|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2015 13:54 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2015 13:36 cLutZ wrote:On August 14 2015 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious on teachers opinions in general but I'm of the opinion grades are totally stupid.
One teacher/professors "A" is another's "C" or "F". Which means identical performance/learning can be measured very differently. This can have dramatic impacts on their future in a variety of ways especially at the high school and college level. That's pretty much the only thing I like about standardized testing. That and some of what Yoav mentioned regarding evidence I was good at things that were otherwise not brought to my attention.
Accommodating different learning styles is probably my number one complaint about our education system, with segregation and lopsided funding in a close 2nd and 3rd. I don't think I've seen arbitrary grading Pre-College, and only in my non-core (I was engineering) classes. But grading that is weighted heavily towards homework is certainly stupid. Its basically a test of how few sports you participate in, plus how good you are at cheating. The only third way that I have seen is the strategy of doing homework in class. I think grades serve a purpose, but that purpose is often subverted. The worst case I saw was in business school-- we were all on a curve with a cap on the % of each letter grade that could be given out. I got screwed over in a couple group evaluations. What I think is really dumb is final exams. When I was in school, I overloaded ever semester to finish two majors with fairly high requirements. During the vast majority of the semester i did fine-- kept up with material, budgeted my time, did well on tests and projects. When finals came around, I had to try and cram some insane amount of trivia into my head for 6+ different classes. Pretty sure finals alone dropped by GPA by .1 or .2. Students ought to have a choice between a final project or a final exam. It goes back to the idea that evaluating people on a holistic basis is really hard and really time consuming. Some professors are willing to make more of an effort than others.
Grading is a way of stamping the canned meat that comes out of American schools: this is grade A prime; this is not prime meat; this is fit only for Spam. Top-ness is generated in schools, a way to judge and pronounce judgment. How quickly can you pick up and perform with this arbitrary set of skills so that you can be sorted.
It has only a tangential relation to what the (self-professed) aims of "an education" are, which are something along the lines of personal enrichment, maturity of thought, self-development as a human being, etc. It is only tenuously connected to effort (and everything worth having requires effort) or to the relationship between student and teacher. But it functions particularly well in begetting aspiration, which fuels the American demand that drives the world.
|
On August 15 2015 03:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2015 13:54 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 14 2015 13:36 cLutZ wrote:On August 14 2015 13:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious on teachers opinions in general but I'm of the opinion grades are totally stupid.
One teacher/professors "A" is another's "C" or "F". Which means identical performance/learning can be measured very differently. This can have dramatic impacts on their future in a variety of ways especially at the high school and college level. That's pretty much the only thing I like about standardized testing. That and some of what Yoav mentioned regarding evidence I was good at things that were otherwise not brought to my attention.
Accommodating different learning styles is probably my number one complaint about our education system, with segregation and lopsided funding in a close 2nd and 3rd. I don't think I've seen arbitrary grading Pre-College, and only in my non-core (I was engineering) classes. But grading that is weighted heavily towards homework is certainly stupid. Its basically a test of how few sports you participate in, plus how good you are at cheating. The only third way that I have seen is the strategy of doing homework in class. I think grades serve a purpose, but that purpose is often subverted. The worst case I saw was in business school-- we were all on a curve with a cap on the % of each letter grade that could be given out. I got screwed over in a couple group evaluations. What I think is really dumb is final exams. When I was in school, I overloaded ever semester to finish two majors with fairly high requirements. During the vast majority of the semester i did fine-- kept up with material, budgeted my time, did well on tests and projects. When finals came around, I had to try and cram some insane amount of trivia into my head for 6+ different classes. Pretty sure finals alone dropped by GPA by .1 or .2. Students ought to have a choice between a final project or a final exam. It goes back to the idea that evaluating people on a holistic basis is really hard and really time consuming. Some professors are willing to make more of an effort than others. Grading is a way of stamping the canned meat that comes out of American schools: this is grade A prime; this is not prime meat; this is fit only for Spam. Top-ness is generated in schools, a way to judge and pronounce judgment. How quickly can you pick up and perform with this arbitrary set of skills so that you can be sorted. It has only a tangential relation to what the (self-professed) aims of "an education" are, which are something along the lines of personal enrichment, maturity of thought, self-development as a human being, etc. It is only tenuously connected to effort (and everything worth having requires effort) or to the relationship between student and teacher. But it functions particularly well in begetting aspiration, which fuels the American demand that drives the world.
Performance metrics are helpful. Good schools want good students. Good jobs want good candidates. Without grades, how are people supposed to filter through thousands of candidates? It's just not possible. Filtering needs to occur in some way.
|
Educating and sorting are two different things. Conflation of one with the other does much harm.
|
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
|
On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
Whoever has the highest numbers is clearly the best and deserves the most. Therefore, everyone needs numbers so we can determine who needs more help and who isn’t doing their job. This is the best way to objectively improve everyone’s numbers, which is better.
|
On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
I interpreted your earlier post to be in opposition of grading. My point was that there really are better and worse candidates. I'm sure this better and worse thing is most pronounced in STEM (where I have seen it first hand pretty damn distinctly), but I'd imagine you see it elsewhere too. Some people, trying as hard as they can, can not keep up with other people. I think brave new world is extreme, obviously. But I would argue it is equally extreme to say everyone is completely equal.
|
I remember over the summer I always had assignments from school-- in middle school I had these hilariously long packets with questions and things I was supposed to do each day, and usually had a book report or two as well. Thing was, those packets were stupid easy and I'd just blaze through a couple weeks work in a couple hours.
High school usually had a required reading list (and some suggested reading) which we'd end up either doing discussion/presentations/ papers on for the first few weeks of the year. I definitely suffered some leakage over the summer, but not awful.
Instead of paying teachers more, I think we need some sort of grant to provide them with more teaching materials. I know my Spanish teacher from high school basically wrote her own interactive textbook
College was very different, I worked or held internships over the summer. I will say I learned more in my junior internship than in my 2.5 years in business school, and the work in a lab I did the prior summer was at least more interesting that intro bio. I think summer there can be pretty useful, though more support or structure from schools would be good.
|
On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness.
On August 15 2015 03:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. Whoever has the highest numbers is clearly the best and deserves the most. Therefore, everyone needs numbers so we can determine who needs more help and who isn’t doing their job. This is the best way to objectively improve everyone’s numbers, which is better.
So are you now engaging in an attack on meritocracy inside the highly controlled system of education?
|
On August 15 2015 04:01 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 03:36 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. Whoever has the highest numbers is clearly the best and deserves the most. Therefore, everyone needs numbers so we can determine who needs more help and who isn’t doing their job. This is the best way to objectively improve everyone’s numbers, which is better. So are you now engaging in an attack on meritocracy inside the highly controlled system of education?
We are engaging is an attack on the folks who overvalue standardized testing and scores as the only practical way to determine quality. Or say “it’s the only way that wouldn’t involve lots of work and subjectivity” like either of those things are bad.
|
90% of Americans now have health insurance. Thanks Obama.
CDC Source
|
On August 15 2015 04:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 04:01 cLutZ wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. On August 15 2015 03:36 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. Whoever has the highest numbers is clearly the best and deserves the most. Therefore, everyone needs numbers so we can determine who needs more help and who isn’t doing their job. This is the best way to objectively improve everyone’s numbers, which is better. So are you now engaging in an attack on meritocracy inside the highly controlled system of education? We are engaging is an attack on the folks who overvalue standardized testing and scores as the only practical way to determine quality. Or say “it’s the only way that wouldn’t involve lots of work and subjectivity” like either of those things are bad.
Perhaps your sentiment is fine in theory, but in practice you are just saying "no accountability".
On August 15 2015 04:04 ticklishmusic wrote:90% of Americans now have health insurance. Thanks Obama. CDC Source
Who knew that fining people for not buying something, and giving them subsidies to buy it, would encourage people to buy that thing? Meaningless statistic is meaningless. None of the actual problems that existed in 2009/10 that were legitimate rationales for reforming the system are solved by getting people on health insurance programs.
|
On August 15 2015 04:18 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 04:03 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2015 04:01 cLutZ wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. On August 15 2015 03:36 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. Whoever has the highest numbers is clearly the best and deserves the most. Therefore, everyone needs numbers so we can determine who needs more help and who isn’t doing their job. This is the best way to objectively improve everyone’s numbers, which is better. So are you now engaging in an attack on meritocracy inside the highly controlled system of education? We are engaging is an attack on the folks who overvalue standardized testing and scores as the only practical way to determine quality. Or say “it’s the only way that wouldn’t involve lots of work and subjectivity” like either of those things are bad. Perhaps your sentiment is fine in theory, but in practice you are just saying "no accountability".
Only if you believe a score is the only way to hold someone accountable. But people who believe meritocracy is possible or even exists often believe that.
|
On August 15 2015 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. I interpreted your earlier post to be in opposition of grading. My point was that there really are better and worse candidates. I'm sure this better and worse thing is most pronounced in STEM (where I have seen it first hand pretty damn distinctly), but I'd imagine you see it elsewhere too. Some people, trying as hard as they can, can not keep up with other people. I think brave new world is extreme, obviously. But I would argue it is equally extreme to say everyone is completely equal.
I didn't say anything about equality, in fact I thought it was clear that I valued the individuality of human beings. But if you think grading meat is more important than education then you are halfway on the road to the delusions that clutz is enshrouded by. He's prime sirloin and delights in it.
|
On August 15 2015 04:18 cLutZ wrote:Who knew that fining people for not buying something, and giving them subsidies to buy it, would encourage people to buy that thing? Meaningless statistic is meaningless. None of the actual problems that existed in 2009/10 that were legitimate rationales for reforming the system are solved by getting people on health insurance programs.
Well, it's not meaningless if we're looking to gauge exactly how successful Obamacare is, in terms of new healthcare coverage (not being turned away for a pre-existing condition), healthcare retained (up through age 26), number of lives explicitly saved thanks to Obamacare (well over 50,000, as of right now), etc.
All across the board, Obamacare has been a sweeping success. Hitting an incredible percentage of 90% is amazing and is one useful statistic in analyzing just how amazing it's been.
|
On August 15 2015 04:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 04:18 cLutZ wrote:On August 15 2015 04:03 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2015 04:01 cLutZ wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. On August 15 2015 03:36 Plansix wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. Whoever has the highest numbers is clearly the best and deserves the most. Therefore, everyone needs numbers so we can determine who needs more help and who isn’t doing their job. This is the best way to objectively improve everyone’s numbers, which is better. So are you now engaging in an attack on meritocracy inside the highly controlled system of education? We are engaging is an attack on the folks who overvalue standardized testing and scores as the only practical way to determine quality. Or say “it’s the only way that wouldn’t involve lots of work and subjectivity” like either of those things are bad. Perhaps your sentiment is fine in theory, but in practice you are just saying "no accountability". Only if you believe a score is the only way to hold someone accountable. But people who believe meritocracy is possible or even exists often believe that.
I believe the argument is far more pragmatic. When people are ready for their first job, employers tend to want to know which one of the dozens, or sometimes hundreds, of applications will be the best employee. While I agree with the sentiment that high grades are not a guarantee for a good employee (assuming everybody comes straight out of school), without some solid work experience, high grades, along with a good cover letter are pretty much the ONLY thing an employer has to go on when deciding who to interview.
The same can be said for university admissions. When there are more people wanting to be admitted to a course than there are spots, people have to be selected in some way (or competing for scholarships if you prefer).
Now, given that this is simply a fact of life, the question becomes whether it is the school's job to perform this "rating" of students, or there should be some seperate something that does that. Universities often have separate entrance exams, but in general I see nothing wrong with schools performing this secondary task. Thus their job becomes: educating students, and providing a (certified) ranking of how educated they are when they leave. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Now, in order to ensure that all schools provide a comparable ranking, we introduce standardized testing. Of course, imho, standardized testing has gone way overboard, and in addition to doing the above, is used for all kinds of stuff it was never meant to do (such as having funding dependent on it). But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
|
On August 15 2015 04:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. I interpreted your earlier post to be in opposition of grading. My point was that there really are better and worse candidates. I'm sure this better and worse thing is most pronounced in STEM (where I have seen it first hand pretty damn distinctly), but I'd imagine you see it elsewhere too. Some people, trying as hard as they can, can not keep up with other people. I think brave new world is extreme, obviously. But I would argue it is equally extreme to say everyone is completely equal. I didn't say anything about equality, in fact I thought it was clear that I valued the individuality of human beings. But if you think grading meat is more important than education then you are halfway on the road to the delusions that clutz is enshrouded by. He's prime sirloin and delights in it.
So what exactly is your beef with grading? What do you see that goes wrong with grading? It feels like you're saying it negatively impacts learning, but I'm not seeing how.
|
On August 15 2015 06:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 04:41 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2015 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. I interpreted your earlier post to be in opposition of grading. My point was that there really are better and worse candidates. I'm sure this better and worse thing is most pronounced in STEM (where I have seen it first hand pretty damn distinctly), but I'd imagine you see it elsewhere too. Some people, trying as hard as they can, can not keep up with other people. I think brave new world is extreme, obviously. But I would argue it is equally extreme to say everyone is completely equal. I didn't say anything about equality, in fact I thought it was clear that I valued the individuality of human beings. But if you think grading meat is more important than education then you are halfway on the road to the delusions that clutz is enshrouded by. He's prime sirloin and delights in it. So what exactly is your beef with grading? What do you see that goes wrong with grading? It feels like you're saying it negatively impacts learning, but I'm not seeing how.
Because it focuses on rating a human beings ability to learn things and assumes that we have tools to precisely gauge that. Which we don't. And more people weight the grades as important, the less accurate the results. There are colleges and universities that don't use grades and they produce some very smart people. But there are people who think they are the be all end all for public education.
And of course, the classic argument of "Teachers just don't want to be held accountable!"
|
On August 15 2015 04:50 Acrofales wrote:
Now, given that this is simply a fact of life, the question becomes whether it is the school's job to perform this "rating" of students, or there should be some seperate something that does that. Universities often have separate entrance exams, but in general I see nothing wrong with schools performing this secondary task. Thus their job becomes: educating students, and providing a (certified) ranking of how educated they are when they leave. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I think there is definitely a problem with the same institution that educates students saying how well they are educated.
Hopefully, evaluating a student for credentials and educating them can be separated. That way enough effort might be put into the evaluating that the weaknesses of standardized testing (too simple, not testing what is really important) can be reduced.
|
Norway28894 Posts
There are many issues with grading. For one, bad grades can be extremely demotivating. Secondly, it's an incredibly simplistic way of giving, and receiving, feedback. Of course, a grade does not have to be exclusive, it can (and should be) coupled with more specific information on what was lacking what was good what can be better etc, but in reality, this is often not the case. Additionally, when a grade is present, students often disregard the other feedback because the grade is ultimately what is important.
I don't wholly oppose grades though, even if I could ideally envision a futuristic society where mankind mainly focuses on personal development and fulfillment etc and where they aren't important, they do currently fill a societal function which I can't really propose a viable alternative to, so to me, grades are residing in the necessary evil camp. But I do think it's important that grades are not the only, or even main feedback students get. I know that in New Zealand, there have been a lot of experiments with 'gradeless education' I think they still have some type of final grades, but they are rarely founded around exams or large tests, rather around previously ungraded but thoroughly feedbacked and potentially reworked work from throughout the semester - maybe we have posters who know more about this?
Anyway, to delve a little more into the problematic aspects of grades;
For one, grades are inherently based around performance. But as some of you have correctly pointed out, not everyone has the same potential. For many students, top grades are unavailable regardless of how much effort they give. I don't even have that much teaching experience, but I still remember this one girl who really tried her hardest, who seemed really motivated to learn, but who still ended up getting a C on a big history test, and I could just really see the instant 'whats even the fucking point in fucking trying when this is the best I can fucking do' reaction in her face when I handed her the paper. It was sad as fuck. I'm sure teachers with more experience will have countless similar experiences. It also goes the other way (did for me in some subjects when I was a pupil, especially in English), where I would get top grades without exerting any effort, also leaving me with the impression that there was no real point in trying.
And because of this difference in potential, by using grades you either get a situation where top grades are unavailable to a large majority (demotivating to those who try hard but can't attain them) or usually attainable if you give it enough effort (demotivating to those who can then achieve them without effort). So I think ideally, rather than grades,feedback need to be given relative to the potential of the student, because what you really want is not for everyone to reach some similar level of ability, but for everyone to maximize their potential and achieve some sense of mastery. (Essential for feeling of happiness, which imo is the utmost societal goal to strive for. ) Essentially, if I did fuck all but still displayed enough competence to deserve an A, and my slightly slow friend did his very best, worked for 12 hours on the same task I spent 15 minutes on, but still couldn't showcase more ability than what earns him a 'D', then pedagogically, both me and him suffer from those grades, because I learn that I don't have to try to be good, and he learns that there's no point in trying because he'll never be good. If I rather get feedback that 'you know Eivind, this work is not even close to what you can potentially do', and if my slow friend is told 'I can really see that you tried hard, great effort, now if you would next time try to focus on points A and B then next time you will do even better' then both of us will rather be inspired to work harder next time.
Still, realistically, not everyone should be a neurosurgeon, so yes, I accept that there must be some selection process. But grades do come with a lot of baggage.
|
On August 15 2015 06:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2015 06:15 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2015 04:41 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2015 03:40 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2015 03:26 IgnE wrote:
But if you want to be so brazen about it we can start sorting from birth like Brave New World. The illusion of meritocracy is another regrettable fantasy that comes from the generation of top-ness. I interpreted your earlier post to be in opposition of grading. My point was that there really are better and worse candidates. I'm sure this better and worse thing is most pronounced in STEM (where I have seen it first hand pretty damn distinctly), but I'd imagine you see it elsewhere too. Some people, trying as hard as they can, can not keep up with other people. I think brave new world is extreme, obviously. But I would argue it is equally extreme to say everyone is completely equal. I didn't say anything about equality, in fact I thought it was clear that I valued the individuality of human beings. But if you think grading meat is more important than education then you are halfway on the road to the delusions that clutz is enshrouded by. He's prime sirloin and delights in it. So what exactly is your beef with grading? What do you see that goes wrong with grading? It feels like you're saying it negatively impacts learning, but I'm not seeing how. Because it focuses on rating a human beings ability to learn things and assumes that we have tools to precisely gauge that. Which we don't. And more people weight the grades as important, the less accurate the results. There are colleges and universities that don't use grades and they produce some very smart people. But there are people who think they are the be all end all for public education. And of course, the classic argument of "Teachers just don't want to be held accountable!"
Do you not think it is important to rate people's ability to learn things? There are a lot of jobs where someone's raw intelligence and ability to learn stuff and apply it quickly is extremely valuable. If I hire someone to work in either R&D or engineering, it is a really huge bummer when someone is just not that bright. There are huge disadvantages to hiring people who learn slowly. It sounds like you are saying people who learn slowly should be considered regarded the same as people who learn quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
