Why don't they just make it easier?

[dontwakeme]

Why do professors make their tests insanely difficult and then curve it so the average is a B-/C+ when they can just make the tests easier so that actual average becomes a B-/C+ without a curve? Does an actual average of 50 reflect better on the teacher?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jbrice1639]

rather than make it easier, i think it would make more sense for them to actually teach the material better...i don't think tests are too hard, i think professors just don't teach well for the most part.
Edit: this mainly was my impression in undergrad...especially in "intro" classes like gen chem, orgo, etc.

 

[Hassler]

Why do professors make their tests insanely difficult and then curve it so the average is a B-/C+ when they can just make the tests easier so that actual average becomes a B-/C+ without a curve? Does an actual average of 50 reflect better on the teacher?

A more difficult test separates the students who know their stuff from those who don't. If you've studied hard, you want a difficult test so you can stand out from the rest of the students.

 

[dontwakeme]

I agree. It seems like the material in the intro courses is relatively easy to grasp, but the test questions come out of nowhere. I always feel like I have a solid understanding of the material going into the test, but most, if not all of the questions, are very analytical and require you to implement the basic concepts you learn to very, very foreign situations (which I guess separates a strong school from a mediocre one).

 

[dontwakeme]

A more difficult test separates the students who know their stuff from those who don't. If you've studied hard, you want a difficult test so you can stand out from the rest of the students.

That may very well be true, but the grade given is still the same, with or without the curve i.e. if a person receives a 50 and it is curved to a B, they receive a B. If there is no curve, and the person gets a B, they get a B. There really is no difference.

 

[Hassler]

That may very well be true, but the grade given is still the same, with or without the curve i.e. if a person receives a 50 and it is curved to a B, they receive a B. If there is no curve, and the person gets a B, they get a B. There really is no difference.

Not necessarily the case. In an easy test where the avg is around an 80, perhaps only 10 points separate a B from an A. A student who has studied hard but say committed a silly mistake worth 10 points might go from an A to a B. In a more difficult test where the avg is around a 50, perhaps 30 points separate a B from an A. So, someone who made a silly mistake would not suffer as much, relatively speaking. A hard test rewards those who studied and does not penalize them that much for dumb mistakes.

In an intro class, the grades are most likely curved because of the large number of students taking the class (large sample size). Student performance overall is unlikely to change from year to year, so student grades will more accurately reflect students' performances and are comparable to the grades of those who took the course in other semesters. If grades are not curved, the average grade can really fluctuate a lot from year to year because the difficulty of the tests may vary due to different professors teaching the classes.

 

[jbrice1639]

A more difficult test separates the students who know their stuff from those who don't. If you've studied hard, you want a difficult test so you can stand out from the rest of the students.

i believe the OP is talking about tests where no one scores above a 90. i had classes where the average was around 50 and the high score was in the mid to upper 70s. in that case, the onus falls on the professor for not properly teaching the material.

i agree with you that a low average where some students do still pull top scores indicates some laziness on the part of the class...but if no one is doing well, then the test/class/professor is flawed.