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.
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 studies and receives 100%, the non-studying student isn't getting a better deal because there's no economic value being exchanged here. he hasn't gained an advantage from not studying.
giving poor students a better chance of catching up doesn't lessen the inherent value a good student gains from his hard work. either way good students can still receive just as good of an education from the school.
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: (Score:1)
Re:Or more reasonable policies (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 studies and receives 100%, the non-studying student isn't getting a better deal because there's no economic value being exchanged here. he hasn't gained an advantage from not studying.
giving poor students a better chance of catching up doesn't lessen the inherent value a good student gains from his hard work. either way good students can still receive just as good of an education from the school.
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