Baltimore to ban grades lower than 50%?

[psionl0]

Assume a class of 25 students with 4 exams throughout the semester and each exam has an average score of 75%. On the first exam one student for some reason gets a 0. The best that student can possibly do is 75% if they get perfect scores on all three remaining exams. More realistically, if they get an above average score of 80% on each, they will end up with a final score of 60% - likely a poor grade.

A make-up test would probably be more appropriate in this case than giving the student free marks or saying "this test doesn't count".

 

[JohnnyG]

A make-up test would probably be more appropriate in this case than giving the student free marks or saying "this test doesn't count".

I don't agree. Make-up tests should only be allowed when the student has a valid excuse for not being able to take the test on the assigned day, not for poor performance on a test they already took. Once they have seen the test questions they should not be able to retake the test - even if the questions are changed slightly (easier in some subjects than others).

Letting them retake the test also teaches the wrong thing - that you get a second chance if you screw up.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Is that even a thing?

You clearly didn't look at my maths before your first response to my post.

You didn't do any math; you simply asserted, "f 50 becomes the new zero then the passing mark will also have to go up".

You mean about giving something for nothing? "It does, however, make it easier for one to pass the class because 50% of the points are already given".

No, but nice quotemine!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course it will. If 50 becomes the new zero then the passing mark will also have to go up (unless you want to pass anybody who simply puts their name on the roll which would make the course meaningless).

There are two ways to indicate student results that don't require showing them their raw scores:

• Give each student a grade depending on how well their score compared with that of their other class mates.
• Scale each score upwards or downwards as required so that all of the scores are shoehorned into some pre-defined normal distribution.

I'm fairly certain that they're specifically talking about NOT rescaling the pass mark. You have 5 grades: A, B, C, D, F. You have 5 marks: 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, 50%.

Prior to this, you have a heavily bottom-weighted scale. It's FAR easier to get an F, 60% of all possible scores are a failing grade.

 

[psionl0]

I don't agree. Make-up tests should only be allowed when the student has a valid excuse for not being able to take the test on the assigned day, not for poor performance on a test they already took. Once they have seen the test questions they should not be able to retake the test - even if the questions are changed slightly (easier in some subjects than others).

They don't re-take the test, they do a different one. And a make-up test is not necessarily an automatic option.

In my university days, if a student needed just a few marks more to pass a course then the HOD would at his discretion grant a "qualifying exam" in the subject that the student failed. Even if the student passed the qualifying exam, he wouldn't have a pass recorded in that subject and he would only have a "conceded" pass for the entire course. Tough but fair.

Letting them retake the test also teaches the wrong thing - that you get a second chance if you screw up.

Isn't that how it works in the real world? Fail a driving test and you simply sit for it again.

 

[psionl0]

You didn't do any math; you simply asserted, "f 50 becomes the new zero then the passing mark will also have to go up".

And you accuse me of "quotemine".

 

[psionl0]

I'm fairly certain that they're specifically talking about NOT rescaling the pass mark. You have 5 grades: A, B, C, D, F. You have 5 marks: 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, 50%.

Prior to this, you have a heavily bottom-weighted scale. It's FAR easier to get an F, 60% of all possible scores are a failing grade.

That's not how it worked when I was a teacher. The objective was to give a certain percentage of students an A, another percentage of students a B and so on. The cut-off marks were set to achieve the desired student numbers in each grade.

An F grade was slightly different. Some students clearly did too poorly to get any sort of credit in a test and were failed regardless of how the rest of their classmates performed. However, I don't recall 60% of a class doing that poorly.

 

[Klimax]

That's not how it worked when I was a teacher. The objective was to give a certain percentage of students an A, another percentage of students a B and so on. The cut-off marks were set to achieve the desired student numbers in each grade.

An F grade was slightly different. Some students clearly did too poorly to get any sort of credit in a test and were failed regardless of how the rest of their classmates performed. However, I don't recall 60% of a class doing that poorly.

What kind of fail of grading system is that? Why were they fitted into some unrelated distribution?

That's completely nonsensical! (Aka doesn't make any sense form any POV) Is that common in USA schools?

 

[psionl0]

What kind of fail of grading system is that? Why were they fitted into some unrelated distribution?

That's completely nonsensical! (Aka doesn't make any sense form any POV) Is that common in USA schools?

I don't know if that was ever common in USA schools but grading students by comparing their performance against that of their class mates was pretty common. The marks for tertiary entrance exams were scaled according to a variety of factors and often bore little resemblance to the raw scores.

Of course, this was before the "Outcomes Based Education" fad came along.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And you accuse me of "quotemine".

I guess we can "quotemine" to the list of words you don't understand. How did the bit I quoted change in meaning from what it meant in the past?

 

[psionl0]

I guess we can "quotemine" to the list of words you don't understand.

How did the bit I quoted change in meaning from what it meant in the past?

In the same way that the "bit" of your post that I quoted magically changed in meaning.

 

[Modified]

That's not how it worked when I was a teacher. The objective was to give a certain percentage of students an A, another percentage of students a B and so on. The cut-off marks were set to achieve the desired student numbers in each grade.

Right. They want to do the same thing, except instead of a failure being 0-59, it will be 50-59.

 

[Modified]

What kind of fail of grading system is that? Why were they fitted into some unrelated distribution?

That's completely nonsensical! (Aka doesn't make any sense form any POV) Is that common in USA schools?

It probably happens in all classes, whether explicitly (a curve) or implicitly (adjusting exam question difficulty and spread in an attempt to achieve the desired distribution). Of course instructors will usually compare one class to another and one year to another and shift the target distribution appropriately.

 

[Klimax]

I don't know if that was ever common in USA schools but grading students by comparing their performance against that of their class mates was pretty common. The marks for tertiary entrance exams were scaled according to a variety of factors and often bore little resemblance to the raw scores.

Of course, this was before the "Outcomes Based Education" fad came along.

Both are retarded systems. Fortunately, idiots who would try to import those things are either gone or have no chance to get elected here.

It's simple: Either students knows or not. And you grade how much he knows. And it doesn't matter if he is among geniuses who are not lazy or among average students. The only exceptions I either saw granted was when in high school a class comprehensively failed an exam. In such very rare case teacher usually annulled results and class retook exam. I saw it maybe twice...

 

[Klimax]

It probably happens in all classes, whether explicitly (a curve) or implicitly (adjusting exam question difficulty and spread in an attempt to achieve the desired distribution). Of course instructors will usually compare one class to another and one year to another and shift the target distribution appropriately.

That really improved things... Still it's wrong and idiotic system for grading. There should be no such thing as target distribution in grades! Anything resembling targeting distribution needs to be abolished with extreme prejudice, because it penalizes unfairly good students and unfairly helps worse students.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Guess "irony" can go on that list too.

In the same way that the "bit" of your post that I quoted magically changed in meaning.

I was addressing your assertion that "f 50 becomes the new zero then the passing mark will also have to go up". You responded with:

You mean about giving something for nothing? "It does, however, make it easier for one to pass the class because 50% of the points are already given"

In other words, you completely ignored the relevant part of the post and even of the sentence that explains that it is merely easier to pass if the lowest grade given is 50%.

 

[Klimax]

Reminder: Statistical distributions are descriptions of population, not prescriptions how it must be. And they use usually far bigger populations/selections from populations.

It si abuse of statistics.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's not how it worked when I was a teacher. The objective was to give a certain percentage of students an A, another percentage of students a B and so on. The cut-off marks were set to achieve the desired student numbers in each grade.

Very few of my classes were graded on a curve. I tend to think that grading on a curve is not a very good method - it forces a preconceived portion of students to get As, regardless of whether they actually understand the material. It also forces a preconceived portion of students to fail, regardless of how well they know their stuff. I've been in classes where almost all of the students were excellent and had a firm grasp of the subject matter. I've been in classes where the material was significantly challenging and very few could manage an A.

An F grade was slightly different. Some students clearly did too poorly to get any sort of credit in a test and were failed regardless of how the rest of their classmates performed. However, I don't recall 60% of a class doing that poorly.

When you're not grading on a curve, 60% rarely fail. But if you look at the mathematics involved in the grading, you see that a grade of 60% or less is an F. The weight for an F is significantly larger in the aggregation of final grade than the weight for any other grade.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Reminder: Statistical distributions are descriptions of population, not prescriptions how it must be. And they use usually far bigger populations/selections from populations.

It si abuse of statistics.

Agreed.

 

[psionl0]

It's simple: Either students knows or not. And you grade how much he knows.

But you wouldn't need a massive top heavy bureaucracy if it was kept simple.

More seriously, no grading system is ideal. Some systems have disadvantages and some are pure lunacy. Giving somebody 50% for nothing is an example of the latter.