Curving classes

[kmoogs]

---

Members don't see this ad.

See,that's the problem. If classes are really supposed to be learning the material, then the grades should be based on how much material you know. Instead, it's basically saying that the only thing that matters is the number or letter that you get after the final, not how much you actually know about the subject at hand. Instead of being grading based on material learned,it's grading based on how well the other students did. It's flawed logic, plain and simple. Don't outrun the bear, just outrun the other guy running from it too. Problem is, many people passing the class barely know anything that was taught.

Am I really just crazy? No one else thinks it's an issue of academic integrity? Screw actually learning, as long as I do better than that guy and get a nice shiny A, who cares? Sorry for the thread, just thought it was worth discussing. Maybe something different than the "do I really have a chance!!!11!1" threads all over the place.

Grades are another way of indirect comparisons between the ability of students rather than rank your graduating class with top 5%, top 10%, top 20%, etc... By grading on a curve, if you're better than 95% of your class, you earned yourself an A. To win a marathon, you don't have to set some all-time record ... you just have to beat everyone else, even if it's by 0.01 seconds. Someone who earns an A on a curved basis can do exactly that, score those few points better than the rest of the class. Someone with an A can also score 100 points better than the rest of the class, the only thing that matters is they receive that A and they're better than the entire class. It's a measure of your ability in relation to the rest of your class.

Maybe your classes were graded on a scaled basis instead of being curved? I've had classes that scaled down the tiers for grades ... it's different from a curved grading scale.

 

[confettiflyer]

apteryx--- Like I said previously GET OVER IT sweetheart!!! Please go rant in your diary or something..... Lets talk about other things... for example what schools you are getting into,how excited you are to finally embark on your journey of becoming a pharmacist, etc... things of importance!!!! I dont think curves should be a discussion... Clearly my opinion matters because your throwing a fit.

lol, i thought the point of SDN has been to rant, talk ****, and bring up random subjects generally not worth discussing in real life.

if that isn't the case, i dunno what i've been doing for the past 3000+ posts

 

[confettiflyer]

Grades are another way of indirect comparisons between the ability of students rather than rank your graduating class with top 5%, top 10%, top 20%, etc... By grading on a curve, if you're better than 95% of your class, you earned yourself an A. To win a marathon, you don't have to set some all-time record ... you just have to beat everyone else, even if it's by 0.01 seconds. Someone who earns an A on a curved basis can do exactly that, score those few points better than the rest of the class. Someone with an A can also score 100 points better than the rest of the class, the only thing that matters is they receive that A and they're better than the entire class. It's a measure of your ability in relation to the rest of your class.

Maybe your classes were graded on a scaled basis instead of being curved? I've had classes that scaled down the tiers for grades ... it's different from a curved grading scale.

I was gonna bring up a race/marathon concept too. If you're a professor out to award A's at a top university, how do you differentiate between first and last place is the race is too easy/short?

You don't...that's why you make the race a 50 mile race up a hill (ie a really hard test). As people drop like flies along the race route, you can stratify your student set and award your grades once the person who goes the furthest is unable to go further (ie hits 30 miles and stops) and curve from that point.

 

[joh0472]

I was gonna bring up a race/marathon concept too. If you're a professor out to award A's at a top university, how do you differentiate between first and last place is the race is too easy/short?

You don't...that's why you make the race a 50 mile race up a hill (ie a really hard test). As people drop like flies along the race route, you can stratify your student set and award your grades once the person who goes the furthest is unable to go further (ie hits 30 miles and stops) and curve from that point.

I thought a race had a beginning and an end. You are describing a journey. I agree tests should be hard and challenging but giving out a set number of A's, B's, C's and so on is an antiquity. I think standardized testing is one of the best methods for measuring students understanding. The ACS Organic Chemistry test is one that will segregate those who know the subject versus those that fake their way through a class.

 

[confettiflyer]

I thought a race had a beginning and an end. You are describing a journey. I agree tests should be hard and challenging but giving out a set number of A's, B's, C's and so on is an antiquity. I think standardized testing is one of the best methods for measuring students understanding. The ACS Organic Chemistry test is one that will segregate those who know the subject versus those that fake their way through a class.

well theoretically there is an end in my example, nothing is stopping someone from getting the 100%. i listed an extreme example... my tests in undergrad were given such that 1-2 people out of 400-500 would organically get 100% without any curving.

You plot the distribution, find the hump, and make that C+... +1SD and you were in B+/A- range.

We always asked ourselves, "what if everyone got like a 90% on the test? what if everyone got 10%?" well...it NEVER happened, our professors had been teaching/writing tests long enough to avoid things like bimodal distributions which screwed up your grading process. Plus, this paired with over 400 students, you weren't going to see anything but a normal distribution.

As I moved up to upper division courses with smaller classes (~100-150), we moved to the straight scale system as we've already weeded out underperformers. Curves were still instituted when the "smartest person in the room" would only get something like a 92...they became the "100% standard" and everyone moved up accordingly.

On a philosophical note: undergrad was never about how much you knew, it was always about outperforming your peers... the assumption was/is that if you went to a top 50 school and performed in the top 17% (mean + 1 SD), you were pretty darn smart. that's where standardized tests come in as a second point of data.