Posted on 07/18/2017 7:57:37 AM PDT by Signalman
I think where we differ...and this is because external factors have changed our perceptions...but a 'C' is indeed 'average' in my opinion, but not necessarily yours. I can tell you are somewhat uncomfortable with giving a kid who 'gets' geometry a 'C'. And that is because a 'C' is now considered to be a fairly poor grade. But shouldn't a kid who 'gets' geometry, but doesn't necessarily excel among his peers, be considered 'average'? IOW, grade inflation has affected how we are even talking about this...which is the point of the initial story about how 'A's are going up, but standardized test scores are going down.
Which they do by taking lots of AP courses, and NOT taking anything else that is optional, like music and arts classes, because it will destroy their GPA even if they are perfect.
I once suggested that GPA should be calculated twice, once as normal, and once with every “regular A” removed, and the student should get the higher of the two. Because nobody should argue that an “A” in the course makes you LESS worthy than not taking the course at all.
My late wife graduated from a large State University with a 3.97 GPA. She totally earned it.
At that time it was impossible to get a score above 4.0.
Whoa there FRiend.
My dad has taught at the same school, using this same curve, for 47 years. Its a small private boarding school, where some of the most gifted students from the region (and abroad) go. These students could easily attend public school and make straight 'A's...the whole point of attending the school is for gifted students to challenge themselves. There is nothing wrong with trying to teach kids as much as possible.
And it all comes out in the wash - their average grades are coupled with max scores on AP exams and near max scores on the SAT...and they get into college just fine...because the colleges are quite aware of grade inflation. The reverse, straight As but middle of the road SATs, are likely a much bigger red flag to colleges.
OK, suppose you keep increasing the amount of material, and now the grades are 90-82. You do it more, and the grades are 80-72.
So depending on how much material you decided to cover, your students are either all A students, all “B” students, or all “C” students.
If you don’t get a 3.4 average, you pay more for car insurance. Think about THAT for a minute, like somehow GPA is an indicator of how well you drive, and apparently that works for the insurance companies even with grade inflation.
If we really care about ranking every student in the country based on what they have learned, the obvious solution is standardized tests. But is that a good idea?
Frankly, most of what we do as education seems stupid. Like why do we have tens of thousands of schools employing hundreds of thousands of teachers? Teaching is a skill, and someone is the best at it. And teaching is “presenting information”, and I can “present information” to one room of 20 people, or one room of 300 people, or two 150 million people using the internet.
So, why don’t we find the 100 best teachers for each field, have them teach once and record it, and re-use it every year (100 is because you can get different styles. Then you measure early on and determine the styles that work for each student, and push them into the class with the teacher that matches that style).
We then hire cheaper teachers who are good at answering questions and working one-on-one, and put them in each class to run the projector. Now everybody gets a FANTASTIC teacher, you still get one-on-one instruction, and we are all learning whatever this “same thing” is that we seem to want to teach and measure.
The did not understand it, so I explained it to them. They still opted for the curve.
Also, because of that, I gave much lower grades that the rest of the professors. To most college students, a C is a horrible grade. That’s not what a C means. What it means is that you have mastered the material well enough to take the next course in the program. No one wants to be “average” but most are. What profs need to do is start flunking those students who cannot possibly succeed in the next course. Then perhaps a C will get its right place in the order of things.
What I would like to see, especially in technical subjects, and especially in the higher grades, both high school and college, is a gradual switch to prometric-like testing, with zero interaction between the test taker and any human and the grade absolutely generated by a set standard built into the test itself, similar to the certification testing in computers and networking where the system is basically pass/fail... which, come to think of it, I also like.
Yep. My 1994 score was enough for me to be a national merit scholar. Adjusted for today... well I would score higher than ever.
Lot’s of pressure to graduate everyone.
Many Ivy’s are not that way anymore. They weren’t when I was in school.
Getting in is hard. They won’t let you fail out.
Non-sense. I didn’t score very well on my SAT’s 25 years ago but I still graduated cum laude in aeronautical science and engineering rom a good school. Now I have a great career making good money. Lots of kids figure it out later when they find a field they like. High School in America is terrible.
Right. That's what I was trying to say. Sorry for the confusion.
we used to have some smart people in this country...now, whalaa....we're all smart...
IMUS: "So what does that mean, exactly?"
CALLER: "It means I'm certified to teach kids in second grade."
IMUS: "They have a certification for that? I would think you're capable of teaching second grade once you've finished third grade."
LOL.
A “D” is the new “A”. Edumucation be not dumbed-downed on porpoise.
“I have never known another teacher in my lifetime to grade in such a way, but I’ve always suspected that his method was considered typical before the 1960s.”
I don’t like that methodology ... to be clear, it’s not because it is “difficult” ... I don’t like how grades are pegged to a ‘class’. If the class is generally terrible in a particular course, then someone is going to get an A when they should have gotten a much lower grade. Conversely, a situation you mentioned (91% = B-) could occur.
I think the best grading scale is :
92% - 100% = A;
85% - 91% = B;
75% - 84% = C;
67% - 74% = D;
<= 73% = F is the best scale overall.
This “A’s in everything” nonsense is one of many things that is ridiculous these days.
That’s what happens when everyone gets a passing grade no matter what. Can’t hurt their widdle feelers with a D or F. Combine that with teaching to the lowest common denominator what with all the illegals and foreigners in our schools. Throw in lack of discipline and Core and education goes down the toilet.
“I found some of my old report cards from 63 years ago. I still wonder how I made it out of school.”
Same here. I found my 1st grade report card from ‘63. I got a “C” in reading despite the notes indicating I individually read over 50 books during the school year. Yeah...the school system there was political BS.
grade inflation is also a sign of passing the blame.
with quota hires. Grades do not matter, Tests do not matter. Only pigment and mating behavior matter on who is hired or NOT hired.
even law school test scores have dropped through the floor.
I have read all these replies and I find the math too hard.
Do I get an “A” for trying to understand? : )
Curves are usually used when hardly anyone in the class “gets it” (ie passes with a >= 75 % score ) to move grades up to a normal distribution which adjusts the average failed grade to a barely passing 75.
If the grades are already normally distributed and close to “passing” then there is no curve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.