I see nothing wrong with teaching kids how to game the system. Successfully manipulating through your environment to your own advantage is one of the most important skills a kid can learn to do good in life.
Re:Or more reasonable policies (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the fact that one makes a successful career in America by gaming the sociopolitical system at work, I see nothing wrong with teaching kids how to game the system. Successfully manipulating through your environment to your own advantage is one of the most important skills a kid can learn to do good in life.
To do well in life. To do good in life, you need the opposite set of skills.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if you don't think becoming President is doing well or good.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the president is doing quite well (at enriching himself, at least). Was that not clearly the point of my post?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points for you sir. Not only catching the incorrect use of English, but also turning it completely around on the parent was genius. :: hat off ::
Re: (Score:2)
Given the fact that one makes a successful career in America by gaming the sociopolitical system at work, I see nothing wrong with teaching kids how to game the system. Successfully manipulating through your environment to your own advantage is one of the most important skills a kid can learn to do good in life.
To do well in life. To do good in life, you need the opposite set of skills.
Um, you are slightly wrong. To make the most income and social status you generally do the first. Now you go to church to f
Re: (Score:2)
If you could clarify which part I was wrong about, that would help. Your point was really tangential to mine, since I didn't talk about influencing others' actions, but rather self actualization.
If I had wanted to make your point, perhaps I should have gone with something like: it is impossible for one to acquire substantial wealth without exploitation, which most people agree is morally repellent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I always assumed such ethics codes were an attempt to improve life for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Do well in life! Where did you attend school?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cough, that's how it's done EVERYWHERE.
Re: (Score:2)
how does it punish students for not gaming the system? that's like saying welfare punishes those who aren't impoverished.
school is meant to help students learn. it's about social welfare, not commerce. when a student studies hard and turns in their homework, they're not simply trading labor for a good grade. doing homework and studying hard have inherent value to a student. it's not like a job where you work simply to get paid.
so when a student who doesn't study gets 50% by default while another student stu
Re:Or more reasonable policies (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can slide by with a 50% for doing nothing, people will do exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
well, a failing grade isn't exactly sliding by. you can slide by with an F for doing nothing as well.
students who don't want to make an effort to learn won't learn regardless. this simply allows those who change their mind or simply had a rough start to actually catch up.
making a passing grade more attainable would convince more "poor" students to turn over a new leaf rather than just give up hope completely. either way it really doesn't punish anyone for actually studying.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the "second start" idea; but in a university that means you have to drop out of school for around ten years and come back. What exactly in high school provided them with the new insight as to the importance of the grading game? Why should they get a "second start" in every class? Why should it be available witout the harsh life lessons that a decade of living with your mistakes can provide?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can slide by with a 50% for doing nothing, people will do exactly that.
Actually, probably the biggest "externality" will be that high-achieving students will really, truly blow off the last quarter of their senior years. What you're basically telling them is: "You can work your tail off for the quarter and your transcript will reflect an A, or you can just not show up at all and your transcript will show a B."
You're already accepted to college at that point. Well, duh, what would you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Even without this you can fail without doing anything.
Do you have any real arguments?
Re: (Score:2)
giving poor students a better chance of catching up doesn't lessen the inherent value a good student gains from his hard work.
No, bending all the resources towards the slackers and dullards while ignoring the bright ones does that. This is a lowering of standards, and time and time again, people rise (or sink) to the level of expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
"how does it punish students for not gaming the system?"
Student A has trouble with math but they work their tail off in pre-calc to get through with a 65%. Student B copies their homework from someone else and does not study for the test (thus getting a 50)
Its possible for Student B to swing the same grade..
This is a crap system because it does not consider the disposition of the students and its insulting to teachers to make them give an unwarrented grade (even a 50%) to some pisspot who did not study...
Re: (Score:2)
maybe my perspective is different because i used to tutor other students in high school, but not all poor students are "pisspots" who did not study. some lack studying skills, some simply need a little extra attention or different teaching methods. it's hard to say why students do poorly.
besides, what's a warranted grade is subjective. this simply changing the grading scale. there's still the top percentile and bottom percentile. it's just more forgiving for struggling students.
good students will be good st
Re: (Score:2)
"maybe my perspective is different because i used to tutor other students in high school, but not all poor students are "pisspots""
Never said all poor student were pisspots, just said student B was, but please commence with the genuine outrage and moral superiority..
"some lack studying skills, some simply need a little extra attention or different teaching methods. it's hard to say why students do poorly."
Personally Student A was doing poorly but as I said working hard and thus deserving of a better grade t
Re: (Score:2)
wow, i think you misread the tone of my post.
anyway, i just wanted to respond to the claim that this would somehow lump kids in the middle/low end with the kids at the bottom.
i don't see how that could happen unless you're saying that middle/low end students are consistently getting E/Fs. D students would still be getting 60% at the very least with this scheme, which would still be a semi-passing grade compared to a 50% failing grade.
yea, the 50% students might be lumped with the 0% students, but that's the
Re: (Score:2)
D students would still be getting 60% at the very least with this scheme, which would still be a semi-passing grade compared to a 50% failing grade.
A D student would be getting their own 60 but an F student who, for example, copies home work could parlay that given 50 on exams into the same grade as the kid who is working.
Most Classes I took in HS had distributions like this:
Homework 10%
Project 10%
Quizzes 10%
MidTerm 30%
Final 40%
Assume Student A is a D student they will pull a 60% avg in these areas..
Now Ass