Unfair Grading among professors

[pp9]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know it's tough where you're at, but, as I former instructor I highly recommend that you worry less about the grades and more about comprehension and synthesis of the material. Try to care less about what other folks 'got' in comparison to you. That's asking a lot given that we're all posting on this pre-vet forum gunning for admission to veterinary school. That being said, we all have different qualities to offer. I have different qualities than LIS, than BlackDog, than you. I guarantee that EACH of our backgrounds will be different, with respect to education as well as respect to intangible qualities.

Your goal in undergrad (and advanced schooling) should be to LEARN the material. The grade is simply a label. Did you get something out of the course? Can you look yourself in the mirror and honestly admit to yourself that you did the best that you could? If so, who cares how anyone else did? Curves, comparative professorial grading- all irrelevant at that stage. What matters in the end is what you learned, what you took away from that experience. More to the point, can you use it and apply it in later experiences? That's the true test.

I strongly suggest making a genuine effort to focus less on grades (outcome) and more on process. I think you'll be far happier and less stressed 🙂

I'm definitely going to take your advice. It is pretty difficult for all of us when we scroll through the "What are my chances?" thread and start sweating.

 

[Lab Vet]

It's tough- and it takes practice. Don't be too hard on yourself. When you feel yourself starting to freak out about how you did in comparison to other people, try asking yourself questions like this:

-Did I learn the majority of information expected of me?
-Is my comprehension solid? Could I explain said info to A) A peer B) My grandma C) My professor?
-Can I put said information in context (i.e. in relation to other information I've learned)?
-Do I have decent recall (Can I remember stuff from the last exam in sufficient detail)?
-Am I satisfied with my performance- for it's own sake? If so, give yourself a pat on the back and keep it up. If not, reassess your preparation and improve for the next go-round.

Note that none of these suggestions have anything to do with anybody else. Your learning is up to you- other folks, they're not your concern 🙂

Good luck. You'll do just fine.

 

[LetItSnow]

I'm definitely going to take your advice. It is pretty difficult for all of us when we scroll through the "What are my chances?" thread and start sweating.

Don't let it get you down. I think it self-skews to people with pretty amazing stats. I know some of us with more clunker stats also are in there, but in general ... it's probably skewed.

Just get lots of experience, build up some excellent references, be a real human being that cares about other human beings, and get decent to excellent grades.

No sweat. 🙂

 

[jerseyshoregirl]

Easy. Take my undergrad organic chem class, where the A was 35%. Let's say she got the 35%.

Should the entire class fail? The curve helps her just as much as anyone. She still gets her 'A' for doing better than everyone else, and some poor schlup (probably me in my earlier go-arounds at college) would get an F with their 10%.

She's conveniently ONLY thinking of those times where she was already sitting at an awesome grade and the curve helped everyone but her. But that's not necessarily how a curve *has* to work. I guarantee you that when she hits my organic chem teacher, she'll suddenly become a believer in 'the curve'.



See, I don't buy your question. You have that caveat "technically received a failing grade" - but that's only because you've pre-determined in your mind that X percentage is always failing. For my organic chem prof that certainly wasn't true: to him my 32% was a pretty fine grade. He didn't think of it as "technically failing" at all.

Since one teacher tested one group of students one way, and the other tested a completely different group of students a different way; I'd say yes, it's perfectly fair. So long as the final grade given out by the instructor was a reasonable assessment of the individual's mastery of the material. Whether it's an 'A' for 30% or an 'A' for 90% is pretty irrelevant.

I think that's part of the issue; you've just got this locked-in narrow view that some particular percentage ought to equal passing. But why? It's pretty arbitrary when you think about it. Why does 90% have to equal an A? Why can't it be 50%, if the testing is designed that way? Or 10%? Or 80%?

50% was considered an "A" in my physics class!

I get what pink puppy means about standardizing all sections of a course at a school. My school is trying to do that with their biology department. For example, there are 5 sections of gen bio 1 and 3 or 4 different professors. But all the sections now have the same tests. I could see the advantage of this but it actually didn't work very well at all, because my professor focused on different things than the head of the department did who made up the test. So I always felt blindsided by the tests since they had stuff on there that my professor didn't even cover! Very hard to get all professors on the same page.

 

[equineconstant]

At my undergrad, what percentage equates to what grade varied by course...even whether there were A+s or B-s varied by course. At my vet school, the grading scale is standard across courses. My high school had 94 and up as an A while other local high schools had 90 and up as an A. To me, it doesn't really matter...I feel like you just deal with what's there, and if you do well it should mean you do well regardless. It sucks if that 93.45 shows up as a B on your transcript, but that is still standardized across teachers within the school, so does that sound like more of what you want?

Honestly, I think it's probably less fair to standardize "90 = A" across sections in college courses because those classes aren't taught the same or tested the same; if the professor is going to write a harder exam they should be able to scale it appropriately. For instance, my organic chem class had an A mark somewhere in the 80s because he recognized how difficult the class was. Allowing that variation makes it more fair.

I can't speak to grading on a curve as I haven't really experienced it.

 

[ChittyBang]

I can't speak to grading on a curve as I haven't really experienced it.

Ditto.

During SuperStorm Sandy we were given mercy in the form of some extra credit and deadline extensions. That's about it.

35%? 50%? How are those professors still teaching?

 

[LetItSnow]

35%? 50%? How are those professors still teaching?

Why?

Seriously, I'm confused: Why do people think that all exams should have 75% (or whatever) as their 'passing' mark? That's totally arbitrary.

My organic chem teacher was awesome. His test scores in the 35% were a product of the nature of his exams, not his teaching.

 

[Jamr0ckin]

I don't get the big deal either. I feel as though people who want things really standardized must be on the younger side (OP are you under 21?). I think the way the education system is now a days makes people feel like they deserve certain things, like "fair" grading and everything standardized.

Just go to class, learn what you are supposed to learn, and take your test. Don't get preoccupied with what other classes do, you're just hurting yourself.

You will not have standardized testing and grading in vet school. Better get used to it now.

 

[pp9]

Why?

Seriously, I'm confused: Why do people think that all exams should have 75% (or whatever) as their 'passing' mark? That's totally arbitrary.

My organic chem teacher was awesome. His test scores in the 35% were a product of the nature of his exams, not his teaching.

I suppose ChittyBang and I are approaching tests as a way to express how well we mastered the material presented by the professor. Traditionally, if you do not do well on a test (your 35%, for example) you did not master the material, or the professor should adjust his/her teaching. It's hard to understand why you think it's okay for a test to be impossible like that. To me it means the professor did not present the material in a way you could apply it to the test given, or that you did not have "the means to reach the end" if that makes sense (whether that be due to lack of prep on your part of lack of resources on the prof's part).

I know that the curve would adjust the percentages accordingly to give everyone a fair grade. But frankly, that logic tells me that the test was unfair to begin with. If a professor designs an exam to be so difficult to where the top score was a 35%, then they should have presented the material in a way that allowed to you address the exam questions in the way that would allow you to perform better. To me, that's the traditional goal of a test - to see who understands and can apply concepts.

My genetics course was somewhat similar in that the professor taught one way, then tested another. The averages were not as low as in your class, but still pretty depressing for a room full of pre-meds and pre-vets. He did have a pretty strong curve in the end plus bonus attendance points, which pissed off those who came out on top before the curve. But when I'm paying $400-500 per credit hour, I expect to be educated in a way that allows me to learn the material. Simply giving me exceedingly difficult tests to "stretch my mind" is in no way teaching the subject. It's not like the professor handed back the exams, then walked us through each problem to make sure we understood how to do his test problems that were completely different from the homework, practice problems, etc.

 

[DVMDream]

Why?

Seriously, I'm confused: Why do people think that all exams should have 75% (or whatever) as their 'passing' mark? That's totally arbitrary.

My organic chem teacher was awesome. His test scores in the 35% were a product of the nature of his exams, not his teaching.

I agree, I learned much more from my undergrad parasitology course where the averages were on the 30's than I did from the vet school course. He challenged us, that is why. We studied harder to try to do better and therefore we learned more, even if the grades weren't great. You just can't remember every sub-class, sub-group, order, and family for every parasite... Not possible, that is where the bad marks came from, but we were able to get marks in the questions about life cycles and what the parasites infect. His exams worked, even with the lower grades.


Also, look up the national organic chemistry exam, that is standardized. I had to take that, national average is in the 30's..... Having difficult exams isn't bad, if anything it makes students study more, try harder and in the end, learn more.

 

[pp9]

I don't get the big deal either. I feel as though people who want things really standardized must be on the younger side (OP are you under 21?). I think the way the education system is now a days makes people feel like they deserve certain things, like "fair" grading and everything standardized.

Just go to class, learn what you are supposed to learn, and take your test. Don't get preoccupied with what other classes do, you're just hurting yourself.

You will not have standardized testing and grading in vet school. Better get used to it now.

No, I am not under 21.

One could argue that it does not matter once you reach vet school though. After all, how many times have you heard "2.0 is passing!" I've heard it plenty of times.

If this is a competition (for us, it is), should it not be standardized? The MCAT is standardized. The GRE is standardized. Both are factors in the admissions process, albeit weighted differently from your GPA. If you were to find out that one testing center had an advantage over another, and there was no way you could take your test at that center, would you not feel slighted? Irritated in the least bit? The test is supposed to be reflective of your academic ability. Maybe this is a poor example since you can't exactly compare the GRE to a class.

Obviously, classes are not called "standardized classes" for a reason. They don't exist. My logic is that if we are all being reviewed for the same things (GPA, GRE, class load, whatever) without subjectivity (for the most part...think the first cut a lot of schools make), then the classes should be without subjectivity as well. It's not a foolproof argument as seen in this thread, I'm just trying to express my feelings on this. It is difficult to take this whole upper education process seriously when you hear that one class got bonus point opportunities on each exam or was curved 5% at the end.

 

[LetItSnow]

I suppose ChittyBang and I are approaching tests as a way to express how well we mastered the material presented by the professor.

Yes. I agree with that. It is how you are assessed on your mastery of the material.

But I think you're confusing yourself by associating your absolute score (say, 35%) with your absolute understanding of the material.

And that's a mistake. There's literally no reason to expect that correlation to exist.

In the example we've been using (my organic chem class), if you got 35%, you had mastered the material to the expectation of the instructor (i.e. ~100%). That's because the test was intentionally designed to assess the limit of what you knew.

In another exam for another class, they may only test you on a subset of the material, and 90% may represent mastery of the material.

But there's no reason to say that for every test, one particular % grade absolutely represents your mastery of the material. I think you're kinda hung up on that.

Traditionally, if you do not do well on a test (your 35%, for example) you did not master the material, or the professor should adjust his/her teaching. It's hard to understand why you think it's okay for a test to be impossible like that. To me it means the professor did not present the material in a way you could apply it to the test given, or that you did not have "the means to reach the end" if that makes sense (whether that be due to lack of prep on your part of lack of resources on the prof's part).

I disagree with "traditionally," but since I doubt either of us are experts on the history of education, perhaps we can just let that go.

It doesn't bother me AT ALL that his exam was like that. His exam truly found the complete extent of my knowledge. In fact, I'd argue that his test was a far better reflection of how well I had mastered the material than some multiple-choice exam that assessed some sub-set of random points from some lectures where, if you happen to study those exact points you did great, and if you hadn't, you did poorly: neither of which might be a truly good representation of your overall mastery of the material.

Think about it. Let's say I cover 10 points in a lecture. Let's say I give a multiple choice exam that tests on 4 of them. Let's say Student 1 memorized 60% of my material and happened to catch all 4 points tested. He gets 100%.

Let's say Student 2 memorized 60% of my material and didn't happen to catch those 4 points. He gets 0%.

In reality, they both have a 60% mastery of my material, but because my test covered a subset of the material, they got drastically different outcomes. In both cases, the absolute % they got on my test had no connection to the % mastery of the material.

That's a pretty exaggerated example (obviously), but the concept is fair. When my organic chem teacher gave us that exam, it forced us to apply everything we had learned in the course, and it gave him a way to measure our true mastery of all the material.

Honestly, it was one of the most satisfying exams I've ever taken, because I walked away knowing exactly what I had learned in the course.

I know you're going to say: "Why not just test all 10 points?" That's just not a practical reality. You can't test students on every last little bit of data you threw at them. But by giving them a test that forces them to apply all the concepts in a test where you know they're going to come up short, you effectively test their mastery.

But frankly, that logic tells me that the test was unfair to begin with.

The only reason that "logic tells you that" is because you've got it wired into your brain that the percentage passing on the test EQUATES to the percent understanding of the material. That's just not true.

Personally, I think you're just hung up on thinking "If I got 35% on a test, I would view that as meaning I understood 35% of what I was supposed to know." If you throw that preconceived notion out, I think your objection goes away.

 

[pp9]

Yes. I agree with that. It is how you are assessed on your mastery of the material.

But I think you're confusing yourself by associating your absolute score (say, 35%) with your absolute understanding of the material.

And that's a mistake. There's literally no reason to expect that correlation to exist.

In the example we've been using (my organic chem class), if you got 35%, you had mastered the material to the expectation of the instructor (i.e. ~100%). That's because the test was intentionally designed to assess the limit of what you knew.

In another exam for another class, they may only test you on a subset of the material, and 90% may represent mastery of the material.

But there's no reason to say that for every test, one particular % grade absolutely represents your mastery of the material. I think you're kinda hung up on that.



I disagree with "traditionally," but since I doubt either of us are experts on the history of education, perhaps we can just let that go.

It doesn't bother me AT ALL that his exam was like that. His exam truly found the complete extent of my knowledge. In fact, I'd argue that his test was a far better reflection of how well I had mastered the material than some multiple-choice exam that assessed some sub-set of random points from some lectures where, if you happen to study those exact points you did great, and if you hadn't, you did poorly: neither of which might be a truly good representation of your overall mastery of the material.

Think about it. Let's say I cover 10 points in a lecture. Let's say I give a multiple choice exam that tests on 4 of them. Let's say Student 1 memorized 60% of my material and happened to catch all 4 points tested. He gets 100%.

Let's say Student 2 memorized 60% of my material and didn't happen to catch those 4 points. He gets 0%.

In reality, they both have a 60% mastery of my material, but because my test covered a subset of the material, they got drastically different outcomes. In both cases, the absolute % they got on my test had no connection to the % mastery of the material.

I know you're going to say: "Why not just test all 10 points?" That's just not a practical reality. You can't test students on every last little bit of data you threw at them. But by giving them a test that forces them to apply all the concepts in a test where you know they're going to come up short, you effectively test their mastery.

That's a pretty exaggerated example (obviously), but the concept is fair. When my organic chem teacher gave us that exam, it forced us to apply everything we had learned in the course, and it gave him a way to measure our true mastery of all the material.

Honestly, it was one of the most satisfying exams I've ever taken, because I walked away knowing exactly what I had learned in the course.



The only reason that "logic tells you that" is because you've got it wired into your brain that the percentage passing on the test EQUATES to the percent understanding of the material. That's just not true.

But if he's going to scale the grades anyways, why not adjust how he scores the tests in the first place? The definition of a percentage is how many parts out of 100, correct? 35/100 is less than 50/100. I get that the 35 was considered passing in this case. But it just makes no sense to me to grade a test that tells you that less than half of your answers were considered correct, but to bump your grade after. What's the point? Why not make the syllabus-stated grading scale extremely low if he considers a 35% to be a great test score? It just seems frivolous to me.

I'm still not saying tests should not be challenging (PS, I'd love to take an Orgo that gave multiple choice tests!).

 

[DVMDream]

If this is a competition (for us, it is), should it not be standardized? The MCAT is standardized. The GRE is standardized. Both are factors in the admissions process, albeit weighted differently from your GPA. If you were to find out that one testing center had an advantage over another, and there was no way you could take your test at that center, would you not feel slighted? Irritated in the least bit? The test is supposed to be reflective of your academic ability. Maybe this is a poor example since you can't exactly compare the GRE to a class.

Obviously, classes are not called "standardized classes" for a reason. They don't exist. My logic is that if we are all being reviewed for the same things (GPA, GRE, class load, whatever) without subjectivity (for the most part...think the first cut a lot of schools make), then the classes should be without subjectivity as well. It's not a foolproof argument as seen in this thread, I'm just trying to express my feelings on this. It is difficult to take this whole upper education process seriously when you hear that one class got bonus point opportunities on each exam or was curved 5% at the end.

You do realize how the GRE and MCAT are standardized, right? I don't think you understand that. It isn't the same from year to year... it is standardized based on who took the exam and how you did compared to your peers during a specific time frame... those scores and percentages are constantly changing with time.

The same is true with classes that grade on a curve... the curve is based upon that group of students in THAT class taking THOSE exams... not over a group of students across the entire school, that makes zero sense. You can't compare your 90% on your exam to your friend's 90% on her exam with a different instructor and different exam. It isn't the same... yes, it is the same grade but your mastery of the material may still be vastly different. So may be the way in which you understand the material. Do you really think an 80% at a school like Harvard should be equal to an 80% at a small liberal arts college? I am not saying that the Harvard exam is harder or the small liberal arts school grades easier, I am saying they are different schools, with different professors and different exams. Each professor within a school is vastly different as well, you can't expect them all to grade the same. You also have to remember that a curve does NOT always help you... a curve can harm your grade as well, so while you can whine and complain that it isn't fair that x class got a curve, it is possible that if your class had been graded on a curve that your grade may actually drop.

You are looking at 90% = 90% mastery.... let's look at my vet school (I am in the UK)...

A 50% is passing... that is considered a "C". A "C" is average, that is the level of information that is expected every student to know to have a good grasp on the basic material, or 100% mastery of the basic knowledge that a vet should know upon graduating. A 60% is a "B", this means that you not only have a good grasp on the basic material, but can also go into some detail that may not really be important in the bigger picture... "above average". A 70% or above is an "A"... this means you have mastered not only the basic material but can give lots of detail on various aspects of the course...
The 50% is what is expected that all vets know, if you ask any vet that is what they should know, they should be able to answer to that extent, or a 100% mastery of what you need to know to be a good practitioner.

 

[DVMDream]

I'm still not saying tests should not be challenging (PS, I'd love to take an Orgo that gave multiple choice tests!).

No, you would not. Trust me on this. That is why I mentioned the ACS standardized organic chemistry exam... it is multiple choice. It was the most horrendous exam in the world. If you can write out what you are doing in organic chemistry, you might get some partial points for having some of the thought process correct, but maybe not exactly getting to the correct end product. With multiple choice, it is just figuring out the end product. Actually, I used to be a HUGE multiple choice exam lover... I hated the thought of short answer/essay exam, until I got to vet school. At least, I can write out my thought process here... I can't do that in multiple choice, and if my thought process is partially correct, but I just miss the end result, I got no points on multiple choice, where I may get partial credit on a short answer or essay question.

 

[ChittyBang]

But if he's going to scale the grades anyways, why not adjust how he scores the tests in the first place? The definition of a percentage is how many parts out of 100, correct? 35/100 is less than 50/100. I get that the 35 was considered passing in this case. But it just makes no sense to me to grade a test that tells you that less than half of your answers were considered correct, but to bump your grade after. What's the point? Why not make the syllabus-stated grading scale extremely low if he considers a 35% to be a great test score? It just seems frivolous to me.

I'm still not saying tests should not be challenging (PS, I'd love to take an Orgo that gave multiple choice tests!).

👍

In my Orgo 1 & 2 courses, for example, our professor told us he would not curve. Ever. He gave us crazy stuff to draw out, crazy nomenclature, and crazy NMRs, all to test our understanding of the concepts and materials. By the time I finshed, I knew my ****, and earned my grades outright. He made us work our asses off. We were required to know everything - 100%.

Maybe it's because I'm non-trad, but I saw too many younger students expecting too much help along the way while taking my prerequisites. I'm not saying that this is where some of you are coming from, but it's my POV.

 

[pp9]

You do realize how the GRE and MCAT are standardized, right? I don't think you understand that. It isn't the same from year to year... it is standardized based on who took the exam and how you did compared to your peers during a specific time frame... those scores and percentages are constantly changing with time.

The same is true with classes that grade on a curve... the curve is based upon that group of students in THAT class taking THOSE exams... not over a group of students across the entire school, that makes zero sense. You can't compare your 90% on your exam to your friend's 90% on her exam with a different instructor and different exam. It isn't the same... yes, it is the same grade but your mastery of the material may still be vastly different. So may be the way in which you understand the material. Do you really think an 80% at a school like Harvard should be equal to an 80% at a small liberal arts college? I am not saying that the Harvard exam is harder or the small liberal arts school grades easier, I am saying they are different schools, with different professors and different exams. Each professor within a school is vastly different as well, you can't expect them all to grade the same. You also have to remember that a curve does NOT always help you... a curve can harm your grade as well, so while you can whine and complain that it isn't fair that x class got a curve, it is possible that if your class had been graded on a curve that your grade may actually drop.

You are looking at 90% = 90% mastery.... let's look at my vet school (I am in the UK)...

A 50% is passing... that is considered a "C". A "C" is average, that is the level of information that is expected every student to know to have a good grasp on the basic material, or 100% mastery of the basic knowledge that a vet should know upon graduating. A 60% is a "B", this means that you not only have a good grasp on the basic material, but can also go into some detail that may not really be important in the bigger picture... "above average". A 70% or above is an "A"... this means you have mastered not only the basic material but can give lots of detail on various aspects of the course...
The 50% is what is expected that all vets know, if you ask any vet that is what they should know, they should be able to answer to that extent, or a 100% mastery of what you need to know to be a good practitioner.

I do know that's how the tests are "standardized." But then, in my opinion, they aren't truly standardized at all. You shouldn't compare different years of exams then because they are not accurate comparisons of students and are not truly standardized. I actually think, according to pre-med friends, the MCAT scores are actually based on a bell curve of the students who took the exam with you at the testing center at the same time? Or at least the tests taken on that day across the country. Not sure about that.

And it seems like your vet school has a very straight stick grading scale. 50%=half, literally. I've never had/heard of a harmful curve before, so that's an interesting concept to me. I think it's out of line for you to say I'm whining when the whole point of this post was to learn about other schools and their academic policies. Please don't take a stance like that. It inhibits thoughtful discussion and makes it difficult to enjoy reading your opinions and experiences.

And, to touch on your Harvard comparison, that is exactly why some schools look down on community colleges. The classes there are viewed as (sometimes accurately, sometimes not) less difficult by certain schools. That would be because the standards are different, correct? The teaching requirements are different sometimes, correct? You do not always NEED a Ph.D. to teach at a community college, correct?

 

[DVMDream]

👍

In my Orgo 1 & 2 courses, for example, our professor told us he would not curve. Ever. He gave us crazy stuff to draw out, crazy nomenclature, and crazy NMRs, all to test our understanding of the concepts and materials. By the time I finshed, I knew my ****, and earned my grades outright. He made us work our asses off. We were required to know everything - 100%.

Maybe it's because I'm non-trad, but I saw too many younger students expecting too much help along the way while taking my prerequisites. I'm not saying that this is where some of you are coming from, but it's my POV.

Honestly, this just sounds like whining to me. It isn't fair that MY teacher was harder than Jenny's teacher. It isn't fairy that MY teacher didn't curve the exam and Jenny's teacher did.

I am sorry, but this is life. Don't like the professor, find a different one. Don't agree with the curving, don't join a class that grades on a curve. But complaining that your class was harder because you felt you had difficult exams when you didn't sit in the other class and take their exams is absurd. You are complaining about something that you can not adequately compare.

LIS mentioned in another thread that is one pathology course is often a failing point for many student, our pathology course is often seen as a "easy" course and they often have to adjust scores so that 50% is no longer passing and you need a 60%... should he throw a fit that my course is easier? Does he know if my course is actually easier? Or does it just appear that way when I type it out?

 

[DVMDream]

I do know that's how the tests are "standardized." But then, in my opinion, they aren't truly standardized at all. You shouldn't compare different years of exams then because they are not accurate comparisons of students and are not truly standardized. I actually think, according to pre-med friends, the MCAT scores are actually based on a bell curve of the students who took the exam with you at the testing center at the same time? Or at least the tests taken on that day across the country. Not sure about that.

And it seems like your vet school has a very straight stick grading scale. 50%=half, literally. I've never had/heard of a harmful curve before, so that's an interesting concept to me. I think it's out of line for you to say I'm whining when the whole point of this post was to learn about other schools and their academic policies. Please don't take a stance like that. It inhibits thoughtful discussion and makes it difficult to enjoy reading your opinions and experiences.

And, to touch on your Harvard comparison, that is exactly why some schools look down on community colleges. The classes there are viewed as (sometimes accurately, sometimes not) less difficult by certain schools. That would be because the standards are different, correct? The teaching requirements are different sometimes, correct? You do not always NEED a Ph.D. to teach at a community college, correct?

I am sorry you feel that way, but many people have given you numerous examples and all you keep doing as adding in more points where another class had it BETTER than you did, or had this and you did not.

If I say, "But Jenny got a bigger cookie than I did!" Is that not whining?

So you are saying, "one class got bonus point opportunities on each exam or was curved 5% at the end" ... is that not similar?

I am sorry that you do not appreciate my opinion in that it sounds like you are whining, but that is just my opinion. And when you read it, that is how you come off.

And yes, a grading on a curve can harm you. The whole point of a bell-shaped curve is that the vast majority of people will end up with a C... if the class average end grade is an 85% and the professor is grading on a curve, an 85% is now considered the new C.

Have you taken statistics?

And you just repeated my point about the MCAT and the GRE. You don't understand how they are graded. The GRE standardization works, because the exam is set up with specific questions for a specific time frame... you are being graded and standardized with your peers on the same material over a period of time. They do change questions over time, you can not have a standardized exam over a period of 10 years, you just can't. 5 years is even pushing it. You can't keep giving the same repeated exam time after time, year after year, that is why you are graded or standardized based on when you took the exam. It is a way of making the GRE "fair" and accurate over a period of 3, 4, 5, 6, etc years.

 

[ChittyBang]

Honestly, this just sounds like whining to me. It isn't fair that MY teacher was harder than Jenny's teacher. It isn't fairy that MY teacher didn't curve the exam and Jenny's teacher did.

I am sorry, but this is life. Don't like the professor, find a different one. Don't agree with the curving, don't join a class that grades on a curve. But complaining that your class was harder because you felt you had difficult exams when you didn't sit in the other class and take their exams is absurd. You are complaining about something that you can not adequately compare.

LIS mentioned in another thread that is one pathology course is often a failing point for many student, our pathology course is often seen as a "easy" course and they often have to adjust scores so that 50% is no longer passing and you need a 60%... should he throw a fit that my course is easier? Does he know if my course is actually easier? Or does it just appear that way when I type it out?

Complaining and whining? LOL Quite the opposite. I greatly appreciate how I was taught and tested.

My whole point was to back-up the concept that a grade should be out of 100%. And that if a professor consistently has students earning poor percentages, that he or she should then modify their teaching/testing style.

 

[TooLove]

I'm really struggling to figure out where you're trying to go with this.

There is absolutely no way to standardize grades across different classes, professors, or schools.

Your application is submitted. Your grades are in. Transcripts are final. Maybe you're just one of those people who like to harp on the what ifs, but I'm not.

To me, this sounds like a justification of a few poor grades without making it sound like its your fault. Like I said, ad coms will not think highly of that kind of thinking. I'm glad you didn't get a C in orgo. Guess what? I did. Guess where I am? Vet school.

Chill out.

 

[DVMDream]

Complaining and whining? LOL Quite the opposite. I greatly appreciate how I was taught and tested.

My whole point was to back-up the concept that a grade should be out of 100%. And that if a professor consistently has students earning poor percentages, that he or she should then modify their teaching/testing style.

The grades were always out of 100%, it just so happened that in the one course I had a 35% was passing. Do you find it wrong that a 50% is passing at my school currently?

It is the pre-conceived notion that a 70% equals passing that you are holding on to.

What about a class where you need an 85% to pass? Is that fair? Does that now make it too hard?

 

[ChittyBang]

And I should add that, at least in the NYC area, many lower level schools push students along so that the schools maintain funding, etc and everyone's happy. Then once these students get to college, they expect the same. I have sat in classes where the younger students have whined and complained because they did not know what would be on the upcoming exam, and how unfair the professor was since he expected them to know everything taught in lecture. They expect a curve. They expect to do poorly and pass. So that does skew my POV.

 

[ChittyBang]

The grades were always out of 100%, it just so happened that in the one course I had a 35% was passing. Do you find it wrong that a 50% is passing at my school currently?

It is the pre-conceived notion that a 70% equals passing that you are holding on to.

What about a class where you need an 85% to pass? Is that fair? Does that now make it too hard?

I'm pretty sure 50% is passing at my school. I'm not holding onto a pre-conceived notion that a 70% equals passing as I've never experienced that. And having to have an 85% to pass sounds like a lot of people would fail.

I just wanted to join the convo and share my views. My bad.

 

[DVMDream]

I'm pretty sure 50% is passing at my school. I'm not holding onto a pre-conceived notion that a 70% equals passing as I've never experienced that. And having to have an 85% to pass sounds like a lot of people would fail.

I just wanted to join the convo and share my views. My bad.

I am just trying to understand your viewpoint is all.

Earlier you even said how are those professors really even teaching if the grades are 35% or even 50%. So, I am just confused, because now you say that your school is 50% and passing, but earlier you felt a 50% and the teachers weren't teaching adequately. Do you think your teachers aren't teaching adequately?

The 85% would only be when using a bell-shaped curve, so you wouldn't have any more students failing than you normally would.

So I guess I am just confused by your viewpoint to be honest.

 

[ChittyBang]

I am just trying to understand your viewpoint is all.

Earlier you even said how are those professors really even teaching if the grades are 35% or even 50%. So, I am just confused, because now you say that your school is 50% and passing, but earlier you felt a 50% and the teachers weren't teaching adequately. Do you think your teachers aren't teaching adequately?

The 85% would only be when using a bell-shaped curve, so you wouldn't have any more students failing than you normally would.

So I guess I am just confused by your viewpoint to be honest.

I raised my eyebrows at a 50% or 35% becoming an A, is all. That, to me, is ridiculous. My opinion. Happens once? OK. Consistently? Change needs to take place.

Maybe I'm "old school", but I just feel that a professor who tests-to-fail should change her/his style. And I also feel that students should expect to work hard.

As previously stated, I'm not saying that is the case with everyone here. Just my opinion bases on what I've seen.

 

[ChittyBang]

50% was considered an "A" in my physics class!

This is what I was referring to.

And I said that 50%, I believe, is considered passing. It may actually be 65%. Doesn't mean you want to get a 50%/65%.

 

[Escalla]

The only reason that "logic tells you that" is because you've got it wired into your brain that the percentage passing on the test EQUATES to the percent understanding of the material. That's just not true.

Personally, I think you're just hung up on thinking "If I got 35% on a test, I would view that as meaning I understood 35% of what I was supposed to know." If you throw that preconceived notion out, I think your objection goes away.

👍 This.

A 50% is passing... that is considered a "C". A "C" is average, that is the level of information that is expected every student to know to have a good grasp on the basic material, or 100% mastery of the basic knowledge that a vet should know upon graduating. A 60% is a "B", this means that you not only have a good grasp on the basic material, but can also go into some detail that may not really be important in the bigger picture... "above average". A 70% or above is an "A"... this means you have mastered not only the basic material but can give lots of detail on various aspects of the course...
The 50% is what is expected that all vets know, if you ask any vet that is what they should know, they should be able to answer to that extent, or a 100% mastery of what you need to know to be a good practitioner.

👍

I think it's important to relate this discussion to real life here.....as was discussed in many of my classes, the professors and course coordinators determine the passing grade by assessing what they would consider to be a percentage or grade that a student with a reasonable understanding of the material would achieve. In regards to what "reasonable" is, it is determined by what they think a student should know to be good practitioner (as that is what we're doing here...). Anything above that is considered bonus, really.

So granted, you can't coast along with Cs and expect to get into vet school, but the premise is still the same. Based on the exam, it's perfectly reasonable for the professor to adjust the grading scale to reflect what he thinks is a reasonable understanding of the material. Whether that is making a C 50% or 80%...or an A 70% or 97%.

 

[DVMDream]

I raised my eyebrows at a 50% or 35% becoming an A, is all. That, to me, is ridiculous. My opinion. Happens once? OK. Consistently? Change needs to take place.

Maybe I'm "old school", but I just feel that a professor who tests-to-fail should change her/his style. And I also feel that students should expect to work hard.

As previously stated, I'm not saying that is the case with everyone here. Just my opinion bases on what I've seen.

What is failing? If the 50% is an "A", then a 50% is no longer failing, so how can you say that professor is "testing to fail" if no one actually failed that received what is commonly seen as a "failing" grade?

My 35% in parasitology ended up being a B... so what? I learned much more from that class and course because I was constantly trying harder. He flat out told the class to never expect a grade above a 50%, because that was how he structured the course. Plenty of people passed that course just fine. I learned a lot from his class. I appreciated that class because of his teaching and exam style.

Compare that to my ecology class where I didn't even have to take the final, because I breezed right through the easy exams without any issues. I didn't even study for those exams. It was an easy "A" and I don't remember any of that class. Forgot about it once I was told I would still have an A without even sitting the final.

So, which class did I end up with a better knowledge base of? Parasitology. Which class did I get the higher grade in? Ecology.

While I see what you are saying, just because a professor has difficult exams does not meant that people are not learning. Just because the passing grade is at a 40% does not mean that professor is doing poorly.

 

[LetItSnow]

But if he's going to scale the grades anyways, why not adjust how he scores the tests in the first place?

So it'd be ok with you if he just changed how he GRADED the test so that the score the student saw met your arbitrary definition of what the grading distribution should be? But it's not ok to give the student back their actual percentage and then adjust it?

You're just not making sense now. Sorry.

As best I can tell, your entire assertion is centered around an assumption/desire that every exam should fit an arbitrary distribution (for percentage-correct answers) that you've decided best represents mastery of the material. If you go at it with that foundational belief ... then sure. Everything you've said is right.

But I think that's a terribly flawed way to view testing.

 

[LetItSnow]

LIS mentioned in another thread that is one pathology course is often a failing point for many student, our pathology course is often seen as a "easy" course and they often have to adjust scores so that 50% is no longer passing and you need a 60%... should he throw a fit that my course is easier? Does he know if my course is actually easier? Or does it just appear that way when I type it out?

(The answer, btw, is 'no.' But only because LIS has heard horror stories about DVMD's parasitology course.)

 

[LetItSnow]

My whole point was to back-up the concept that a grade should be out of 100%. And that if a professor consistently has students earning poor percentages, that he or she should then modify their teaching/testing style.

Ok, cool. Now we've got somewhere to start from. You have a "concept that a grade should be out of 100%." (By which I assume you really mean that a grade should always fit the same distribution. Something like 90-100=A, 80-100=B, etc. Because as far as I know, pretty much every test IS graded out of 100%. It's just that an 80% in one class might be an A whereas in another class it might be a B; but it's still out of 100%.)

I've given you a number of reasons that I think that's a) impracticable, b) maybe impossible, and c) not a good idea.

How about you give me some compelling reasons you think that concept makes sense? All I've heard so far is, basically, "because I want it to." And as best I can tell, it's because of an incorrect perception that your percentage grade on a test necessarily equates to the percentage understanding of the material.

 

[pp9]

I think I will voluntarily remove myself from my own thread since this turned into more of a "well you must be justifying your bad grades and blaming other people" and "stop whining and study harder" as opposed to my intention of learning about if schools have policies against this.

Thank you to those who were able to reply with maturity and provide examples to give me more information! Pretty bummed that what I thought would be enlightening turned into me feeling like I have no right to have a question on the matter.

 

[BlackDog17]

I think I will voluntarily remove myself from my own thread since this turned into more of a "well you must be justifying your bad grades and blaming other people" and "stop whining and study harder" as opposed to my intention of learning about if schools have policies against this.

Thank you to those who were able to reply with maturity and provide examples to give me more information! Pretty bummed that what I thought would be enlightening turned into me feeling like I have no right to have a question on the matter.

You've been given this answer multiple times. The fact that you're choosing to ignore it because you don't like it doesn't change that.

 

[LetItSnow]

Pretty bummed that what I thought would be enlightening turned into me feeling like I have no right to have a question on the matter.

That's kinda what happens when people ask you to justify your answer and you just keep responding with the equivalent of "because that's the way I think it should be."

 

[BlackDog17]

I am sorry, but this is life. Don't like the professor, find a different one. Don't agree with the curving, don't join a class that grades on a curve. But complaining that your class was harder because you felt you had difficult exams when you didn't sit in the other class and take their exams is absurd. You are complaining about something that you can not adequately compare.

This. I couldn't agree more.

Pinkpuppy, your whole argument here is that allowing curves/scaling is unfair to students who were in a class that didn't use those practices. Guess what, nothing in this process is fair. You can spend a lifetime finding all the ways that other students had it "better" than you. In the end, you're just making excuses for yourself.

I'm a huge kinesthetic learner. I seriously struggle to learn from textbooks and lectures. I find it very hard to remember material unless I can find a way to take it off the page and apply it. Is it fair that 95% of classes are taught in a way that favors visual/auditory learners? Is it fair that my classmate can get A's by simply listening to the lecture, while I have to study for hours just to get a comparable grade? If my classmate is a morning person and I never feel fully functional until early afternoon, is it fair that the exam is given at 8am?

There are a million different scenarios in which I get the short end of the stick. Am I going to go throw a temper tantrum about fairness and grading every time another student gets a slight advantage? Absolutely not.

And why stop at simple courses? If Applicant A's family is wealthy and she was able to study/work in a fascinating exotic location, and financially I was never able to do that, is it fair that her experience is favored by the admissions committee? If Applicant B's parents are vets and she started getting experience in the clinic when she was six years old, is it fair that she is viewed as the better applicant because she has more veterinary hours? If Applicant C struggles with test anxiety and does poorly on the GRE, is it fair that she's being compared to applicants who never encountered that obstacle?

Nothing is truly fair. Nothing. The sooner you accept that, the easier life will be for you.

You are wasting an exorbitant amount of time and energy worrying about which arbitrary percentage should equal which arbitrary letter grade. Seriously, stop and think about that for a moment. It's really just sad.

 

[ChittyBang]

What is failing? If the 50% is an "A", then a 50% is no longer failing, so how can you say that professor is "testing to fail" if no one actually failed that received what is commonly seen as a "failing" grade?

My 35% in parasitology ended up being a B... so what? I learned much more from that class and course because I was constantly trying harder. He flat out told the class to never expect a grade above a 50%, because that was how he structured the course. Plenty of people passed that course just fine. I learned a lot from his class. I appreciated that class because of his teaching and exam style.

Compare that to my ecology class where I didn't even have to take the final, because I breezed right through the easy exams without any issues. I didn't even study for those exams. It was an easy "A" and I don't remember any of that class. Forgot about it once I was told I would still have an A without even sitting the final.

So, which class did I end up with a better knowledge base of? Parasitology. Which class did I get the higher grade in? Ecology.

While I see what you are saying, just because a professor has difficult exams does not meant that people are not learning. Just because the passing grade is at a 40% does not mean that professor is doing poorly.

I see what you're saying, I really do, but I just can't understand how only knowing 50% of the material justifies an A. I know that in some cases, such as yours, that does not negate your understanding of the subject matter, BUT what is the overall standard, then? Some professors are sh*tty and grade generously, while some professors are awesome and grade strictly.

Ultimately, real life weeds us all out based on skill, knowledge, confidence, aggression, and our ability to bullsh*t our way through. IMO, cream rises to the top whether that cream got an A or C, regardless of how they got it.

 

[LetItSnow]

I see what you're saying, I really do, but I just can't understand how only knowing 50% of the material justifies an A.

You're just too hung up on this notion that 100% of the test should equate to 100% of the material, and therefore whatever percentage you get right equates to the portion of material you have mastered.

But there's no actual reason to view it that way. I'm still waiting for someone to give some great reasons it should.

Let's say I give you 100 questions. They're straightforward fact-based questions, and you know the material super well. Well enough that you could answer all the questions in about two hours.

But let's say I give you one hour.

Your level of mastery hasn't changed, but your grade is going to go down. Do you suddenly know the material worse because you got 100% when I gave you two hours, but 50% when I gave you one? No, not at all.

The same sort of thinking applies to a test where the teacher wants to find the 'end point' of your knowledge; where they want to see just how well you can apply it. They give you problems you probably can't solve completely, so that they can see how you approach them and how far you CAN take your knowledge. You aren't going to score 90% on that kind of test, but the 50% you do score might represent really excellent mastery of the material.

You just have to get past this locked-in notion that X% on an exam equals X% understanding of the material.

Some professors are sh*tty and grade generously, while some professors are awesome and grade strictly.

Yes, and? So what? What's the alternative? That a school puts together one standardized exam for every class? That will screw people even more when they get some professors who teach the material well and some who don't. At least when the professor creates his own test the odds are higher he's going to create it with an eye toward what HE taught and what HE finds important to know.

Dunno. Maybe I'm just incredibly stupid, but I really don't understand the objection that you and pinky appear to have. I've tried to get you guys to spell it out, but you just keep rambling back with some hard-to-understand stuff about fairness and how it doesn't make sense to you that you can get an A with a 50% on an exam.

 

[TooLove]

I think I will voluntarily remove myself from my own thread since this turned into more of a "well you must be justifying your bad grades and blaming other people" and "stop whining and study harder" as opposed to my intention of learning about if schools have policies against this.

Thank you to those who were able to reply with maturity and provide examples to give me more information! Pretty bummed that what I thought would be enlightening turned into me feeling like I have no right to have a question on the matter.

Like BD said, you've been given the answer, you just don't like what it is.

There really aren't any set policies against "this", because "this" is real life and everyone has to deal with it. Sometimes you get the easy road, sometimes you don't.

Acting like a victim (which you did both in your original post and the quoted one) will get you NOWHERE.

Like I said before, your application is submitted. You can't change it. Chill the hell out. If you get in, great. If you don't, it's not because your fellow applicants had it easy in their classes and you didn't. It's because there was someone who was genuinely better qualified, grades or otherwise.

 

[BlackDog17]

I see what you're saying, I really do, but I just can't understand how only knowing 50% of the material justifies an A. I know that in some cases, such as yours, that does not negate your understanding of the subject matter, BUT what is the overall standard, then? Some professors are sh*tty and grade generously, while some professors are awesome and grade strictly.

Ultimately, real life weeds us all out based on skill, knowledge, confidence, aggression, and our ability to bullsh*t our way through. IMO, cream rises to the top whether that cream got an A or C, regardless of how they got it.

So if I'm understanding your stance correctly, you believe that a grade of 100% indicates 100% mastery of the material, 85% indicates 85% mastery, and so on, and under no circumstances is it acceptable for the grades to be scaled or curved.

We've already established that standardized testing is not acceptable. So what happens if you and I take a course with two different professors? We both have 85% mastery of the material. My professor provides a reasonable exam and lenient grading, and I get an 85%. Your professor provides an excessively difficult exam and extremely strict grading, and you get a 35% percent.

Yes, it could be argued that the harder professor needs to be reviewed or should revise his tests. But that's not going to happen until the semester is over. Your 35% for the semester stands. By your logic, you should fail the course because based on this one exam, you have no functional understanding of the material. Remember that in reality, you and I both have 85% mastery of this material. I'm sure you know that it's perfectly possible to have a strong understanding of the material and still do poorly on the exam.

So is it reasonable to let you fail, or to require that you spend another whole semester repeating the course with a different testing system? No, it's not. As a result, the class grades are curved to reflect your actual mastery of the material.

 

[ChittyBang]

So if I'm understanding your stance correctly, you believe that a grade of 100% indicates 100% mastery of the material, 85% indicates 85% mastery, and so on, and under no circumstances is it acceptable for the grades to be scaled or curved.

Put this way, no. I do not.

On the same token, however, someone above mentioned that their professor said that no one would score above a 50%, and I find that unacceptable.

Last I read, the United States was ranked 17th in education. I know that this thread has derailed from original question/concern, but this was where I was indirectly coming from.

I just don't agree with some of you and that's ok. I don't have to. And you don't have to agree with me. That's ok. We'll all live in spite of this thread. I now regress.

 

[LetItSnow]

I just don't agree with some of you and that's ok. I don't have to. And you don't have to agree with me. That's ok. We'll all live in spite of this thread. I now regress.

Yeah, but the difference is that some of us have provided a rational reason for our thinking, whereas you and pinkpuppy really haven't provided any decent justification.

That's .. well, fine. If you just want to go with "this is my opinion and that's that" ... ok ... but don't be so surprised when nobody agrees with you.

It's like treating vaccine-induced purpura hemorrhagica. You can make a good argument for using antibiotics or not using antibiotics, and each position is probably legit - but only if you can justify it your position. So far all you and pinkpuppy have done is voice an opinion - it's time to give your opinion some teeth. Otherwise it's just ... well ... meh. Whatever.

 

[DVMDream]

On the same token, however, someone above mentioned that their professor said that no one would score above a 50%, and I find that unacceptable.

Why is that unacceptable? Seriously... His exams was testing your knowledge of every parasite's: phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. He also expected you to know sub-class, sub-order, sub-family, etc... do you really think a student will be able to know all of that? Really? Do you think that they haven't mastered the material if the student has decided I will learn genus and species, life cycle, and disease caused by the parasite? You had to know all of this information by just LOOKING at the parasite, no clues given. Sometimes it was just an egg on a microscope slide... I don't think even someone with a strict education in parasitology could master all of that information, let alone an undergrad. He set the course up this way because he wanted us to have the basic knowledge plus extra information and he wanted to test us on all of that information, but he did not expect us to learn everything (he knew it was not possible)... that was why he said don't expect above a 50%, because he doesn't expect anyone to get to that level. It wasn't him being mean and it most definitely wasn't unacceptable. He challenged us, he made us think and he made the course interesting. I would rather take another 100 courses like that then to take another one where I can easily breeze through material because the professor doesn't feel like challenging me.

 

[ChittyBang]

Yeah, but the difference is that some of us have provided a rational reason for our thinking, whereas you and pinkpuppy really haven't provided any decent justification.

That's .. well, fine. If you just want to go with "this is my opinion and that's that" ... ok ... but don't be so surprised when nobody agrees with you.

It's like treating vaccine-induced purpura hemorrhagica. You can make a good argument for using antibiotics or not using antibiotics, and each position is probably legit - but only if you can justify it your position. So far all you and pinkpuppy have done is voice an opinion - it's time to give your opinion some teeth. Otherwise it's just ... well ... meh. Whatever.

Maybe all I wanted to do was voice my opinion! WTF is your problem? Why do I have to give anything teeth? Geez. Intense, much? SMH...

 

[BlackDog17]

Similar to DVMD's story: I took a class in undergrad called Pathological Basis of Disease. It was taught by the head of the state veterinary diagnostic lab, who also happened to graduate top of his class at Penn. The class was half pre-vets and half pre-med, mostly juniors and seniors with a few ambitious sophomores thrown in. Since we were all headed for professional programs, the professor chose to teach the class as if it were a med/vet school course. We covered huge volumes of in depth information, our textbook was the same book that AVC currently uses for its veterinary pathology course, and our labs were necropsies and grand rounds. Our exams were composed of questions from real veterinary and medical school pathology exams. The professor did this intentionally because he wanted us to understand what a real professional school class would be like. He wanted to give us the opportunity to test ourselves against that challenge before we wasted time and money applying.

There is no possible way you could expect an undergraduate to pass that course. At the time that I took it, I had never taken a course in immunology, which you really need in order to fully understand pathology. I hadn't even taken biochem yet. The sophomores in the class were only just starting their first semester of anatomy. We didn't have the knowledge base - let alone the experience and discipline - to pass a veterinary school level pathology course as undergraduates. Our grades we curved so that a 60% was an A.

Does that mean the professor was a bad teacher? Or that none of us actually learned a reasonable amount of the material? Absolutely not. The professor was fantastic, and I learned more in that course than I did in almost all of my other undergraduate courses. More importantly, I actually remember most of what I learned in that course, and that knowledge has been a HUGE help to me in veterinary school. Not only that, but I had a real, solid idea of what to expect from the vet school curriculum. I worked my butt off in that class, and because of that I came into vet school knowing that I was capable of learning at that high level.

I got an 85% in that class with the curve. By your logic, I should have just failed. Never mind the fact that I learned a ton and still remember most of it, two years later. Never mind that I am a better veterinary student because of that course. We all should have failed, simply because we were unable to master 100% of a course that was years beyond any of our skill levels. How on earth does that make sense?

 

[BlackDog17]

Maybe all I wanted to do was voice my opinion! WTF is your problem? Why do I have to give anything teeth? Geez. Intense, much? SMH...

Wow. Seriously, relax.

Voice your opinion all you want. You're perfectly right to do so. What LIS is saying is that you can't expect anyone to convert to your way of thinking if you don't have a logical argument to explain yourself.

Why do you have to have teeth? Because it looks wishy-washy and half-baked to argue a point with "It should be this way because I think it should be." No one is ever going to take you seriously that way. All you've said here is that you think 90% = A no matter what because you think it should be that way. Circular arguments will get you nowhere, and don't expect us to drop all logic and agree with you simply because you think we should.

I say that the sky is purple. Why? Because I want it to be. Now do you agree that the sky is purple? 🙄

 

[LetItSnow]

Maybe all I wanted to do was voice my opinion! WTF is your problem? Why do I have to give anything teeth? Geez. Intense, much? SMH...

I didn't get intense with you or yell at you. All I did is say "Great. You've got an opinion. Give me some reasons to take it seriously." That's not unreasonable.

Why do you have to give your opinion teeth? Because an opinion isn't worth anything unless you can back it up with a rationale. Doesn't mean we can't come to different conclusions, and it doesn't mean one of us is right or wrong. But if you can't at least give SOME rational reason for your opinion ... why should anyone take it seriously?

The example I gave earlier about vaccine-induced purpura hemorrhagica is a perfect one: you can make a super valid argument either way for using antibiotics or not. It's really, really hard to say which choice is better. But that's only because both sides have some rationale behind them. If one side were to point out a whole bunch of reasons to lean that way, and the other were to say "Um.... because that's just our opinion and it's how we feel and don't be so mean and ask us to actually support our opinion" ... well, would YOU take them seriously?

 

[DVMDream]

I say that the sky is purple. Why? Because I want it to be. Now do you agree that the sky is purple? 🙄

Nope, it is black. 😛

 

[LetItSnow]

Nope, it is black. 😛

Shut up. It's snowy.

 

[DVMDream]

Shut up. It's snowy.

Psh... It is not! It is rainy and black.