• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Baltimore to ban grades lower than 50%?

Ooooh, excellent use of some weasely framing there!
:id:

I haven't refused to explain anything. You not receiving an explanation that you can easily poke holes in doesn't equate to me refusing anything at all.
Sure you have. At most you pointed out that somebody else had something to say about second chances but you couldn't say what.

And guess what you have avoided discussing yet again?
 
Sure you have. At most you pointed out that somebody else had something to say about second chances but you couldn't say what.

And guess what you have avoided discussing yet again?

:rolleyes: Not explaining to your satisfaction and in the way you want it explained isn't the same as refusing. Framing it as "refusing" is just plain dirty pool.

But here, I'll humor you. Second chances aren't always feasible. In fact, a lot of times they aren't feasible. Giving student's a re-do will often require that an entirely new assignment or test be generated just for them. In many cases, you can't give the same test a second time - it gives some students an unfair advantage both in terms of the time they have to prepare and simply because the results are already out. Similarly, if there is a wish to control for cheating or copying, one can't just give the student a second try at an already finished assignment.

As pointed out by other people, some tests are generated and controlled at a higher level. There is no second version available. Some assignments are practical - a second chance at those requires a significant investment in time from the teacher. Consider the problems involved in giving a second chance at a team sport practical for a physical education exam!

Now that I've played your game, how about you be a friendly and considerate sort and play mine? You've been asked about the mathematical impact of a 0 on the standard scale of 90/80/70/60. How about you explain why you think it's perfectly acceptable to have an F count for 6 times as much weight in the aggregation of a grade than an A. An F has a higher weight in the aggregation than all other grades combined. Does that seem reasonable and fair to you?
 
It may not be the best for every situation, but all I have to say is that it would have been a major help for me when I was in school. I was one of those kids that routinely didn't do the homework, but got A's on all the tests because I did do any reading assignments (loved to read) and also was an active listener in class. Yeah, I know people hate guys like me, but it would have helped immensely if it was still salvageable after a few early mistakes.

The traditional model just wasn't the right way to learn for me, for whatever reason. No, it wasn't ADHD. I can concentrate just fine -- way better than average, even. I think part of it was just the fact that I resented being assigned homework that I didn't even need to do in order to learn the material just fine. It's like they were asking me to wash perfectly clean dishes just for practice or something, if you want a metaphor. Also, I always did have authority issues and still do, and "achievement" had no appeal to me with regards to school. I was very interested in learning, but not at all in achieving a grade. Really, that's just grading you on obedience, not knowledge, anyway.

...and screw the "deserves" BS that right wingnuts like to fixate on. What matters is results, isn't it? Deserves ain't got nothin' to do with it, but unfortunately, that maxim is only applied in the direction of authority. Given that they didn't break me under the system that was in place, what makes anyone think that trying something else automatically makes it worse?

Bottom line, I think it will help a lot of kids that are "too smart for their own good." The other option would be to get them in a situation that actually challenges them rather than holding them to the same standards as the below average. I've met others that pretty much had the same school experience, so I'm not the only one that scored within the 90th - 99th percentile on standardized tests while occasionally flunking classes all the while. I was definitely the worst case locally, though.
 
Last edited:
But here, I'll humor you. Second chances aren't always feasible. ....

As pointed out by other people, some tests are generated and controlled at a higher level. There is no second version available. ......
Very good. Now all you have to do is examine my responses to these claims and you will be caught up.

Now that I've played your game, how about you be a friendly and considerate sort and play mine? You've been asked about the mathematical impact of a 0 on the standard scale of 90/80/70/60. How about you explain why you think it's perfectly acceptable to have an F count for 6 times as much weight in the aggregation of a grade than an A. An F has a higher weight in the aggregation than all other grades combined. Does that seem reasonable and fair to you?
Your maths is a bit off. 0% and 100% average out to 50% which is a pass in my part of the world. That would be a fair result since if these were the only assessment items then the student in question has only demonstrated that they achieved half the course objectives.

Of course, most courses have a lot more than just 2 assessment items and botching one of them might lower your overall grade but not too severely. It's only when a student slacks off for a large part of the course that their passing grade is threatened.
 
It may not be the best for every situation, but all I have to say is that it would have been a major help for me when I was in school. I was one of those kids that routinely didn't do the homework, but got A's on all the tests because I did do any reading assignments (loved to read) and also was an active listener in class. Yeah, I know people hate guys like me, but it would have helped immensely if it was still salvageable after a few early mistakes.
Continuous assessment vs end-of-year test is an interesting debate in itself. You (and I) would have benefited from a single exam at the end of the course. It would be similar for any student who only started to take the course seriously towards the end of the course.

Of course, single test assessments have their risks. You might not be well on the day or the test may prove to be atypical (you might have done better if the test was slightly different). That is why continuous assessment is generally favoured (though not necessarily by teachers who have a heavier workload as a result). The odd failure doesn't threaten your passing grade in a course. Unfortunately, the crawl factor becomes significant with continuous assessment.
 
Your maths is a bit off. 0% and 100% average out to 50% which is a pass in my part of the world.

This has been said before. That is not how it is in THIS part of the world - the part that is proposing a 50% for an F. Pass is at 60%.

Let's ignore the entire topic of missed assignments for a moment, since that seems to be your hangup. We can come back to them at a later point. Instead, let's address the impact of a completed assignment that a student totally bombs.

A has a range from 90 to 100+
B has a range from 80 to 89
C has a range from 70 to 79
D has a range from 60 to 69

Stop here for a moment. Notice that passing scores only account for 40% of the range of potential grades. The assignments and exams should be designed so that most of the kids should be capable of passing. But mathematically those passing grades are only 40% of the range.

F is from 0 to 59

A failing score represents 60% of the potential range. This means that a low F on a completed assignment carries more weight in the average score than a passing grade does. It has a bigger impact, all by itself, than a passing grade. A low enough F carries more weight than all passing grades are able to carry.
 
A failing score represents 60% of the potential range. This means that a low F on a completed assignment carries more weight in the average score than a passing grade does. It has a bigger impact, all by itself, than a passing grade. A low enough F carries more weight than all passing grades are able to carry.
A failing score does not represent 60% of the scores achieved so all of your "mathematics" is irrelevant.

Even a poor student (or a student who is having a bad day) is likely to score considerably more than 0% on an assessment task so a failing test result will still add to the aggregate. Only students who make no effort whatsoever risk getting a zero there is no good reason why such a slacker should be rewarded for that.
 
A failing score does not represent 60% of the scores achieved so all of your "mathematics" is irrelevant.

Even a poor student (or a student who is having a bad day) is likely to score considerably more than 0% on an assessment task so a failing test result will still add to the aggregate. Only students who make no effort whatsoever risk getting a zero there is no good reason why such a slacker should be rewarded for that.

YeS, but they won't be passing the course of the do nothing, and, much more importantly, when it comes time to hand out grade points (the numbers that follow students around institution to institution), the student will still receive a 0.0 regardless of whether that grade point represents a 50% or a 0%.
 
YeS, but they won't be passing the course of the do nothing,
:confused: What is "the course of the do nothing"?

and, much more importantly, when it comes time to hand out grade points (the numbers that follow students around institution to institution), the student will still receive a 0.0 regardless of whether that grade point represents a 50% or a 0%.
So what is the point of gifting a total slacker 50% if their "grade point" remains 0.0 regardless?
 
What I was trying to say in my last on proof read post was that a student who does no work at all will still fail the course, because, in this particular grading system, 50% is not a passing grade. Placing the floor at 50% prevents an otherwise good student who gets a single bad grade from having that bad grade effect there overall grade for the course in a disproportionate way. This may give "something for nothing", but they still have to put in effort to pass the course.
 
What I was trying to say in my last on proof read post was that a student who does no work at all will still fail the course, because, in this particular grading system, 50% is not a passing grade. Placing the floor at 50% prevents an otherwise good student who gets a single bad grade from having that bad grade effect there overall grade for the course in a disproportionate way. This may give "something for nothing", but they still have to put in effort to pass the course.
It appears that you didn't proof read my post that you quoted either. At least, you ignored the point of the post.

You want somebody who fails a test miserably to be equally rewarded as somebody who barely fails.
 
Only somebody who is completely insane would compel students to take a course that they couldn't possibly pass.

This is very correct for every school system I have worked for and everyone I have reason to have researched. Some courses are required of every student, some are required of students choosing a particular track as a sort of major - in HS particularly. Other track forms apply but are less in number/form.

Some classes everyone has to pass or they cannot graduate. I would list but it varies some - I suggest looking up some local to you (anyone) systems online and simply see what must be passed to graduate. The required specific ones will be easy to locate.
 
So what is the point of gifting a total slacker 50% if their "grade point" remains 0.0 regardless?
I'm sorry, I must be missing something here. Teachers in many places aren't free to just throw up their hands and call a kid a slacker. Presumed responsibility ultimately will fall on the teacher. If I can't get a kid to pick up a pencil that is on me, not them. Once they turn 18, all bets are off but in the meantime students are presumed not to be responsible for their own lack of motivation. Therefore teachers are interested in trying harder to motivate their students.

If you really think 50 percent is a passing grade, that explains quite a bit.

For purposes of grade point average you have F=60 percent or less, C=60-70 percent, etc. For purposes of grade point average F=0, D=1, C=2, B=3 and A=4. I think I am misunderstanding what you are saying.
 
Last edited:
This is very correct for every school system I have worked for and everyone I have reason to have researched.
I am seriously wondering if 9th and 10th grade math should be flipped. Geometry, then Algebra 1, then Algebra 2. Then trig, precalculus, calculus or some kind of consumer/business math.

The reason is, geometry at least is related to shapes, something more tangible than equations of a line etc. I think maybe algebra is just too abstract for some 14-year-olds. I feel like it shouldn't be, but maybe it is.
 
A failing score does not represent 60% of the scores achieved so all of your "mathematics" is irrelevant.

Even a poor student (or a student who is having a bad day) is likely to score considerably more than 0% on an assessment task so a failing test result will still add to the aggregate. Only students who make no effort whatsoever risk getting a zero there is no good reason why such a slacker should be rewarded for that.

Look - if a good student has a bad day and gets a C (75%), but previously had an A (95%), their grades average to a B (85%). It's nicely and evenly in the middle.
A student who's having a rough time who gets a low F (say 20%) but previously had a middle C (75%) will have an average of an F (47%).
A student who starts with a B average (85%) and gets a low F (20%) ends up with an F (52%).
A student who starts with an A average (95%) and gets a low F (20%) ends up with an F (57%)

A low F brings an aggregate grade down by far, far more than any other grade can affect it. This isn't really up for debate - this is how the math works.

Do you think it's reasonable that a badly flubbed test can bring an otherwise good student's grade all the way down to an F? Remember, this isn't solely about missed assignments.

Let's try different tack. Scrap percentages.
  • Would you support a grade system in which A is worth 4 points, B is worth 3 points, C is worth 2 points, D is worth 1 point, and F is worth 0 points?
  • Would you support a grade system in which A is worth 9 points, B is worth 8 points, C is worth 7 points, D is worth 6 points, and F is worth 0 points?
 
So what is the point of gifting a total slacker 50% if their "grade point" remains 0.0 regardless?

This is where we have a disconnect. It's not about giving the slacker 50%. It's about giving a diligent but struggling student the mathematical opportunity to pass the class, instead of consigning them to a score that is impossible to improve.
 
OK in Dogpile.com this took me straight to the list but hitting it from here it is not ( it says missing. but when I went to it after that on the Dogpile list it went to it just fine). No idea what the problem is, but I searched and found it using Baltimore Public High School Graduation Requirements and the site shown on my previous post took me to it just fine so I copied it to here but it says 404 error from here. Computer person may know why, I am not one.
 
Last edited:
Look - if a good student has a bad day and gets a C (75%), but previously had an A (95%), their grades average to a B (85%). It's nicely and evenly in the middle.
A student who's having a rough time who gets a low F (say 20%) but previously had a middle C (75%) will have an average of an F (47%).
A student who starts with a B average (85%) and gets a low F (20%) ends up with an F (52%).
A student who starts with an A average (95%) and gets a low F (20%) ends up with an F (57%)

A low F brings an aggregate grade down by far, far more than any other grade can affect it. This isn't really up for debate - this is how the math works.

Do you think it's reasonable that a badly flubbed test can bring an otherwise good student's grade all the way down to an F? Remember, this isn't solely about missed assignments.

Let's try different tack. Scrap percentages.
  • Would you support a grade system in which A is worth 4 points, B is worth 3 points, C is worth 2 points, D is worth 1 point, and F is worth 0 points?
  • Would you support a grade system in which A is worth 9 points, B is worth 8 points, C is worth 7 points, D is worth 6 points, and F is worth 0 points?

Prefer and would choose first option.
 
A student who's having a rough time who gets a low F (say 20%) but previously had a middle C (75%) will have an average of an F (47%).
A student who starts with a B average (85%) and gets a low F (20%) ends up with an F (52%).
A student who starts with an A average (95%) and gets a low F (20%) ends up with an F (57%)

A low F brings an aggregate grade down by far, far more than any other grade can affect it. This isn't really up for debate - this is how the math works.
Wow. That was quite educational.

Every test where a student gets an F is worth 50% of the total marks for the course no matter how many tests the student does.

Silly me. I would have thought that that getting an F wouldn't change the percentage of the total marks that the test contributed to. If a student got 20% in a test that was worth 20% of the total marks then in my ignorance, I would have thought that your scenarios would work out as follows:
The middle C student (75%) would end up with 64% for the course.
The B average student (85%) would end up with 72% for the course.
The A average student (95%) would end up with 80% for the course.

Sure, that poor performance adversely affected their final grades (why shouldn't it?) but nobody ended up failing the course.

Let's try different tack. Scrap percentages.
  • Would you support a grade system in which A is worth 4 points, B is worth 3 points, C is worth 2 points, D is worth 1 point, and F is worth 0 points?
  • Would you support a grade system in which A is worth 9 points, B is worth 8 points, C is worth 7 points, D is worth 6 points, and F is worth 0 points?
This is a different issue altogether. What you are describing is "ordinal" data - data that can be ranked but not scaled. The "points" add no further information about the student than you got from their grades.

It is quite amusing really. As math teachers, we teach students that you can not add, subtract or "average out" ordinal data but the bureaucrats expect us to do exactly that with student grades.
 
Last edited:
Wow. That was quite educational.

Every test where a student gets an F is worth 50% of the total marks for the course no matter how many tests the student does.

Silly me. I would have thought that that getting an F wouldn't change the percentage of the total marks that the test contributed to. If a student got 20% in a test that was worth 20% of the total marks then in my ignorance, I would have thought that your scenarios would work out as follows:
The middle C student (75%) would end up with 64% for the course.
The B average student (85%) would end up with 72% for the course.
The A average student (95%) would end up with 80% for the course.

Sure, that poor performance adversely affected their final grades (why shouldn't it?) but nobody ended up failing the course.


This is a different issue altogether. What you are describing is "ordinal" data - data that can be ranked but not scaled. The "points" add no further information about the student than you got from their grades.

It is quite amusing really. As math teachers, we teach students that you can not add, subtract or "average out" ordinal data but the bureaucrats expect us to do exactly that with student grades.

That is mostly why bureaucrats suck, they are hired to do that sort of ****.
 
I'm sorry, I must be missing something here. Teachers in many places aren't free to just throw up their hands and call a kid a slacker. Presumed responsibility ultimately will fall on the teacher. If I can't get a kid to pick up a pencil that is on me, not them. Once they turn 18, all bets are off but in the meantime students are presumed not to be responsible for their own lack of motivation. Therefore teachers are interested in trying harder to motivate their students.
Yes, there are some bad teachers out there but not every bad student is the fault of a teacher (or do you subscribe to the "Boys Town" theory?). More harm is done to the average student by the policy of allowing bad students to continue their mission to cause as much disruption in every class room as possible than anything else.

If you really think 50 percent is a passing grade, that explains quite a bit.
Now we are getting into repetition territory.

The difficulty of a test is (or should be) set such that a satisfactory student will easily pass it. There is nothing magical about the number that the pass mark is set at. The test difficulty is simply set according to the pass mark level.

I have had university lecturers who's policy was to make a test as difficult as possible so that they could sort out the brainy students. The pass mark on those tests necessarily had to be less than 50%.
 
If a student got 20% in a test that was worth 20% of the total marks then .....
The middle C student (75%) would end up with 64% for the course.
The B average student (85%) would end up with 72% for the course.
The A average student (95%) would end up with 80% for the course.
Just to continue with this thought experiment, if a high D student who was averaging 69% thus far got 20% for the same test then his average for the course would be 59.2% which is a fail if the pass mark was set at 60%.

Such a student would rightfully feel cheated since another 5% in the test would make the difference between passing and failing the course. There is a strong case for giving that student a make-up test. He doesn't even need to pass it. It could be stipulated that as long as he got at least 30% for the test, he would get a conceded pass for the course. (And don't tell me that this is too much work for teachers. They have to jump through much more arduous loops to satisfy the bureaucracy).

OTOH Pete the party animal who hasn't passed a single test throughout the course has no chance of boosting his average enough to pass the course in a make-up test and probably doesn't deserve the chance to either.
 
Last edited:
Wow. That was quite educational.

Every test where a student gets an F is worth 50% of the total marks for the course no matter how many tests the student does.

Silly me. I would have thought that that getting an F wouldn't change the percentage of the total marks that the test contributed to. If a student got 20% in a test that was worth 20% of the total marks then in my ignorance, I would have thought that your scenarios would work out as follows:
The middle C student (75%) would end up with 64% for the course.
The B average student (85%) would end up with 72% for the course.
The A average student (95%) would end up with 80% for the course.

Sure, that poor performance adversely affected their final grades (why shouldn't it?) but nobody ended up failing the course.

You know, I kind of thought it was obvious that I was generating illustrative examples from a total of two items. I'm starting to think you'll do whatever you can to avoid addressing the actual mathematical impact that is at issue here.

This is a different issue altogether. What you are describing is "ordinal" data - data that can be ranked but not scaled. The "points" add no further information about the student than you got from their grades.

It is quite amusing really. As math teachers, we teach students that you can not add, subtract or "average out" ordinal data but the bureaucrats expect us to do exactly that with student grades.
I see that you declined to give your preference. Why?
 
Just to continue with this thought experiment, if a high D student who was averaging 69% thus far got 20% for the same test then his average for the course would be 59.2% which is a fail if the pass mark was set at 60%.

Such a student would rightfully feel cheated since another 5% in the test would make the difference between passing and failing the course. There is a strong case for giving that student a make-up test. He doesn't even need to pass it. It could be stipulated that as long as he got at least 30% for the test, he would get a conceded pass for the course. (And don't tell me that this is too much work for teachers. They have to jump through much more arduous loops to satisfy the bureaucracy).

OTOH Pete the party animal who hasn't passed a single test throughout the course has no chance of boosting his average enough to pass the course in a make-up test and probably doesn't deserve the chance to either.
Pete the party animal has no chance to pass the class if he got 50% on all of his failed assignments either. So what's the problem? Do you feel the need to not just fial, but to utterly bury and punish a student who doesn't live up to your expectations? Is it a case of not just failing those you deem unworthy... but making sure that there view toward education is completely destroyed and that they know that they're completely worthless in your eyes?
 
You know, I kind of thought it was obvious that I was generating illustrative examples from a total of two items. I'm starting to think you'll do whatever you can to avoid addressing the actual mathematical impact that is at issue here.
You most certainly did not make it clear that you were only considering examples of courses where there were only two equally weighted assessment items. It is just too unusual.

OTOH it is not so unusual for a course to have a final exam that is worth up to 50% of the course total. Of course, if you are going to give that much weight to a final exam then you can't complain that it has a disproportionate influence on a student's final marks. The solution is to not give so much weight to just one assessment item.

I see that you declined to give your preference. Why?
:confused: Is the concept of "ordinal data" too complicated for you to grasp? If the "points" are not being added together then if makes no difference what numerical value you attach to each grade provided that A > B > C > D > F. All such scoring systems are equally valid and a fail is a fail is a fail.
 
:confused: Is the concept of "ordinal data" too complicated for you to grasp? If the "points" are not being added together then if makes no difference what numerical value you attach to each grade provided that A > B > C > D > F. All such scoring systems are equally valid and a fail is a fail is a fail.

Except it is not really ordinal data. "A" has an absolute, numerical value of 1 not relative, ranked value of 1st. This is important because, as you said, ordinal data evaluated with the regular of arithmetic operations, while quantitative data can.

One of the problems, as I see it, is that the estimator of a student's overall performance is usually a weighted mean degrades obtained in the class. The mean is a biased estimator that is heavily influenced by outliers in the data set. Therefore, basing a final grade off such a biased estimator can disastrous for a student who receives a small number of low grades relative to the number of high grades (or, equivalently if they do poorly on the highly weighted assignments).
 
Y
:confused: Is the concept of "ordinal data" too complicated for you to grasp? If the "points" are not being added together then if makes no difference what numerical value you attach to each grade provided that A > B > C > D > F. All such scoring systems are equally valid and a fail is a fail is a fail.

Yeah no. You decided they were ordinal. You also decided that ordinal data can never be aggregated (even though this is exactly what is done with GPA). You're sidestepping the question. Make the percent of correct questions be whatever you want it to be for each grade range. Then each grade is worth a specified number of points. Not ordinal values, points. We're not creating an artificial ranking, we're literally assigning points, you get that right?

Of the two schemas I listed, what are your thoughts on them - is either preferred above the other and why?
 
So they should almost all pass the tests with high marks.
Corrected for accuracy.

But we don't want that. We must stratify them to maintain our social structure and ensure a steady supply of cheap labor.
I suppose if you get your kicks foisting absurd commentaries on people, knock yourself out.
 
<snip>

Silly me. I would have thought that that getting an F wouldn't change the percentage of the total marks that the test contributed to. If a student got 20% in a test that was worth 20% of the total marks then in my ignorance, I would have thought that your scenarios would work out as follows:
The middle C student (75%) would end up with 64% for the course.
The B average student (85%) would end up with 72% for the course.
The A average student (95%) would end up with 80% for the course.

Sure, that poor performance adversely affected their final grades (why shouldn't it?) but nobody ended up failing the course.

<snip>


I don't think you and E.C are all that far apart. You seem to be talking past each other.

I hadn't gotten the idea that E.C. was necessarily advocating that someone who did absolutely no work at all should get 50% credit, but rather that when someone's test score was converted to an F that it essentially eradicated any partial credit they might have earned.

You seem to be saying that as long as they got that partial credit then the grading system would not be unfair.

These two positions are not totally incompatible.

<snip>

:confused: Is the concept of "ordinal data" too complicated for you to grasp?

<snip>


Okay. That was uncalled for.

E.C. has done nothing to deserve that sort of scorn and condescension.

You do nothing to advance your arguments by resorting to insult.
 
Last edited:
Except it is not really ordinal data. "A" has an absolute, numerical value of 1 not relative, ranked value of 1st. This is important because, as you said, ordinal data evaluated with the regular of arithmetic operations, while quantitative data can.

This should read:

Except it is not really ordinal data. "A" has an absolute, numerical value of 1 not relative, ranked value of 1st. This is important because, as you said, ordinal data cannot be evaluated with the regular of arithmetic operations, while quantitative data can.
 
Back
Top Bottom