I 100% stand by the teacher's decision. If they don't do their work they deserve a zero. The school board just wants to push them through and build their self esteem? I mean comon, give me a fucken break. I can't believe education is the way it is right now, all politics and bureaucracy, producing incompetent kids who apparently have no realization of the consequences of their actions.
Just to clarify, the teacher was giving zeros to people who failed to hand in work. He was not giving zeros to incomplete work. Students were informed and given many chances to complete their work, but they did not until he showed a print out of their marks with zeros on it.
"The physics teacher with 35 years experience said he continued giving zeros when students failed to hand in assignments, instead of using behaviour codes such as “not completed,” which the school requires under its grading and reporting practice.
In Dorval’s physics and science classes, students who didn’t turn in assignments got a printout of their marks showing them how a zero would affect their overall grade. Most times, the strategy spurred students to complete the work, he said. “Once I give that printout, I get a flood of assignments.”
Dorval said he also gives students a handout at the beginning of each school year informing them of his marking practices.
“It says right on there that I still give zeros,” Dorval said. “It’s on that handout I give them at the start that it’s up to them to come to me to make arrangements (to finish the work). I stay after school three days a week and I’m usually in my room at lunch hour, and sometimes the kids have spares so I tell them, ‘You make arrangements with me to come in and make up the work.’ "
Wtf? They were missing assignments, of course they're going to get a zero. I don't know why the teacher would be suspended. On another note, I hope that teacher moves to a new, brighter school and quits their current job.
that is so stupid the only reason the school supsended him is because they want better grades in the schools to get more tax money. School isn't about teaching anymore its about money.
It's kind of vague. Does "incomplete" mean only a few problems were done or none at all? I'm not arguing that our education system isn't ridiculously and overly lenient (there are definitely classes that even in college I probably deserved to fail, but didn't), but maybe this guy handed out zeros for kids that forgot about the assignment until lunch and did whatever problems they could. They deserve at least some credit for that.
On the other hand, if it was really the kid didn't do shitall during the year, then yeah, this is ridiculous.
If i recall, there was something about teacher being unable to give students a failing grade. It was only recently that they repealled it and now teacher can fail students.
As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
EDIT: Just noticed that B is appearently something else in USA compared to Sweden (in Sweden, B is the new MVG, which was the highest grade possible in the previous grading system).
EDIT2: And before all Swedes jump me saying A is the MVG, A is MVG+ (which previously didn't give any points, but A does).
I wrote an essay on how I want segregation by GPA in school. Got a zero on it for inappropate topic. I really do think teachers are too nice to high school kids. I was lucky not to be one of the typical dumbass high school kid so never cared all too much. But it did sometimes piss me off that they NEVER fail Ben though they fail tests and never does homework. During the graduation ceremony I was looking around thinking to myself how these brain dead faggots even passed class. I then remembered pretty much every non honors teacher offered extra credit, which is bullshit.
I imagine Canada have clear course descriptions like we have in Sweden and here we fail the fucking course if we don't meet the requirements. In Sweden we have IG (Swedish: icke godkänd, rough translation: YOU DID NOT PASS) and if you don't pass your assignments and tests you don't pass the course. This is totally warranted and everything else is bullshit.
Edit: I'm going to university now where they are more strict overall but IMO the same attitude should show across the board. It might be a shock to some kids in high school but education is one of the most important things in they world and if they don't understand what a 0 means for them they will suffer for it in the future.
On June 03 2012 01:52 Roachu wrote: I imagine Canada have clear course descriptions like we have in Sweden and here we fail the fucking course if we don't meet the requirements. In Sweden we have IG (Swedish: icke godkänd, rough translation: YOU DID NOT PASS) and if you don't pass your assignments and tests you don't pass the course. This is totally warranted and everything else is bullshit.
Edit: I'm going to university now where they are more strict overall but IMO the same attitude should show across the board. It might be a shock to some kids in high school but education is one of the most important things in they world and if they don't understand what a 0 means for them they will suffer for it in the future.
Every course has a syllabus which outlines course objectives and so forth, in almost every institution.
I was on the flip side of the issue last semester (TAing vs being a student). We had this one student clearly plagiarizing work with 100% certainity (she didn't pass), but she never had to go through the official university guidelines when dealing with plagiarism. It really is silly.
I am ashamed to say I live in Edmonton. Fucking pathetic... the people in command have no balls to make the right decisions and are scared of pressure from the public. Man up.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
I think its reasonable to expect to not get an A if you don't do homework and do well on tests. What other way is there to measure your proficiency in the subject, if not for tests/homework/etc?
I will agree that many teachers (especially in lower level classes / high school) put too much weight in homeworks, but at the same time you shouldn't be getting an A if you don't do them at all.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
I learned this hard way when I was like 10 years old. After that I've done 10grade worth things only on those things that I can be arsed to do. Other stuff I just put minimal effort or cheat. I've become really bitter with how school works.
Also having ADD makes school even more boring. Not like it's anyone elses fault tho.
Odd my 6th grade teacher used to give 0's to students for not paying attention. He never got fired but he was a good a teacher. Self-esteem is just self-evaluation of how you did your work and they should feel bad if they deserve a zero. Oh well they should fight that but its up to them...
The school system in Canada has become very wishy-washy over the past five years or so. Both of my parents have been teachers for around 30+ years. The entire education system has become a complete joke that my parents are both pretty sick and tired of it. Students have unlimited amount of time to hand in assignments from when they are assigned to the end of the term. This rule by the school board essentially is telling teachers not to set deadlines on their projects because students have whatever freedom they want.
My mother has wanted to fail many students in recent years, but, holding kids back without the parents permission is basically impossible so every kid basically gets a free ride through elementary and junior high. (You can fail high school).
All this is doing is setting up our society to be completely lazy, have no accountability, and letting kids do whatever they want. Never mind the fact after high school when they enter the real world for work, or go to University/College they get completely screwed over because they have no idea how hard it is to actually WORK. Just look at how many first year University/College kids drop out.. they flunk because they thought it would once again be an easy free ride.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
That's a bit of a dicey question I think, since your grades should be a reflection of your knowledge, or maybe rather acquired knowledge. On the other hand how is anyone supposed to know if you're not there? My experience is a lot of courses are poorly structured as they require a lot of attendance in order to pass while the literature might be most of what you need to learn. In university courses attendance doesn't mean shit unless there are mandatory introduction lectures or seminars, but the your score on the exams are what counts. In high school thought most of what counts to your grade is done during classes together with exam results. Though in my experience nobody who skips out on a lot of classes aren't going to post a good result on exams or assignments.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
back in the days when i was in school, i often felt like it was mostly a reflection of boobs
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
So just because I wont work hard in an English class with a terrible teacher means I wont work hard if I get a job? I never understood this type of reasoning, it's not rocket science that people will work harder if they're motivated, it's hard to keep yourself motivated if your English teacher is a complete asshat and the school wont do much to solve the problem.
I would love to see how motivated you would be if you hand in assignments and whatnot, in return you get comments such as "Excellent writing, keep on going like that!" and then when you ask what grade you're currently sitting at it's a C. Then you ask what you can do to improve and the only thing the teacher says is "write better", no details or anything.
I worked hardest of all in our English class in the first half of our semester, but it's literally impossible for me to keep working hard if my teacher wont give me any pointers on what I need to do better and I'm stuck at a C when I'm a student who aspires to achieve an A.
Also, in a job you have certain things to keep you motivated, money is usually the biggest one ofcourse but depending on what job you have you might have different motivating factors.
I'm getting my grade in English class, not "how hard did you work class".
My mother once went to a school, where the kids were of course retarded. And she gave a bad grade to someone cuz he was being a moron, obviously she asked him questions. And then his mother came in to the school complaining about it to the school head master. And she of course being as retarded as the kids, tolld her wtf she was doing and that its not acceptable and she had to remove it.
God I hate that humans can be so dumb.
But hey we have to live with that, maybe thousands of years in the future we will learn just a tad faster.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
So just because I wont work hard in an English class with a terrible teacher means I wont work hard if I get a job? I never understood this type of reasoning, it's not rocket science that people will work harder if they're motivated, it's hard to keep yourself motivated if your English teacher is a complete asshat and the school wont do much to solve the problem.
In a job you have certain things to keep you motivated, money is usually the biggest one ofcourse but depending on what job you have you might have different motivating factors.
As I said, I'm getting my grade in English class, not "how hard did you work class".
First of all, you're not entitled to anything. Second, in real life, you have to learn to work with the hand that you're dealt, that means having to deal with people that you don't particularly like. If you're not willing to put effort into your work because your teacher is an "asshat", then I doubt you'd be very good at anything except complaining. You need to give up that shitty entitled attitude because you're not special, you're just like every other Swedish kid that spends too much time on the Internet.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
So just because I wont work hard in an English class with a terrible teacher means I wont work hard if I get a job? I never understood this type of reasoning, it's not rocket science that people will work harder if they're motivated, it's hard to keep yourself motivated if your English teacher is a complete asshat and the school wont do much to solve the problem.
In a job you have certain things to keep you motivated, money is usually the biggest one ofcourse but depending on what job you have you might have different motivating factors.
As I said, I'm getting my grade in English class, not "how hard did you work class".
First of all, you're not entitled to anything. Second, in real life, you have to learn to work with the hand that you're dealt, that means having to deal with people that you don't particularly like. If you're not willing to put effort into your work because your teacher is an "asshat", then I doubt you'd be very good at anything except complaining. You need to give up that shitty entitled attitude because you're not special, you're just like every other Swedish kid that spends too much time on the Internet.
Maybe that's why I'm becoming a personal trainer, so I can be my own boss and have my own customers ...
Why do you start insulting me anyway? How do you know what I'm like? Pretty silly to start using ad-hominem attacks...
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
Exactly my point, however the older generation seems to disagree with this kind of thinking.
School shouldn't be just about getting grades and doing tests. Homework breeds work ethic and discipline. Both of those traits become far more valuable than passing tests as you get older. If you have work ethic and discipline you can accomplish far more than just being run of the mill "smart".
I fucked around a complained a lot too, I would always bitch about doing well on the tests and why should I have to do homework etc. Thinking like that is an oversimplified way of looking at things and you aren't seeing the big picture.
I applaud the teacher for giving zeros, it wasn't done enough when I was in school and I know i skated by a ton with far less than my best effort. Habits like not giving it your all and not having discipline become WAY harder to break as you get older. The kids need to be taught that lesson asap for their own sake.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
That's a bit of a dicey question I think, since your grades should be a reflection of your knowledge, or maybe rather acquired knowledge. On the other hand how is anyone supposed to know if you're not there? My experience is a lot of courses are poorly structured as they require a lot of attendance in order to pass while the literature might be most of what you need to learn. In university courses attendance doesn't mean shit unless there are mandatory introduction lectures or seminars, but the your score on the exams are what counts. In high school thought most of what counts to your grade is done during classes together with exam results. Though in my experience nobody who skips out on a lot of classes aren't going to post a good result on exams or assignments.
Well I'm getting a B or more on every test I'm doing, including the final exams. Without studying at all. That's how they're supposed to know of my knowledge.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
This. If you are really smart/that good at english or whatever subject, it should be an easy task for you to do your homework and shit.
Singapore have a ridiculous system where they have a % for every single assignment/homework. The first question the student ask when the teacher give out assignments/homework is: "Does this count into my final marks/grades?". If yes, we would do it. If not, you'll be surprised to see more than 10% of the class submitting it.
I think every education system is flawed in certain ways(Suited for different kind of people) but clever people would just know how to get good grades in every system.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
Actually it should. It teaches responsibility and time management, something that most kids in school lack considerably.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
That's a bit of a dicey question I think, since your grades should be a reflection of your knowledge, or maybe rather acquired knowledge. On the other hand how is anyone supposed to know if you're not there? My experience is a lot of courses are poorly structured as they require a lot of attendance in order to pass while the literature might be most of what you need to learn. In university courses attendance doesn't mean shit unless there are mandatory introduction lectures or seminars, but the your score on the exams are what counts. In high school thought most of what counts to your grade is done during classes together with exam results. Though in my experience nobody who skips out on a lot of classes aren't going to post a good result on exams or assignments.
No, it's not dicey at all. Grades are based on performance and a reflect exactly how the student performed in the class. You have tests, quizzes, homework, etc. You know up front what you are being graded on. Some classes my homework was graded, some it was not. Some classes had no homework. If you want a good grade, then you must performed on the graded portion of the class. If the only thing that is graded is a single final exam, then that's it. Don't show up, don't do homework, just do well on that one test. It's really quite simple.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
So just because I wont work hard in an English class with a terrible teacher means I wont work hard if I get a job? I never understood this type of reasoning, it's not rocket science that people will work harder if they're motivated, it's hard to keep yourself motivated if your English teacher is a complete asshat and the school wont do much to solve the problem.
In a job you have certain things to keep you motivated, money is usually the biggest one ofcourse but depending on what job you have you might have different motivating factors.
As I said, I'm getting my grade in English class, not "how hard did you work class".
First of all, you're not entitled to anything. Second, in real life, you have to learn to work with the hand that you're dealt, that means having to deal with people that you don't particularly like. If you're not willing to put effort into your work because your teacher is an "asshat", then I doubt you'd be very good at anything except complaining. You need to give up that shitty entitled attitude because you're not special, you're just like every other Swedish kid that spends too much time on the Internet.
Maybe that's why I'm becoming a personal trainer, so I can be my own boss and have my own customers ...
Why do you start insulting me anyway? How do you know what I'm like? Pretty silly to start using ad-hominem attacks...
Thats not really an insult, and the guys point is very clear and reasonable. There's a big difference between being able to tell people how they should work out, and spending the time learning how that person operates and designing a plan that best suits them. The difference is night and day for how good of a personal trainer you are and it's not all that different to your attitudes on homework.
The comments you're making, as smart as they might sound to yourself sound very foolish to people that are past the high school phase of their life. I was one of those "Smart kids" that passed classes with final exams being a core reason and it took me a long term to develop any kind of work ethic in the real world, that should have been developed in school. You don't get handed anything in life because you have the knowledge to do something, quite often you have to prove you can do "lesser" jobs before you can get into something that truly pushes your skillset, remember that.
I think the best teachers are the ones that can get the most out of each student, I've had a few in my life where they worked with me on assignments to give me things that interested me and I scored extremely well in those classes. I also had a few "bad" teachers, but I never made an effort to become a better student either. If you truly don't like a teacher, or believe in what they have to say then drop the class and either a) take it later or b) take it during summer. Using the bad teacher excuse won't get you very far in life, you need to work around it for your own sake.
I'll leave you with this, I'm sure everybody here has worked for a "Bad boss" who was far worse than any teacher we ever had. I'm talking about the unintelligent lifer in a dead end job kind of bad boss. The lessons you learn in school will help you cope with those situations a lot better, if you try to work past the adversity of a bad teacher or a bad system.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
So just because I wont work hard in an English class with a terrible teacher means I wont work hard if I get a job? I never understood this type of reasoning, it's not rocket science that people will work harder if they're motivated, it's hard to keep yourself motivated if your English teacher is a complete asshat and the school wont do much to solve the problem.
Have you ever had a bad boss? I can assure you it's MUCH worse than having a bad professor/teacher. Believe it or not, the case you described is just as applicable, if not more so, than a case where you have an engaging teacher. Learning to do work for shitty people in places of authority is a skill that has to be honed just as much as your understanding of the subject itself.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
So just because I wont work hard in an English class with a terrible teacher means I wont work hard if I get a job? I never understood this type of reasoning, it's not rocket science that people will work harder if they're motivated, it's hard to keep yourself motivated if your English teacher is a complete asshat and the school wont do much to solve the problem.
In a job you have certain things to keep you motivated, money is usually the biggest one ofcourse but depending on what job you have you might have different motivating factors.
As I said, I'm getting my grade in English class, not "how hard did you work class".
First of all, you're not entitled to anything. Second, in real life, you have to learn to work with the hand that you're dealt, that means having to deal with people that you don't particularly like. If you're not willing to put effort into your work because your teacher is an "asshat", then I doubt you'd be very good at anything except complaining. You need to give up that shitty entitled attitude because you're not special, you're just like every other Swedish kid that spends too much time on the Internet.
Completely agree. Don't blame your teacher if you're conceited enough to think you could easily get an A by just "applying yourself".
There are plenty of options available in Swedish schools for people who already know the material. It's just a matter of seeking them out.
For you, I'd recommend doing a "prövning" in English. There's absolutely no point in attending those classes if you feel you already know the material and feel you could pass with an A. With a "prövning" you can get that A and not have to attend classes.
They usually let you do "nationella prov" (if applicable in that subject). Give you a book to read which you'll have to do a written assignment on. Then they call you in one day to discuss the assignment orally and possibly do another exam on the course contents. You'll be done with it all in less than a month. Absolutely worth it if you already know the subject as you claim.
They usually have 2 teachers responsible for "prövningar". If your teacher is one of them, request the other.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
why shouldn't i have the option to just skip everything via tests. i always thought everything in school was boring (up till like senior year where I was taking like 7-8 AP classes.
i did this in university for a lot of classes too (like freshman level classes). many professors were much more accomodating to this (i never attended a single freshman chemistry/physics lecture) and still aced everything.
what's the big deal?
the classes that i did attend were the ones where i either (actually needed to attend) or found to be interesting on my own. i also attended many classes that i did not sign up for the sole intent of improving my own field of knowledge (or because the school wouldn't let me).
if you can study on your own and have a strong understanding of the material, i dont think you should be forced to do a bunch of monotonous work that is trivial (face it all of middle school is pretty much glorified babysitting and subjects in freshman-junior year in high school is like rehashed shit you should have known a long time ago).
On June 03 2012 02:35 jacksonlee wrote: Lol, as someone who's undergoing some hardcore difficult education, I assure you "being smart" doesn't get you very far when past high school.
There's a quote by Calvin Coolidge that says basically the same thing...
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure that kids generally know what is expected of them to get a good grade in their classes. The know what teachers they can slack off for and what ones they have to do all their work. It's pretty common for people to be lazy then blame someone else for their bad grades even though the standards were established long before you ever showed up. Millions of people had to go through the same as some of you put it "shitty" grading process. They aren't going to change it just because you can ace the test without studying. Guess what, some people can't. You knew you had to do the shitty project in order to get the grade you deserved. You chose not to. Therefore you don't deserve it. You deserve the grade you earn according to the scale that you no doubt already knew about. I'm pretty sure, lazy kids don't get blindsided by bad grades. They knew they didn't do shit. They just feel entitled.
Michael Phelps is bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled of a swimmer than everyone else. He can beat the best of them at almost anytime. Should we give him a gold medal just for showing up? We all know that he "could" beat the people who beat him nine times out of ten. Probably just an off day. No. You get the grade you earn. Simple as that.
Huh. This teacher was my teacher when I was back in high school. I never had any real strong impression of him other than he was borrrring. Haha.
On topic, "If you know the material, you should get good grades even if you don't do assignments and don't come to class", frankly I find this reasoning to be flawed. Understanding course material is not the biggest reason we send our kids to school, or at least, it shouldn't be. School, and especially school during our formative years (elementary through high school), is the primary place where kids learn social skills, accountability, responsibility and the skills and habits that allow for success in 'real life'.
It's a common complaint among high school students and university students that the subjects taught in school will be useless once you enter the workplace. What use do most jobs have for calculus? or even algebra? What is the point of learning chemistry or biology if you're going to be working in an office? Why bother making physical education mandatory when some kids just aren't the athletic type?
The answer is that the benefits of our education system are not solely limited to the subjects outlined on the syllabus. The benefits are that through attending classes students learn to be accountable. Through working on homework and handing it in by a deadline students learn responsibility and time management. Through being forced/encouraged to participate in physical activity and student clubs, students are more inclined to develop a more healthy lifestyle and social skills.
When you penalize a teacher for grading a student according to attendance and work done in class, you undermine these 'hidden' benefits of the education system. You fail to teach a student anything. You encourage students to feel entitled to benefits without having put in the work, so long as they feel that they are entitled to those benefits. By doing so, you ultimately hurt the students chances of success in the real world, and instead end up with self-entitled, undisciplined, unaccountable young adults.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
why shouldn't i have the option to just skip everything via tests. i always thought everything in school was boring (up till like senior year where I was taking like 7-8 AP classes.
i did this in university for a lot of classes too (like freshman level classes). many professors were much more accomodating to this (i never attended a single freshman chemistry/physics lecture) and still aced everything.
what's the big deal?
Why shouldn't I have the option to skip every work related event except meetings and presentations? ... Because school isn't just about teaching you how to fill in bubbles on a sheet of paper or learning what happened in 1900 on day X. It's about expanding your various skills and interests and preparing you for the next step in life, which will assuredely require more then just base intelligence.
On June 03 2012 02:35 jacksonlee wrote: Lol, as someone who's undergoing some hardcore difficult education, I assure you "being smart" doesn't get you very far when past high school.
it depends. if you are actually self motivated to learn things on your own, I don't really believe the teacher has to serve any purpose other than answering a a few personal questions and providing some overall guidance. college in many ways is much easier and higher level classes were not as hard for me to do because the material was more interesting, the grades were always weighted more in favor of examinations, and professors didn't care if you showed up or not.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
why shouldn't i have the option to just skip everything via tests. i always thought everything in school was boring (up till like senior year where I was taking like 7-8 AP classes.
i did this in university for a lot of classes too (like freshman level classes). many professors were much more accomodating to this (i never attended a single freshman chemistry/physics lecture) and still aced everything.
what's the big deal?
Why shouldn't I have the option to skip every work related event except meetings and presentations? ... Because school isn't just about teaching you how to fill in bubbles on a sheet of paper or learning what happened in 1900 on day X. It's about expanding your various skills and interests and preparing you for the next step in life, which will assuredely require more then just base intelligence.
what if i'm self motivated enough to do those things on my own. i don't believe that i'm smarter than most people, but i never attended those lectures because they would just rehash what was in the book (or it was something I had already learned on my own etc..)
work is different, you're being paid for your time. in a university setting, YOU are paying for your education, what you get out of it is up to you.
If it's a private school then I am not surprised because they care about the score of their students since it's their reputation. If you have a teacher that gives a 0 every single time work is not done, then you fuck up your reputation sort of speaking, including your income. Weather it's legit or not to give a 0, that I don't care.
At that level, the students should be given an opportunity to submit assignments or take exams late for a much lesser grades, but if they do not do so, a zero is well justified.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
why shouldn't i have the option to just skip everything via tests. i always thought everything in school was boring (up till like senior year where I was taking like 7-8 AP classes.
i did this in university for a lot of classes too (like freshman level classes). many professors were much more accomodating to this (i never attended a single freshman chemistry/physics lecture) and still aced everything.
what's the big deal?
Why shouldn't I have the option to skip every work related event except meetings and presentations? ... Because school isn't just about teaching you how to fill in bubbles on a sheet of paper or learning what happened in 1900 on day X. It's about expanding your various skills and interests and preparing you for the next step in life, which will assuredely require more then just base intelligence.
there were probably only 3-4 teachers in my entire lower education experience that I thought were actually good. i would consider the rest of the time to be glorified babysitting. read post above as well.
on this topic though, this is quite stupid, of course the teacher should be allowed to give 0's.
i actually did very poorly throughout high school (except junior/sr year cuz i didnt want to go to some shitty CC or state uni). i think i graduated barely in the top half of my class. i mean i think i deserved it in the sense that they cannot make exceptions to rules that are created, but i think the rules in general are not very good and that if compare actual knowledge of myself vs. most people who had a class rank above me, you would find that I probably knew more about everything we learned than them. my last 2 years GPA would have put my squarely within the top 1% of my class.
Seems I managed to derail this topic quite a bit, I understand not everybody agrees with me and that's fine. A big reason of why most of the people in my class/grade feel assfucked right now aswell is because we just had the new grade system implemented in Sweden this year (atleast in most schools) and every teacher seems to interpret it differently, meaning we all get graded in a shitton of different ways, which is frustrating.
I never meant that I shouldn't have to attend my class at all and just do the tests, my original question was if my grades should show my knowledge, or work put into the class.
Even that got derailed into my personal problems in my own class. The question I posed is alot more complicated to answer than just "go to class and do everything" or "don't go to class, just do tests".
I think it'd be very impractical (atleast in swedens school system) to have people not come to classes and only show up to tests, and I don't think the school system in Sweden will ever work like that, nor do I think it should. I think alot of people would overestimate themselves and would skip classes just because their (maybe more talented) friends would do so, and then proceed to fail at exams and get an F, resulting in parents complaining etc. It simply wouldn't work.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
why shouldn't i have the option to just skip everything via tests. i always thought everything in school was boring (up till like senior year where I was taking like 7-8 AP classes.
i did this in university for a lot of classes too (like freshman level classes). many professors were much more accomodating to this (i never attended a single freshman chemistry/physics lecture) and still aced everything.
what's the big deal?
They have the option, although in their defense it's not an widely advertised one in Swedish schools (I'd say 90%+ have no idea about it). Swedish society adheres by the social codes in the "jantelag", where no one is supposed to be special or stand out in any form or way.
Thus they prefer to blend in with their degenerate friends and having the option to keep blaming teachers instead of passing the examination that allows them to skip the course.
I live in Edmonton, and this story appalls me. As someone who has worked reasonably hard to achieve good marks all throughout school and now university, I feel that EPSB's no-zero policy is unbelievably backward. I've missed assignments (often because I've been dedicating time ot other schoolwork) or will put in less than my optimal effort because I judge the extra 2-3% I would get from an extra hour of time spent on one homework question to be not worth the time (stress/other things, etc.). If I fail or do poorly because of this approach then that is completely on me, and it's certainly not the professor's fault.
I'm content with being a 80-90% student and not a 90%+ student, but that doesn't mean I haven't worked reasonably hard to get where I am. Having other people get what amounts to free grades despite having not actually done work cheapens the value of my educational successes which I feel I deserve based on the effort made. I don't see how rewarding a lack of effort is a step forward at all, and commend the teacher for his actions.
In the real world, nobody's going to keep paying you if you don't show up to work. School is supposed to prepare you for the "real world" and this travesty runs completely counter to that notion.
I don't see anything wrong with this, at my school we had an essay that was worth 25% of our grade and some people plagarized and she just gave them zeros, and on tests she did that too. If you didn't do the work or cheated/plagarized, you should get a zero simple as that.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
why shouldn't i have the option to just skip everything via tests. i always thought everything in school was boring (up till like senior year where I was taking like 7-8 AP classes.
i did this in university for a lot of classes too (like freshman level classes). many professors were much more accomodating to this (i never attended a single freshman chemistry/physics lecture) and still aced everything.
what's the big deal?
Why shouldn't I have the option to skip every work related event except meetings and presentations? ... Because school isn't just about teaching you how to fill in bubbles on a sheet of paper or learning what happened in 1900 on day X. It's about expanding your various skills and interests and preparing you for the next step in life, which will assuredely require more then just base intelligence.
what if i'm self motivated enough to do those things on my own. i don't believe that i'm smarter than most people, but i never attended those lectures because they would just rehash what was in the book (or it was something I had already learned on my own etc..)
work is different, you're being paid for your time. in a university setting, YOU are paying for your education, what you get out of it is up to you.
You claim you are, but most employers will look at this and say you aren't.
And yes, you are paying for the university, therefore you have the option to show up for class if you want, whereas normal school requires you to show up. You should not, however, expect easy grades just because you paid for something.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
why shouldn't i have the option to just skip everything via tests. i always thought everything in school was boring (up till like senior year where I was taking like 7-8 AP classes.
i did this in university for a lot of classes too (like freshman level classes). many professors were much more accomodating to this (i never attended a single freshman chemistry/physics lecture) and still aced everything.
what's the big deal?
They have the option, although in their defense it's not an widely advertised one in Swedish schools (I'd say 90%+ have no idea about it). Swedish society adheres by the social codes in the "jantelag", where no one is supposed to be special or stand out in any form or way.
Thus they prefer to blend in with their degenerate friends and having the option to keep blaming teachers instead of passing the examination that allows them to skip the course.
I actually had no idea that I could do this, will check it out now that I do!
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
this is good point actually, hmm but many of my teachers in the past have implemented policies where they drop your lowest quiz grade or lowest test grade or etc.. something to that nature. if not i usually found that talking to the teacher or emailing them about your situation would prove enough to get them to change things. i think that if the teacher is at all observant they should have some idea of how much you know and that should reflect in their decision, and it has turned out that way in *most* situations.
Why doesn't the teacher just give them 1%s? He is trying to teach kids a lesson about not having work done on time in the real world, but in the real world, things are late all the time and it's not that big a deal. Sometimes people are busy and don't get to things.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
I completely agree with the teacher. If a student doesn't do the work, they don't deserve the grade. It's not fair to the other students, not to mention if you bump one kids score up by 10% I'm pretty sure every single student in the class who didn't get an A would demand the same thing.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
this is good point actually, hmm but many of my teachers in the past have implemented policies where they drop your lowest quiz grade or lowest test grade or etc.. something to that nature.
Right, but why not just give the kid a 50% as the lowest grade, or a 40% if they don't even do it. It is still killing the kids grade, but it isn't a decimation just because I'm pissed the kid didn't hand it in. Also, saying that the kid did nothing and thus deserves a 0% is ignoring how our grading scale works.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
It's pretty crazy to assume tests have 0 overlap....
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just because a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
I disagree. As a teacher, you are constantly evaluating the students. It is not tough to figure out that the kid knows more than 0% of the content on the quiz. Just because he he didn't take it doesn't mean he has none of the knowledge.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
It's pretty crazy to assume tests have 0 overlap....
If you're giving 6 quizzes in a semester, then they probably have very little overlap. You can also weight different quizzes differently, etc
I disagree. As a teacher, you are constantly evaluating the students. It is not tough to figure out that the kid knows more than 0% of the content on the quiz. Just because he he didn't take it doesn't mean he has none of the knowledge.
Don't you have full control over what you give each student in the class anyways (as long as it is reasonable). I don't see why you wouldn't have this ability regardless of grades anyways.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Jinro has it right as well. A 0 only says that the teacher is pissed, and has put in 0 effort to evaluate his/her students.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Jinro has it right as well. A 0 only says that the teacher is pissed, and has put in 0 effort to evaluate his/her students.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
The tests you ace might not test your ability to put your thought into writing, which is probably a rather large part of english course. And skipping out on that the teacher is literally not allowed to give you a good grade, even if they can probably wrangle in a passing grade without anyone whining.
Most of these assignments are to fucking easy anyway at gymnasie level in sweden, so most people whining about how they ace most things and skip them could spend 1-2 hours and get a good grade on that part too.
And well, if you think you can ace everything get a prövning, just waste some time whining about it and most teachers will do it.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
It's pretty crazy to assume tests have 0 overlap....
If you're giving 6 quizzes in a semester, then they probably have very little overlap. You can also weight different quizzes differently, etc
I disagree. As a teacher, you are constantly evaluating the students. It is not tough to figure out that the kid knows more than 0% of the content on the quiz. Just because he he didn't take it doesn't mean he has none of the knowledge.
Don't you have full control over what you give each student in the class anyways (as long as it is reasonable). I don't see why you wouldn't have this ability regardless of grades anyways.
6 quizzes will have overlap, especially since this guy is a physics teacher. Every time you talk to a kid, or ask the kid a question, you are assessing them. There are over 100 assessments per student every semester.
Very often teachers have full control, but you must have proof as to why you gave a certain grade, and it has to be consistent from kid to kid which is why giving 0s is dumb. It just shits on a kid's grade for no reason. Stubbornness is what makes teachers give 0s.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Jinro has it right as well. A 0 only says that the teacher is pissed, and has put in 0 effort to evaluate his/her students.
That's bullshit. The kid is the one putting in 0 effort, not the teacher. If he misses the test because he's sick, then fine, give him a retake, that's fair because being sick is usually out of your control. But if he just chooses not to go then why the hell should he be rewarded? How is that fair to all the other kids who showed for ALL 6 of the quizes?
Honestly, it's not really about whether or not you "know the material." A major point of primary education is to make sure that you practice discipline for when it matters, ie. in college, grad school, and most importantly, real life. Past school, you won't have anyone even encouraging discipline. The teachers are there to train you to get to that point where you are able to discipline YOURSELF, and obviously not every entitled high schol kid is at that level, despite what they may think of themselves.
And it so happens that "traning" involves explicitly harsh grades, because otherwise the teacher would be doing a disservice by failing to teach discipline.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Your argument makes no sense, at all.
he's talking about how grades correspond to GPA. 4 generally is 90-100 3 is 80-89 so on so forth. failing is failing on the GPA scale irrespective of how 'badly' you failed, but attaining a 0 will skew you grades mathematically much harder, you get the point?
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
this is ridiculous. This seems appealing in high school and middle school, where there is a distribution of intelligence among the students. Competing for jobs, in the real world, which is not the sheltered bureaucratic nonsense of these schools, is not just based around 'who is the smartest.' Between a lazy brilliant person, who is used to relying on their own intellect and never having to actually work, and doesn't have the skills to use if they ever need to actually put effort in if we followed your system, and someone who is hard working and knows how to learn, the person who will put in effort will be chosen every time. The brilliant person will be less motivated to improve, and will be outdone by one who is willing to follow what is necessary to improve.
As much as many high school and college students don't like this, it extends to them as well. If you don't do what is expected of you, be it attendance, turning in assignments etc, regardless of whether or not 'the teacher has a grudge against you' (everyones favorite excuse as to why they are underperforming) then you do not deserve a good grade. If you're worried about how this person you call terrible gets a C, and you get an E for not doing work, the solution is simple: do what is expected of you as a student
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Your argument makes no sense, at all.
he's talking about how grades correspond to GPA. 4 generally is 90-100 3 is 80-89 so on so forth. failing is failing on the GPA scale irrespective of how 'badly' you failed, but attaining a 0 will skew you grades mathematically much harder, you get the point?
Thank you, yeah, this is my 2nd of 2 points. The grading scale is stupid in a math sense. Why is an F not 0-20%? If it was, I'd give 0s.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Who decides what matters? The school board and the teachers. You're attending their classes after all.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
READ THE DESCRIPTION!!!!
"Physics teacher Lynden Dorval gave students a zero for missed tests and assignments"
Get a pass for not handing in an assignment and not attending tests. Sounds like a sweet deal, amirite?
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
Exactly.
On June 03 2012 03:00 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:00 shawster wrote:
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Jinro has it right as well. A 0 only says that the teacher is pissed, and has put in 0 effort to evaluate his/her students.
That's bullshit. The kid is the one putting in 0 effort, not the teacher. If he misses the test because he's sick, then fine, give him a retake, that's fair because being sick is usually out of your control. But if he just chooses not to go then why the hell should he be rewarded? How is that fair to all the other kids who showed for ALL 6 of the quizes?
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
"Physics teacher Lynden Dorval gave students a zero for missed tests and assignments"
READ THE DESCRIPTION!!!!
Like I said above, a 40% is still failing. There is no reward. The point system is so heavy on the lower end if makes no sense mathematically.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
Yes because clearly easy homework can't be big, maybe it'd be easy to do it but easy doesn't mean not tedious, boring and most important of all fucking irrelevant since I've already proven I know this shit.
The "nationella proven" in Sweden are the finals of the finals, they include everything you have done during the year and it's all compiled into about 5 different tests that you do, I averaged a B. Doesn't that mean that my knowledge qualifies me for the grade B?
"That isn't even that good" well wether or not you think a B is good doesn't matter (fyi B is the new MVG, which was the highest previously in Sweden), seeing as I'm getting an F or E in the best case when I've clearly proven that I deserve more (in terms of what I know).
Imo, and this is coming from someone who honestly thought that he was too smart for high school as well.
If the kid is actually intelligent enough in the subject, but is still too thick / arrogant to bother doing an assignment (most of which if you were actually as good as you thought you were, would take less than an hour of your oh so precious high school teen life), he doesn't deserve squat.
If you didn't bother to do an assignment / take a test, you obviously made a statement about how much you want the grades.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
No? Why would you give someone a zero for getting everything wrong. No reasonable teacher does that.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
you're lucky then to go to a school system that allows you to do that.
i skipped 2 years in math and even then i remember having a lot of difficulty doing so, many school officials are extremely reluctant to ALLOW you to do this kind of thing, only in GOOD school districts (aka you parents make a good living) that you are allowed to do something. if i was allowed to take calculus early, i probably would have thought math was more interesting etc... instead you have to trudge through years of algebra (like essentially algebra 2 is the same as algebra 1, precalc could be learned with algebra 2 etc...)
this work analogy is absolutely fucking terrible. you are paid for your work, your time, school is not the same at all. if it is boring, who the fuck cares get paid blow trees right.
actually what you say is false, have you never gone to a weed out course, where they give you a ton of easy monotonous work that simply occupies a lot of time?
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
a turned in, half completed assignment wouldn't get a 0. Thats why the concept of partial credit exists. Not handing in the assignment at all makes it irrelevant if they started it or not. if they have work, they will submit it. I'm not saying if you miss a single deadline youre completely screwed, but its the same as with missing a quiz. If you miss it, and after a fair amount of time there has been no attempt to make it up or submit it late, yes that does deserve a 0.
100-90 A __________4 A 90-80 B _________ 3 B 80-70 C ____________2 C 70-60 D ___________ 1 D 60-50 F ___________ 0 F 50-40 F ___________ -1 F 40-30 F 30-20 F 20-10 F 10-0 F _____________-5 F
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
Yes because clearly easy homework can't be big, maybe it'd be easy to do it but easy doesn't mean not tedious, boring and most important of all fucking irrelevant since I've already proven I know this shit.
The "nationella proven" in Sweden are the finals of the finals, they include everything you have done during the year and it's all compiled into about 5 different tests that you do, I averaged a B. Doesn't that mean that my knowledge qualifies me for the grade B?
"That isn't even that good" well wether or not you think a B is good doesn't matter (fyi B is the new MVG, which was the highest previously in Sweden), seeing as I'm getting an F or E in the best case when I've clearly proven that I deserve more (in terms of what I know).
Why are you getting an F or an E? Most teachers base most of their evaluation on the nationals, assuming you have actually attended class and handed in the assignments during the term. If you haven't handed in stuff during the term, then the teacher has no choice but to give you a lower grade, unless you do a prövning.
Basically, do the shit you are assigned to do or suffer the consequences, or if you are as smart as you think you are then do a prövning to get away from what you see as busywork.
Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good/responsible teacher. Period.
what the OP is missing (not their fault ofc) and what the news isn't clarifying on (to make a better story) is if the students missed the exam and CHOSE not to make it up, or simply missed and he gave a 0 without a chance for make up. If you have an exam and choose not to go to it without a legitimate reason absolutely thats a 0. you did no work, you deserve no credit. however if they missed it, were absent or something, and he didn't let them make it up thatd be different
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
you're lucky then to go to a school system that allows you to do that.
i skipped 2 years in math and even then i remember having a lot of difficulty doing so, many school officials are extremely reluctant to ALLOW you to do this kind of thing, only in GOOD school districts (aka you parents make a good living) that you are allowed to do something. if i was allowed to take calculus early, i probably would have thought math was more interesting etc... instead you have to trudge through years of algebra (like essentially algebra 2 is the same as algebra 1, precalc could be learned with algebra 2 etc...)
this work analogy is absolutely fucking terrible. you are paid for your work, your time, school is not the same at all. if it is boring, who the fuck cares get paid blow trees right.
No it's actually a great analogy. You might not know it but what happens in school, especially high school matters forever. Many jobs require you to have transcripts of your grades when you apply. So yes, you are in a sense getting paid to go to school.
The first is that the teacher was insubordinate. The school's decision that teachers shouldn't given zeroes might be good, or it might be the dumbest idea ever. They made their decision, either way. They told the teacher not to give zeroes. He gave zeroes. That's insubordination.
The sad thing is how often this seems to happen in public schools. The board of education or administration comes up with rules and mandates for the teacher to follow that completely undermine instruction and are horribly counter productive, and the teachers are powerless to do anything about it. Sometimes teacher tenure helps to alleviating some of this, but the teacher in the OP has been teaching for over 30 years so seniority isn't necessarily enough to combat this issue.
The second issue is the policy to not give zeroes. As Trezeguet pointed out, giving zeroes is not always the right thing to do. It's not about giving kids free points. The first thing to consider is how arbitrary our 100 point scale is, as well as the cutoffs for mastery, passing, failing, etc.. The second thing to consider is that some grading systems have been found (through significant amounts of research) to have more of an overall positive effect on student learning than others. Giving a kid who doesn't complete some work early in the year zeroes with no chance to earn back some of the credit maybe be perfectly fair, but it could also guarantee that the kid will fail the class for the rest of the year. Not only will he be less likely to get his act together and try to bring his average up from <40% to >70% (versus <60% on a less brutal grading scheme), but he will be more likely to be a disruption in class which will negatively impact other learners since he's not learning himself. Grading schemes that punish students to teach them a lesson don't necessarily teach students a lesson.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good/responsible teacher. Period.
This type of attitude as an educator results in a less educated general public.
Putting 'period' at the end of a post on tl seems to correlate strongly with someone who is very firm in their beliefs without any evidence to back them up.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
On June 03 2012 01:52 Roachu wrote: I imagine Canada have clear course descriptions like we have in Sweden and here we fail the fucking course if we don't meet the requirements. In Sweden we have IG (Swedish: icke godkänd, rough translation: YOU DID NOT PASS) and if you don't pass your assignments and tests you don't pass the course. This is totally warranted and everything else is bullshit.
Edit: I'm going to university now where they are more strict overall but IMO the same attitude should show across the board. It might be a shock to some kids in high school but education is one of the most important things in they world and if they don't understand what a 0 means for them they will suffer for it in the future.
As long as it's not "YOU SHALL NOT PASS"... ;-)
And yeah, the case is totally not understandable for me, would interest me to hear the opinion of somebody who is on the side of the school.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
Exactly.
On June 03 2012 03:00 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:00 shawster wrote:
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Jinro has it right as well. A 0 only says that the teacher is pissed, and has put in 0 effort to evaluate his/her students.
That's bullshit. The kid is the one putting in 0 effort, not the teacher. If he misses the test because he's sick, then fine, give him a retake, that's fair because being sick is usually out of your control. But if he just chooses not to go then why the hell should he be rewarded? How is that fair to all the other kids who showed for ALL 6 of the quizes?
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
"Physics teacher Lynden Dorval gave students a zero for missed tests and assignments"
READ THE DESCRIPTION!!!!
Like I said above, a 40% is still failing. There is no reward. The point system is so heavy on the lower end if makes no sense mathematically.
What does grading school have to do with it? We could theoretically switch 0-20% F, 20-40% D, etc etc. But colleges would then only look for people with A's, instead of those with A's and B's right now. It's not about the letter, it's about what it implies.
I'm still checking the page elements on that for a link from The Onion. I so very much want to believe that people are smarter than this. Why.jpeg
So what normally happens in this school when people don't do work? They get good grades anyway? Maybe it's like a welfare or communism simulation, where they take grade percentages from the harder working kids and divide them among the lazy to evenly spread the grades.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
you're lucky then to go to a school system that allows you to do that.
i skipped 2 years in math and even then i remember having a lot of difficulty doing so, many school officials are extremely reluctant to ALLOW you to do this kind of thing, only in GOOD school districts (aka you parents make a good living) that you are allowed to do something. if i was allowed to take calculus early, i probably would have thought math was more interesting etc... instead you have to trudge through years of algebra (like essentially algebra 2 is the same as algebra 1, precalc could be learned with algebra 2 etc...)
this work analogy is absolutely fucking terrible. you are paid for your work, your time, school is not the same at all. if it is boring, who the fuck cares get paid blow trees right.
No it's actually a great analogy. You might not know it but what happens in school, especially high school matters forever. Many jobs require you to have transcripts of your grades when you apply. So yes, you are in a sense getting paid to go to school.
i have never ever been asked about my high school grades other than when i have applied to college, and your grades in college matter if you are 1) applying to grad school/professional school 2) your first job. it definitely does not matter 'forever'.
this was spoken like someone who blindly listened to their parents or something.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
you're lucky then to go to a school system that allows you to do that.
i skipped 2 years in math and even then i remember having a lot of difficulty doing so, many school officials are extremely reluctant to ALLOW you to do this kind of thing, only in GOOD school districts (aka you parents make a good living) that you are allowed to do something. if i was allowed to take calculus early, i probably would have thought math was more interesting etc... instead you have to trudge through years of algebra (like essentially algebra 2 is the same as algebra 1, precalc could be learned with algebra 2 etc...)
this work analogy is absolutely fucking terrible. you are paid for your work, your time, school is not the same at all. if it is boring, who the fuck cares get paid blow trees right.
No it's actually a great analogy. You might not know it but what happens in school, especially high school matters forever. Many jobs require you to have transcripts of your grades when you apply. So yes, you are in a sense getting paid to go to school.
again, people keep missing this, theres a difference between performing poorly because you do not understand the material and performing poorly because you are not even putting in effort. no one is going to give a 0 to someone who is trying but hasnt grasped the material yet. we're talking about people who deliberately skip assignments and exams without bothering to make them up. how is that not worth a 0 if they clearly do not care/ wont put in any effort at all?
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Sorry, but you cannot let people pass exams because of personal tragedies that had fallen upon them. They deserve special care, they deserve psycological support, but they do not deserve to pass the course. In the end, you won't do them a favor if you put them into a more advanced class if they haven't understood the easier topics before.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
Yes because clearly easy homework can't be big, maybe it'd be easy to do it but easy doesn't mean not tedious, boring and most important of all fucking irrelevant since I've already proven I know this shit.
The "nationella proven" in Sweden are the finals of the finals, they include everything you have done during the year and it's all compiled into about 5 different tests that you do, I averaged a B. Doesn't that mean that my knowledge qualifies me for the grade B?
"That isn't even that good" well wether or not you think a B is good doesn't matter (fyi B is the new MVG, which was the highest previously in Sweden), seeing as I'm getting an F or E in the best case when I've clearly proven that I deserve more (in terms of what I know).
Why are you getting an F or an E? Most teachers base most of their evaluation on the nationals, assuming you have actually attended class and handed in the assignments during the term. If you haven't handed in stuff during the term, then the teacher has no choice but to give you a lower grade, unless you do a prövning.
Basically, do the shit you are assigned to do or suffer the consequences, or if you are as smart as you think you are then do a prövning to get away from what you see as busywork.
As I said earlier, I've only attended 60% of the class because of issues with the teacher, now please before you repeat what everybody in this thread does "herp derp you'll have bad bosses aswell" please note that it's not just her being a bad teacher, it's her talking shit about us openly and whatnot (which she will hopefully pay for, now that all of our parents are involved...)
And as I also said earlier, I didn't even know that "prövning" existed, now that I do I will check it out. My teacher said that if I do all the assignments I've missed (only 2, which I am indeed completing) I will get an E. I will get an E because according to my teacher, EVERYTHING matters, every single bit of homework etc. When I asked my math teacher if this is the correct way of grading (he was formerly a principal of our school) he says that it's completely incorrect. Ofcourse he wont do anything because "herp derp she's my co-worker".
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Its sick to me that you'd give someone the stamp of approval when someone is not ready to move on to the next level of education when they are clearly not ready. You're just increasing the chances that they will have trouble in more advanced classes (especially if its math).
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
Yes because clearly easy homework can't be big, maybe it'd be easy to do it but easy doesn't mean not tedious, boring and most important of all fucking irrelevant since I've already proven I know this shit.
The "nationella proven" in Sweden are the finals of the finals, they include everything you have done during the year and it's all compiled into about 5 different tests that you do, I averaged a B. Doesn't that mean that my knowledge qualifies me for the grade B?
"That isn't even that good" well wether or not you think a B is good doesn't matter (fyi B is the new MVG, which was the highest previously in Sweden), seeing as I'm getting an F or E in the best case when I've clearly proven that I deserve more (in terms of what I know).
Why are you getting an F or an E? Most teachers base most of their evaluation on the nationals, assuming you have actually attended class and handed in the assignments during the term. If you haven't handed in stuff during the term, then the teacher has no choice but to give you a lower grade, unless you do a prövning.
Basically, do the shit you are assigned to do or suffer the consequences, or if you are as smart as you think you are then do a prövning to get away from what you see as busywork.
As I said earlier, I've only attended 60% of the class because of issues with the teacher, now please before you fucking repeat what everybody in this thread does "herp derp you'll have bad bosses aswell" please note that it's not just her being a bad teacher, it's her talking shit about us openly and whatnot (which she will hopefully pay for, now that all of our parents are involved...)
And as I also said earlier, I didn't even know that "prövning" existed, now that I do I will check it out. My teacher said that if I do all the assignments I've missed (only 2, which I am indeed completing) I will get an E.
lets keep this civil if we can. Learning how to operate with someone you have issues with above IS incredibly important. If the only reason why you're getting an E instead of a B is because the teacher has a vendetta against you, then that will be easily resolved by the school board
I've skipped about as often as I've been attending classes for the final year of high school, still went out with fairly decent grades considering.., teachers would have had any right to 0 me if they wanted to, but they gave me certain deadlines, i.e. if you're not going to be there for the next classes I'll fail you etc, however they did not fail me since I was holding my end to a certain extent..., I guess that's the only reason I attended so many classes..
Problem being that teachers don't make the student realise fast enough what is going to happen if they don't do as they're told, it's frustrating really how harmless some teaches can appear to be over the course of the year and at the latest possible point, when the student is already like: meh, guy is not going to do anything anyways ; they're putting up deadlines which will result in the failure of the student.
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
Exactly.
On June 03 2012 03:00 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:00 shawster wrote:
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Jinro has it right as well. A 0 only says that the teacher is pissed, and has put in 0 effort to evaluate his/her students.
That's bullshit. The kid is the one putting in 0 effort, not the teacher. If he misses the test because he's sick, then fine, give him a retake, that's fair because being sick is usually out of your control. But if he just chooses not to go then why the hell should he be rewarded? How is that fair to all the other kids who showed for ALL 6 of the quizes?
How is Failing a kid on a quiz rewarding them?
On June 03 2012 03:09 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 03 2012 03:07 Trezeguet wrote:
On June 03 2012 03:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
"Physics teacher Lynden Dorval gave students a zero for missed tests and assignments"
READ THE DESCRIPTION!!!!
Like I said above, a 40% is still failing. There is no reward. The point system is so heavy on the lower end if makes no sense mathematically.
What does grading school have to do with it? We could theoretically switch 0-20% F, 20-40% D, etc etc. But colleges would then only look for people with A's, instead of those with A's and B's right now. It's not about the letter, it's about what it implies.
because a 0 will skew you average so that even if you try to make it up later (to do better later to compensate or whatever), it will make it difficult or almost impossible to do so without weighting grades differently you see?
assuming no weighting of grades for example, maybe i for
got to do an assignment oops i got a 0.
i try for hard from now on to do much better. i get a 100% on the next assignment, i'm still failing (50%) i get another 100 (200/3), ii'm still in D range. of course this 100 scenario is highly unlikely, what if i'm just an average student and get 70's etc...?, then i could be going all semester and end up with a barely passing (or not passing grade).
translate that into GPA, it becomes so that after you do badly once with a 0, there is very little incentive to try hard anymore.
again this is assuming no weighting of grades, no special treatment, or no dropping of grades etc..
he's talking about the effect of outliers on arithmetic average (mainly at the lower end of the grading spectrum) and how that adversely affects your GPA by distorting incentives.
wait, how is giving out zeroes for incomplete assignments warranted? since this is a physics class, i believe you should be able to receive partial credit for the work you've done. it's not like an english research paper or anything like that.
hmm i just read the video description and it said "Physics teacher Lynden Dorval gave students a zero for missed tests and assignments." how come the video only talked about incomplete assignments? wtf?
unless they're using the words incomplete and missed interchangeably..
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
I'm not quite seeing eye-to-eye with you. If a kid does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the subject material, how could you do anything other than fail them? I understand that some kids have troubling external issues that may affect their grades and others may just not be comfortable with some subjects. But isn't it part of your responsibility as an educator to make sure that kids leave your class with at least some basic understanding of the subject?
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
Yes because clearly easy homework can't be big, maybe it'd be easy to do it but easy doesn't mean not tedious, boring and most important of all fucking irrelevant since I've already proven I know this shit.
The "nationella proven" in Sweden are the finals of the finals, they include everything you have done during the year and it's all compiled into about 5 different tests that you do, I averaged a B. Doesn't that mean that my knowledge qualifies me for the grade B?
"That isn't even that good" well wether or not you think a B is good doesn't matter (fyi B is the new MVG, which was the highest previously in Sweden), seeing as I'm getting an F or E in the best case when I've clearly proven that I deserve more (in terms of what I know).
Why are you getting an F or an E? Most teachers base most of their evaluation on the nationals, assuming you have actually attended class and handed in the assignments during the term. If you haven't handed in stuff during the term, then the teacher has no choice but to give you a lower grade, unless you do a prövning.
Basically, do the shit you are assigned to do or suffer the consequences, or if you are as smart as you think you are then do a prövning to get away from what you see as busywork.
As I said earlier, I've only attended 60% of the class because of issues with the teacher, now please before you fucking repeat what everybody in this thread does "herp derp you'll have bad bosses aswell" please note that it's not just her being a bad teacher, it's her talking shit about us openly and whatnot (which she will hopefully pay for, now that all of our parents are involved...)
And as I also said earlier, I didn't even know that "prövning" existed, now that I do I will check it out. My teacher said that if I do all the assignments I've missed (only 2, which I am indeed completing) I will get an E.
lets keep this civil if we can. Learning how to operate with someone you have issues with above IS incredibly important. If the only reason why you're getting an E instead of a B is because the teacher has a vendetta against you, then that will be easily resolved by the school board
Agreed. I got past high school successfully with straight As while the more than half the school faculty HATED me (seriously, out of everyone in my year that graduated, I was the only one with an F for behaviour) and 60% attendance. Its all about working on your own at home if you have incompetent teachers and sucking up and doing the graded work coz you know it's important. The teacher's gonna last what, a year? Your grades might determine your college which would subsequently decide your job.
On June 03 2012 03:25 billy5000 wrote: wait, how is giving out zeroes for incomplete assignments warranted? since this is a physics class, i believe you should be able to receive partial credit for the work you've done. it's not like an english research paper or anything like that.
hmm i just read the video description and it said "Physics teacher Lynden Dorval gave students a zero for missed tests and assignments." how come the video only talked about incomplete assignments? wtf?
This is what the shitstorm started from. The news story lacks the clarification, since in all likely hood that would make the case much less exciting. I have a feeling it's 0's for missed assignments not partially done ones; partial credit is ubiquitous in high schools.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
Yes because clearly easy homework can't be big, maybe it'd be easy to do it but easy doesn't mean not tedious, boring and most important of all fucking irrelevant since I've already proven I know this shit.
The "nationella proven" in Sweden are the finals of the finals, they include everything you have done during the year and it's all compiled into about 5 different tests that you do, I averaged a B. Doesn't that mean that my knowledge qualifies me for the grade B?
"That isn't even that good" well wether or not you think a B is good doesn't matter (fyi B is the new MVG, which was the highest previously in Sweden), seeing as I'm getting an F or E in the best case when I've clearly proven that I deserve more (in terms of what I know).
Why are you getting an F or an E? Most teachers base most of their evaluation on the nationals, assuming you have actually attended class and handed in the assignments during the term. If you haven't handed in stuff during the term, then the teacher has no choice but to give you a lower grade, unless you do a prövning.
Basically, do the shit you are assigned to do or suffer the consequences, or if you are as smart as you think you are then do a prövning to get away from what you see as busywork.
As I said earlier, I've only attended 60% of the class because of issues with the teacher, now please before you fucking repeat what everybody in this thread does "herp derp you'll have bad bosses aswell" please note that it's not just her being a bad teacher, it's her talking shit about us openly and whatnot (which she will hopefully pay for, now that all of our parents are involved...)
And as I also said earlier, I didn't even know that "prövning" existed, now that I do I will check it out. My teacher said that if I do all the assignments I've missed (only 2, which I am indeed completing) I will get an E.
This sounds like one of the few cases it might actually be related to a bad teacher, you'll have to forgive people for being dismissive, as in 95% of all cases it's just entitled kids whining about stuff they have to learn how to handle.
And well, you may have live with bosses being really really rude and just deal with it, since jobs can be hard to come by. Be happy you can get your parents help to get rid of a terrible teacher.
In general though, often the teachers are bound by rules and regulations, if you don't follow the kursplan it can really bite your ass. Which means things students see as irrelevant might be important due to arbitrary rules.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Sorry, but you cannot let people pass exams because of personal tragedies that had fallen upon them. They deserve special care, they deserve psycological support, but they do not deserve to pass the course. In the end, you won't do them a favor if you put them into a more advanced class if they haven't understood the easier topics before.
I know what you mean, but that isn't exactly my point. Probably my fault. What I am trying to get at is that when students do 0% of the homework, they haven't done 0 work if they are active in my class and participating. That is work too, and I can reward that with a higher than a 0% on the homework. You are right though that when this kid does none of the work outside of class for the rest of the year, there will be other ways in which I will be evaluating the kid's knowledge. Sure, the kid will have less work to do than the others but no one would want to trade shoes.
My mother is a teacher at a middle school currently and they aren't allowed to give grades below 60. So she'll have a student that does shit all semester not doing the assignments, not doing tests but hey, they get a 60!
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Sorry, but you cannot let people pass exams because of personal tragedies that had fallen upon them. They deserve special care, they deserve psycological support, but they do not deserve to pass the course. In the end, you won't do them a favor if you put them into a more advanced class if they haven't understood the easier topics before.
I know what you mean, but that isn't exactly my point. Probably my fault. What I am trying to get at is that when students do 0% of the homework, they haven't done 0 work if they are active in my class and participating. That is work too, and I can reward that with a higher than a 0% on the homework. You are right though that when this kid does none of the work outside of class for the rest of the year, there will be other ways in which I will be evaluating the kid's knowledge. Sure, the kid will have less work to do than the others but no one would want to trade shoes.
Well said and reasoned. Thanks for clarifying i was confused too
Dorval said he always gave uncompleted work what is called "reluctant zeros," where his students were given a number of opportunities to make up the assignment and have the zero replaced with a mark.
"Most of my students did that," he said. "By the end of the year, I hardly had any zeros at all."
He does recall however, one student who had only completed six of 15 items.
Parents are largely unaware of the policy, as teachers were instructed not to speak about it, he said.
Other schools in the Edmonton public system also use no-zero marking, he said.
It is clear that he gives several opportunities for students to not get a 0. The only time students get a 0, is when they are obviously adamant on getting a 0.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Its sick to me that you'd give someone the stamp of approval when someone is not ready to move on to the next level of education when they are clearly not ready. You're just increasing the chances that they will have trouble in more advanced classes (especially if its math).
Yeah, you don't understand what is going on. I am not trying to incite you, just being blunt. Giving a kid 40%s the whole way flunks them right good. If a student demonstrates to me outside of the homework that they are above average in my class, but do not do any of the homework, I will likely pass them. Not with an A, but with the lowest passing grade available. The kid doesn't win. No one can show off a C, but on the other hand, the kid knows the stuff so what am I proving my holding him/her back?
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
Exactly.
On June 03 2012 03:00 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:00 shawster wrote:
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Jinro has it right as well. A 0 only says that the teacher is pissed, and has put in 0 effort to evaluate his/her students.
That's bullshit. The kid is the one putting in 0 effort, not the teacher. If he misses the test because he's sick, then fine, give him a retake, that's fair because being sick is usually out of your control. But if he just chooses not to go then why the hell should he be rewarded? How is that fair to all the other kids who showed for ALL 6 of the quizes?
How is Failing a kid on a quiz rewarding them?
On June 03 2012 03:09 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 03 2012 03:07 Trezeguet wrote:
On June 03 2012 03:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
"Physics teacher Lynden Dorval gave students a zero for missed tests and assignments"
READ THE DESCRIPTION!!!!
Like I said above, a 40% is still failing. There is no reward. The point system is so heavy on the lower end if makes no sense mathematically.
What does grading school have to do with it? We could theoretically switch 0-20% F, 20-40% D, etc etc. But colleges would then only look for people with A's, instead of those with A's and B's right now. It's not about the letter, it's about what it implies.
because a 0 will skew you average so that even if you try to make it up later (to do better later to compensate or whatever), it will make it difficult or almost impossible to do so without weighting grades differently you see?
assuming no weighting of grades for example, maybe i for
got to do an assignment oops i got a 0.
i try for hard from now on to do much better. i get a 100% on the next assignment, i'm still failing (50%) i get another 100 (200/3), ii'm still in D range. of course this 100 scenario is highly unlikely, what if i'm just an average student and get 70's etc...?, then i could be going all semester and end up with a barely passing (or not passing grade).
translate that into GPA, it becomes so that after you do badly once with a 0, there is very little incentive to try hard anymore.
again this is assuming no weighting of grades, no special treatment, or no dropping of grades etc..
he's talking about the effect of outliers on arithmetic average (mainly at the lower end of the grading spectrum) and how that adversely affects your GPA by distorting incentives.
The incentive was there from the very beginning, you just choose not to act on it. One 0% on a missed assignment does not ruin your GPA forever. If that makes it so you can't try hard anymore, then frankly you're not cut out for much. Besides, most teachers are very willing to help you work through things like these, to give you extra days, or partial credit if something is late. It takes an immense lack of effort to actually get a 0% on something, unless the teacher has some sort of vendetta, in which case you are allowed to go to the higher ups. Getting them involved because you were lazy or stupid however, is ridiculous.
Dorval said he always gave uncompleted work what is called "reluctant zeros," where his students were given a number of opportunities to make up the assignment and have the zero replaced with a mark.
"Most of my students did that," he said. "By the end of the year, I hardly had any zeros at all."
He does recall however, one student who had only completed six of 15 items.
Parents are largely unaware of the policy, as teachers were instructed not to speak about it, he said.
Other schools in the Edmonton public system also use no-zero marking, he said.
It is clear that he gives several opportunities for students to not get a 0. The only time students get a 0, is when they are obviously adamant on getting a 0.
If this is the case, aboslutely they deserve 0s. If the teacher GIVES you the chance to turn in even a partially completed assignment for partial credit and you still ignore it, a 0 is the only option available thats reasonable. I have a feeling this is coming from parents and the school board getting up in arms over 'their son or daughter getting labelled by receiving a 0'...these cases happened a lot in my old school district...luckily they would get shot down before causing the teacher too much hassle
Dorval said he always gave uncompleted work what is called "reluctant zeros," where his students were given a number of opportunities to make up the assignment and have the zero replaced with a mark.
"Most of my students did that," he said. "By the end of the year, I hardly had any zeros at all."
He does recall however, one student who had only completed six of 15 items.
Parents are largely unaware of the policy, as teachers were instructed not to speak about it, he said.
Other schools in the Edmonton public system also use no-zero marking, he said.
It is clear that he gives several opportunities for students to not get a 0. The only time students get a 0, is when they are obviously adamant on getting a 0.
But shouldn't the teacher be more concerned about whether or not the student knows the material or not?
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Sorry, but you cannot let people pass exams because of personal tragedies that had fallen upon them. They deserve special care, they deserve psycological support, but they do not deserve to pass the course. In the end, you won't do them a favor if you put them into a more advanced class if they haven't understood the easier topics before.
I know what you mean, but that isn't exactly my point. Probably my fault. What I am trying to get at is that when students do 0% of the homework, they haven't done 0 work if they are active in my class and participating. That is work too, and I can reward that with a higher than a 0% on the homework. You are right though that when this kid does none of the work outside of class for the rest of the year, there will be other ways in which I will be evaluating the kid's knowledge. Sure, the kid will have less work to do than the others but no one would want to trade shoes.
And you have full control over how you grade your class. If you want to think that participation is fine and = homework, then that's up to you. If someone else thinks that doing homework is important in learning, then thats how they will grade their class. I don't see what the issue is, either is perfectly acceptable and you can fully justify grades you give however you want.
Seems this whole thing is about the short term gain of not hurting the kids' (and parents') feelings, vs. molding them into better, more productive people and preparing them to contribute to the pursuits of humanity.
I think there is too much emphasis on giving a children a "happy" (which in most cases seems to be defined as "easy") childhood, rather than giving them a path towards a happy adulthood, both for them and for those they interact with. This is more the fault of the parents than the schools. The whole thing comes down to pleasing their children for the short term without looking at the big picture.
Although obviously it's far more complicated than this, and since I'm not a psychologist I'm sure it's orders of magnitude more complicated than I can even guess. So I may be wrong.
My wife is a middle school teacher. She also has a lot of kids who simply don't turn in work. 9 times out of 10, you can look at the kids parent and know why. Apples don't fall far from the tree they grew on.
Example: one kid (who didn't do a single thing all year -- failing.) His mom finally comes to school to talk to a teacher... because the teacher took the kid's Ipod. Not to find out what is going on with his classes, not to see how he can save his grade... to get his damn Ipod back.
If the parent doesn't care if the kid does work, the kid certainly won't care. Especially since all kids know that they will just be passed along, because that his been the case since they were old enough to be graded.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
I agree, school needs to be more about giving kids work ethic. High school is pretty much a joke, none of the subjects are hard so don't brag about being smart because you think high school english is easy.
The way high schools are operating now is hurting kids in the long run because many kids don't really know how to work hard at something. I breezed through highschool doing minimal work like many others, then when I went to university i was like "WTF I HAVE TO WORK?!", and did pretty terrible my first year. This kind of thing can be avoided if highschools actually forced students to work hard for their marks.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
And students in school have much more important things to do with their time than what they are being graded for. It doesn't matter that you think it's tedius or time consuming. What matters is the teachers opinion since they are the once your parents are paying to educate you. If the teacher thinks it's worth doing for a grade, it's worth doing.
On June 03 2012 03:33 Blasterion wrote: You do nothing you get nothing. An Eye for an Eye, A tooth for a Tooth and A Zero for a zero
If a student hits you, you hit him back? Ok, that is unfair to say, but as micronesia pointed out, this kind of thinking only distances you from the students, and often leads to them not only giving up, but making things harder for every other kid.
Dorval said he always gave uncompleted work what is called "reluctant zeros," where his students were given a number of opportunities to make up the assignment and have the zero replaced with a mark.
"Most of my students did that," he said. "By the end of the year, I hardly had any zeros at all."
He does recall however, one student who had only completed six of 15 items.
Parents are largely unaware of the policy, as teachers were instructed not to speak about it, he said.
Other schools in the Edmonton public system also use no-zero marking, he said.
It is clear that he gives several opportunities for students to not get a 0. The only time students get a 0, is when they are obviously adamant on getting a 0.
But shouldn't the teacher be more concerned about whether or not the student knows the material or not?
Yes, but seeing as the students have been choosing not to take them, the only option is a 0. The teacher's responsibility is not to chase down every single student and force them to take a test; if the students avoid all the options the teacher presents (sounds like there were more than 1, although not confirmed), what else could he do?
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Kid misses quiz, how can you even know if he knows anything that was supposed to be on the quiz?
You're saying that because the kid proved he knew 83% of the subject, he should get an A? Sure, thats fine if your scale includes 83+ to be an A, but otherwise not. Who doesn't give makeup quizes anyways??
It actually makes perfect mathematical sense.
i think what he means is a 70% corresponds to a 2.0 and a 1.0 corresponds to a 60 or whatever a D is. etc..
Exactly.
On June 03 2012 03:00 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:28 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:00 shawster wrote:
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
Jinro has it right as well. A 0 only says that the teacher is pissed, and has put in 0 effort to evaluate his/her students.
That's bullshit. The kid is the one putting in 0 effort, not the teacher. If he misses the test because he's sick, then fine, give him a retake, that's fair because being sick is usually out of your control. But if he just chooses not to go then why the hell should he be rewarded? How is that fair to all the other kids who showed for ALL 6 of the quizes?
How is Failing a kid on a quiz rewarding them?
On June 03 2012 03:09 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 03 2012 03:07 Trezeguet wrote:
On June 03 2012 03:04 sluggaslamoo wrote:
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Failing to hand in an assignment is different to being absent during a quiz.
If you fail to hand in an assignment, it just means you didn't do any work, plain and simple. Even a half-finished assignment would give you more than a 0. If you don't hand it in at all, you did 0, according to the criteria that would tick off 0 checkpoints, so you get a 0. Dunno how I can make this any clearer.
Yeah, but what if a kid works all night, and then gets everything wrong. 0 for that kid too? Also, kids do work that isn't something that will be graded. I don't grade on class participation, but that doesn't mean kids aren't working in my class.
"Physics teacher Lynden Dorval gave students a zero for missed tests and assignments"
READ THE DESCRIPTION!!!!
Like I said above, a 40% is still failing. There is no reward. The point system is so heavy on the lower end if makes no sense mathematically.
What does grading school have to do with it? We could theoretically switch 0-20% F, 20-40% D, etc etc. But colleges would then only look for people with A's, instead of those with A's and B's right now. It's not about the letter, it's about what it implies.
because a 0 will skew you average so that even if you try to make it up later (to do better later to compensate or whatever), it will make it difficult or almost impossible to do so without weighting grades differently you see?
assuming no weighting of grades for example, maybe i for
got to do an assignment oops i got a 0.
i try for hard from now on to do much better. i get a 100% on the next assignment, i'm still failing (50%) i get another 100 (200/3), ii'm still in D range. of course this 100 scenario is highly unlikely, what if i'm just an average student and get 70's etc...?, then i could be going all semester and end up with a barely passing (or not passing grade).
translate that into GPA, it becomes so that after you do badly once with a 0, there is very little incentive to try hard anymore.
again this is assuming no weighting of grades, no special treatment, or no dropping of grades etc..
he's talking about the effect of outliers on arithmetic average (mainly at the lower end of the grading spectrum) and how that adversely affects your GPA by distorting incentives.
If an assignment is big enough that getting a 0 will ruin your grade no matter what, then you shouldn't have "forgotten" to do it in the first place. If you have a real reason for missing an assignment, then it's your responsibility to talk to the teacher to arrange a make-up or something. I understand that not all teachers are nice, but I've never had a teacher in high school who gave out 0's without giving the student a chance to make up for it somehow. I've also never heard of anyone who did well in general but got a low grade because he got 0 for a missed assignment. But if a student doesn't do half the assignments, does average for the ones he does hand in, and makes no effort to make up for the missed assignments, I think he does not deserve a passing grade.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Its sick to me that you'd give someone the stamp of approval when someone is not ready to move on to the next level of education when they are clearly not ready. You're just increasing the chances that they will have trouble in more advanced classes (especially if its math).
Yeah, you don't understand what is going on. I am not trying to incite you, just being blunt. Giving a kid 40%s the whole way flunks them right good. If a student demonstrates to me outside of the homework that they are above average in my class, but do not do any of the homework, I will likely pass them. Not with an A, but with the lowest passing grade available. The kid doesn't win. No one can show off a C, but on the other hand, the kid knows the stuff so what am I proving my holding him/her back?
That in no way shows that I know anything about the subject. When you do physics, you learn various subtopics that often don't have much crossover.
Your policy means that I can just study photonics, and not attend classes for 3/4 of the whole year and I still pass "physics". That's unfair to the kids who have had to attend all year and get a similar grade because their effort has to be distributed across more learning topics.
I don't think anyone is claiming or suggesting a 0 is for anything other than not doing the assignment, after the teacher has given them multiple opportunities to make it up. Partial done assignments deserve partial credit, demonstrating mastery and understanding of the concepts even with a poor grade on tests can be mitigated with lower passing grades, but if a student ignores all the ways in which a teacher is trying to assess their performance and deliberately does not do work, 0's are justified for these cases
On June 03 2012 02:52 Trezeguet wrote: Teacher here.
Imagine you have a student who has gotten 100% on 5 of the 6 quizzes in your class. He answers every question right in class, and often enhances all of his peers' knowledge of a subject by leading class discussions to higher level of thinking. This kid misses the last quiz. So you give him a 0% right!?!? Kid averages a 83% B- student. What a joke.
Think of a 4 point scale where 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is basic, and 1 is poor. Giving a student a 0/100 is like giving a kid a -6 on a 4 point scale. The point is that in some situations our grading system is beyond stupid and doesn't make mathematical sense. If teachers use grades as a weapon against students, the students learn less. Just becuase a kid doesn't hand in his homework doesn't mean that you can not assess him in a different way. I'm not saying that there should not be a consequence, just that some teachers can be dicks because they think they are teaching kids a lesson, when what they are mostly teaching the kid is that the teacher is a dick, and that the kid shouldn't pay the teacher much mind.
Your point may be valid for someone like that, but the teacher is giving 0s to people who absolutely don't do anything/skip classes all the time. Don't mix things up.
On June 03 2012 03:33 Blasterion wrote: You do nothing you get nothing. An Eye for an Eye, A tooth for a Tooth and A Zero for a zero
If a student hits you, you hit him back? Ok, that is unfair to say, but as micronesia pointed out, this kind of thinking only distances you from the students, and often leads to them not only giving up, but making things harder for every other kid.
It's a form of expressions that you Americans use, I thought I'd give it a try. But that's beside the point, What good is there in incomplete work? It's only the results that matter, and the result is incomplete work then that warrants a 0
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
you're lucky then to go to a school system that allows you to do that.
i skipped 2 years in math and even then i remember having a lot of difficulty doing so, many school officials are extremely reluctant to ALLOW you to do this kind of thing, only in GOOD school districts (aka you parents make a good living) that you are allowed to do something. if i was allowed to take calculus early, i probably would have thought math was more interesting etc... instead you have to trudge through years of algebra (like essentially algebra 2 is the same as algebra 1, precalc could be learned with algebra 2 etc...)
this work analogy is absolutely fucking terrible. you are paid for your work, your time, school is not the same at all. if it is boring, who the fuck cares get paid blow trees right.
actually what you say is false, have you never gone to a weed out course, where they give you a ton of easy monotonous work that simply occupies a lot of time?
You do know you have time outside of school to, I don't know, learn things you want to learn? My school didn't let me, I took the courses on my own. Hence, I had to do grade-level homework as well.
Your comment on work being paid is irrelevant. I've seen the same mindset among my classmates now that we're in the workforce. "I didn't get a degree to collate and bind presentations" blah blah blah.
There's also only weedout courses for specific paths, generally speaking. Like Orgo for premed. They're very rarely a required course, if those at all.
Dorval said he always gave uncompleted work what is called "reluctant zeros," where his students were given a number of opportunities to make up the assignment and have the zero replaced with a mark.
"Most of my students did that," he said. "By the end of the year, I hardly had any zeros at all."
He does recall however, one student who had only completed six of 15 items.
Parents are largely unaware of the policy, as teachers were instructed not to speak about it, he said.
Other schools in the Edmonton public system also use no-zero marking, he said.
It is clear that he gives several opportunities for students to not get a 0. The only time students get a 0, is when they are obviously adamant on getting a 0.
But shouldn't the teacher be more concerned about whether or not the student knows the material or not?
It is the teachers responsibility to teach students. Not to make sure they get out of bed on time.
If a student is adamant on getting a 0 at all costs, he is unteachable. Maybe he needs counselling, but again, teachers are not qualified to do that.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
And students in school have much more important things to do with their time than what they are being graded for. It doesn't matter that you think it's tedius or time consuming. What matters is the teachers opinion since they are the once your parents are paying to educate you. If the teacher thinks it's worth doing for a grade, it's worth doing.
I can't speak for America, but here our qualifications are based on national grading. Work in school (aside from a few subjects, like Art) has zero impact on grade, it's all about how you do in your final exams, which everyone in a year in the entire country sits together. When I was given literally 2+ hours of homework a day for my maths higher, I said "No". I refused to do it, because I knew it was pointless for me. My teacher told me I was going to fail, put my in detention, that sort of stupid shit. I then got the highest possible grade in the exam, and was the only person in my class to do so.
So you tell me, was I wrong to not spend hundreds of hours of my life doing tedious, repetitive bullshit just to make my teacher happy when I have proven that it was pointless?
But for the topic at large, this is just ridiculous. What the hell mark do you get if you don't get a 0? How can you get anything but a 0 for work not done?
I've picked a fight with three of you I think. I'm out of steam, so just go back and read micronesia's post. He is much better spoken than I, and does a very good job of framing my argument. I get the feeling that some of you have never received a 0, or have ever truly struggled in a class. Not giving kids 0 does not have to do with hurting their feelings, or passing them on to the next grade undeserved, it has to do with not blowing up a kid's grade who has made a mistake. Trust me, if you give a kid a 40% instead of a 0% on a missing assignment, it still flunks the kid, it still teaches them a lesson (which all of you see so fucking worried about), and it makes it so that they can overcome their mistakes. That is the real value here that you seem to be missing out on. 0s often wreck a chance to succeed, and then there is little incentive to change behavior and learn from mistakes.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Its sick to me that you'd give someone the stamp of approval when someone is not ready to move on to the next level of education when they are clearly not ready. You're just increasing the chances that they will have trouble in more advanced classes (especially if its math).
Yeah, you don't understand what is going on. I am not trying to incite you, just being blunt. Giving a kid 40%s the whole way flunks them right good. If a student demonstrates to me outside of the homework that they are above average in my class, but do not do any of the homework, I will likely pass them. Not with an A, but with the lowest passing grade available. The kid doesn't win. No one can show off a C, but on the other hand, the kid knows the stuff so what am I proving my holding him/her back?
That in no way shows that I know anything about the subject. When you do physics, you learn various subtopics that often don't have much crossover.
Your policy means that I can just study photonics, and not attend classes for 3/4 of the whole year and I still pass "physics". That's unfair to the kids who have had to attend all year and get a similar grade because their effort has to be distributed across more learning topics.
thats not what hes saying at all. hes just saying that above all, the teachers priority when assigning grades is to base it off the students understanding of the material, albeit with hw and grades factored in. Someone who performs well on the tests and does all their work will get an A, someone who performs poorly on tests but still clearly understands the material might not get an A, but still deservse to pass
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
I guess I have two separate approaches to respond.
First, the alternative to basing a grade on objectively graded assignments and tests is to use the teacher's subjective opinion. Now we have entered into an area where racism and other prejudices affect your grade, and not your objective performance. Because in your approach, it's really not even how good you are at English, it's really how your teacher chooses to apply their subjective interpretation of how good you are at English. I suspect that if your teacher doesn't like you, their opinion of your English ability will be less. Is that more fair than an objective, performance-based, measuring system ? I can't imagine that it could be. If you disagree with your teacher's assessment, upon what do you base your argument ? Ironically, we're back to the performance measures.
Second, you are a professional gamer. How is your performance in that area measured ? You play matches against others. That's how. We celebrate those who win a given tournament. We celebrate those who win matches. Those are objective measurements. You may be the best-skilled Starcraft 2 player in the universe, Jinro, but without tourament results to back up that claim, it would be a hard argument to defend, would it not ? Results are what people look to. In class and in life.
This is why Asains will rule the world and SC2. Teachers try and flunk students out there or at least are very tough on them to instill work ethic and strive for excellence. Seriously all this mediocrity and passing people along will be reflected on a national scale eventually from diminished wealth to politics to compentecy/integrity of bridges to doctors when you have a majority of underacheivers. I'm not saying some kids don't need extra help and tutoring to try and give them opportunity but not even trying should be a zero like it is in real life. You don't get paid if you do no work unless you count unsustainble social welfare which is breaking the West.
On June 03 2012 03:41 Trezeguet wrote: I've picked a fight with three of you I think. I'm out of steam, so just go back and read micronesia's post. He is much better spoken than I, and does a very good job of framing my argument. I get the feeling that some of you have never received a 0, or have ever truly struggled in a class. Not giving kids 0 does not have to do with hurting their feelings, or passing them on to the next grade undeserved, it has to do with not blowing up a kid's grade who has made a mistake. Trust me, if you give a kid a 40% instead of a 0% on a missing assignment, it still flunks the kid, it still teaches them a lesson (which all of you see so fucking worried about), and it makes it so that they can overcome their mistakes. That is the real value here that you seem to be missing out on. 0s often wreck a chance to succeed, and then there is little incentive to change behavior and learn from mistakes.
Which is why most teachers (including this one the article addresses) offer makeup sessions, partial credit, different weighting, etc. If a teacher doesn't do anything like this, and is actively discriminating, then you can go to his boss, or your parents, but that is not what is happening here. I get the feeling you've never been in an actual class, that, or you seem to think all teachers are cruel heartless people for some reason.
On June 03 2012 03:41 Trezeguet wrote: I've picked a fight with three of you I think. I'm out of steam, so just go back and read micronesia's post. He is much better spoken than I, and does a very good job of framing my argument. I get the feeling that some of you have never received a 0, or have ever truly struggled in a class. Not giving kids 0 does not have to do with hurting their feelings, or passing them on to the next grade undeserved, it has to do with not blowing up a kid's grade who has made a mistake. Trust me, if you give a kid a 40% instead of a 0% on a missing assignment, it still flunks the kid, it still teaches them a lesson (which all of you see so fucking worried about), and it makes it so that they can overcome their mistakes. That is the real value here that you seem to be missing out on. 0s often wreck a chance to succeed, and then there is little incentive to change behavior and learn from mistakes.
No. Generally, points are allocated based on a given assignment's importance. If tests are 100, then homework assignments might be worth 10 points each. Maybe some projects that are done over a period of time might be worth a test score, or 50, or some other value. If you ditch a homework assignment, you get a 0 out of 10. No big deal, you set yourself back 10 points. That will hardly result in you failing the class. If you establish a pattern of not doing any homework, then yeah, you have a problem, and it is a well-deserved problem. You are not going to get a 0 on a test until you don't know any of the material covered, and of course, you can't really argue that you don't deserve to fail if you didn't learn anything in the class.
You don't deserve a 4 out of 10 for homework you don't do.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
I guess I have two separate approaches to respond.
Second, you are a professional gamer. How is your performance in that area measured ? You play matches against others. That's how. We celebrate those who win a given tournament. We celebrate those who win matches. Those are objective measurements. You may be the best-skilled Starcraft 2 player in the universe, Jinro, but without tourament results to back up that claim, it would be a hard argument to defend, would it not ? Results are what people look to. In class and in life.
You don't have to do a certain thing about 50 times to prove that, according to your logic it's fine if he proves it in the final exams, right?
On June 03 2012 03:41 Trezeguet wrote: I've picked a fight with three of you I think. I'm out of steam, so just go back and read micronesia's post. He is much better spoken than I, and does a very good job of framing my argument. I get the feeling that some of you have never received a 0, or have ever truly struggled in a class. Not giving kids 0 does not have to do with hurting their feelings, or passing them on to the next grade undeserved, it has to do with not blowing up a kid's grade who has made a mistake. Trust me, if you give a kid a 40% instead of a 0% on a missing assignment, it still flunks the kid, it still teaches them a lesson (which all of you see so fucking worried about), and it makes it so that they can overcome their mistakes. That is the real value here that you seem to be missing out on. 0s often wreck a chance to succeed, and then there is little incentive to change behavior and learn from mistakes.
If you think babysitting kids through school is going to prepare them for college, much less real life, I don't really know what to say.
If the kid refuses to do homework, how the hell should he/she not get a 0? Why would you give credit for completely missing an assignment? That would surely teach me a lesson, it would teach me that I can do nothing and still not completely fail.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
On June 03 2012 03:41 Trezeguet wrote: I've picked a fight with three of you I think. I'm out of steam, so just go back and read micronesia's post. He is much better spoken than I, and does a very good job of framing my argument. I get the feeling that some of you have never received a 0, or have ever truly struggled in a class. Not giving kids 0 does not have to do with hurting their feelings, or passing them on to the next grade undeserved, it has to do with not blowing up a kid's grade who has made a mistake. Trust me, if you give a kid a 40% instead of a 0% on a missing assignment, it still flunks the kid, it still teaches them a lesson (which all of you see so fucking worried about), and it makes it so that they can overcome their mistakes. That is the real value here that you seem to be missing out on. 0s often wreck a chance to succeed, and then there is little incentive to change behavior and learn from mistakes.
I partially agree with what you are saying but you are not addressing the OP. The context you are describing is a struggling student. These are not struggling students, the teacher has proven that ANYONE in his class is capable of passing, because of his extremely high passing rate and how many extra chances he gives the students. The only students that get 0's are the ones who are completely adamant on getting a 0.
These kids are given plenty of chances to succeed, the kids who get 0's are the ones that don't hand in the assignment even if they are given multiple chances.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Its sick to me that you'd give someone the stamp of approval when someone is not ready to move on to the next level of education when they are clearly not ready. You're just increasing the chances that they will have trouble in more advanced classes (especially if its math).
Yeah, you don't understand what is going on. I am not trying to incite you, just being blunt. Giving a kid 40%s the whole way flunks them right good. If a student demonstrates to me outside of the homework that they are above average in my class, but do not do any of the homework, I will likely pass them. Not with an A, but with the lowest passing grade available. The kid doesn't win. No one can show off a C, but on the other hand, the kid knows the stuff so what am I proving my holding him/her back?
That in no way shows that I know anything about the subject. When you do physics, you learn various subtopics that often don't have much crossover.
Your policy means that I can just study photonics, and not attend classes for 3/4 of the whole year and I still pass "physics". That's unfair to the kids who have had to attend all year and get a similar grade because their effort has to be distributed across more learning topics.
thats not what hes saying at all. hes just saying that above all, the teachers priority when assigning grades is to base it off the students understanding of the material, albeit with hw and grades factored in. Someone who performs well on the tests and does all their work will get an A, someone who performs poorly on tests but still clearly understands the material might not get an A, but still deservse to pass
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people who don't do ANY work, that are allowed to pass. His system allows someone to just pass one test well and then not turn up for the rest of the year. How do you think that makes the rest of the class feel?
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
On June 03 2012 01:52 Roachu wrote: I imagine Canada have clear course descriptions like we have in Sweden and here we fail the fucking course if we don't meet the requirements. In Sweden we have IG (Swedish: icke godkänd, rough translation: YOU DID NOT PASS) and if you don't pass your assignments and tests you don't pass the course. This is totally warranted and everything else is bullshit.
Edit: I'm going to university now where they are more strict overall but IMO the same attitude should show across the board. It might be a shock to some kids in high school but education is one of the most important things in they world and if they don't understand what a 0 means for them they will suffer for it in the future.
Basically the same here in Norway, if you are absent in 10% of the, let's say English classes over the course of a year, you fail at the subject and get an incomplete diploma and have to redo the entire years worth of English classes to recieve a complete diploma. It's kind of hard to fail a subject if you are present at all (or most) classes, except if you have an extremely strict teacher, but then again it's extremely hard to get a top score as well so it kind of evens itself out I guess.
What is up with all of these lazy as f*ck students and dumbass teachers/principals/school officials lately?
I think the situation is more complicated than most give credit but this did make me laugh. The teacher is going all vigilante over students not doing what they are told by not doing what he is told. The moral of his actions, presumably, is that kids should not be rewarded for breaking the rules. Maybe he should follow his own advice and work within the system to make the change he wants to see (which I would support btw).
I remember the final project in my AP Psych class was to create a social psychology experiment, carry it out, and turn in a report with the findings in a group.
My group didn't do anything, but I knew it was important to do because it was 10% of the grade in the class. 10. Percent. So, naturally, I waited until 2AM the day it was due, and fabricated ALL of the data and made up crap for the report (my group didn't do anything, so I was essentially doing it for myself; another topic entirely). It was incredibly easy to do because the analysis didn't even require actual statistical analysis - just a bunch of assumptions and vague assertions. I managed to turn in it on time, and got 100% on the assignment (which meant I would have an A in the class).
Why did I do the assignment? To get an A in the class. Did I learn anything? No. Did doing the assignment teach me anything? Well, other than that I have the ability to make up a project the night before its due, nope. What purpose did the assignment serve in my high school career? The purpose was essentially just to make me do it.
It taught absolutely nothing. If you think doing homework teaches responsibility, then you might be right to some degree. However, when an assignment clearly exists to exist, that line of thought is no longer valid. Letting an assignment slide until the absolute last moment just because you feel like getting a better grade doesn't actually teach you responsibility. I know I didn't build my work ethic by doing that.
Get rid of stupid, meaningless, tedious assignments. Getting 97% on the final test should be sufficient to say that a student knows their stuff. If you want to grade students on responsibility, find some other way to do it. A student who turns in all of their assignments isn't necessarily more responsible than a student who never did any work.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
Well (c) is rather the point, isn't it?
What if you don't need anything reinforced?
You can't really compare the two systems. Under the UK system homework really means jack coz the final exams are pretty damn thorough.
I was under a semi-US and UK system for high school. So I basically did nothing except the graded work and the finals. Aced everything.
I did not know that the education system in Canada had as many issues as the one in America, wow this was an eye opener, its things like us that plague us too.
You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
On June 03 2012 03:15 micronesia wrote: There are a few issues here.
The first is that the teacher was insubordinate. The school's decision that teachers shouldn't given zeroes might be good, or it might be the dumbest idea ever. They made their decision, either way. They told the teacher not to give zeroes. He gave zeroes. That's insubordination.
The sad thing is how often this seems to happen in public schools. The board of education or administration comes up with rules and mandates for the teacher to follow that completely undermine instruction and are horribly counter productive, and the teachers are powerless to do anything about it. Sometimes teacher tenure helps to alleviating some of this, but the teacher in the OP has been teaching for over 30 years so seniority isn't necessarily enough to combat this issue.
The second issue is the policy to not give zeroes. As Trezeguet pointed out, giving zeroes is not always the right thing to do. It's not about giving kids free points. The first thing to consider is how arbitrary our 100 point scale is, as well as the cutoffs for mastery, passing, failing, etc.. The second thing to consider is that some grading systems have been found (through significant amounts of research) to have more of an overall positive effect on student learning than others. Giving a kid who doesn't complete some work early in the year zeroes with no chance to earn back some of the credit maybe be perfectly fair, but it could also guarantee that the kid will fail the class for the rest of the year. Not only will he be less likely to get his act together and try to bring his average up from <40% to >70% (versus <60% on a less brutal grading scheme), but he will be more likely to be a disruption in class which will negatively impact other learners since he's not learning himself. Grading schemes that punish students to teach them a lesson don't necessarily teach students a lesson.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good/responsible teacher. Period.
This type of attitude as an educator results in a less educated general public.
Putting 'period' at the end of a post on tl seems to correlate strongly with someone who is very firm in their beliefs without any evidence to back them up.
Big thanks for that post, that clarified things a lot.
What I'm curious about is the "no zero policy" in general. While I understand the motivational benefit doesn't it also reward non-complying/lazy behaviour?
aka "If I can't get a 0 anyway and I can catch up the grade, why should I do this stuff right now? Might as well do it in a month!"
As an educator I support this teachers choice. I've seen many comments about how students should get partial credit for an assignment they didn't do. Why?
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
Please do not derail this topic into other inflammatory discussions. The discussion should be focused on whether zeros should be given out if students fail to hand in work.
This debate has nothing to do with giving zeros, this debate is about the freedom of teachers to make decisions in their classroom independent of the school. By the way, I absolutely support teachers in this but this is about school policy vs. teaching practice and has nothing to do with zeros. Don't try to turn this into a debate about more than what it is.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
Well (c) is rather the point, isn't it?
What if you don't need anything reinforced?
And who's the judge of you not needing anything reinforced? Yourself. Not a very good arbitrator, generally speaking.
On June 03 2012 03:55 Zeke50100 wrote: I remember the final project in my AP Psych class was to create a social psychology experiment, carry it out, and turn in a report with the findings in a group.
My group didn't do anything, but I knew it was important to do because it was 10% of the grade in the class. 10. Percent. So, naturally, I waited until 2AM the day it was due, and fabricated ALL of the data and made up crap for the report (my group didn't do anything, so I was essentially doing it for myself; another topic entirely). It was incredibly easy to do because the analysis didn't even require actual statistical analysis - just a bunch of assumptions and vague assertions. I managed to turn in it on time, and got 100% on the assignment (which meant I would have an A in the class).
Why did I do the assignment? To get an A in the class. Did I learn anything? No. Did doing the assignment teach me anything? Well, other than that I have the ability to make up a project the night before its due, nope. What purpose did the assignment serve in my high school career? The purpose was essentially just to make me do it.
It taught absolutely nothing. If you think doing homework teaches responsibility, then you might be right to some degree. However, when an assignment clearly exists to exist, that line of thought is no longer valid. Letting an assignment slide until the absolute last moment just because you feel like getting a better grade doesn't actually teach you responsibility. I know I didn't build my work ethic by doing that.
Get rid of stupid, meaningless, tedious assignments. Getting 97% on the final test should be sufficient to say that a student knows their stuff. If you want to grade students on responsibility, find some other way to do it. A student who turns in all of their assignments isn't necessarily more responsible than a student who never did any work.
Exams are a terrible way to assess students IMO. Obviously useless assignments are bad too. I think the teacher has it right though. You fail the first time, that's fine, ill give you another chance to prove yourself. In the end you finish the subject, knowing more about the subject. With exams, if you get a low grade, you have no incentive to learn more about the subject.
Not to mention mental health can significantly affect exam scores, where as assignments not so much.
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
As I said, a zero represents you have zero knowledge of the subject. You don't understand the content that was being tested. The problem here is that the content has never been tested, the students have not shown any work. How is it the teachers responsibility to give a 0 when he does or does not know exactly how much information these students know?
That is where they NA, or Not Available comes into play. The teacher doesn't know exactly how much information they know, he has no ground to grade the student.
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
As I said, a zero represents you have zero knowledge of the subject. You don't understand the content that was being tested. The problem here is that the content has never been tested, the students have not shown any work. How is it the teachers responsibility to give a 0 when he does or does not know exactly how much information these students know?
That is where they NA, or Not Available comes into play. The teacher doesn't know exactly how much information they know, he has no ground to grade the student.
In the end the student needs an assessment, what are you supposed to give him?
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
As I said, a zero represents you have zero knowledge of the subject. You don't understand the content that was being tested. The problem here is that the content has never been tested, the students have not shown any work. How is it the teachers responsibility to give a 0 when he does or does not know exactly how much information these students know?
That is where they NA, or Not Available comes into play. The teacher doesn't know exactly how much information they know, he has no ground to grade the student.
In the end the student needs an assessment, what are you supposed to give him?
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
As I said, a zero represents you have zero knowledge of the subject. You don't understand the content that was being tested. The problem here is that the content has never been tested, the students have not shown any work. How is it the teachers responsibility to give a 0 when he does or does not know exactly how much information these students know?
That is where they NA, or Not Available comes into play. The teacher doesn't know exactly how much information they know, he has no ground to grade the student.
School should not be about just knowing shit. It should be about preparing you for the next part of your life and teaching you valuable skills. If someone doesn't want to learn that stuff, then fine, but they should expect a punishment for it. This whole NA thing is just a school board trying to inflate its scores so that its schools get more funding, don't play it out as something that's "helping" people.
After reading the OP, the first thing I did is search the thread to see if micronesia had responded already.
I'm very glad he did, and I very much agree with what he wrote about:
1. Blatant insubordination and the unfortunate fact that teachers are often restricted by their administration (curricula, teaching methods, etc.) 2. Zeroes and scores for "mastery", "passing", and "failing" being relative and sometimes arbitrary.
I advise people to actually try teaching. You have a decent amount of freedom as a teacher, but you're still bound by a truckload of rules and regulations given to you by the school system. Obviously, we want students to get their homework done, those who don't complete their homework to be punished, and those who do complete their homework to be rewarded... but how everything plays out isn't always so black and white.
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
As I said, a zero represents you have zero knowledge of the subject. You don't understand the content that was being tested. The problem here is that the content has never been tested, the students have not shown any work. How is it the teachers responsibility to give a 0 when he does or does not know exactly how much information these students know?
That is where they NA, or Not Available comes into play. The teacher doesn't know exactly how much information they know, he has no ground to grade the student.
In the end the student needs an assessment, what are you supposed to give him?
Missing two tests and not handing in three assignments throughout the course of the year does not mean the teacher has nothing to grade the student on. If by the end of a school year a student has five NA's... I believe it is up to the teachers discretion to either turn those NA's into 0% - 50% where they see fit.
When I went to high school class activity accounted for ~30% of the grade. So if I didn't participate in discussions and in class work it wasn't possible to get the highest grade. Below 90% presence in class and you couldn't get the highest grade unless you scored perfectly on the tests. Below 80% and that didn't matter any more.
That is something I sucked at and didn't really learn until my second year working. Actually being there.
Please do not derail this topic into other inflammatory discussions. The discussion should be focused on whether zeros should be given out if students fail to hand in work.
This debate has nothing to do with giving zeros, this debate is about the freedom of teachers to make decisions in their classroom independent of the school. By the way, I absolutely support teachers in this but this is about school policy vs. teaching practice and has nothing to do with zeros. Don't try to turn this into a debate about more than what it is.
He was not trying to make his own decisions he was doing what is right for the kids. He wasn't trying to create a precedent where teachers can start doing their own shit/ In fact, I have never heard or even seen teachers tried to ignore policies and act on their own.
He gave zeros because the school policy was inherently flawed to begin with. All teachers follow school/board policies at all times except when something like this is so ridiculously wrong to do, changes must be made "wake up" the students from their inexcusable lack of responsibility and work ethnic.
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
As I said, a zero represents you have zero knowledge of the subject. You don't understand the content that was being tested. The problem here is that the content has never been tested, the students have not shown any work. How is it the teachers responsibility to give a 0 when he does or does not know exactly how much information these students know?
That is where they NA, or Not Available comes into play. The teacher doesn't know exactly how much information they know, he has no ground to grade the student.
School should not be about just knowing shit. It should be about preparing you for the next part of your life and teaching you valuable skills. If someone doesn't want to learn that stuff, then fine, but they should expect a punishment for it. This whole NA thing is just a school board trying to inflate its scores so that it gets more funding, don't play it out as something that's "helping" people.
I don't believe school board funding here is done by grades of students.
Honestly, I think the teacher should have the final say. He or she is the one directly responsible for instructing kids, not the district. If the district goes and leaves the teachers to their own devices they'll still do their job. It just won't be standardized. And might make it harder for the next grade of teachers (who have to figure out what the students already know)
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
As I said, a zero represents you have zero knowledge of the subject. You don't understand the content that was being tested. The problem here is that the content has never been tested, the students have not shown any work. How is it the teachers responsibility to give a 0 when he does or does not know exactly how much information these students know?
That is where they NA, or Not Available comes into play. The teacher doesn't know exactly how much information they know, he has no ground to grade the student.
School should not be about just knowing shit. It should be about preparing you for the next part of your life and teaching you valuable skills. If someone doesn't want to learn that stuff, then fine, but they should expect a punishment for it. This whole NA thing is just a school board trying to inflate its scores so that it gets more funding, don't play it out as something that's "helping" people.
I don't believe school board funding here is done by grades of students.
This is fucking retarded. Coming from someone who's parent is a teacher, I can only marvel at how awful the education system and school policies in America are getting. Parents and the school boards are now catering to (bad) students and their end goal is to always force the teachers to roll over and give in to every shitty student's shitty demands. And people wonder why American education is in the shitter. -.-
On June 03 2012 03:58 PrimeTimey wrote: You do an assignment perfectly, you get 100% you understand 100% of the material.
You do an assignment quickly, you rush it and get a 50% because you understood 50% of the material.
You don't do an assignment, you don't hand anything, you SHOULDN'T get a 0% because you haven't shown anything.
A zero represents you were wrong, you don't understand the content from the course, you don't know that 2+2 = 4. That is different than not handing in an assignment.
That is why the school board (here) says that if you don't hand something in, or fail to show up for a class you get an NA. "Not Available". You haven't proven if you can, or can not, do the content. That is much different than a 0%.
Read the thread. The students were all given multiple chances to show that they understood the the content. They did not, or continually choose not to attempt to do so. I fail to see how someone does not deserve a 0 after they've puposely skipped doing something MULTIPLE times.
As I said, a zero represents you have zero knowledge of the subject. You don't understand the content that was being tested. The problem here is that the content has never been tested, the students have not shown any work. How is it the teachers responsibility to give a 0 when he does or does not know exactly how much information these students know?
That is where they NA, or Not Available comes into play. The teacher doesn't know exactly how much information they know, he has no ground to grade the student.
That's a bullshit argument. If you don't hand in material, how does the teacher know you know anything? They don't and they are fully entitled to think you don't know shit. If they have nothing to grade they can only give you nothing for your score.
At the end of it all, school and education is to prepare you for the real world and work. When you go to work and you have an assignment or project or w/e, you sure as fuck better turn it in. If you don't turn it in, your boss isn't going to go "oh, I don't know if you could've done it so I'll just let you slide by." Your boss is going to go "fuck you, you're fired."
""The physics teacher with 35 years experience said he continued giving zeros when students failed to hand in assignments, instead of using behaviour codes such as “not completed,” which the school requires under its grading and reporting practice."
/thread?
Whether being allowed to give zeros should be reinstated or not, the teacher has grading practices he must follow that he did not. The real question to me is what message you'd send your students when this teacher also doesn't follow his requirements but gets away with it. Writing your own grading scheme in a syllabus is not acceptable if they differ from those of the school, unless you have run your new grading scheme by the school's admin ahead of time (and they accept it). He clearly did not. I don't care if he's right or wrong frankly, if he was supposed to use NC's or other behaviour codes rather than giving a zero, and he gave the zero anyways, it proves he cares more about his principles than his job requirements. I respect that, but ultimately the working world doesn't function like that, and he deserves to have his job suspended.
I think this sends the absolute correct message- your values/principles don't mean shit at your job. This is pretty much always true in the workplace, and at least the kids get to learn that lesson now
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
STA 392: Engineering statistics
Homework was due aprox every 1.5 weeks, consisting of ~30-40 problems.
This class was also knows by fellow students as "how to use the probability functions on your TI calculator".
10-20 problems would have served to test us on this ability very easily. Furthermore, only ~10 problems were graded, the rest were taken on a +1 if you did it, +0 if you didn't - not even checking if the answer was right.
Mr. Dorval (the teacher in question) was my grade 11 physics teacher. He takes his role as an educator pretty seriously. Most people here in Edmonton support him.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
STA 392: Engineering statistics
Homework was due aprox every 1.5 weeks, consisting of ~30-40 problems.
This class was also knows by fellow students as "how to use the probability functions on your TI calculator".
10-20 problems would have served to test us on this ability very easily. Furthermore, only ~10 problems were graded, the rest were taken on a +1 if you did it, +0 if you didn't - not even checking if the answer was right.
That's 5 easy (you said it was easy) problems a day that probably takes you the same amount of time it takes to wash the dishes and it doesn't even matter if you are right or wrong.
On June 03 2012 04:30 SiguR wrote: Mr. Dorval was my grade 11 physics teacher. He takes his role as an educator pretty seriously. Most people here in Edmonton support him.
Wait this is 11/12th year physics? You've gotta be joking.
In my final year, I think I was doing about 4 hours of homework a day, and 5-8 hours on holidays in my final year. And that was only slightly more than everyone else, its not like I was used to it either, in prior years (before year 11) I barely did any homework, I basically gave up everything that year so I could do well.
And these kids can't even hand in homework when they are given multiple chances and its impossible to get a 0. WTF?
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
STA 392: Engineering statistics
Homework was due aprox every 1.5 weeks, consisting of ~30-40 problems.
This class was also knows by fellow students as "how to use the probability functions on your TI calculator".
10-20 problems would have served to test us on this ability very easily. Furthermore, only ~10 problems were graded, the rest were taken on a +1 if you did it, +0 if you didn't - not even checking if the answer was right.
So... you have to do 3-4 easy, plug-in-to-your-calculator questions a day. OH THE HUMANITY. And considering the necessity of very low error margins in almost every type of engineering, drilling you until you can do the questions without conscious thought is actually valuable.
I 100% agree with the teacher. While stuff like curriculum should be standardized, the ability of a teacher to give zero's is absolutely necessary. If a student never actually did an assignment should he get credit? More so in the real world, anything less than a 90% grade on a lot of things can cost you dearly. While I agree that the school is correct that NC can be used for the short term(up to 2 weeks), anything more than that and a 0 can and should be assigned and the onus is on the student to care enough to make up work to get those marks back.
On June 03 2012 03:15 micronesia wrote: There are a few issues here.
The first is that the teacher was insubordinate. The school's decision that teachers shouldn't given zeroes might be good, or it might be the dumbest idea ever. They made their decision, either way. They told the teacher not to give zeroes. He gave zeroes. That's insubordination.
The sad thing is how often this seems to happen in public schools. The board of education or administration comes up with rules and mandates for the teacher to follow that completely undermine instruction and are horribly counter productive, and the teachers are powerless to do anything about it. Sometimes teacher tenure helps to alleviating some of this, but the teacher in the OP has been teaching for over 30 years so seniority isn't necessarily enough to combat this issue.
The second issue is the policy to not give zeroes. As Trezeguet pointed out, giving zeroes is not always the right thing to do. It's not about giving kids free points. The first thing to consider is how arbitrary our 100 point scale is, as well as the cutoffs for mastery, passing, failing, etc.. The second thing to consider is that some grading systems have been found (through significant amounts of research) to have more of an overall positive effect on student learning than others. Giving a kid who doesn't complete some work early in the year zeroes with no chance to earn back some of the credit maybe be perfectly fair, but it could also guarantee that the kid will fail the class for the rest of the year. Not only will he be less likely to get his act together and try to bring his average up from <40% to >70% (versus <60% on a less brutal grading scheme), but he will be more likely to be a disruption in class which will negatively impact other learners since he's not learning himself. Grading schemes that punish students to teach them a lesson don't necessarily teach students a lesson.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good/responsible teacher. Period.
This type of attitude as an educator results in a less educated general public.
Putting 'period' at the end of a post on tl seems to correlate strongly with someone who is very firm in their beliefs without any evidence to back them up.
If the kid fails he fails. You have to understand people are responsible and accountable for their own actions. If we have given them many chances to complete their work and yet they still fail to do so. What more leniency can you give? All you going to accomplish is producing big babies that are incompetent, inadequately educated, no work ethic, no sense of responsibility and accountability who will never be ready for the reality of the work force.
The western educational system has become so lenient to the point where it is guaranteed to produce failures in society. I cannot put it any better than Michio Kaku who specifically discussed this issue of "lower quality graduates" in America.
The problem with people who don't do their work is that they think education is not important. They get influenced by all the shit on TV everyday, think they can become rich and shit by doing nothing in school. Education prepares you for life's paths. There are many paths to take, if you are not interested in calculus you can take it for the prerequisite then never take it again in the future. But some stuff in life are always connected and they require basic understandings of physics/chemistry/calculus. I had the same mentality back in high school that why bother learning this shit, never gonna use it again. But as I grew up I realized the benefit of learning those subject even though the majority of them did not come to use in real life.
IMO, freedom of choice comes after a person has been well educated because by then they are competent enough and intelligent enough to make the right choices.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
STA 392: Engineering statistics
Homework was due aprox every 1.5 weeks, consisting of ~30-40 problems.
This class was also knows by fellow students as "how to use the probability functions on your TI calculator".
10-20 problems would have served to test us on this ability very easily. Furthermore, only ~10 problems were graded, the rest were taken on a +1 if you did it, +0 if you didn't - not even checking if the answer was right.
So... you have to do 3-4 easy, plug-in-to-your-calculator questions a day. OH THE HUMANITY. And considering the necessity of very low error margins in almost every type of engineering, drilling you until you can do the questions without conscious thought is actually valuable.
He asked for something that was: time consuming, easy, redundant
That homework qualified for all 3.
Also, it takes significant amounts of time to put data sets into lists for the functions to operate on.
Not to mention when something pulls this shit: p.8.4: using the data set from p.3.27 p.3.27: using the data set from p.1.52
Really stupid. You don't hand in assignments, you get 0. That's how it works. Don't be a lazy fuck and do your work or quit school and go work as a janitor.
The kids don't get "a zero". But they don't pass the course either. It says right in the article.
If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said.
The only issue here is the teacher is not allowed to put the number "0". They can put any other wording like "incomplete" or "unable to evaluate", etc. The kid still fails the course.
The teacher instead thinks he's some kind of high and mighty leader of the young and will institute his own rules and methods to teach them. Sorry bro, if you want to do that, find a private school or someone who'll allow you.
On June 03 2012 03:05 Faveokatro wrote: ^ This. The "I'm too smart/knowledgeable I don't need to do homework" never made sense to me. If it was that easy for you, the assignment would take almost no time, right? I don't understand where this attitude comes from, I was taking multi-variable calc in middle school and guess what. I still did my homework. I wasn't special and you certainly aren't special for earning a B on an English test. Are you joking? That isn't even that good.
As pointed out by others, the most common excuses of "my teacher sucks" or "my teacher is an asshole" are equally irrelevant. You'll have shitty professors, you'll have shitty bosses, you'll deal with a LOT of crappy coworkers in your life. The value you bring isn't solely in the quality of work you produce - even more solitary/quantifiable work like research is now very team-based. You need to learn how to tolerate and make the best of situations with people you don't like. Since you seem to think that those rules don't apply to when you enter "the real world," let me assure you that that isn't the case. Even as a personal trainer, you have bosses. Many of them. They're called clients.
Uh what. Easy things can be very time consuming. And when it's easy and time consuming, it's tedious.
Typical exaggeration. Care to give an actual example of an assignment your teacher gave which was A) Easy B) Time-consuming and C) Didn't help reinforce your understanding of the concepts?
STA 392: Engineering statistics
Homework was due aprox every 1.5 weeks, consisting of ~30-40 problems.
This class was also knows by fellow students as "how to use the probability functions on your TI calculator".
10-20 problems would have served to test us on this ability very easily. Furthermore, only ~10 problems were graded, the rest were taken on a +1 if you did it, +0 if you didn't - not even checking if the answer was right.
So... you have to do 3-4 easy, plug-in-to-your-calculator questions a day. OH THE HUMANITY. And considering the necessity of very low error margins in almost every type of engineering, drilling you until you can do the questions without conscious thought is actually valuable.
He asked for something that was: time consuming, easy, redundant
That homework qualified for all 3.
Also, it takes significant amounts of time to put data sets into lists for the functions to operate on.
Not to mention when something pulls this shit: p.8.4: using the data set from p.3.27 p.3.27: using the data set from p.1.52
You're talking to someone who took higher level statistics. 1) It's not that time consuming. I may hate Minitab, but it's not hard to use. 2) It's not redundant, the point is that you drill it in as second nature. And you still only have 3-4 a day. 20 minutes tops.
I fail to see why the second part is "shit". If putting the data sets into lists is the most time-consuming part for you, shouldn't you be happy they're sharing data sets? :boggle:
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
FINALLY! Someone with the same viewpoint as I regarding school. I'm so glad I'm not alone .
To reiterate what several have said, I think that grades should reflect the knowledge you have in said subject, not whether or not you did some irrelevant essay or homework assignment. I've gotten D's or F's in classes which I got A's or B's on all the tests but failed the class because I didn't do anything else (even now as a college student I do this, which has set me back 3 semesters). Now some people would say that I wouldn't be a very good employee because of my laziness or whatever you want to call it, but I don't think you should assume ones academic "behaviors" are going to translate over to their job.
Nothing good can come from a society that slacks in it's Education for the sake of accommodating the lazy and inept. The fact that this is a topic that has came up by a School Board seems to be a fair indicator of what to expect in the future due to such.
I'am not sure about you or me. But I really don't want any of those students being my Doctor or Accountant or for that matter anything else that could cause me harm. I don't feel comfortable with the idea that they might have just coasted by to make a School look better so they could feel better about themselves. Feeling good about themselves doesn't help when they do something wrong and end up screwing up something important.
For all its worth schools are a failed model of building people up
They fail both on making people learn how to interact socially and on teaching kids how to create the habit of studying at home
They should put schools in the hands of psychologists, with a focus totally on identifiying problems and dealing with them, and giving these kids the tools to excell at life in any area possible
Asking 13 year olds to make homework and get good grades in arbitrary tests is only gonna get in the way of that.
And serious learning should be left for late highschool.
If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said.
The only issue here is the teacher is not allowed to put the number "0". They can put any other wording like "incomplete" or "unable to evaluate", etc. The kid still fails the course.
The teacher instead thinks he's some kind of high and mighty leader of the young and will institute his own rules and methods to teach them. Sorry bro, if you want to do that, find a private school or someone who'll allow you.
If I was the teacher, when I'd come back from suspension, I'd start giving them a grade of "one" instead of zero. If a zero is so bad because it hurts your self esteem, I'd love to see the school board's reaction if instead teachers just gave people a grade of one instead. Would they start have to ban grades of one then? Or 50s? Where would it end? What are we willing to do to help protect little Timmy's self-esteem.
This seems to completely invalidate the concept of school. Now young adults will be even less prepared for the real world than they already are with a public education. Regardless of whether or not you attempt post-secondary education, the fact remains that in almost every case, you'll need to work hard to succeed, whether you're an extremely smart individual or not.
Gahh, this teacher is doing something every teacher should be doing, holding students accountable for their actions, and is punished for it. In my time in high school i missed some assignments, and i didn't even get shown what the result would be before my report card arrived, and that was fine ( If i skipped an assignment i deserved to get a 0, and i knew and still know it) . This guy holds his students accountable, but still helps them to understand what would happen if they don't turn the work in, and goes out of his way to help them make it up, and gets in trouble for it. I don't know how he does in other aspects of teaching, but if he is as good a teacher as this indicates, he should be the one making policy, not the person, or people, who decided to coddle students and to allow them to get away with not doing what they should. This guy should be getting a large bonus and raise for this, not be getting trouble for doing what all teachers should!
On June 03 2012 05:22 Parnage wrote: Nothing good can come from a society that slacks in it's Education for the sake of accommodating the lazy and inept. The fact that this is a topic that has came up by a School Board seems to be a fair indicator of what to expect in the future due to such.
I'am not sure about you or me. But I really don't want any of those students being my Doctor or Accountant or for that matter anything else that could cause me harm. I don't feel comfortable with the idea that they might have just coasted by to make a School look better so they could feel better about themselves. Feeling good about themselves doesn't help when they do something wrong and end up screwing up something important.
You honestly think someone that doesn't do their homework will have the dedication to become a doctor? don't kid yourself.
On June 03 2012 04:49 a176 wrote: Not sure why there is such a huge thread on this.
The kids don't get "a zero". But they don't pass the course either. It says right in the article.
If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said.
The only issue here is the teacher is not allowed to put the number "0". They can put any other wording like "incomplete" or "unable to evaluate", etc. The kid still fails the course.
The teacher instead thinks he's some kind of high and mighty leader of the young and will institute his own rules and methods to teach them. Sorry bro, if you want to do that, find a private school or someone who'll allow you.
If I was the teacher, when I'd come back from suspension, I'd start giving them a grade of "one" instead of zero. If a zero is so bad because it hurts your self esteem, I'd love to see the school board's reaction if instead teachers just gave people a grade of one instead. Would they start have to ban grades of one then? Or 50s? Where would it end? What are we willing to do to help protect little Timmy's self-esteem.
instead of using behaviour codes such as “not completed,” which the school requires under its grading and reporting practice.
Oh good, he can be suspended for it again for not following school regulations.
If he violated school policy of giving students' the chance to turn things in late past the end of the quarter/semester then the school was justified in its actions. However if he followed procedure and gave them zeros then the students' are to blame and it's probably going to serve as a positive wake up call for them in the future should they pursue higher education or get jobs that require a lot of paperwork.
I think teachers do receive quite a lot of pressure from their bosses, simply because each graduating student equals an influx of capital for the school. As long as this remains prevelant, I think teachers will always have a hard time doing what is right. But we should never blame them.
Another thing is that once you start job hunting, a steady shift is going to towards competence/motivation hiring, where you have to able to show related extra curricular activities and your skills during the hiring process. This phases out any students that don't care about their work field.
Wtf? At my school if you don't do your work you're gonna get a 0 and sucks for you but it's on your grade list. Ofcourse you can always do the assignment some other time in the year, but if you don't do it most teachers will give you a 0.
On June 03 2012 06:24 solidbebe wrote: Wtf? At my school if you don't do your work you're gonna get a 0 and sucks for you but it's on your grade list. Ofcourse you can always do the assignment some other time in the year, but if you don't do it most teachers will give you a 0.
If you didnt bring in your homework you got shouted at and sometimes had your ear or hair pulled!
Not saying that's the way to go obviously.
So then I don't understand why you brought it up.
???
I think too many people here believe that "not getting a zero" for not doing your homework means "the teachers or administration or any other authority of education actually isn't reinforcing homework or a good work ethic or education in general", and that's simply not true. That's a complete non sequitur. Obviously, there are other regulations in place, e.g. an incomplete and the threat of failure regardless of the actual numerical value of that assignment.
Also:
1. Not every school/ district has the same rules. 2. Not every teacher has the same classroom rules. 3. Not every student learns the same way (regardless of what the rules are). 4. There are other ways to attempt to instill responsibility and motivation in students besides threatening them with a zero. Obviously, a grade is a good motivator for plenty of students, but anyone who understands mathematical averages and who has taught a class before (or has been a student for that matter) surely understands how one bad grade (e.g. a 0%) can destroy a student's average, despite them obtaining mostly good grades overall. Does the word "outlier" ring a bell to anyone? And how it really screws with the mean?
For all of you getting into arguments about tests vs. homework in grading, take it from the perspective of a teacher. I'm currently in school to become one and can tell you that a test is NOT an overall expectation of what you learned in the course and never will be. Unless you want a test that is 50 pages long(Which is STILL NOT an accurate representation due to focus of a student), do your homework because that's how they grade everything else that generally isn't on your test.
The other issue (one that comes up a lot these days within the curriculum) is that tests are not an accurate representation of everyone's learning styles. The way people work is that they generally fall into three categories; Kinesthetic, Oral, and Visual learners. They either learning by physically being involved to learn, listening or watching. The same goes for their tests. Someone with Visual will generally do a lot better on a written test that an kinesthetic or oral learner simply because it suits their learning style. Look at it from the other perspective and they are less likely to do well on a hands on test. Tests simply don't work because perhaps one student gets a 90 on their presentation and then get a 60 on the test. Is that an accurate representation of their intelligence and learning in the course?
As for the 0 issue. This I believe was also recently introduced into the education system in my areas school board, and the way it works is to not fail students based on uncompleted work because you are unaware of potential situations at home etc. I personally don't 100% agree with it and believe that at some point a 0 should be allowable, however as a teacher this still comes back to you and whether or not you feel it is an accurate representation of the student. If it is work ethic, that is their fault and yes they should be penalized for it. However, if it is a learning or personal reason, how you way that may not be as a 0, but instead in a different fashion. This of course also can allow more freedom at the end of the year as to what mark they get, giving an accurate reflection of the student in the class, and not a representation of what they were able to do on your work (e.g. when they may be a different learner)
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
So just because I wont work hard in an English class with a terrible teacher means I wont work hard if I get a job? I never understood this type of reasoning, it's not rocket science that people will work harder if they're motivated, it's hard to keep yourself motivated if your English teacher is a complete asshat and the school wont do much to solve the problem.
In a job you have certain things to keep you motivated, money is usually the biggest one ofcourse but depending on what job you have you might have different motivating factors.
As I said, I'm getting my grade in English class, not "how hard did you work class".
First of all, you're not entitled to anything. Second, in real life, you have to learn to work with the hand that you're dealt, that means having to deal with people that you don't particularly like. If you're not willing to put effort into your work because your teacher is an "asshat", then I doubt you'd be very good at anything except complaining. You need to give up that shitty entitled attitude because you're not special, you're just like every other Swedish kid that spends too much time on the Internet.
Not to mention, chances are that your boss will be an asshat just like your teacher is. Guess what? Still have to work. Welcome to real life.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
But that's stupid, because what matters is how good I am at English not whether I proved it by repeating an inane task 50 times to get a pat on the head.
Yeah, I never liked school much....
I guess I have two separate approaches to respond.
Second, you are a professional gamer. How is your performance in that area measured ? You play matches against others. That's how. We celebrate those who win a given tournament. We celebrate those who win matches. Those are objective measurements. You may be the best-skilled Starcraft 2 player in the universe, Jinro, but without tourament results to back up that claim, it would be a hard argument to defend, would it not ? Results are what people look to. In class and in life.
You don't have to do a certain thing about 50 times to prove that, according to your logic it's fine if he proves it in the final exams, right?
So, I assume you are a proponent of the one final exam to measure everything approach. This is fine. It's how some classes, especially in college, are. However, are you appropriately measuring those students who have some sort of test anxiety, or is sick, or has a number of courses all with the one test of the semester on that day ?
I'm not saying one final exam for all the marbles is or is not the way to go. I am saying that each student knows up front how their grade will be determined. That is all that matters. Students don't make classroom rules, teachers and administrators do.
The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. I think CustomKai is the only person who has actually presented a decent post.
Zeros don't mean anything. It just means that the student didn't turn in their work. It could be for a number of reasons, but alot of administrations and school districts in the United States are doing away with teachers failing students on the grounds of not turning in homework, not doing work, etc. because it doesn't reflect the potential or learning ability of the student at all, only their work ethic.
95% of the homework teachers send students home with is mostly garbage anyways, and anything that is worthwhile that is sent home is mostly done by parents (usually major projects and such).
And to those who believe that zeros and bad grades will motivate students, you're pretty much flat out wrong. Bad grades and zeroes demotivate students more than anything, especially when the teacher just simply gives it out without explaining why (which is what occurs more often than not) students did poorly, or why they received a zero. If you're teaching at a Title I school in the United States, you bet your ass you'll lose your job real fast if you're dishing out zeroes and trying to fail students on the grounds of not doing out of class assignments.
If the sole purpose of school were to teach you mastery of a variety of subjects, some of you would have a point. It isn't though; school also serves to mold you into a "proper" member of society, and it turns out that learning to do pointless bullshit is a big part of that. It's fine to argue about whether or not that's right, or whether or not schools should do that, but sitting and arguing, "o well he was getting a's on his tests so that's stupid!" is...well, it's just stupid. He's a student; it's his job to do what his teacher fucking tells him to do, not what he feels like he should because he's smart enough to ace his tests.
I support that teacher 100%. I was in IB for 4 years and it pissed me off when teachers allowed students to recieve full credit for VERY late work.
After all my effort to do my assignments on time, I deserve a better grade then those lazy morons who partied all weekend.
I also hate it when teachers give extensions on assignments on the DAY the assignment was to be turned in. It was basically,"Hey you lazy bastards, here's a freebie".
On June 03 2012 07:10 Angel_ wrote: If the sole purpose of school were to teach you mastery of a variety of subjects, some of you would have a point. It isn't though; school also serves to mold you into a "proper" member of society, and it turns out that learning to do pointless bullshit is a big part of that. It's fine to argue about whether or not that's right, or whether or not schools should do that, but sitting and arguing, "o well he was getting a's on his tests so that's stupid!" is...well, it's just stupid. He's a student; it's his job to do what his teacher fucking tells him to do, not what he feels like he should because he's smart enough to ace his tests.
And the major reason why teachers and schools are beginning to not dish out zeroes is because it doesn't hold students accountable at all. Most at risk students who receive a zero or failing grade aren't going to fix the problem at all. They'll just continue receiving them. Administrators want you to hold students accountable in a different way; handing a kid a zero is simply the easy way out. It's lazy as shit really.
On June 03 2012 07:09 superstartran wrote: The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. I think CustomKai is the only person who has actually presented a decent post.
95% of the homework teachers send students home with is mostly garbage anyways, and anything that is worthwhile that is sent home is mostly done by parents (usually major projects and such).
Right. Teachers totally give out homework because they want to piss off students, and parents actually have the time to sit down and do all of their kids' math problems and English essays. The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. Homework is designed to reinforce the day's lesson, set the stage for the next day, or provide other related extensions and applications.
Out of curiosity, what's your field of expertise? Educator? Going for a degree in education, perhaps? You sound like a high schooler who's just angry that he gets homework.
The only thing I can even remotely agree with you on is that parents occasionally help their kids with "major projects", but obviously "major projects" are not 95% of a student's homework.
I do like CustomKal's post as well, so that I agree with you on too.
The whole "students shouldn't have to do work if they pass tests and are smart" is complete bullshit, to be honest. Maybe in college or the workplace if you can get away with it (a lot of times you can't), but not fucking high school. High school education is just as much about teaching students to have a good work ethic and to deal with a large workload, as much as it is about teaching in the traditional sense of learning the subject matter. If students were allowed to do no work at all in high school just because they could pass tests, they would be fired from 99% of jobs that they get later in life if they adhere to that work ethic.
As someone working in a field where at least 80% of it is investing the time and effort to grind out each project, focusing heavily on it until it's completed with zero shortcuts just because I might be "intelligent", it honestly offends me the amount of people in this thread that think students shouldn't be required to do homework "as long as they're smart". Homework's primary reason for existing is for teaching students how to deal with putting in time and effort to their work. Many times in life you won't get the luxury of getting out of work just because you can answer questions on a test, sorry to kill your idealistic view of being an adult.
If the students were actually given a syllabus, and the students were actually not turning in work, it's absurd to suspend a teacher for giving them a zero.
hes probably a teacher not a single student likes... dont always think about does he have the right to give 0s but think is it necessary to give zeroes. and if it is necessary then what is he doing wrong
On June 03 2012 07:09 superstartran wrote: The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. I think CustomKai is the only person who has actually presented a decent post.
95% of the homework teachers send students home with is mostly garbage anyways, and anything that is worthwhile that is sent home is mostly done by parents (usually major projects and such).
Right. Teachers totally give out homework because they want to piss off students, and parents actually have the time to sit down and do all of their kids' math problems and English essays. The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. Homework is designed to reinforce the day's lesson, set the stage for the next day, or provide other related extensions and applications.
Out of curiosity, what's your field of expertise? Educator? Going for a degree in education, perhaps? You sound like a high schooler who's just angry that he gets homework.
The only thing I can even remotely agree with you on is that parents occasionally help their kids with "major projects", but obviously "major projects" are not 95% of a student's homework.
I do like CustomKal's post as well, so that I agree with you on too.
Teachers give out completely garbage homework now adays. Anyone who is an educator knows this, particularly 8-12.
Parents do not occasionally help their kids out on major projects. Most parents that are actually involved do alot of out of class assignments for them, mainly because alot of schools are either giving too much homework (most of which is monotonous and teaches nothing, and hardly reinforces any of the skills that they were taught), or they assign a project that is too big and should be done in class under the supervision of the teacher.
If you think I'm just an angry highschooler, keep on thinking that. Just keep on thinking that teachers actually assign meaningful homework and actually properly hold students accountable for late/missing work. The reason why schools do not allow you to fail students based on homework anymore is because a vast majority of teachers do not assign homework that is meaningful, and take the lazy way out and simply give you a zero without holding you as a student really accountable at all.
As I stated before, 95% of the people in this thread would get fired on the spot at any Title I school if they tried to enforce a "zero tolerance" policy regarding homework. Administrators across the entire United States simply do not allow you to do it anymore.
On June 03 2012 07:22 piiiT wrote: hes probably a teacher not a single student likes... dont always think about does he have the right to give 0s but think is it necessary to give zeroes. and if it is necessary then what is he doing wrong
I think that right there is a very interesting point:
Is it the teacher who is at fault for pupils doing bad, or is it the parents/pupils?
In todays society it has grown into the first, but back in the 90's when I went to primary school it sure as hell was the pupils who didn't take responsibility. I don't get how you can expect someone to teach those who aren't participating in the lessons.
EDIT: The above poster might want to watch the generalizations a bit. Completely meaningless homework? I very much doubt it. Did it ever occur to you that teachers have to give out homework which everyone in the class has a shot at completing and that the level of teaching can't surpass the average student. The school system works from the mantra of "no one left behind" meaning it'll cater to the slowest learners.
The suspension is clearly warranted whether or not the teacher is right doesn't matter the school has clear guidelines on how these incidents are supposed to be handled. That said I completely agree with what the teacher says they need to be taught the consequences of not following directions otherwise they will be in the same position he is in when they get older only they won't be there by choice. If students are smart enough to get by without doing work then they need to be placed in advanced placement programs that completely fucked me over when I got to university and actually had to learn material but, had no idea how to actually study since all I did up until that point was get do just enough to pass aka show up to class sometimes and write most of my tests.
On June 03 2012 07:22 piiiT wrote: hes probably a teacher not a single student likes... dont always think about does he have the right to give 0s but think is it necessary to give zeroes. and if it is necessary then what is he doing wrong
I think that right there is a very interesting point:
Is it the teacher who is at fault for pupils doing bad, or is it the parents/pupils?
In todays society it has grown into the first, but back in the 90's when I went to primary school it sure as hell was the pupils who didn't take responsibility. I don't get how you can expect someone to teach those who aren't participating in the lessons.
Considering the article says that the entire school has the "no zeros given" policy, I'd say it's the school's fault for the students' lack of motivation to do work. That's just based on what the article says though, the actual reason could very well be different.
On June 03 2012 07:09 superstartran wrote: The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. I think CustomKai is the only person who has actually presented a decent post.
95% of the homework teachers send students home with is mostly garbage anyways, and anything that is worthwhile that is sent home is mostly done by parents (usually major projects and such).
Right. Teachers totally give out homework because they want to piss off students, and parents actually have the time to sit down and do all of their kids' math problems and English essays. The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. Homework is designed to reinforce the day's lesson, set the stage for the next day, or provide other related extensions and applications.
Out of curiosity, what's your field of expertise? Educator? Going for a degree in education, perhaps? You sound like a high schooler who's just angry that he gets homework.
The only thing I can even remotely agree with you on is that parents occasionally help their kids with "major projects", but obviously "major projects" are not 95% of a student's homework.
I do like CustomKal's post as well, so that I agree with you on too.
Teachers give out completely garbage homework now adays. Anyone who is an educator knows this, particularly 8-12.
Parents do not occasionally help their kids out on major projects. Most parents that are actually involved do alot of out of class assignments for them, mainly because alot of schools are either giving too much homework (most of which is monotonous and teaches nothing, and hardly reinforces any of the skills that they were taught), or they assign a project that is too big and should be done in class under the supervision of the teacher.
That's twice you've made that "garbage homework" claim without justifying it. It's garbage because you don't feel like doing it?
I've already explained why it's given out. When I gave homework to my ninth, tenth, and eleventh grade math students, it was relevant algebra and geometry examples based on the material we had learned in class, and possibly a look into new material. And I promise you that 99% of parents aren't going to have the time- nor the memory from thirty years ago- to sit down and work out 10 or so problems relating to proofs or logarithms or trigonometry or anything else that we're specifically going over. It's supplementary material, and given for good reasons.
Homework is for continued practice, and to see if students truly understand the class material (among other things). Does every teacher give out the perfect quantity or quality of homework? Of course not. But to write off all homework as useless is absurd and just factually wrong. I'm doing my PhD in math education (specifically relating to the secondary education level- the level you zeroed in on), and I can tell you that students need more practice than just the 40 minutes per day that they get with the teacher and 20 other students. Most students need to grind out similar problems, and they're not going to do it on their own accord- so homework is assigned to them (and hey, they get fucking free points too, if only they would just do it!).
Also, parents getting involved with their children's education is awesome, but I still have no idea where you're coming up with these ideas ("all homework is garbage" and "parents do nearly all of children's homework").
School district: Wants to look good and have all its students have high GPA's Veteran teacher: Realizes its bullshit and isn't helping the students at all; goes a different direction School district: Still wants to look good, suspends teacher
...hw can be busywork and bullshit but a. honestly i dont know anyone who has their parents do hw b. it can also be useful and even if boring, repetition and grinding is how you get good
The problem with math is that talent plays a huge role in the mark you get. Same thing with physics. In my final year of high school we were allowed to bring a "cheat sheet" with us to the physics exam removing the need for memorization. Unlike subjects like history or geography which require grinding memorization which is a real equalizer for all students.
On June 03 2012 07:09 superstartran wrote: The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. I think CustomKai is the only person who has actually presented a decent post.
95% of the homework teachers send students home with is mostly garbage anyways, and anything that is worthwhile that is sent home is mostly done by parents (usually major projects and such).
Right. Teachers totally give out homework because they want to piss off students, and parents actually have the time to sit down and do all of their kids' math problems and English essays. The amount of misinformation in this thread baffles me. Homework is designed to reinforce the day's lesson, set the stage for the next day, or provide other related extensions and applications.
Out of curiosity, what's your field of expertise? Educator? Going for a degree in education, perhaps? You sound like a high schooler who's just angry that he gets homework.
The only thing I can even remotely agree with you on is that parents occasionally help their kids with "major projects", but obviously "major projects" are not 95% of a student's homework.
I do like CustomKal's post as well, so that I agree with you on too.
Teachers give out completely garbage homework now adays. Anyone who is an educator knows this, particularly 8-12.
Parents do not occasionally help their kids out on major projects. Most parents that are actually involved do alot of out of class assignments for them, mainly because alot of schools are either giving too much homework (most of which is monotonous and teaches nothing, and hardly reinforces any of the skills that they were taught), or they assign a project that is too big and should be done in class under the supervision of the teacher.
That's twice you've made that "garbage homework" claim without justifying it. It's garbage because you don't feel like doing it?
I've already explained why it's given out. When I gave homework to my ninth, tenth, and eleventh grade math students, it was relevant algebra and geometry examples based on the material we had learned in class, and possibly a look into new material. And I promise you that 99% of parents aren't going to have the time- nor the memory from thirty years ago- to sit down and work out 10 or so problems relating to proofs or logarithms or trigonometry or anything else that we're specifically going over. It's supplementary material, and given for good reasons.
Homework is for continued practice, and to see if students truly understand the class material (among other things). Does every teacher give out the perfect quantity or quality of homework? Of course not. But to write off all homework as useless is absurd and just factually wrong. I'm doing my PhD in math education (specifically relating to the secondary education level- the level you zeroed in on), and I can tell you that students need more practice than just the 40 minutes per day that they get with the teacher and 20 other students. Most students need to grind out similar problems, and they're not going to do it on their own accord- so homework is assigned to them (and hey, they get fucking free points too, if only they would just do it!).
Also, parents getting involved with their children's education is awesome, but I still have no idea where you're coming up with these ideas ("all homework is garbage" and "parents do nearly all of children's homework").
Exactly, in fields like math and physics, not doing practice problems is basically shooting yourself in the foot and setting yourself up to fail. I talked frequently about teaching with my old math teacher (I'm an ex-math major and was going to be a math teacher myself until a recent change of heart where I decided computer science is a better fit for me), and he found, and many others agreed with him, that mandatory homework substantially increased a student's performance on in the class. I wouldn't doubt that either, as in his class with mandatory homework my mark increased around 13% compared to my previous teacher, who had only based marks off testing. Not to mention every class average he had for the classes he taught was around 75%-80%, quite a bit higher than the other math teachers in the school. His assignments were only around an hour long, and were often easy if you paid any attention to the class lecture. I usually just finished them and any other assignments at lunch with my other nerd friends then would have no homework at night.
Most people bitter about homework are just too lazy to do it. It doesn't take long and isn't hard, especially highschool homework. Neither are projects if you don't leave them to the last minute.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
I learned this hard way when I was like 10 years old. After that I've done 10grade worth things only on those things that I can be arsed to do. Other stuff I just put minimal effort or cheat. I've become really bitter with how school works.
Also having ADD makes school even more boring. Not like it's anyone elses fault tho.
Off topic, but is ADD something we're born with or is it something that is created by the thinkers?
On topic; This guy did the right thing, as a student currently I would far rather get a zero to show my complete negligence rather than getting a "not completed" That is because living and learning from your mistakes is, what I believe; the easiest way to teach somebody.
On June 03 2012 07:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote: The problem with math is that talent plays a huge role in the mark you get. Same thing with physics. In my final year of high school we were allowed to bring a "cheat sheet" with us to the physics exam removing the need for memorization. Unlike subjects like history or geography which require grinding memorization which is a real equalizer for all students.
Not quite sure if you are serious or not. You do realise that some are a lot better at recalling random facts than others?
In an ideal world evaluations exist so the teacher can estimate the student's knowledge and adapt the contents of his class to students needs. Grades should not be punishment and should be a reward, it should just be a tool. A bad result is actually a good tool to turn a bad student into a good one. This teacher probably knows each of the students that received a 0, and, after 30 years of teaching, he knows how to deal with them better than any of the school board. This is a sad example of how inserting competition into the educational system can be a bad thing: what is easier for schools in order to show better results, forging them or actually working to get them?
The news really shouldn't use an ambiguous term like "not completed" "not completed" can mean that an assignment was started, but not completely finished (a physics problem set that a student did not budget enough time into finishing). The teacher later elucidates that it was actually students not submitting anything, but the news station was just ambiguous. Anyways, my opinion is simple that 0's should be given out for assignments that are not submitted.
That said, he violated company policy after the headmaster called him out on it. A suspension was coming. Hopefully the board will overturn the policy with enough media attention.
At first I was shocked to hear about a "no-zero" policy, but now I understand it more. I teach college and I would never want to see something like this implemented there since it puts too much emphasis on the teacher forcing students to do the work when college should be about students learning to do their work and motivate themselves. I guess for high school it would be a gray area since they should be learning the real consequences of life, but also may need some additional guidance and motivation.
Under the policy, teachers must pursue students to arrange for late assignments to be completed. If the student doesn’t turn in enough work for the teacher to assess progress, the teacher should enter “unable to evaluate,” the policy says.
After several warnings from the principal, Dorval attended a hearing May 15 with officials from the school and Edmonton Public Schools, including the district superintendent. On May 18, Dorval got a letter informing him he is suspended indefinitely.
The guy deserves to get suspended. If you actually read the article, the school district policy is not that stupid, but this guy is.
On June 03 2012 08:04 Sumahi wrote: At first I was shocked to hear about a "no-zero" policy, but now I understand it more. I teach college and I would never want to see something like this implemented there since it puts too much emphasis on the teacher forcing students to do the work when college should be about students learning to do their work and motivate themselves. I guess for high school it would be a gray area since they should be learning the real consequences of life, but also may need some additional guidance and motivation.
I worked in the education sector for 5 years. This teacher absolutely deserved to be suspended for insubordination. If your boss tells you not to do something then you cant keep on doing it just because you think that your boss is wrong. I do not agree with the no-zero policy, but the teacher should of worked with his colleagues to get the policy changed.
As for the small number of people in this thread who think that they should be able to get an A without putting any work in: that is not how the world works. At some point, you will find yourself in a position where success requires hard work, so young people should be made to learn how to work hard (completely assignments on time, for example).
Ridiculous. Its dumb how they try to make it easier and easier for kids in highschool and below to get good grades. You can't expect good marks unless you put in the effort. And it should always be that way.
On June 03 2012 08:16 hzflank wrote: I worked in the education sector for 5 years. ... should of .
So you're why the education system has declined in quality.
I said I worked in the sector, I did not say that I was an educator
Although your comment will probably bug me now. I have spent the last two years in an area with a horrendously bad local dialect, and if I stay longer it could get a lot worse than 'should of'
Also find the silly "smart students shouldn't get penalized for not doing homework" funny. And since plenty of people raised a lot of good, serious points, I'll just add this:
You are presented with the syllabus and are warned about how heavily HW weighs into the final grade. If you failed to follow those instructions and complain about low grade you are either: 1. Not all that smart (if you couldnt figure out the consequences) 2. Lazy (if you chose not to do HW knowing the consequences) Either way, you dont deserve that easy A. And I've also had that mentality till i grew up a bit. I was very #2.
On topic, while I'm also not digging the policy itself, the teacher should have been suspended for not following set guidelines.
On June 03 2012 08:38 zev318 wrote: i had an accounting teacher give me a final mark of 1 because i never went to class. i think he was trolling me with it.
well, the teacher is basically under a contract from the school, he is getting paid by them so he has to follow their rules. It's their institution, if he doesn't like it he can go teach somewhere else. I know the job market is tough these days, but if they already have a system in place for "not completed" work, then that's what he should go by and shouldn't risk losing his job. I don't think it's right, but he IS their employee and they are HIS bosses.
but if you don't like what the school is doing, then don't send your kids there, don't go to school there. This is america, we have the right to decide what school we go to, use that right.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
I had practically 0 attendance in highschool and very little at uni (basically I only attended courses where prof would make me feel genuinely interested throughout the class). While in highschool it wasn't a big deal as I didn't need good grades for anything (all I needed was to pass from year to year) as back then universities had their own internal exams and completely disregarded your highschool performance (which I find reasonable as stuff you lear in HS has very little if anything to do with what you learn at UNI), in uni I had to put a bit more effort. Usually I just went to the person responsible for classes/courses and made some sorry excuse why I won't be attending most of them and asked what do I need to do to pass it. Most of the time it required learning stuff yourself and handing in some essays or answering some tough questions, which I did gladly as learning myself was way more interesting than some boring courses.
On June 03 2012 08:46 emc wrote: well, the teacher is basically under a contract from the school, he is getting paid by them so he has to follow their rules. It's their institution, if he doesn't like it he can go teach somewhere else. I know the job market is tough these days, but if they already have a system in place for "not completed" work, then that's what he should go by and shouldn't risk losing his job. I don't think it's right, but he IS their employee and they are HIS bosses.
He probably deliberately got himself suspended to bring attention to the issue.
Please do not derail this topic into other inflammatory discussions. The discussion should be focused on whether zeros should be given out if students fail to hand in work.
This debate has nothing to do with giving zeros, this debate is about the freedom of teachers to make decisions in their classroom independent of the school. By the way, I absolutely support teachers in this but this is about school policy vs. teaching practice and has nothing to do with zeros. Don't try to turn this into a debate about more than what it is.
He was not trying to make his own decisions he was doing what is right for the kids. He wasn't trying to create a precedent where teachers can start doing their own shit/ In fact, I have never heard or even seen teachers tried to ignore policies and act on their own.
He gave zeros because the school policy was inherently flawed to begin with. All teachers follow school/board policies at all times except when something like this is so ridiculously wrong to do, changes must be made "wake up" the students from their inexcusable lack of responsibility and work ethnic.
There are ups and downs to giving zeros for missing work. I come from a high school where if you had even one piece of missing work you didn't get a 0, you failed the class. I'm not gonna argue what is better, but this teacher did make his own unilateral decision. Because you rephrase it as "doing what is right for the kids" doesn't change what it is.
On June 03 2012 03:15 micronesia wrote: There are a few issues here.
The first is that the teacher was insubordinate. The school's decision that teachers shouldn't given zeroes might be good, or it might be the dumbest idea ever. They made their decision, either way. They told the teacher not to give zeroes. He gave zeroes. That's insubordination.
The sad thing is how often this seems to happen in public schools. The board of education or administration comes up with rules and mandates for the teacher to follow that completely undermine instruction and are horribly counter productive, and the teachers are powerless to do anything about it. Sometimes teacher tenure helps to alleviating some of this, but the teacher in the OP has been teaching for over 30 years so seniority isn't necessarily enough to combat this issue.
The second issue is the policy to not give zeroes. As Trezeguet pointed out, giving zeroes is not always the right thing to do. It's not about giving kids free points. The first thing to consider is how arbitrary our 100 point scale is, as well as the cutoffs for mastery, passing, failing, etc.. The second thing to consider is that some grading systems have been found (through significant amounts of research) to have more of an overall positive effect on student learning than others. Giving a kid who doesn't complete some work early in the year zeroes with no chance to earn back some of the credit maybe be perfectly fair, but it could also guarantee that the kid will fail the class for the rest of the year. Not only will he be less likely to get his act together and try to bring his average up from <40% to >70% (versus <60% on a less brutal grading scheme), but he will be more likely to be a disruption in class which will negatively impact other learners since he's not learning himself. Grading schemes that punish students to teach them a lesson don't necessarily teach students a lesson.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good/responsible teacher. Period.
This type of attitude as an educator results in a less educated general public.
Putting 'period' at the end of a post on tl seems to correlate strongly with someone who is very firm in their beliefs without any evidence to back them up.
If the kid fails he fails. You have to understand people are responsible and accountable for their own actions. If we have given them many chances to complete their work and yet they still fail to do so. What more leniency can you give? All you going to accomplish is producing big babies that are incompetent, inadequately educated, no work ethic, no sense of responsibility and accountability who will never be ready for the reality of the work force.
The western educational system has become so lenient to the point where it is guaranteed to produce failures in society. I cannot put it any better than Michio Kaku who specifically discussed this issue of "lower quality graduates" in America.
The problem with people who don't do their work is that they think education is not important. They get influenced by all the shit on TV everyday, think they can become rich and shit by doing nothing in school. Education prepares you for life's paths. There are many paths to take, if you are not interested in calculus you can take it for the prerequisite then never take it again in the future. But some stuff in life are always connected and they require basic understandings of physics/chemistry/calculus. I had the same mentality back in high school that why bother learning this shit, never gonna use it again. But as I grew up I realized the benefit of learning those subject even though the majority of them did not come to use in real life.
IMO, freedom of choice comes after a person has been well educated because by then they are competent enough and intelligent enough to make the right choices.
What a horrifying concept: you can only make decisions for yourself when we know you will make the decisions we want you to make. edit: Another important thing to remember about education numbers in the United States: The US has mandatory high school. Many nations such as, to name one at random, switzerland, do not. This means we do have a lower quality pool of graduates overall, but more graduates and overall a comparable pool of education in the public.
This happened in my hometown. This school is known for having a large number of students with one of the lowest graduation rates in the city, many gang-related violence issues and a racially segregated student body. Maybe things have changed since my friends went there, but it seems as if the school was attempting to increase graduation rates in order to get more funding from the province.
The way it works here is that the school is paid $X per credit obtained per student. The more credits a student gets, the more money the school receives. When you have a 60% graduation rate, there are a ton of credits left on the table and therefore a lot of money the school is missing out on. The no-zero policy is just a way to increase the school's revenue without increasing the quality of education or making the students more motivated.
"Under the policy, teachers must pursue students to arrange for late assignments to be completed."
After I read this line in the news article, I made up my mind that this policy is bullshit. It is not the teacher's responsibility to go find you if you have late assignments. You take responsibility and find the teacher. That is how it works in my school. And it seems that "not completed" is basically the same thing as a zero except with a language twist to make dumbass students feel better.
If the teacher's employer (the school) requires that he grade in a particular way, he should do it. If he has a problem with the way things are done and wants to effect change, he should take it up with the principal or the board and state his case. The school was perfectly within its rights to sack him.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
One major, and oft forgotten, part of education is the hidden curriculum. Students are expected to be taught things such as discipline, integrity, respect, responsibility, etc. As important as content knowledge is, character development is equally critical. The prevalence in behavioral questions during interviews for professional jobs is some indication that character is vitally important to employers nowadays.
The question then becomes how should character development be assessed in the classroom? Should it be a component in an overall grade? One district I interviewed with gave separate grades for academic performance and behavior. As long as the basis of the behavioral assessment is made clear, this seems like the best option.
From what I gather, it's school policy that students aren't allowed to give zeros. However that doesn't make sense to me, how does that affect the grade? Do they take an average of the already completed assignments? Because if that's the case, then what's stopping a student from getting a perfect score on the first homework assignment, then never doing another one, EVER? I think it's basically a silly school policy vs. a teacher's policy. While one could argue that school policy is already set, and the teacher has no right to overstep it, I don't think the teacher was being unreasonable. He is readily available to the students, and forewarned them about his grading policy. Never in my life have I encountered a policy where you DO NOT get a grade of "zero" for an assignment not turned in a test not made up. I'm just having difficulty in understanding first and foremost the school's policy, and second how they've decided to handle this situation.
So a teacher gives out a syllables dedicating the policy and the students don't follow it, he gets suspended for giving out deserved zeroes? I fail to comprehend that, most teachers I had before university usually gives you a warning letter or private chat WHEN your grades are borderline. How much clearer can you get, should they baby sit you through everything?
we gave liberals the power over school systems and instead of allowing our best to fulfill their potentials they held everyone back to allow our worst to feel better about themselves. instead of allowing some people to fail they would rather the entire nation shoulder the burden by throwing more money at the problem.
everyone should graduate college and be anything they want to be the liberals said. then when the people who believed them took out too much in loans and got a harsh dose of reality the liberals blamed the system calling it broken. the system is broken and liberals broke it because in life there will always be winners and losers.
On June 03 2012 03:15 micronesia wrote: There are a few issues here.
The first is that the teacher was insubordinate. The school's decision that teachers shouldn't given zeroes might be good, or it might be the dumbest idea ever. They made their decision, either way. They told the teacher not to give zeroes. He gave zeroes. That's insubordination.
The sad thing is how often this seems to happen in public schools. The board of education or administration comes up with rules and mandates for the teacher to follow that completely undermine instruction and are horribly counter productive, and the teachers are powerless to do anything about it. Sometimes teacher tenure helps to alleviating some of this, but the teacher in the OP has been teaching for over 30 years so seniority isn't necessarily enough to combat this issue.
The second issue is the policy to not give zeroes. As Trezeguet pointed out, giving zeroes is not always the right thing to do. It's not about giving kids free points. The first thing to consider is how arbitrary our 100 point scale is, as well as the cutoffs for mastery, passing, failing, etc.. The second thing to consider is that some grading systems have been found (through significant amounts of research) to have more of an overall positive effect on student learning than others. Giving a kid who doesn't complete some work early in the year zeroes with no chance to earn back some of the credit maybe be perfectly fair, but it could also guarantee that the kid will fail the class for the rest of the year. Not only will he be less likely to get his act together and try to bring his average up from <40% to >70% (versus <60% on a less brutal grading scheme), but he will be more likely to be a disruption in class which will negatively impact other learners since he's not learning himself. Grading schemes that punish students to teach them a lesson don't necessarily teach students a lesson.
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good/responsible teacher. Period.
This type of attitude as an educator results in a less educated general public.
Putting 'period' at the end of a post on tl seems to correlate strongly with someone who is very firm in their beliefs without any evidence to back them up.
Big thanks for that post, that clarified things a lot.
What I'm curious about is the "no zero policy" in general. While I understand the motivational benefit doesn't it also reward non-complying/lazy behaviour?
aka "If I can't get a 0 anyway and I can catch up the grade, why should I do this stuff right now? Might as well do it in a month!"
Usually the 'no 0' policy just means 'no zero on a 100 point scale where 65 is passing.' It doesn't mean 'no zero on any grading scale.' On a college scale of A=4 B=3 C=2 D=1 F=0 then 0's are perfectly acceptable by the logic.
On June 03 2012 09:59 PrideNeverDie wrote: this is the decline of american education
we gave liberals the power over school systems and instead of allowing our best to fulfill their potentials they held everyone back to allow our worst to feel better about themselves. instead of allowing some people to fail they would rather the entire nation shoulder the burden by throwing more money at the problem.
everyone should graduate college and be anything they want to be the liberals said. then when the people who believed them took out too much in loans and got a harsh dose of reality the liberals blamed the system calling it broken. the system is broken and liberals broke it because in life there will always be winners and losers.
How is this a 'liberals' thing?
On June 03 2012 09:37 CaptainCharisma wrote: If the teacher's employer (the school) requires that he grade in a particular way, he should do it. If he has a problem with the way things are done and wants to effect change, he should take it up with the principal or the board and state his case. The school was perfectly within its rights to sack him.
While you are basically correct, saying he should take it up with the principal/board isn't really helpful since it would accomplish nothing except get them mad at him.
On June 03 2012 09:59 PrideNeverDie wrote: this is the decline of american education
we gave liberals the power over school systems and instead of allowing our best to fulfill their potentials they held everyone back to allow our worst to feel better about themselves. instead of allowing some people to fail they would rather the entire nation shoulder the burden by throwing more money at the problem.
everyone should graduate college and be anything they want to be the liberals said. then when the people who believed them took out too much in loans and got a harsh dose of reality the liberals blamed the system calling it broken. the system is broken and liberals broke it because in life there will always be winners and losers.
This didn't even happen in America...try to read the article.
All i can say is welcome to the world we now live in.... you cant give out zero's in class, and don't you dare make anyonebody feel bad. This is all really dangerous kids are going to become adults and get destroyed in the real world when they realize every thing isn't just handed to you on a silver platter..this guy has the right idea the school and the policy makers should be siding with him.
On June 03 2012 09:59 PrideNeverDie wrote: this is the decline of american education
we gave liberals the power over school systems and instead of allowing our best to fulfill their potentials they held everyone back to allow our worst to feel better about themselves. instead of allowing some people to fail they would rather the entire nation shoulder the burden by throwing more money at the problem.
everyone should graduate college and be anything they want to be the liberals said. then when the people who believed them took out too much in loans and got a harsh dose of reality the liberals blamed the system calling it broken. the system is broken and liberals broke it because in life there will always be winners and losers.
This didn't even happen in America...try to read the article.
Hahaha those crazy American liberals screwing up stuff in Canada now apparently. I woke up with a neck ache today, I am going to blame them for that too!
On June 03 2012 09:59 PrideNeverDie wrote: this is the decline of american education
we gave liberals the power over school systems and instead of allowing our best to fulfill their potentials they held everyone back to allow our worst to feel better about themselves. instead of allowing some people to fail they would rather the entire nation shoulder the burden by throwing more money at the problem.
everyone should graduate college and be anything they want to be the liberals said. then when the people who believed them took out too much in loans and got a harsh dose of reality the liberals blamed the system calling it broken. the system is broken and liberals broke it because in life there will always be winners and losers.
Really? This is totally not politically charged, let alone USA-related.
Good job reading the OP or the articles. Stop being so inflammatory with your completely random and nonsensical post.
Also, being a liberal and an educator doesn't mean that you believe that everyone absolutely must go to college. You don't even have those facts right.
On June 03 2012 09:37 CaptainCharisma wrote: If the teacher's employer (the school) requires that he grade in a particular way, he should do it. If he has a problem with the way things are done and wants to effect change, he should take it up with the principal or the board and state his case. The school was perfectly within its rights to sack him.
While you are basically correct, saying he should take it up with the principal/board isn't really helpful since it would accomplish nothing except get them mad at him.
I agree that is what would probably happen. So then it is the teacher's choice whether to take the matter further by perhaps talking to a local representative, or resigning and finding a school that suits him better or starting up his own education programs.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
This is a very common attitude in Sweden. It's gotten to the point where it's "cool" to be good at something but not give a shit about studying, and then whining about not getting good grades. Basically, everyone just wants to fuck around and hang out with friends and only do the tests.
So. We're all the same then?
Why should I listen to some teacher, when I can just take the test... Some teachers really add nothing to the course, while others add alot. It's how it has worked for me during most of my education, and is still the case at uni. --I can't complain, really. Imo a good teacher is an asset; while a bad one doesn't neccesarily spell disaster; just means you read it on your own -- I haven't come across many bad curricular books (can only think of one or two at the top of my head -- result often being stupid, and sometimes overly simple questions)
On June 03 2012 09:22 chadissilent wrote: This happened in my hometown. This school is known for having a large number of students with one of the lowest graduation rates in the city, many gang-related violence issues and a racially segregated student body. Maybe things have changed since my friends went there, but it seems as if the school was attempting to increase graduation rates in order to get more funding from the province.
The way it works here is that the school is paid $X per credit obtained per student. The more credits a student gets, the more money the school receives. When you have a 60% graduation rate, there are a ton of credits left on the table and therefore a lot of money the school is missing out on. The no-zero policy is just a way to increase the school's revenue without increasing the quality of education or making the students more motivated.
I am assuming you are referring to the school in Edmonton? I'm from Ontario, and for some reason, I remember hearing one of my teachers saying about the funding/student relationship. Guess it's an overall Canadian education policy. It just kinds of increases this type of behavior as time goes on.
Well, the teacher was ordered not to give zeroes. He's an idiot for doing that.
The policy itself is idiotic.
Yeah, you can be an idiot for not following something idiotic.
My cousin did the following once: give no zeroes, but make sure to take that out of other works. If they deserve to fail, make sure they do. Give essay questions for maximum grading discretion.
I am a student and live in South Australia. When assignments are given out, every student receives a table which tells them what the assignment is being marked on. The assessment criteria is set by SACE (South Australian Certificate of Education), and every teacher must marks using this assessment criteria.
This assessment criteria contains the information on what students are expected to demonstrate to achieve each grade, ranging from A to E, and in no way is affected by the time the student submits his or her work. A student could hand up his work late, but the teacher must still mark the student based on the assessment criteria, pay no attention to the submission time, and then hand the assessment to SACE.
If a teacher marks students lower than C-grades for main subjects (English, Math), then SACE sends messages to the school to tell them that the teacher is not teaching correctly, or not sufficiently.
This is part of a plan to increase the level of education in the community, but demerit points should be given to the students which have not handed up their work on time.
I feel sorry for the teacher. He did what he thought was best to encourage students to do their homework and it was fair for the ones who did complete it but he got suspended for that. He did breach the policies of the school but his actions were reasonable. The schools probably just sticking to this system to maintain a good reputation, low fail rate of students. If they allowed teachers to give 0s it would help motivate the lazy students and separate them from the good ones.
On June 03 2012 10:45 Chunhyang wrote: Yeah, you can be an idiot for not following something idiotic.
This mentality right here is the real problem. People know something is stupid and yet they keep going on with it because god forbid we be different or difficult or step out of line.
It takes courage to refuse to follow something idiotic despite pressure.
He wasn't even following the damned school policy. If he can't be arsed to follow the system then why should his students?
The purpose of school is to educate. If a school develops a policy to that end then teachers need to follow it, rather than being conscientious objectors or w/e just because they think it's too lenient. All the other teachers and students in the building had to learn the system, and suddenly your class is the exception to the rule? Like You're special or something? You have the right to dictate your own rules in your class?
No wonder his students kicked up a fuss.
Edit: he is not some kind of god ok. If students don't follow his rules they got a zero whether the school policy allowed for that or not. And now he's suffering the consequences of breaking the rules he should've followed. Either rules matter or they do not you cannot have one rogue teacher disillusioning all of his students making them feel that the system and it's rules only apply to them while their teacher gets to be above the law. Hes no hero, he's a hypocrit for trying to force people to obey his personal dictates, trying to force them to be more dutiful while ignoring his own duties.
On June 03 2012 10:51 raVensc2 wrote: I am a student and live in South Australia. When assignments are given out, every student receives a table which tells them what the assignment is being marked on. The assessment criteria is set by SACE (South Australian Certificate of Education), and every teacher must marks using this assessment criteria.
This assessment criteria contains the information on what students are expected to demonstrate to achieve each grade, ranging from A to E, and in no way is affected by the time the student submits his or her work. A student could hand up his work late, but the teacher must still mark the student based on the assessment criteria, pay no attention to the submission time, and then hand the assessment to SACE.
If a teacher marks students lower than C-grades for main subjects (English, Math), then SACE sends messages to the school to tell them that the teacher is not teaching correctly, or not sufficiently.
This is part of a plan to increase the level of education in the community, but demerit points should be given to the students which have not handed up their work on time.
I don't see how this is any better, it's just as bad.
If a student (one, singular student) gets a D, E or and F, then its the teachers fault that the student didn't do their work? How is it that the student's grade somehow affects the teacher's job. If some kid wants to take advantage of the situation, he can easily do so. I'll just do enough work/effort to get a D, and the teacher is gonna somehow push it up to a C so no message is sent to the school.
Furthermore, how there be NO different is assessment based on work being late. At my University, each day late in some classes was a automatic 10% deduction. Others were not marked if even late by 10 minutes (had to be handed in by the end of class).
My high school was not bad, I studied, did my work, got 85s-95s. I still wish my HS was harder on me to prepare myself for University. Whenever, I talk to HS kids, I tell them to go the harder schools in my city to better prepare them for University.
This whole let's push them through, and hope someone else can teach them life lessons aggravates me to no end.
"incomplete" generally becomes a 0 at the end of the semester. Or so that's the way it was in my school, and all of the schools my friends went to. If this is true for this school, what exactly is the problem?
On June 03 2012 11:41 Zahir wrote: He wasn't even following the damned school policy. If he can't be arsed to follow the system then why should his students?
The purpose of school is to educate. If a school develops a policy to that end then teachers need to follow it, rather than being conscientious objectors or w/e just because they think it's too lenient. All the other teachers and students in the building had to learn the system, and suddenly your class is the exception to the rule? Like You're special or something? You have the right to dictate your own rules in your class?
No wonder his students kicked up a fuss.
Edit: he is not some kind of god ok. If students don't follow his rules they got a zero whether the school policy allowed for that or not. And now he's suffering the consequences of breaking the rules he should've followed. Either rules matter or they do not you cannot have one rogue teacher disillusioning all of his students making them feel that the system and it's rules only apply to them while their teacher gets to be above the law. Hes no hero, he's a hypocrit for trying to force people to obey his personal dictates, trying to force them to be more dutiful while ignoring his own duties.
Uhm, they're kicking a fuss FOR him, and took to twitter and facebook to support him. He still gave them time and extra assignments to make up for missed assignments. He's also doing this to create a scene in a sense to hopefully change/amend this into a policy that better supports the kids.
Basically, if one person got 100% on all the assignments, and another got 100% on half, and the other half he didn't do, they would still get the same mark (at least that is my understanding). How is this fair? How is this teaching the kids anything worthwhile (besides how the game the system)?
On June 03 2012 03:14 nennx wrote: Honestly, you'd have to try fail a class. I can't believe we're having this discussion. If you fail a class, its because you 100% fucked up and its 100% your fault, its not the teachers fault. Every teacher lets you make up tests if they know before hand and you have a REAL excuse, and same goes for turning in homework (you can turn things in early, you know). This is a dumb discussion, if you're not willing to give someone a zero because they missed something, you aren't being a good teacher. Period.
You really have no idea what it is like to be most kids. So many kids struggle in school, and this kid of attitude from kids who are not struggling makes me sick. A kid's mother's boyfriend shot the mother dead last week. The kid is doing terrible in my class. I guess I should just fail the kid ehh? Plenty of kids have trouble with math in particular, and they are working quite hard to improve. Are they A students? NO, but that does not mean I should fail them straight off.
Its sick to me that you'd give someone the stamp of approval when someone is not ready to move on to the next level of education when they are clearly not ready. You're just increasing the chances that they will have trouble in more advanced classes (especially if its math).
Yeah, you don't understand what is going on. I am not trying to incite you, just being blunt. Giving a kid 40%s the whole way flunks them right good. If a student demonstrates to me outside of the homework that they are above average in my class, but do not do any of the homework, I will likely pass them. Not with an A, but with the lowest passing grade available. The kid doesn't win. No one can show off a C, but on the other hand, the kid knows the stuff so what am I proving my holding him/her back?
Your posts make no sense. How often do you have an actual good student who is great in class but doesn't do any of the work. When I was in high school, there was no such thing. It was pretty clear in class who were the good students, and they did the work. Students who didn't do the work screwed around in class the whole time, didn't pay attention, and didn't ever contribute. Also, if you value in-class contribution so much, you can make it part of your course grading rubric as many teachers have. There are a variety of ways to do it (for example, you can structure it so you can be rewarded but not heavily punished for in-class contribution).
Honestly I don't understand why there is so much discussion on this. High school was pretty straightforward. You just show up everyday, spend a couple hours at most on homework. I took the hardest classes available and got through them without a ton of difficulty with a perfect or close to it on most things. I did have to put in work, but it wasn't THAT bad most of the time. I can only imagine how easy it would be if I took the absolute bare minimum. I understand that some people just naturally aren't so good at school to put it nicely, but I think most of them should be able to easily do the minimum passable work in the minimum level classes.
The problem is that crotchety old grandpa attitude, I had to walk to school in the freezing snow, uphill both ways, so kids these days should have to do the same.
Never mind that the incomplete is basically a zero with a chance for the kid to make it up later, which most teachers already give, at least to students they like. No second chances, I wouldn't want my doctor to ever have had an opportunity to make up work in high school. Far better my doctor have studied under a megalomaniac who believed standards did not apply to him, and passed on that logic to his students.
On June 03 2012 09:59 PrideNeverDie wrote: this is the decline of american education
we gave liberals the power over school systems and instead of allowing our best to fulfill their potentials they held everyone back to allow our worst to feel better about themselves. instead of allowing some people to fail they would rather the entire nation shoulder the burden by throwing more money at the problem.
everyone should graduate college and be anything they want to be the liberals said. then when the people who believed them took out too much in loans and got a harsh dose of reality the liberals blamed the system calling it broken. the system is broken and liberals broke it because in life there will always be winners and losers.
I hope you realize this was in Canada.
I think the real decline in american education is from the lack of reading of linked articles.
I'm going to use my math homework as an example here. INCOMPLETE would be defined as we didn't show any of our work or we skipped so many problems that the teacher noticed.
ZERO would be lateness for 3 days or just not caring. Typically the second option.
Many teachers give a TON of time for students to turn in missing or incomplete work. It's the students problem if they don't do it. From what I'm reading, it looks like the teacher gave them a TON of time to turn in their shit. Ah well.
In real life, the work, is what walued, not the inteligence or knowlege.
Any type of work does includes tedious, uninteresing parts, but nececery parts, non the less.
so as long as the amound of homework is reasonable, and the homework`s influence on the overal result also is reasonable, I see no problem with grading the not turned in HW with zero.
My cousin did the following once: give no zeroes, but make sure to take that out of other works. If they deserve to fail, make sure they do. Give essay questions for maximum grading discretion.
Thats even worse. One thing we learn as teachers is the proper evaluation is extremely important. Clearly laid out well defined deterministic rules should govern grading. You can add a non-deterministic portion for participation also if you so wish. This teacher did the right thing by grading incomplete assignments as 0, because how can you get a score for something that you haven't even turned in?
You cousin was a moron who was penalizing students after the fact and thus covering up where they did well and where they did badly.
In his researching of the so-called No Zeros Policy, Dorval found it’s tied to the self-esteem movement, to the notion that if students get a zero it will damage their egos and they will give up. But he’s found in his years of teaching that students who don’t do the work simply don’t like school and don’t care to do the work. Essentially, many have already given up, he says.
Yet almost all students, he says, will make some effort to catch up on their work when Dorval presents them with two sets of marks.
One set shows their average mark for all their completed tests and work, but not factoring in the work they have failed to complete.
The second set of averaged marks factors in the zeros the students will get if they fail to do all the required work. This second, lower set of marks usually does the trick, Dorval says. “I just get a flood of assignments in and students coming to me, ‘Can I make up this quiz?’”
The students have until the end of the school year to catch up, without any penalty. “I don’t give them any punishment at all or deduction.”
Seriously this guy is a fucking hero. His method is a lot lot better than the schools. Hopefully he will be elected to replace the idiot running the school currently.
As a student of the EPSB for all my years of schooling, I personnally went through this "change" from teachers being allowed to give zeros, to them not being allowed. I graduated last year and I can tell you this, the teacher is 100% in the right for challenging an absolutely ridiculous policy that really only exists to make schools look better.
And for my explanation: This change came in sometime when I was in jr.high (7-9) and teachers hated it. Some tried to accept it and be nice about it, but it was pretty clear they didn't agree with it either. What happened in my school was the teachers were eventually forced to implement the "NotHandedIn or NHI" instead of the zero. Thus students could miss assignments (even major ones) and their average would not change. It would only be based on the work they had completed. BUT the principle of the school actually had brains enough to make those NHIs turn into 0s by the end of the year. (each teacher assigned a deadline at thier discretion) No one complained because we loved it. Do fuck all for assignments, homework or individual projects and then do them all the last couple weeks of classes.
I remember i had something like 20 missing french assignments because I knew i wasn't taking french in high school. So i borrowed those 20 some assignments from a friend that had finished them, and basically did grade 9 french in a week. Failed every test and passed the class because of the assignments. Long story short I did fuck all in jr.high and still had honours, while in the cogito advanced program. Im no brainiac by any means. 70-80% in high school and 60-70% first year university, but honestly a kid would have to have MAJOR problems at home or have a disabilty to not pass the bare minimum required classes. Free rides all day every day for 3 years.
High school came along and I went to Jasper Place High, the rival to Ross Shepard High (where the teacher taught obvs). Anyways, I never had one teacher at JP follow this "rule". They gave out zeros and were not afraid to confront parents about it, neither was the adminstration though either, they let it happen. We as students could care less, most of us understood that it would ready us for life/school later on, or they respected their teachers too much to let it become a problem. Obviously the lower stream classes had more conflicts, but I never heard of any big challenges to the fact teachers gave out zeros. Some teachers I didn't have may have adopted the NHI rule, but that would be on their own accord if it happened.
Although passing the lower stream classes is still really easy, it at least allowed people to fail. But most people who I know dropped out did it because of either skipping too much/not caring about school/having a job lined up/, not because they were failing. (although because of the lack of attention many of them had failing grades, but the grades usually were not the cause) I tell you this because many people will argue for the NHI rule that a missed assignment, etc shouldn't be the factor on whether they graduate or not. This rarely happens, it's constantly neglecting school that determines it.
Many schools admins (Ross Sheppard) love this NHI rule because it raises their averages. Realize the media makes this sound like it's all the EPSB's fault, (and yes it is their dumb ass rule) but a lot of blame should be placed on the school. Their the ones enforcing these crazy rules. Many outrageous laws still exist in Canada the U.S. and else where that don't make sense anymore and aren't enforced by police agencies. The school plays the role of the police in this situation. While yes I admit this is perhaps a bit ludacris of a comparison, I think it's a good way to look at it.
Anyone who supports this stupidity is not doing so for the sake of the students.
On June 03 2012 11:41 Zahir wrote: He wasn't even following the damned school policy. If he can't be arsed to follow the system then why should his students?
The purpose of school is to educate. If a school develops a policy to that end then teachers need to follow it, rather than being conscientious objectors or w/e just because they think it's too lenient. All the other teachers and students in the building had to learn the system, and suddenly your class is the exception to the rule? Like You're special or something? You have the right to dictate your own rules in your class?
No wonder his students kicked up a fuss.
Edit: he is not some kind of god ok. If students don't follow his rules they got a zero whether the school policy allowed for that or not. And now he's suffering the consequences of breaking the rules he should've followed. Either rules matter or they do not you cannot have one rogue teacher disillusioning all of his students making them feel that the system and it's rules only apply to them while their teacher gets to be above the law. Hes no hero, he's a hypocrit for trying to force people to obey his personal dictates, trying to force them to be more dutiful while ignoring his own duties.
Uhm, they're kicking a fuss FOR him, and took to twitter and facebook to support him. He still gave them time and extra assignments to make up for missed assignments. He's also doing this to create a scene in a sense to hopefully change/amend this into a policy that better supports the kids.
Basically, if one person got 100% on all the assignments, and another got 100% on half, and the other half he didn't do, they would still get the same mark (at least that is my understanding). How is this fair? How is this teaching the kids anything worthwhile (besides how the game the system)?
"Teachers were told to no longer give zeros. Instead an uncompleted test or assignment would be marked with a comment.
The student's mark would then be based on whatever work is done."
Comments by students: "He shouldn't even be teaching anymore. If he wants to hand out zeros, he should be doing some other job — not a teacher."
—Ryan Grouette, Grade 10
"If students show up they deserve a minimum mark. A zero seems a bit extreme."
—Cindy Smith, Grade 11
"I think he should be allowed to teach. He's a good teacher from what I hear."
—Cassandra Gregory, Grade 12
First off, your own quotation shows that student opinion was divided. Second, letting one teacher run his classroom likes its north Korea, with it's leader being able to set his own rules and having zero accountability to anyone, cannot be healthy no matter how good his intentions were. If a student refused to do the work a teacher assigned, and instead chose to do the work the way he personally thought it should be assigned, would you approve of that? I mean why even have rules or teachers anymore lets just have people run amok and teach themselves however they want. Authority doesn't matter, it's all about following your principles, am I right?
Or we could actually expect teachers to exhibit the same respect for the rules that we expect from students.
On June 03 2012 11:41 Zahir wrote: He wasn't even following the damned school policy. If he can't be arsed to follow the system then why should his students?
The purpose of school is to educate. If a school develops a policy to that end then teachers need to follow it, rather than being conscientious objectors or w/e just because they think it's too lenient. All the other teachers and students in the building had to learn the system, and suddenly your class is the exception to the rule? Like You're special or something? You have the right to dictate your own rules in your class?
No wonder his students kicked up a fuss.
Edit: he is not some kind of god ok. If students don't follow his rules they got a zero whether the school policy allowed for that or not. And now he's suffering the consequences of breaking the rules he should've followed. Either rules matter or they do not you cannot have one rogue teacher disillusioning all of his students making them feel that the system and it's rules only apply to them while their teacher gets to be above the law. Hes no hero, he's a hypocrit for trying to force people to obey his personal dictates, trying to force them to be more dutiful while ignoring his own duties.
Uhm, they're kicking a fuss FOR him, and took to twitter and facebook to support him. He still gave them time and extra assignments to make up for missed assignments. He's also doing this to create a scene in a sense to hopefully change/amend this into a policy that better supports the kids.
Basically, if one person got 100% on all the assignments, and another got 100% on half, and the other half he didn't do, they would still get the same mark (at least that is my understanding). How is this fair? How is this teaching the kids anything worthwhile (besides how the game the system)?
"Teachers were told to no longer give zeros. Instead an uncompleted test or assignment would be marked with a comment.
The student's mark would then be based on whatever work is done."
Comments by students: "He shouldn't even be teaching anymore. If he wants to hand out zeros, he should be doing some other job — not a teacher."
—Ryan Grouette, Grade 10
"If students show up they deserve a minimum mark. A zero seems a bit extreme."
—Cindy Smith, Grade 11
"I think he should be allowed to teach. He's a good teacher from what I hear."
—Cassandra Gregory, Grade 12
First off, your own quotation shows that student opinion was divided. Second, letting one teacher run his classroom likes its north Korea, with it's leader being able to set his own rules and having zero accountability to anyone, cannot be healthy no matter how good his intentions were. If a student refused to do the work a teacher assigned, and instead chose to do the work the way he personally thought it should be assigned, would you approve of that? I mean why even have rules or teachers anymore lets just have people run amok and teach themselves however they want. Authority doesn't matter, it's all about following your principles, am I right?
Or we could actually expect teachers to exhibit the same respect for the rules that we expect from students.
The tricky part is when you are expected to follow rules that are specifically detrimental to the learning of your students. Both professionally and personally you want your students to learn and you are to obey rules that prevent you from doing that. It's pretty rough.
On top of it, when your students don't succeed you get blamed for it, even if it is primarily because of stupid rules you had no control over. In my experience, professional teaching is often a juggling act where you try to figure out which rules you can break for the benefit of your students and still get away with it. Of course I'm not talking about helping students cheat or skipping requirements for them; I'm talking about disregarding the restrictions placed on your pedagogy/grading/etc because you are very sure that the way being imposed on you will hurt your students.
On June 03 2012 11:41 Zahir wrote: He wasn't even following the damned school policy. If he can't be arsed to follow the system then why should his students?
The purpose of school is to educate. If a school develops a policy to that end then teachers need to follow it, rather than being conscientious objectors or w/e just because they think it's too lenient. All the other teachers and students in the building had to learn the system, and suddenly your class is the exception to the rule? Like You're special or something? You have the right to dictate your own rules in your class?
No wonder his students kicked up a fuss.
Edit: he is not some kind of god ok. If students don't follow his rules they got a zero whether the school policy allowed for that or not. And now he's suffering the consequences of breaking the rules he should've followed. Either rules matter or they do not you cannot have one rogue teacher disillusioning all of his students making them feel that the system and it's rules only apply to them while their teacher gets to be above the law. Hes no hero, he's a hypocrit for trying to force people to obey his personal dictates, trying to force them to be more dutiful while ignoring his own duties.
Uhm, they're kicking a fuss FOR him, and took to twitter and facebook to support him. He still gave them time and extra assignments to make up for missed assignments. He's also doing this to create a scene in a sense to hopefully change/amend this into a policy that better supports the kids.
Basically, if one person got 100% on all the assignments, and another got 100% on half, and the other half he didn't do, they would still get the same mark (at least that is my understanding). How is this fair? How is this teaching the kids anything worthwhile (besides how the game the system)?
"Teachers were told to no longer give zeros. Instead an uncompleted test or assignment would be marked with a comment.
The student's mark would then be based on whatever work is done."
Comments by students: "He shouldn't even be teaching anymore. If he wants to hand out zeros, he should be doing some other job — not a teacher."
—Ryan Grouette, Grade 10
"If students show up they deserve a minimum mark. A zero seems a bit extreme."
—Cindy Smith, Grade 11
"I think he should be allowed to teach. He's a good teacher from what I hear."
—Cassandra Gregory, Grade 12
First off, your own quotation shows that student opinion was divided. Second, letting one teacher run his classroom likes its north Korea, with it's leader being able to set his own rules and having zero accountability to anyone, cannot be healthy no matter how good his intentions were. If a student refused to do the work a teacher assigned, and instead chose to do the work the way he personally thought it should be assigned, would you approve of that? I mean why even have rules or teachers anymore lets just have people run amok and teach themselves however they want. Authority doesn't matter, it's all about following your principles, am I right?
Or we could actually expect teachers to exhibit the same respect for the rules that we expect from students.
Those were the only ones that were directly quotable. If you read the comments in the article, there are many supporting him.
What he is doing, and what I admire in him, is this. He has been a teacher for 31 years so he has adequate pension to cover him. What he is doing is doing what he believe is good for the kids. He got suspended. Maybe he would have gotten his job back. However, what he is doing instead, since he has the pension, is bringing this to the media, knowing that this will probably fire him. However, he is doing this because he doesn't want to this continue anymore, and wants to be the lightning rod for change.
From the CBC article: "Parents are largely unaware of the policy, as teachers were instructed not to speak about it, he said." He wants change, so he is doing this publicly as possible to bring the change.
"The anti-zero argument goes something like this: Getting a goose egg discourages students. Zeros are not a measure of intelligence but a matter of behaviour. Kids should only be graded for what they do — not for what they don’t do.
So … why do anything?
Mr. Dorval gives the example of a student who transferred to his class from a non-zero class. The student completed six of 15 assignments for his previous teacher and, since he was only graded for what he did, had a 63% average. Mr. Dorval made it clear to the boy that missed work meant zeros on his watch.
“With me, he did seven of seven assignments,” he says. “It is right there in black and white.”
On June 03 2012 11:41 Zahir wrote: He wasn't even following the damned school policy. If he can't be arsed to follow the system then why should his students?
The purpose of school is to educate. If a school develops a policy to that end then teachers need to follow it, rather than being conscientious objectors or w/e just because they think it's too lenient. All the other teachers and students in the building had to learn the system, and suddenly your class is the exception to the rule? Like You're special or something? You have the right to dictate your own rules in your class?
No wonder his students kicked up a fuss.
Edit: he is not some kind of god ok. If students don't follow his rules they got a zero whether the school policy allowed for that or not. And now he's suffering the consequences of breaking the rules he should've followed. Either rules matter or they do not you cannot have one rogue teacher disillusioning all of his students making them feel that the system and it's rules only apply to them while their teacher gets to be above the law. Hes no hero, he's a hypocrit for trying to force people to obey his personal dictates, trying to force them to be more dutiful while ignoring his own duties.
Uhm, they're kicking a fuss FOR him, and took to twitter and facebook to support him. He still gave them time and extra assignments to make up for missed assignments. He's also doing this to create a scene in a sense to hopefully change/amend this into a policy that better supports the kids.
Basically, if one person got 100% on all the assignments, and another got 100% on half, and the other half he didn't do, they would still get the same mark (at least that is my understanding). How is this fair? How is this teaching the kids anything worthwhile (besides how the game the system)?
"Teachers were told to no longer give zeros. Instead an uncompleted test or assignment would be marked with a comment.
The student's mark would then be based on whatever work is done."
Comments by students: "He shouldn't even be teaching anymore. If he wants to hand out zeros, he should be doing some other job — not a teacher."
—Ryan Grouette, Grade 10
"If students show up they deserve a minimum mark. A zero seems a bit extreme."
—Cindy Smith, Grade 11
"I think he should be allowed to teach. He's a good teacher from what I hear."
—Cassandra Gregory, Grade 12
First off, your own quotation shows that student opinion was divided. Second, letting one teacher run his classroom likes its north Korea, with it's leader being able to set his own rules and having zero accountability to anyone, cannot be healthy no matter how good his intentions were. If a student refused to do the work a teacher assigned, and instead chose to do the work the way he personally thought it should be assigned, would you approve of that? I mean why even have rules or teachers anymore lets just have people run amok and teach themselves however they want. Authority doesn't matter, it's all about following your principles, am I right?
Or we could actually expect teachers to exhibit the same respect for the rules that we expect from students.
Its probably a more complicated issue than you make it out to be. Authority should generally be respected so that there is some good order in school systems and issues are debated rather than chaotically changed at the teacher level. But it could also be that some school policies are poorly thought out and desperately require revision, but no one is talking about it or willing to debate it because the status quo supports schools in other ways (perhaps they get more money somehow). If this teacher sees that the results of the school's policy is actively damaging their students ability to learn both to earn good grades and to practise a strong work ethic, and he has no other recourse, then he should have the right to protest in some way, or do something that will have a more immediate impact that could spur change at the higher levels.
Secondly there are substitute teachers, so I don't think the students are too adversely affected by this; its mainly just the teacher who is on the line. But you need some mechanism for strong feedback, just like how people can shut down an industry and walk off the job as part of a union. I know its not the same but I think its similar...people should be allowed to send these kinds of messages if they want to, its a hallmark of living in a democratic society. (If anything, that's a good lesson for the students! So long as they don't take it to an extreme).
While it makes sense that kids who don't turn in work should get zeros, the fact of the matter is he went against the school grading policy. I mean, it seems to me this guy has a hair up his ass because lazy student's wouldn't get severely punished for not turning in work so he took action. In a way it kind of makes him a tragic hero, but at the end of the day he knowingly and deliberately went against school grading policy. I think the school had every right to fire him, although it does seem a tad drastic.
Crazy news stories just don't feel the same without the country bashing. Hopefully the next sensationalist story will come from the good ol' USA so things can start feeling normal around here once again.
Back in the days when I was in school they gave us zeros for incomplete work then they suspended us for it, and gave us zeros on all the work we missed.
I apologize, I probably came off more harsh than I meant to. If the teacher was really doing this for his students, I can respect that. I can even respect his methods. I am Just a bit ticked off at some of the attitudes I see herein, people having a ton of sympathy for the teacher while displaying absolutely none for the students this program was at least partially designed to help.
When people exhibit unending sympathy for a teacher who failed to conform to academic standards and absolutely no sympathy for students who do the same, I feel obliged to point out their hypocrisy. How can you advocate a rigorous, tough approach to students, forcing them to conform to all their educators expectations and dismissing them as simply lazy when they do not, and then be all gung Ho about a teacher who fails to do so also. Every one is making a big effort to understand the complex motives that this teacher had, and how noble they actually were, and how the system should maybe change to help teachers like him more.... But when it comes to students, lets just fail them if they don't conform, no matter their reasons.
And yeah I think this particular grading program is dumb just like everyone else, just annoys me how much smart kid arrogance this thread has brought out. Straight up leniency is not the answer, but neither is simply letting kids fail. For a start, we need to display at least as much sympathy for students who break rules and whose actions express contempt for the current state of academia as the teachers who do so.
"The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar developed in south-central Mexico and Central America required the use of zero as a place-holder within its vigesimal (base-20) positional numeral system"
My teachers always told me "if you dont turn in the work, what's there to grade?" It made perfect sense whenever I got zeros for not handing in work... and from what it says in the article the teacher also offers remedial time to people falling behind/need help. What more could they need?
On the other hand, while I dont agree with the school grading policy, a teacher just going off on his own to teach/grade a class in his own style against school policy is asking for trouble.
So, are the "students" that make the argument that this homework is meaningless the same "students" that expect society to pay for their higher education, as if it's a Right ? Are these the same students bitching about having to pay a bit more in whatever part of Canada that recently increased the student contribution amount ? It seems if their education were so important to them, they wouldn't be bitching about doing homework. When I was in school, sometimes I did my homework, sometimes I didn't, but it was never because I thought it shouldn't have been assigned. That's just stupidity. Since when does the student determine how to teach the course ?
No zero policy is not an academic standard that is exactly why schools changed it "secretly" The problem is the majority of students are clueless, arrogant and self entitled. And the nail in the coffin is the parents who are the same. I was only able to last 3 years as a teacher before I totally lost faith with humanity and quit. You get disrespectful and disruptive students that fail exams, don't do homework, show up late every class and get pissy when I separate them from their friends. I am not permitted to fail these students despite them being unable to complete even my dumbed down tests. In fact I was told I needed to give the exorbitantly high marks. Why? Because the school didn't want parents calling to complain about the teachers that are not doing their jobs because their student is actually the top student in the class blah blah.
First of all, I totally support the fact that this teacher got suspended.
The teacher is trying to teach his students about the real world, but he, himself, does not fully understand the real world. He is trying to show his students that there are consequences for their actions. As a result, he must understand his own actions have consequences as well. He knows what the rules are and he purposely defied it. Just like how his students knows what the consequences of not completing an assignment, he knows the consequences of not abiding by the rules.
There should not be an exemption for him. If he has a problem with the system, he can try to convince the school board or administrators.
The real world is shaped where people need to confirm in order to succeed. Only a select few are successful by rebelling. But for the vast majority of us, confirming is our best option. It's sad, but this is how our world is shaped.
what is this bullshit no zero policy? Whats to stop people from getting a high score on 1 or 2 assignments and then stop doing them alltogether? Does this apply for exams also? :/
Anyways most teachers wont go full nazi and not recieve any assignments if they are not submitted on time. They accept late work for some deductions. If you just cant be bothered to even do it late, then 0 sounds like the right score for you.
So kids could get a perfect mark on one assignment and then just skip everything else all semester, and the result would be a perfect mark for the semester? How does that benefit the student at all, or society?
which the school requires under its grading and reporting practice.
That's all there is to it. Argue about why the school requires that, don't defend the teacher for breaking the rule (though defending his opinion is a different thing, but it seems many are doing the first). We don't know all the details of how the classroom is, how they grade things, whether their grade is curved or no, what "not completed' actually means or whether or not it differs from teacher/class to teacher/class.
Oh well, this is what happens when we get "feel good" psychiatrists telling people how to raise kids - they tell people how to do it, but they are not accountable for the results.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure that kids generally know what is expected of them to get a good grade in their classes. The know what teachers they can slack off for and what ones they have to do all their work. It's pretty common for people to be lazy then blame someone else for their bad grades even though the standards were established long before you ever showed up. Millions of people had to go through the same as some of you put it "shitty" grading process. They aren't going to change it just because you can ace the test without studying. Guess what, some people can't. You knew you had to do the shitty project in order to get the grade you deserved. You chose not to. Therefore you don't deserve it. You deserve the grade you earn according to the scale that you no doubt already knew about. I'm pretty sure, lazy kids don't get blindsided by bad grades. They knew they didn't do shit. They just feel entitled.
Michael Phelps is bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled of a swimmer than everyone else. He can beat the best of them at almost anytime. Should we give him a gold medal just for showing up? We all know that he "could" beat the people who beat him nine times out of ten. Probably just an off day. No. You get the grade you earn. Simple as that.
no, but we also should not refuse to give him a medal at all if he wins his race just because he didn't go to the pre-race photo shoot, or just because he didn't go to the post-race press conference.
which the school requires under its grading and reporting practice.
That's all there is to it. Argue about why the school requires that, don't defend the teacher for breaking the rule (though defending his opinion is a different thing, but it seems many are doing the first). We don't know all the details of how the classroom is, how they grade things, whether their grade is curved or no, what "not completed' actually means or whether or not it differs from teacher/class to teacher/class.
wouldnt most people agree that this no zero policy is actually counter productive for the educational standards? Lets face it, this is simply in place to artificially raise the grades so the schools can get funding. Shouldnt the ideal goal of teachers be improving the kids' education? While there is always a grey area on what constitutes acceptable protest for an unjust law or rule, i think most people would agree that what the teacher did was a noble thing.
Nevertheless, this is a pretty tough issue to tackle. The fault cant be placed on any one institution. Governments need a way to evaluate schools for funding. The most straight forward way is to look at grades and standardized tests. Public schools need funding. Schools in lower socioeconomic areas especially need some help. Ideally, this would come from better teachers or a change in curriculum, but these things require money, which they cannot get if they dont raise grades. Its a catch 22 and they are forced into artificially raising the grades. Some kind of overarching reforms need to be made in education...
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
totally disagree with you
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
if you're extremely knowledgeable you should be doing better than the average kid if you are putting out the same effort. it sounds like homework still accounts for a chunk of your mark and that is dragging you down. why don't you just.. iunno.. do it if it's that easy. everyone has to do monotonous tasks, that's the effort part of it.
If you are acing every test without studying for them, I hardly think it should matter much whether you wrote that retarded pretend diary your english teacher wanted you to write for class.
If you are told that the diary is part of your grade, then you'd better do it if you want a good grade. If it's not graded, then you're right.
Agreed. I'm pretty sure that kids generally know what is expected of them to get a good grade in their classes. The know what teachers they can slack off for and what ones they have to do all their work. It's pretty common for people to be lazy then blame someone else for their bad grades even though the standards were established long before you ever showed up. Millions of people had to go through the same as some of you put it "shitty" grading process. They aren't going to change it just because you can ace the test without studying. Guess what, some people can't. You knew you had to do the shitty project in order to get the grade you deserved. You chose not to. Therefore you don't deserve it. You deserve the grade you earn according to the scale that you no doubt already knew about. I'm pretty sure, lazy kids don't get blindsided by bad grades. They knew they didn't do shit. They just feel entitled.
Michael Phelps is bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled of a swimmer than everyone else. He can beat the best of them at almost anytime. Should we give him a gold medal just for showing up? We all know that he "could" beat the people who beat him nine times out of ten. Probably just an off day. No. You get the grade you earn. Simple as that.
no, but we also should not refuse to give him a medal at all if he wins his race just because he didn't go to the pre-race photo shoot, or just because he didn't go to the post-race press conference.
if those photo shoots and post race conference were incorporated into your rankings, then yea, he wouldnt get the medal by not showing up.
So the teacher is a hero for refusing to do what was assigned because he thinks its dumb, but no mercy for any student who does the same.
I mean you realize it's a little self contradictory to say "students should shut up and do what's assigned no matter what it is" and then support the teacher for doing the exact opposite.
There's better ways to learn than by rote, many professors realize this and allow you to skip whatever so long as you pass the exams. Others let you devise your own projects. But no, i guess it's more important to turn kids into disillusioned, unquestioning robot drones who are accustomed to the systems double standards.
I got a -1 once no joke. It was aimed to publicly humiliate me. Gathered my friends in class and left mid class and went to the IT coordinator. Got that cunt to apologies to me but she got of way to light. Lucky for me the next year my class was assigned a different teacher who actually worked with me.
Why is this so much fuss then ? We can get zeros to if you do not do your projects or turn in your papers. Thats just normal no stuff to grade = 0 and everything wrong = 1
On June 03 2012 19:21 DarkEnergy wrote: I got a -1 once no joke. It was aimed to publicly humiliate me. Gathered my friends in class and left mid class and went to the IT coordinator. Got that cunt to apologies to me but she got of way to light. Lucky for me the next year my class was assigned a different teacher who actually worked with me.
Why is this so much fuss then ? We can get zeros to if you do not do your projects or turn in your papers. Thats just normal no stuff to grade = 0 and everything wrong = 1
Interesting. On the whole 'grading effort/homework vs pure knowledge/skill/test marks grading', a lot of posts in this thread disregard the differences with education systems in different countries. Unlike USA, in plenty of Europe countries the only result of your high school marks would be a national-wide exams. For the subjects the recipient wants to take those exams in (others would default to their average last school years grade, but matter very little for college applications).
For example, in Latvia, applying to a uni, the average grade points would be used to separate rankings between students who had same weighted exam marks sum for necessary 2-4 subjects. Because of that, a lot of students, me included, decided to do skimp out on course attendance and homework and just barely pass to be allowed to take the end exam. Doing homework on a subject that you're well ahead of the curve in is often unnecessary. Yes, homework certainly reinforces your knowledge; however, I found that the only thing it improves when you already understand the material, is your execution speed. Which is still good, of course, but not crucial. What if you already solve most math problems as fast as it takes you to write them down? There's still 100 of them you'll have to do, and simply going with immediately giving the answer doesn't cut it with the teachers. You need to show the solution. What if your understanding of physics is good enough(for high school, at least), that, knowing physics formulas(and what they are based on), you can solve any of the textbook homework tasks on the problem? You might see new approaches occasionally during homework, and that'll make you recognize them faster on tests, but what if you already finish those in half the given time, anyway? What if you wrote essays, stories, etc, for multiple years in your free time? Do you really need to write a basic, extra one per subject every few days for homework? There's an example like this for pretty much every subject.
Doing homework that is based on the 'no one is left behind' approach can be easy, relatively useless.(compared to the other things you could be doing, depending on how productive you are) It doesn't take a genius or even being smart; a student simply needs to be at the top of the curve in that given subject(plenty overlaps, of course).
Same for attendance. Some people just learn faster on their own than in a classroom, where teacher might be repeating material based on the low end of the knowledge curve a good portion of the time. I just prepared to read the textbook on my own and attend the bare minimum of classes. A good sc2 analogy would be to make a high masters player watch gold league stream repeatedly. That's a bad thing to force. No matter the skill distribution in the classroom(i mean private schools, etc - with the scholarships for those who can't afford it), there always will be a top and low end. And the top end will be bored as hell - there is no need to force them.
A lot of teachers in my school did cool stuff like giving custom homework for smarter kids to keep them challenged. There also were cases of teachers giving good grades despite some missed homework or classes, if you very actively participate in the classes you attend and do a great job on the assignments you do complete(and do great on the tests). This obviously helps. Because even if the student thinks he can ace the exams at any point, it doesn't mean his parents do not care about his present marks .
Some teachers, of course, proceeded to be like the one this thread is about. If you first show them how skilled you are, most of them would be more lenient, but some were strict just no matter what. I usually made my point to them by getting into a 'barely passing zone' and skipping a lot afterwards. I guess if there was such thing as GPA and it mattered over here, I'd have to 'suck it up'. But I would hate the system for it.
The argument 'if it is so easy, why not do it anyway?' applies often, but far from always. First, easy work can take a lot of time anyway, if there is a lot of it - in case of math, physics, etc. You are required to show the process of your solution anyway in most schools; Second, when you are skilled, you become a slave of your skill. You cannot just do a shoddy job, you kinda have to be thorough. It can easily take more time to make an essay for a skilled person than it is for unskilled, for every part of your essay would have a purpose. Hell, you even might be left unsatisfied by the end result and decide to redo certain parts of it, just because you can think that you can do better(even if the previous variation was an easy A anyway). But it does take plenty of time.
The argument of 'you should just do what is expected of you' is a bit silly. Yes, high school kids aren't very good at thinking for themselves, but, IMHO, they should anyway. People do need to learn to think for themselves at some point, right?
Now, for the preparing for real life, self-discipline, etc argument. In real life, you're expected to deal with the hand you are dealt. Indeed. Well, point is, what you take for the hand you are dealt is not always what it is. There are always alternate solutions. You don't like your boss? You can try to change him slowly with reasonable arguments, circumvent around him higher up the chain, switch department, etc. Rarely ever is the blind 'sucking it up' approach actually the best solution. Persistence is great, but not when it is persistence in mediocrity. What a person needs, in my opinion, is the discipline to make the best choice that they can find. If doing homework in school is indeed an inferior choice to things you prefer to do in that time(in my case, it was programming; but there are plenty examples) - then it's not a responsible choice to take. It is a decent choice, but not the best one.
Of course, a lot of smart kids decide to skip out on attendance and homework to do stuff that's worse for them. They are just kids, after all. My point is, what they do with their "extra" time wouldn't be much worse; and I'd rather there was a choice in the first place.
I won't comment much on homework/attendance effect on grades in USA, because I don't know how it works precisely, and what are its advantages\disadvantages. But if you're definitely forced to do menial tasks to get good GPA, and you need it to apply for a top college/university, then it sucks. But if there are alternative routes, such as taking exams earlier, taking specific university exams, whatever - then its not so bad.
On June 03 2012 19:03 Zahir wrote: So the teacher is a hero for refusing to do what was assigned because he thinks its dumb, but no mercy for any student who does the same.
I mean you realize it's a little self contradictory to say "students should shut up and do what's assigned no matter what it is" and then support the teacher for doing the exact opposite.
There's better ways to learn than by rote, many professors realize this and allow you to skip whatever so long as you pass the exams. Others let you devise your own projects. But no, i guess it's more important to turn kids into disillusioned, unquestioning robot drones who are accustomed to the systems double standards.
Very much this.
Whether the pupils should complete the assignments given depends upon the merits of the assignments, and the way the teacher frames and uses those assignments. Treating it any other way places bureaucracy over education... much like suspending a teacher for deviating mildly from a grading guideline.
That's America for you... A no-zero policy. What else should you get if you fail to turn in your work before a deadline? Has anyone thought about the fact that schools should teach students to be responsible and organize themselves, and if not, they have to live with the consequences? "Unable to evaluate" instead of giving a zero...
Lol education is joke in other countries too? well that good to know ... :S
Pfft if the kids are being lazy then of course they should get a zero. Shouldnt sugar coat if for the students/parents. NS of work wont fly if they want a uni/tafe degree and for sure wont in the workforce. Might as well get used to it now.
I do find it kind of interesting that the majority of people who bashed on me for saying I hate my english teacher (the reason being "you'll always have bad bosses, just learn to obey") thinks that this teacher did the right thing, when he's basically saying NO to his boss and getting fired for it.
On June 03 2012 19:03 Zahir wrote: So the teacher is a hero for refusing to do what was assigned because he thinks its dumb, but no mercy for any student who does the same.
I mean you realize it's a little self contradictory to say "students should shut up and do what's assigned no matter what it is" and then support the teacher for doing the exact opposite.
There's better ways to learn than by rote, many professors realize this and allow you to skip whatever so long as you pass the exams. Others let you devise your own projects. But no, i guess it's more important to turn kids into disillusioned, unquestioning robot drones who are accustomed to the systems double standards.
Its sensible enough that he would get fired/suspended for going against the school policy. I dont think there are any arguements against that. Im sure this teacher knew the risks when he did what he did. That doesn't mean what he did was "wrong."
Almost nothing is really black and white in this world. If the teacher was assigning math questions for a history class or something, perhaps the students could be justified in not doing them. That doesnt mean they shouldnt fail for it if that is clearly outlined in the syllabus. They would have to go to the school board and make the complaint. The teacher would most likely be fired. However, if the teacher has a sensible course outline and you decide to just not follow it due to your belief that only exam scores matter, it would be harder to make an appeal when you fail the course.
Not all rules are equally just or viable, but if you break them, you must face the consequences unless the rule can be ammended.
On June 03 2012 19:21 DarkEnergy wrote: I got a -1 once no joke. It was aimed to publicly humiliate me. Gathered my friends in class and left mid class and went to the IT coordinator. Got that cunt to apologies to me but she got of way to light. Lucky for me the next year my class was assigned a different teacher who actually worked with me.
Why is this so much fuss then ? We can get zeros to if you do not do your projects or turn in your papers. Thats just normal no stuff to grade = 0 and everything wrong = 1
If this is true it is disgusting the way you acted, and speaking about her.
Too bad they couldn't kick you out of school forever.
On June 03 2012 19:21 DarkEnergy wrote: I got a -1 once no joke. It was aimed to publicly humiliate me. Gathered my friends in class and left mid class and went to the IT coordinator. Got that cunt to apologies to me but she got of way to light. Lucky for me the next year my class was assigned a different teacher who actually worked with me.
Why is this so much fuss then ? We can get zeros to if you do not do your projects or turn in your papers. Thats just normal no stuff to grade = 0 and everything wrong = 1
If this is true it is disgusting the way you acted, and speaking about her.
Too bad they couldn't kick you out of school forever.
Am I missing something? Unless my reading fails me, he didn't even say what he did to her in order to have her give him a -1 O.o...?
Gameguard: thanks for the reasoned reply. I have no issue with anything you said and the teacher is probably one of the better ones, since he actually cares enough to risk something.
My only issue is with people who seem to think all kids who don't do well in school are lazy idiots who deserve whatever they get. The school system isnt perfect, particularly before college. Nor does everyone learn the same way, or thrive in the same setting... And contrary to what some believe, life does not call for absolute conformity to ones setting, you can choose the work and workplace that is right for you. I believe some recognition of the systems imperfections and the burdens it places on individuals should come into play whenever we judge students -- not just teachers.
Where I live in Canada, it's standard for every teacher to give 0 to people who don't hand in. In fact I've never had a teacher that doesn't give zeros. They have it on everything you sign at the start of the year and every teacher warns you about it before doing stuff, and when you get your slips for mid term and things it tells you how many zeros you have.
The school should have just outlawed the 100 point scale and moved to a 5 point scale. It would have fixed the problem that probably see, and no one would have been the wiser. You can still give kids 0s, but since 0 /= 0 they would have gotten what they wanted.
The whole to give 0s or not isn't a coddling issue, it is a mathematical one.
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
Seriously? Ever since I can remember if you didnt hand in your work you got a zero, end of story. Shit like this is the reason there are tons of kids in college now who cant do algebra.
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
The unfortunate thing is that posts like yours and mine mostly fall on death ears because the topic is "education" which everyone is an expert in since they've been students before.
I work part time as a college instructor, and I've gotten far too many students who are shocked when they fail a class because they didn't turn in any homework.
I feel the need to point out that I'm not a super demanding instructor either. I will remind them that deadlines are coming up, I will give extensions if they have a legitimate reason they need them, and I do accept late work up to a point (though at a slight grade penalty). Despite that, I have had quite a few students who just decide not to turn anything in at all and then go to administration and complain that I am picking on them when they fail.
On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote: My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
I agree that knowledge of the subject should trump effort but usually the two go hand in hand. However, when you have a truly good command of the subject matter, the work is easier. This is a true story from when I was at school:
I walked in to one of my first GCSE English classes and turned in an essay on Romeo & Juliet that was 3 pages long, the rest of my class turned in their papers, which were much longer, too. My teacher, by the name of Mrs Dobbs, stopped ,me and said "this is only three pages long, I asked for a two thousand word essay" I replied "I didn't need two thousand words, I needed five hundred and seventy two" (don't remember the exact value but you get the idea). She looked at me with that look teachers give you when they think you are being a smart arse and said "I can tell you already that you have failed this assignment" to which I replied "Read it, if anyone else in this class shows a better understanding of the subject material in their essay, then I will re-write my essay and waffle on for an extra fifteen hundred words, if they don't then I will expect an A*" ('A*' is the highest GCSE grade). After reading my essay, I was given an A*.
That story probably sounds like I was a cocky twat, and I was. The part I don't tell at the start is that I went to stage school from the age of 6 and that I had been studying Shakespeare for many years, my understanding of the subject matter came from many hours of reading, studying and being told I was wrong. The simple fact is that if you are gifted in a subject, getting a high grade is easy and you should enjoy being in the lessons. I never spent more than an hour per night doing homework and got top grades in English, Science, Music, Drama and Maths. I got Okay grades in Geography, French and Home Economics because I wasn't very good at the, didn't enjoy them and had to work harder if I wanted a good grade.
When you actually take your exams, whether your teacher likes you or not is irrelevant as your coursework and exams are marked by someone who has never met you. Your grade is down to how well you cover the subject material or how many questions you answer correctly and that is the way it should be.
If two equally gifted scientists perform a study on the same thing, one does it in two weeks and the other does it over five years, which do you imagine would get better, more verifiable results? You get out what you put in, working hard at school means you can work less hard later in life. Good grades open doors, just having a university degree opens many more because it shows you can dedicate yourself to something and stick with it. In an ideal world there would be ways for students gifted at exams to have their mark based solely on exams and those who are good at essays and coursework to be graded only on those, but we don't live in a perfect world.
more than that, you deserve a zero. no work, no credit.
a grade has to be objective. if a kid feels bad because of it, let the parents/guidance counselor console them. if a teacher has reason to suspect that there are extenuating circumstances, almost all will work with the students.
the real solution to this is to go year-round and run school 9-5 giving kids lots of time for P.E., socializing, studying and doing homework rather than the joke of a schedule we use now.
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
The unfortunate thing is that posts like yours and mine mostly fall on death ears because the topic is "education" which everyone is an expert in since they've been students before.
Because you 2 are experts yourself? What you present is an opinion with arguably flawed premises, which is fine, because what everyone else is presenting (and can present) is the same.
I think the trend you are misreading as being tougher on the students is in fact a trend towards stop softening up on students - because catering, and carrying them through isn't helping them, but the equivalent to pissing in the pants.
I think EVERYONE can agree that failing students is a bad thing, but what you call are horrifying trend is that the "zero advocates" have discovered that letting students pass on who doesn't know the curriculum or has the workethic to prove that they know it is in fact worse than failing them.
You are also missing WHY "zero advocates" are arguing for a zero: It is because the person has produced ZERO content. Despite multiple options in form of turning it in late, doing another assignment, taking a test to correct their mistake. If you read the OP the teacher is present at school after hours 3 days a week. His office door is open for all students and alternate solutions can be found to ensure they don't get the 0%. With these possibilities, how can you possibly argue for anything but a 0?
Using suicide statistics as a claim to argue that pressure from highschool is too much is somewhat of an intellectual fallacy - at the same time youth alcoholism and smoking has gone down - historically 2 activities connected with alleviating stress, yet we both know that the reason for this probably isn't due to homework/workburden going down, but rather a cultural shift.
Also, as an aside - isn't the saying called falling on deaf ears and not death?
EDIT: corrected a wrong wording in the suicide paragraph.
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
The unfortunate thing is that posts like yours and mine mostly fall on death ears because the topic is "education" which everyone is an expert in since they've been students before.
Because you 2 are experts yourself? What you present is an opinion with arguably flawed premises, which is fine, because what everyone else is presenting (and can present) is the same.
I think the trend you are misreading as being tougher on the students is in fact a trend towards stop softening up on students - because catering, and carrying them through isn't helping them, but the equivalent to pissing in the pants.
I think EVERYONE can agree that failing students is a bad thing, but what you call are horrifying trend is that the "zero advocates" have discovered that letting students pass on who doesn't know the curriculum or has the workethic to prove that they know it is in fact worse than failing them.
You are also missing WHY "zero advocates" are arguing for a zero: It is because the person has produced ZERO content. Despite multiple options in form of turning it in late, doing another assignment, taking a test to correct their mistake. If you read the OP the teacher is present at school after hours 3 days a week. His office door is open for all students and alternate solutions can be found to ensure they don't get the 0%. With these possibilities, how can you possibly argue for anything but a 0?
Using suicide statistics as a claim to argue that pressure from highschool is too much is somewhat of an intellectual fallacy - at the same time youth alcoholism and smoking has gone down - historically 2 activities connected with alleviating stress, yet we both know that the reason for this probably isn't due to homework/workburden going down, but rather a cultural shift.
Also, as an aside - isn't the saying called falling on deaf ears and not death?
EDIT: corrected a wrong wording in the suicide paragraph.
There are two things I agree with. The first is that I screwed up and should have said 'deaf' when I said 'death'. The second is that this is subjective and we are presenting opinions, etc..
The key thing I disagree with is that I presented arguments with flawed premises (I'm not talking about other people who I generally agree with here... just myself). It certainly is possible something I said is wrong but you haven't addressed me specifically with your most recent post, so I'm going with "I haven't presented arguments with flawed premises."
The rest of your post mostly shows that you don't actually understand what my position is (or are not talking about me). I'm also not trying to be condescending towards TL in particular with what I said in the post you quoted; I'm talking about a major problem that exists in most/all people.
edit: I'm curious how you would determine who is and is not an expert on this topic.
The school's policy is not to give out zeroes. The teacher gave out zeroes, and was warned against continuing in this behavior. Teacher continues to hand out zeroes. Teacher gets suspended. This all sounds right and proper to me.
I don't, therefore, understand defending the teacher as much. The school's policy is certainly debatable, but for this teacher to pointedly ignore this policy and continue to do as he pleased was clearly not the right call.
On June 04 2012 08:27 GeneralStan wrote: The school's policy is not to give out zeroes. The teacher gave out zeroes, and was warned against continuing in this behavior. Teacher continues to hand out zeroes. Teacher gets suspended. This all sounds right and proper to me.
I don't, therefore, understand defending the teacher as much. The school's policy is certainly debatable, but for this teacher to pointedly ignore this policy and continue to do as he pleased was clearly not the right call.
If the school's new policy was "every sentence a teacher says to the class has to start with the word 'jellyfish'" and a quality veteran of 30+ years wanted to keep structuring his sentences the non-ridiculous way that always works, then people would come to his defense despite him being insubordinate.
The case in the OP is much less severe, but it's the same idea.
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
The unfortunate thing is that posts like yours and mine mostly fall on death ears because the topic is "education" which everyone is an expert in since they've been students before.
Because you 2 are experts yourself? What you present is an opinion with arguably flawed premises, which is fine, because what everyone else is presenting (and can present) is the same.
I think the trend you are misreading as being tougher on the students is in fact a trend towards stop softening up on students - because catering, and carrying them through isn't helping them, but the equivalent to pissing in the pants.
I think EVERYONE can agree that failing students is a bad thing, but what you call are horrifying trend is that the "zero advocates" have discovered that letting students pass on who doesn't know the curriculum or has the workethic to prove that they know it is in fact worse than failing them.
You are also missing WHY "zero advocates" are arguing for a zero: It is because the person has produced ZERO content. Despite multiple options in form of turning it in late, doing another assignment, taking a test to correct their mistake. If you read the OP the teacher is present at school after hours 3 days a week. His office door is open for all students and alternate solutions can be found to ensure they don't get the 0%. With these possibilities, how can you possibly argue for anything but a 0?
Using suicide statistics as a claim to argue that pressure from highschool is too much is somewhat of an intellectual fallacy - at the same time youth alcoholism and smoking has gone down - historically 2 activities connected with alleviating stress, yet we both know that the reason for this probably isn't due to homework/workburden going down, but rather a cultural shift.
Also, as an aside - isn't the saying called falling on deaf ears and not death?
EDIT: corrected a wrong wording in the suicide paragraph.
I just want to address the point that a kid who has produced zero content and has earned a zero. It is important to consider which zero you are giving, and what the true impact of giving that zero really is. 1st off, 0 on a 5 point scale and 0 on a 100% percent scale are not the same. Secondly, studies have shown that when you give kids 0s, deserved in the teacher's eyes or not, most kids do not see it as a sign to improve or a lesson learned, but a reason to no longer care. Giving one kid a 0 can in some ways punish all of the students, not just the one kid.
I understand why people want to question experts, but (and this may not be you) I never understand why people can not accept that the experts very often do know more. I'm not saying I am an expert either.
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
The unfortunate thing is that posts like yours and mine mostly fall on death ears because the topic is "education" which everyone is an expert in since they've been students before.
Because you 2 are experts yourself? What you present is an opinion with arguably flawed premises, which is fine, because what everyone else is presenting (and can present) is the same.
I think the trend you are misreading as being tougher on the students is in fact a trend towards stop softening up on students - because catering, and carrying them through isn't helping them, but the equivalent to pissing in the pants.
I think EVERYONE can agree that failing students is a bad thing, but what you call are horrifying trend is that the "zero advocates" have discovered that letting students pass on who doesn't know the curriculum or has the workethic to prove that they know it is in fact worse than failing them.
You are also missing WHY "zero advocates" are arguing for a zero: It is because the person has produced ZERO content. Despite multiple options in form of turning it in late, doing another assignment, taking a test to correct their mistake. If you read the OP the teacher is present at school after hours 3 days a week. His office door is open for all students and alternate solutions can be found to ensure they don't get the 0%. With these possibilities, how can you possibly argue for anything but a 0?
Using suicide statistics as a claim to argue that pressure from highschool is too much is somewhat of an intellectual fallacy - at the same time youth alcoholism and smoking has gone down - historically 2 activities connected with alleviating stress, yet we both know that the reason for this probably isn't due to homework/workburden going down, but rather a cultural shift.
Also, as an aside - isn't the saying called falling on deaf ears and not death?
EDIT: corrected a wrong wording in the suicide paragraph.
There are two things I agree with. The first is that I screwed up and should have said 'deaf' when I said 'death'. The second is that this is subjective and we are presenting opinions, etc..
The key thing I disagree with is that I presented arguments with flawed premises (I'm not talking about other people who I generally agree with here... just myself). It certainly is possible something I said is wrong but you haven't addressed me specifically with your most recent post, so I'm going with "I haven't presented arguments with flawed premises."
The rest of your post mostly shows that you don't actually understand what my position is (or are not talking about me). I'm also not trying to be condescending towards TL in particular with what I said in the post you quoted; I'm talking about a major problem that exists in most/all people.
edit: I'm curious how you would determine who is and is not an expert on this topic.
I was actually asking a legitimate question - sayings are (imo) one of the harder things to learn when it comes to a foreign language, thank you very much for clearing it up.
My post was mostly a response to Warble, I guess I could've made that clearer by quoting him and you seperately. My apologies. As far as I've been able to gather you would much rather look at the entirety of the students situation (I think you made an example with a kid who had his mother shot/beaten up right?) than just outright failing them. This is obviously a good position to have as a teacher, but it is one that you actually seem to share with the teacher in case - he DID provide options for the students to avoid the zero, but they didn't take them. I guess where you and I (and the teacher in this case as a third part - I don't think he acted correctly due to bureaucratic reasons) differ are where to draw the line and how hard the consequences should be. This is a question of belief and experience with how students react which will obviously be different with you being from the states, and me being from Denmark.
And I'll gladly make up what constitutes an expert if you define in what context. The overall answer is that it is unlikely for any single person to hold the title as it will require knowledge within fields such as psychology, pedagogy, teaching methods, social science and multiple others. You could argue that a teacher (luckily) fulfills most of these roles, but neglecting the experience of people who have been through an education themselves would be foolish. In medicine we have a saying that the patient is the expert on his/her own body, and I dare say there is some truth in it, even if transferred to another field like discussing education.
EDIT:
To the poster above: How much leniency should we provide? The student obviously lacks the work ethic (which is part of the hidden curriculum at any level of school) to fulfill the assignment. Giving him a N/A and not count the missing assignments at the end of a year would lead to someone doing a 100% the first time and then just not do any more (exaggerated, but you get the point). Furthermore you have to realize it is a competition out there. Those with the highest grades get into the best schools. Artificially inflating the scale due to not giving out zeroes, because it is demotivational effectively punishes all of those who did their homework.
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
The unfortunate thing is that posts like yours and mine mostly fall on death ears because the topic is "education" which everyone is an expert in since they've been students before.
Because you 2 are experts yourself? What you present is an opinion with arguably flawed premises, which is fine, because what everyone else is presenting (and can present) is the same.
I think the trend you are misreading as being tougher on the students is in fact a trend towards stop softening up on students - because catering, and carrying them through isn't helping them, but the equivalent to pissing in the pants.
I think EVERYONE can agree that failing students is a bad thing, but what you call are horrifying trend is that the "zero advocates" have discovered that letting students pass on who doesn't know the curriculum or has the workethic to prove that they know it is in fact worse than failing them.
You are also missing WHY "zero advocates" are arguing for a zero: It is because the person has produced ZERO content. Despite multiple options in form of turning it in late, doing another assignment, taking a test to correct their mistake. If you read the OP the teacher is present at school after hours 3 days a week. His office door is open for all students and alternate solutions can be found to ensure they don't get the 0%. With these possibilities, how can you possibly argue for anything but a 0?
Using suicide statistics as a claim to argue that pressure from highschool is too much is somewhat of an intellectual fallacy - at the same time youth alcoholism and smoking has gone down - historically 2 activities connected with alleviating stress, yet we both know that the reason for this probably isn't due to homework/workburden going down, but rather a cultural shift.
Also, as an aside - isn't the saying called falling on deaf ears and not death?
EDIT: corrected a wrong wording in the suicide paragraph.
I just want to address the point that a kid who has produced zero content and has earned a zero. It is important to consider which zero you are giving, and what the true impact of giving that zero really is. 1st off, 0 on a 5 point scale and 0 on a 100% percent scale are not the same. Secondly, studies have shown that when you give kids 0s, deserved in the teacher's eyes or not, most kids do not see it as a sign to improve or a lesson learned, but a reason to no longer care. Giving one kid a 0 can in some ways punish all of the students, not just the one kid.
I understand why people want to question experts, but (and this may not be you) I never understand why people can not accept that the experts very often do know more. I'm not saying I am an expert either.
Not sure what the difference between 0 out of 5, and 0% is. To me, I always translate it into a percentage in my head.
The main thing here, to me, is that I am too honest. I would never game the system. If I get 100% on each of my assignments, and another student gets 100% on half their assignments and don't hand in the other half, we would get the same mark. How is this fair? How would this encourage other students to do their work?
Not sure about what studies happened, but in one of the links I posted, the teacher in this case said that one of his students transferred from a no-zero class into his class. In the other class, he finished ~50% of his assignments. However, after he transferred into his class, the student finished 100% of his assignments. This sounds interesting to me, and sounds to me maybe further studies should be done.
From my perspective grades in highschool shouldnt be handled too serious and you shouldnt hand out zeros if it is not for a good educational reason. Kids are kids and sometimes they need a while to develop their potential. I was a really bad student in highschool. No idea if it was hormones during puberty or just a lack of motivation but I did nothing for school and was really bad. In my final year I was close to failing my A-level exams (Abitur), thank god I had a teacher who was willing to overlook some mistakes I made. It saved me. Later in college I found the motivation to study. I am close to finishing law-school today and I am really successful. Worked in several big firms and even published some papers. For this discussion: Please remember, the primary goal of school isnt to give out grades or to judge your skill and work, the primary goal of school is to educate every single child. Not giving out zeros can be a good and working educational concept.
My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
The unfortunate thing is that posts like yours and mine mostly fall on death ears because the topic is "education" which everyone is an expert in since they've been students before.
Because you 2 are experts yourself? What you present is an opinion with arguably flawed premises, which is fine, because what everyone else is presenting (and can present) is the same.
I think the trend you are misreading as being tougher on the students is in fact a trend towards stop softening up on students - because catering, and carrying them through isn't helping them, but the equivalent to pissing in the pants.
I think EVERYONE can agree that failing students is a bad thing, but what you call are horrifying trend is that the "zero advocates" have discovered that letting students pass on who doesn't know the curriculum or has the workethic to prove that they know it is in fact worse than failing them.
You are also missing WHY "zero advocates" are arguing for a zero: It is because the person has produced ZERO content. Despite multiple options in form of turning it in late, doing another assignment, taking a test to correct their mistake. If you read the OP the teacher is present at school after hours 3 days a week. His office door is open for all students and alternate solutions can be found to ensure they don't get the 0%. With these possibilities, how can you possibly argue for anything but a 0?
Using suicide statistics as a claim to argue that pressure from highschool is too much is somewhat of an intellectual fallacy - at the same time youth alcoholism and smoking has gone down - historically 2 activities connected with alleviating stress, yet we both know that the reason for this probably isn't due to homework/workburden going down, but rather a cultural shift.
Also, as an aside - isn't the saying called falling on deaf ears and not death?
EDIT: corrected a wrong wording in the suicide paragraph.
I just want to address the point that a kid who has produced zero content and has earned a zero. It is important to consider which zero you are giving, and what the true impact of giving that zero really is. 1st off, 0 on a 5 point scale and 0 on a 100% percent scale are not the same. Secondly, studies have shown that when you give kids 0s, deserved in the teacher's eyes or not, most kids do not see it as a sign to improve or a lesson learned, but a reason to no longer care. Giving one kid a 0 can in some ways punish all of the students, not just the one kid.
I understand why people want to question experts, but (and this may not be you) I never understand why people can not accept that the experts very often do know more. I'm not saying I am an expert either.
Not sure what the difference between 0 out of 5, and 0% is. To me, I always translate it into a percentage in my head.
The main thing here, to me, is that I am too honest. I would never game the system. If I get 100% on each of my assignments, and another student gets 100% on half their assignments and don't hand in the other half, we would get the same mark. How is this fair? How would this encourage other students to do their work?
Not sure about what studies happened, but in one of the links I posted, the teacher in this case said that one of his students transferred from a no-zero class into his class. In the other class, he finished ~50% of his assignments. However, after he transferred into his class, the student finished 100% of his assignments. This sounds interesting to me, and sounds to me maybe further studies should be done.
There have been many studies, that's part of the thing. As far as how much work the kid did in a class, so much of that can be chalked up to quality of teaching. It could very well be that this teacher is really good, and thus kids do more work for him. Also, on a typical 4 point grading scale, flunking accounts for the bottom 20%, where as in the 100% scale, it accounts for 60%.
On June 04 2012 09:16 esperanto wrote: From my perspective grades in highschool shouldnt be handled too serious and you shouldnt hand out zeros if it is not for a good educational reason. Kids are kids and sometimes they need a while to develop their potential. I was a really bad student in highschool. No idea if it was hormones during puberty or just a lack of motivation but I did nothing for school and was really bad. In my final year I was close to failing my A-level exams (Abitur), thank god I had a teacher who was willing to overlook some mistakes I made. It saved me. Later in college I found the motivation to study. I am close to finishing law-school today and I am really successful. Worked in several big firms and even published some papers. For this discussion: Please remember, the primary goal of school isnt to give out grades or to judge your skill and work, the primary goal of school is to educate every single child. Not giving out zeros can be a good and working educational concept.
I had a biology teacher who failed everyone but 3 when he handed out the first grades in the gymnasium. The class ended up having the highest average in the country when the exam came. Were people pissed at him? Sure. Did it motivate them to work? Yes. Handing out 40% for not doing stuff (or N/A and thus not counting) can be even more demotivational, if not for the student getting it, then for the students putting in work, than a 0%.
EDIT: I'm going to bed now, I'll read this thread again tomorrow and try to respond, if I fail to respond to everyone, my apologies in advance.
No effort, no points. What's the point of substituting something for a zero if said substitution means the same thing? A real world analogue: you don't do work, you get fired. You don't get paid. Zero.
On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote: My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
You make several valid observations and points, but I would be wary of catch all statements such as the ones you make here. While I cannot, by any means, be referred to as an expert on education, I have spent a fair amount of time researching and analyzing America's educational system (though I understand that this topic occurred in Canada).
The most correct statement you make is that school's have been adopting more one-size fits all curriculum. This can be seen in multiple ways. The first is that schools are cutting more and more art programs. While the article in question refers primarily to elementary schools, this is a trend occurring across all levels of education. The dangers have been articulated by people such as Ken Robinson whose TED Talk speech can be found here. Another aspect of this one-size fits all policy is increased standardized testing and an increasing reliance on test scores to measure and award success. I feel that this is the consequence of the No Child Left Behind policy. There too are dangers of this trend.
However, I feel that your first and second points are invalid, as well as the conclusions you make concerning them. The first assumption is a trend of stricter guidelines. this has actually occurred in both manners, with the emergence of both 0-tolerance policies and its exact opposite. The second assumption is the increased study load. Looking at students in college, the average time spent partying has doubled, the average time studying has fallen dramatically.
From your observations, you observe the increase in suicides in youth groups. There exists no warrant for the conclusion that stricter school has caused this. You have observed a correlation and not a causation.
Finally, the remainder of your well-worded analysis revolves around responsibility and changes in life events. You found more flexibility as you grew older and that is excellent. Furthermore, I agree that there exists fewer and fewer options for younger adults and it has a negative impact on the youth mindset. But the trend is not universally towards a 0-tolerance system. This particular teacher had held on to the tradition of giving 0's in favor of the new modern alternative.
I agree, there are problems with the education system as we know it. But overarching generalizations are dangerous and incorrect and can lead to questionable decisions. I apologize if I came off as rude or insulting, I do not wish to do so.
On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote: My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
So are you suggesting that rising suicide rates correlates directly with giving zeros for zero-work? First off, many would argue that schools grade EASIER on the whole than they once did (this is certainly true on the college level -- look at grade inflation complaints and all that, especially at Ivy League schools). I think you have a lot more work to do if that is your argument. You seem to make gigantic leaps in logic. Moreover you rely almost entirely upon personal anecdotes -- not everyone feels the way you do about your own high school experience. You also make a lot of bald assumptions. Not a single study or peer-reviewed piece in there to back up your claims. I hate to be that one dickhead who bitches about not backing up claims yadda yaddablahblah, but in this case it's important to do so.
Am I just reading this wrong? Please tell me if I am
edit: With regard to the zero-policy in general, I agree a one-size fits all approach isn't ideal. But why should you do away completely with giving zeros? You suggest a reward-based approach. I take this as focusing on acknowledging good work over punishing bad (re: complete lack) work. Why not combine both? You didn't prove that zeros for zero-work are unnecessary because you only used your own experiences as evidence. Maybe if there really was a direct correlation between giving zeros and suicides then it would be a no-brainer to do away with zeros altogether, but I highly doubt this to be the case. So maybe teachers should be required to check in with students who frequently produce zero-work in order to determine the cause. If it's true as you suggest that they are receiving zeros due to outside stress, then they can be accommodated. However, what about all those who turn in no work due to drugs, partying, laziness, and so on? Are you suggesting none of these people exist, and that the threat of a zero is too much to persuade them to hand something in?
On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote: My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
Thanks for taking the time to make such a great, reasoned post. You said was what in my head better than I couldve said it.
I wish more people would realize that simply imposing "workplace" standards in the classroom does not necessarily make for better education. The adult world actually offers extraordinary freedom as far as what type of work one wants to do, what type of environment, what coworkers... Sure the standards are tough, but the point is you have choices. In school your every moment is regulated, your work is mostly rote busywork, and you are forced to take classes and do assignments you have zero interest in. You don't even get paid. Yeah theres benefits, but foresight and wisdom are traits that develop with age and experience. Sometimes all kids can see or feel is the negative that is right there in front of them. No choice, no immediate compensation, no sympathy at all from those who want to "prepare" you for the real world by imposing conditions very few adults would willingly tolerate.
This no zeroes policy may be a step in the wrong direction, but trying to turn education into some sort of factory floor or totalitarian, hive like office is a giant leap backwards. I for one believe we can find a system that does more than emulate the harsher aspects of the workplace, but also its empowering and fulfilling side. While this rule probably does nothing to take us there, it should still be something we aim for.
On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote: My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
Thanks for taking the time to make such a great, reasoned post. You said was what in my head better than I couldve said it.
I wish more people would realize that simply imposing "workplace" standards in the classroom does not necessarily make for better education. The adult world actually offers extraordinary freedom as far as what type of work one wants to do, what type of environment, what coworkers... Sure the standards are tough, but the point is you have choices. In school your every moment is regulated, your work is mostly rote busywork, and you are forced to take classes and do assignments you have zero interest in. You don't even get paid. Yeah theres benefits, but foresight and wisdom are traits that develop with age and experience. Sometimes all kids can see or feel is the negative that is right there in front of them. No choice, no immediate compensation, no sympathy at all from those who want to "prepare" you for the real world by imposing conditions very few adults would willingly tolerate.
This no zeroes policy may be a step in the wrong direction, but trying to turn education into some sort of factory floor or totalitarian, hive like office is a giant leap backwards. I for one believe we can find a system that does more than emulate the harsher aspects of the workplace, but also its empowering and fulfilling side. While this rule probably does nothing to take us there, it should still be something we aim for.
Sorry to be rude but could you please explain the great reasoning to me? I do not follow it. It stems from the point about suicide rates, but in that section I find no proof confirming the correlation...which undermines the value of everything that follows. In general some sub-points might be valuable, but on the whole I think he fails to prove that giving zeros is, on the whole, counter productive.
Most disturbing to that is that on the whole many believe high school & college are easier than they used to be.
I think that the issue lies more in getting the students to hand in papers in the first place, rather than just giving out zeroes if they don't hand shit in. But as he said, when he hands out papers saying you're going to get a zero, he gets tons of assignments, so it seems to be working. I don't really see an issue with it.
And also, to be fair; he's probably getting suspended because he's failing students, not because he's causing them undue stress. The more students fail (at least in canada) in a school, the less funding they get, thus they push to pass students even when they don't deserve it. It SHOULD create a system where teachers are trying their damned hardest to make the kids smart, but it just creates a system where you can sit on your ass, never do any homework, show up for exams and get a 60% pass if you don't bomb the exam.
To me a teacher that have to give zeros to most of his students,. is a failure as a teacher. The way i got it though is that the school wanted him to cook the stats like many teachers are required to do in the US especially, and he refused?
On June 03 2012 01:52 Roachu wrote: I imagine Canada have clear course descriptions like we have in Sweden and here we fail the fucking course if we don't meet the requirements. In Sweden we have IG (Swedish: icke godkänd, rough translation: YOU DID NOT PASS) and if you don't pass your assignments and tests you don't pass the course. This is totally warranted and everything else is bullshit.
Edit: I'm going to university now where they are more strict overall but IMO the same attitude should show across the board. It might be a shock to some kids in high school but education is one of the most important things in they world and if they don't understand what a 0 means for them they will suffer for it in the future.
Yeah, I'm in a different province so things function differently but in Canada as a whole, courses have specific requirements which have to be met. If I don't complete a single task, I get an "incomplete," in my transcript.
My policy on homework is that it should be employed only to increase understanding of the topic. Therefore, I believe the amount of work to be done should be dependent on the individual, and therefore not gradable. I don't find it particularly reasonable that I should be given a lower term grade because I didn't do the homework, and yet managed to get an A on every test. Why should I do work that I don't need to?
This policy only extends towards homework, I still do all my other work. I refuse to do homework; every class I take in high school requires that homework be worth 15% of the grade, and yet I maintain at least an 80% in every class.
On June 04 2012 10:02 Zalithian wrote: Got 100% of the material right. Gets a 100.
Did 0% of the assignment. Got 0% of the assignment correct. Got a zero.
Doesn't seem arbitrary to me.
On that scale, 65% (or 60 or whatever) being passing is what's arbitrary.
It's not actually arbitrary, although I'm sure there could be arguments for it being a different number.
If it's not arbitrary then please explain why/how.
It's arbitrary in the sense the passing grade could be 59%, 66%, or 70%. But it's not arbitrary in the sense that it's based on reason. IE getting 50% of material right is not enough to show understanding, thus the minimum passing grade should be above 50%, etc.
On June 04 2012 10:43 Brotossly wrote: My policy on homework is that it should be employed only to increase understanding of the topic. Therefore, I believe the amount of work to be done should be dependent on the individual, and therefore not gradable. I don't find it particularly reasonable that I should be given a lower term grade because I didn't do the homework, and yet managed to get an A on every test. Why should I do work that I don't need to?
This policy only extends towards homework, I still do all my other work. I refuse to do homework; every class I take in high school requires that homework be worth 15% of the grade, and yet I maintain at least an 80% in every class.
Homework is less about increasing knowledge or teaching you more about the topic, since most people don't learn very well on their own. It's more about instilling good work ethic, which is pretty useful.
I got through high school (with great grades until the final year, where they were still enough to get into a good university) without applying myself at all and had pretty few life skills when I was done. Probably would have helped if more people gave me zeros and stopped giving me great marks for shit I'd clearly written up half an hour before or just made up on the spot.
All I learnt from highschool was how to bullshit really well and get away with everything. I was an irresponsible little shit that thought I was bloody amazing by the end of it. It was stupid attitudes like what this school has that allows that sort of experience. Bloody sad. I dropped out of university of course and it wasn't until years later when I went back and applied myself that I learnt responsibility and work ethic and actually got something out of education for the first time in my life.
On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote: My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
Its sad to see so much effort put into a worthless post because you failed to read the OP.
He gives multiple opportunities for the student to finish an assignment, the only students that get a 0 are the ones that really want it. Those students could have put in a half-finished assignment and got a mark, but no, they haven't done a single thing despite being given extensions. To give you an idea of how easy his subject is, almost nobody fails his subject and only one student actually got a 0.
If giving extra-chances in an almost impossible to fail subject is still a hard-line approach, I'd love to see what your version of a soft line approach is.
On June 04 2012 11:23 micronesia wrote: sluggaslamoo he was responding to the posts in the thread more than to the event of the OP. No need to be so abrasive.
On June 04 2012 00:46 Warble wrote: My impression from reading through this thread is in line with a disturbing trend I have noticed in the larger society: that people seem to favour taking a harder line with high school students.
This trend includes:
Stricter assignment guidelines, such as giving zero for late submissions, to "prepare students for the real world."
Squeezing more topics into a curriculum already bursting at the seams because "this is an important subject."
Adopting a rigid one-size fits all approach.
The first one is most prevalent in this thread, but I suspect that many zero advocates fit with the other items - since they're all the result of a singular hard line approach.
Here are some of my personal observations on the matter:
Although the overall suicide rates for Western countries have generally decreased in the past half century, youth suicide rates have generally gone up - for example, they are roughly double what they were in 1960 in the USA. I consider youth those aged 12-25, i.e. high school through college and early stages of employment. This indicates that youth are under increasing pressure without adequate support. Quick Google reference (I'm sure you can find more): http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
We're basically talking about young people here.
As adults, it's easy to forget how hard life is as a youth. As a well-to-do youth, it can be difficult to understand how hard life can be for those living in less fortunate circumstances. If you look back on your own youth, you will wonder why some of those problems ever seemed like such a big deal. And since your current emotional resources, plus the benefit of distance and time, means you're seeing a much reduced version of those problems. As humans, we have a hard time truly empathising - even with our past selves.
Teenagers are often in the uncomfortable position where they have many responsibilities but little power/few rights. I think this is a vastly underrated point. A problem when you have the power to affect the outcome feels very different to a problem that you feel powerless over.
My personal experience: life got easier as I grew older. College was way easier than high school. Work was way easier than college. Why? Because although I had more responsibilities, I had more resources at my disposal. I had more emotional tools, I actually had money, I had more friends, I was free to choose my friends, I could choose my job - I chose to be there. Compare this to a typical student's high school experience: there's no choice (most students see the alternative as a life of poverty), the social environment is a minefield, no choice over peers or teachers, no power to negotiate the terms of assignments, the rules seem arbitrary and make no sense, the stakes seem high.
Going from above, the trend seems to be: colleges take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in the work place. High schools take a hard zero approach because that's the conditions in college and, later on, in the work place. The outcome? High school students - who are still children - are now forced to operate under the same conditions as adults, who have many more resources to draw from. The kicker? I found college to be much more flexible than high school, and I found the work places I've been in to be much more flexible than college.
The zero advocates seem to be focused on installing an environment that replicates the "real world" (as they see it in their minds) but are overlooking that the school's function should be teaching students the skills to cope and function with these responsibilities. If the aim is to teach this skill, then if a student is slow to pick up on this skill, then is it appropriate to punish them by preventing them from studying an unrelated subject? In other words - should students who have mastered mid level maths be prevented from studying high level maths if they're good at maths but slow in learning to cope with these "real world" conditions and be forced to retake mid level maths? If so, what is the point in forcing them to retake mid level maths when they have mastered it and are ready to move onto high level maths?
The teacher in the OP is a zero advocate who disagreed with his school's no-zero policy - and he felt he had the power to do something about it. It ended somewhat badly for him, but he felt that he had the power. And he's going for the appeal. How many students are likely to feel this level of empowerment? How many would feel they can actually appeal a decision made by an authority?
Many students these days have part-time jobs. They know what it's like in the real world.
I prefer an approach that focuses on outcomes, and the zero advocate approach's aim seems to be to punish. What's the point of punishing? Consider the reasons why a student might not hand up an assignment - is giving them a hard zero going to improve any of those outcomes over approaching them to find out what's wrong? The hard zero approach might make sense when evaluating performance in the real world, but a school's primary function is to educate, and evaluating a student's performance is an auxiliary function that is subservient to the primary function. The hard zero approach messes up these priorities.
This cuts to the zero advocates' argument that high school should be preparing students for the real world. They're just completely different environments with different things at stake - and enforcing stricter rules just doesn't contribute to any student's development.
Most of the work assigned by teachers are so divorced from a student's ability to apply the skills/knowledge in the real world. This point is important for those advocating the hard zero approach as getting students used to the real world - because how can you advocate a "real world" approach in that manner, but ignore the contradiction that schools fail to adopt the real world approach in another manner?
I'll also note that I am responding to the general zero advocate approaches posed in this thread, and not necessarily that teacher's specific approach.
Thanks for taking the time to make such a great, reasoned post. You said was what in my head better than I couldve said it.
I wish more people would realize that simply imposing "workplace" standards in the classroom does not necessarily make for better education. The adult world actually offers extraordinary freedom as far as what type of work one wants to do, what type of environment, what coworkers... Sure the standards are tough, but the point is you have choices. In school your every moment is regulated, your work is mostly rote busywork, and you are forced to take classes and do assignments you have zero interest in. You don't even get paid. Yeah theres benefits, but foresight and wisdom are traits that develop with age and experience. Sometimes all kids can see or feel is the negative that is right there in front of them. No choice, no immediate compensation, no sympathy at all from those who want to "prepare" you for the real world by imposing conditions very few adults would willingly tolerate.
This no zeroes policy may be a step in the wrong direction, but trying to turn education into some sort of factory floor or totalitarian, hive like office is a giant leap backwards. I for one believe we can find a system that does more than emulate the harsher aspects of the workplace, but also its empowering and fulfilling side. While this rule probably does nothing to take us there, it should still be something we aim for.
Sorry to be rude but could you please explain the great reasoning to me? I do not follow it. It stems from the point about suicide rates, but in that section I find no proof confirming the correlation...which undermines the value of everything that follows. In general some sub-points might be valuable, but on the whole I think he fails to prove that giving zeros is, on the whole, counter productive.
Most disturbing to that is that on the whole many believe high school & college are easier than they used to be.
I highly doubt it, but then again it's all relative. Since the 1980s, and that congressional report whose name escapes me that showed the us was falling behind in education, there has been a big push to tighten academic standards. I did some browsing through online forums, and found a lot of people saying that subjects like calculus, and even algebra were not taught in schools in their day. Unscientific I know, but I was unable to locate a good study on the subject. Props to anyone who can find one. Since no child behind was instituted, I suspect standards have begun to slip, due to the extreme pressure on the school system to pass higher numbers of students. Leading to a restructuring of rules that might do harm than good.
What I approved of in his post was that he managed to think beyond a black and white dichotomy of either helping students who are failing or rewarding those who excel. That has been the reflexive, knee jerk response of many of those responding to this thread, and it is those types of responses that I personally find counter productive. Simply supporting ever more rigorous standards without acknowledging the need for or possibility of a system which can bring out the best in all, or at least a greater proportion of students. Or equating school to a mere training facility for the workplace, without ever thinking about the crucial differences that make school a more alienating, coercive, restrictive, boring, and in some ways more difficult experience than working adulthood. That so many others would either fail or refuse to comprehend the flaws in the educational system, devoting all their focus instead to the flaws that students may have, struck me as ironic and disappointing.
I do not Agree that school is driving students to suicide. It may well be easier now than it was ten years ago. What impressed me about that particular post was that he realized education is not simply a choice between hard and easy. It can be about better methods vs worse methods, based on results and fairness and irrespective of difficulty. Forcing all students to do the same exact rote work dictated from above may be "fair" in a sense, but it is certainly not the best way to teach. The teacher recognized this himself, and chose to teach in a way that he felt was best for his students. And many here applaud him for it, rather than simply dismissing him as an idiot or renegade, yet never take the next intellectual step, instead they just dismiss all students who do the same (refusing to do what was dictated) as lazy idiots. Perhaps if we were not so quick to dismiss such students as failures, and gave them support and leeway as many would like this teacher to receive, then they too could achieve surprising results.
Doesn't that make for a more interesting discussion, a heathier discussion, than simply dismissing kids these days as spoiled and congratulating ones self for manning it up under tougher academic circumstances. That might be good for the ego, but it will never be good for education, or for the future. And that's what was impressive there, more people need to look beyond what they think is fair, and realize that a better system could be just as fair and still help motivate and uplift kids, just as the real world and its relative freedom tends to do. Before that can possibly happen though, there has to be an end to this view of students as lazy, irresponsible, unmotivated brats who deserve whatever their less-than-perfect educational system dishes out. Some are that bad, i would say most aren't.
I don't know enough about this situation to make an authoritative judgment, but I will say that in general, it's important as a teacher to fall into line with your school's policies. You may not agree with it, but the principal or administrators or whatever have their reasons, and they're not stupid, either. In fact, in some situations it may be a case where the majority of teachers agree with the policy but one teacher is defying instructions because he/she doesn't agree with the decision.
In this case, I will say that the "no-zero" policy doesn't seem to be one where you can not hand in things and face no consequences. It sounds like they will still fail the course if they don't hand in enough work. It's just that they're trying to follow up with students and make sure they eventually complete it, instead of letting them get a zero and move on.
"If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said."
On June 04 2012 11:47 Jacmert wrote: it's important as a teacher to fall into line with your school's policies. You may not agree with it, but the principal or administrators or whatever have their reasons, and they're not stupid, either.
Hahaha how I wish this was true. It should be true and I don't fault you for saying it, but it often isn't!
On June 04 2012 08:27 GeneralStan wrote: The school's policy is not to give out zeroes. The teacher gave out zeroes, and was warned against continuing in this behavior. Teacher continues to hand out zeroes. Teacher gets suspended. This all sounds right and proper to me.
I don't, therefore, understand defending the teacher as much. The school's policy is certainly debatable, but for this teacher to pointedly ignore this policy and continue to do as he pleased was clearly not the right call.
If the school's new policy was "every sentence a teacher says to the class has to start with the word 'jellyfish'" and a quality veteran of 30+ years wanted to keep structuring his sentences the non-ridiculous way that always works, then people would come to his defense despite him being insubordinate.
The case in the OP is much less severe, but it's the same idea.
It's not the same idea at all.
If I were to contest this policy, it would be on the basis that it puts far too much responsibility on the teacher to hunt down students for work, not that it's a terribly reasoned policy (if you read what the administrator says it's pretty well thought out).
Not that administrators and school boards aren't stupid. Many times they are. Many times they will get sweet talked by some bull shit researcher into buying their hyped up useless recycled shit and waste everyone's time, money, and effort. In every case they way to change a policy is not a unilateral "fuck you" to your boss. It's just stupid.
I never studied in highschool once. I half assed all of my homework and still got on the honour roll every semester in the "hard" classes (Chem, Physics, History, and Math). Hell I skipped one or two classes a day during my last term in grade 12. Homework never took me more than 30 mins a night and that was only if I really slacked off and left it until the night before. Thankfully all of my teachers either ignored homework marks if test scores were really high on the final or the homework was only like 20% of the final marks. There is pretty much no excuse for not handing in you work on time in highschool it's not hard, time is not super tight because it is very rare for someone in highschool to work full time and if you do it it usually makes your life easier to not get bitched at. It's a matter of responsibility imo meeting deadlines is an important part of life when you move on from highschool to college to work. Lot's of my profs just fail your paper if it is late or deduct heavy marks per day and if your not doing your work properly and on time you get fired. It sucks jumping through the hoops when you think you already know it all but there are usually options to skip them if you are confident in your abilities. Obviously there are exceptions like something tragic happening in a students life but the vast majority of kids who don't do homework and bitch about it are just lazy like I was.
I can understand people have a harder time than others but letting them not do work and get anything other than 0% is just silly. I work at a Autobody shop while I go to uni and if I don't make each car look 100% perfect by the time I am done I get in shit and if it keeps happening I would get my ass fired. I also have to do a stupid sheet at the end of each car that says a) I was the one who cleaned it b) do a check list of the things that need to cleaned. The sheet is stupid as fuck because why the fuck would you check that you didn't do something? But if I don't do it I get bitched at just like homework in high school. In real life you don't get partial pay cheques because you did a little bit and tried to pass that off or did nothing and you also have to do what your bosses wants no matter how dumb you may think it is. Your 18 when you finish High School your an adult at that point if you can't handle handing in a little bit easy homework that you can probably do in class your gonna have a rough life lol...
I agree there needs to be more flexibility in homework marking but not doing assignments and receiving anything other than a 0% is fostering lazyness. I know I would have never done homework if I wasn't being graded on it.
On June 04 2012 08:27 GeneralStan wrote: The school's policy is not to give out zeroes. The teacher gave out zeroes, and was warned against continuing in this behavior. Teacher continues to hand out zeroes. Teacher gets suspended. This all sounds right and proper to me.
I don't, therefore, understand defending the teacher as much. The school's policy is certainly debatable, but for this teacher to pointedly ignore this policy and continue to do as he pleased was clearly not the right call.
If the school's new policy was "every sentence a teacher says to the class has to start with the word 'jellyfish'" and a quality veteran of 30+ years wanted to keep structuring his sentences the non-ridiculous way that always works, then people would come to his defense despite him being insubordinate.
The case in the OP is much less severe, but it's the same idea.
It's not the same idea at all.
If I were to contest this policy, it would be on the basis that it puts far too much responsibility on the teacher to hunt down students for work, not that it's a terribly reasoned policy (if you read what the administrator says it's pretty well thought out).
Not that administrators and school boards aren't stupid. Many times they are. Many times they will get sweet talked by some bull shit researcher into buying their hyped up useless recycled shit and waste everyone's time, money, and effort. In every case they way to change a policy is not a unilateral "fuck you" to your boss. It's just stupid.
After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation for how it isn't the same idea. I'm not saying what you are talking about is bad... just that I don't see what problem you have with what I said.
On June 04 2012 08:27 GeneralStan wrote: The school's policy is not to give out zeroes. The teacher gave out zeroes, and was warned against continuing in this behavior. Teacher continues to hand out zeroes. Teacher gets suspended. This all sounds right and proper to me.
I don't, therefore, understand defending the teacher as much. The school's policy is certainly debatable, but for this teacher to pointedly ignore this policy and continue to do as he pleased was clearly not the right call.
If the school's new policy was "every sentence a teacher says to the class has to start with the word 'jellyfish'" and a quality veteran of 30+ years wanted to keep structuring his sentences the non-ridiculous way that always works, then people would come to his defense despite him being insubordinate.
The case in the OP is much less severe, but it's the same idea.
It's not the same idea at all.
If I were to contest this policy, it would be on the basis that it puts far too much responsibility on the teacher to hunt down students for work, not that it's a terribly reasoned policy (if you read what the administrator says it's pretty well thought out).
Not that administrators and school boards aren't stupid. Many times they are. Many times they will get sweet talked by some bull shit researcher into buying their hyped up useless recycled shit and waste everyone's time, money, and effort. In every case they way to change a policy is not a unilateral "fuck you" to your boss. It's just stupid.
After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation for how it isn't the same idea. I'm not saying what you are talking about is bad... just that I don't see what problem you have with what I said.
After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation how it is the same idea, but I do see evidence that you don't understand the policy.
Randomly saying the word jellyfish is just fucking stupid and not even remotely relevant in a comparison to a reasonable but controversial policy. There's nothing ridiculous about this policy because in theory students can still fail and be forced to repeat classes, they just don't get "0s" along the way. The teacher is supposed to hunt them down and harass/encourage/whatever them until they do the work. Whether or not they actually do get failed in practice is another story, but that doesn't really matter in the end because I can hand out 0s all day long and most kids still wouldn't be able to fail my class. The reality is that this no 0 system isn't much different (in practice) from a system with 0s and in fact there is a very strong argument that it is much better for the students. Like I said before however, it places a massive burden on the teachers (where there shouldn't be, not without significant compensation or additional resources).
That doesn’t mean students are coasting to graduation without doing the work, Schmidt said.
“When assignments are given, the expectation is that they will be done,” he said. “Really, we’re actually pursuing students to try to get them to demonstrate what they know.”
If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said.
“So this is not, in any way, making life easier for kids. It is, in fact, continually finding ways for them to actually demonstrate the work and demonstrate their knowledge,” he said. “We believe it’s a fairer practise to clearly lay out to students and often to parents through their progress reports what they have been assessed on and what level of performance they’ve achieved.”
Such feedback is much more motivating than a zero, Schmidt said. “Simply taking them off the hook with a zero that says they don’t have to do it anymore is actually not helping kids get to the learning.”
Well that is just annoying. That teacher is doing his job: grading his students the way it should be don. If someone gets a zero then they probably deserve it.
My school here that I graduated from this year had a.super cool school cop and he got fired from wearing a speedo during one of the school parties . Funniest thing ever haha
On June 04 2012 08:27 GeneralStan wrote: The school's policy is not to give out zeroes. The teacher gave out zeroes, and was warned against continuing in this behavior. Teacher continues to hand out zeroes. Teacher gets suspended. This all sounds right and proper to me.
I don't, therefore, understand defending the teacher as much. The school's policy is certainly debatable, but for this teacher to pointedly ignore this policy and continue to do as he pleased was clearly not the right call.
If the school's new policy was "every sentence a teacher says to the class has to start with the word 'jellyfish'" and a quality veteran of 30+ years wanted to keep structuring his sentences the non-ridiculous way that always works, then people would come to his defense despite him being insubordinate.
The case in the OP is much less severe, but it's the same idea.
It's not the same idea at all.
If I were to contest this policy, it would be on the basis that it puts far too much responsibility on the teacher to hunt down students for work, not that it's a terribly reasoned policy (if you read what the administrator says it's pretty well thought out).
Not that administrators and school boards aren't stupid. Many times they are. Many times they will get sweet talked by some bull shit researcher into buying their hyped up useless recycled shit and waste everyone's time, money, and effort. In every case they way to change a policy is not a unilateral "fuck you" to your boss. It's just stupid.
After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation for how it isn't the same idea. I'm not saying what you are talking about is bad... just that I don't see what problem you have with what I said.
After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation how it is the same idea, but I do see evidence that you don't understand the policy.
Randomly saying the word jellyfish is just fucking stupid and not even remotely relevant in a comparison to a reasonable but controversial policy. There's nothing ridiculous about this policy because in theory students can still fail and be forced to repeat classes, they just don't get "0s" along the way. The teacher is supposed to hunt them down and harass/encourage/whatever them until they do the work. Whether or not they actually do get failed in practice is another story, but that doesn't really matter in the end because I can hand out 0s all day long and most kids still wouldn't be able to fail my class. The reality is that this no 0 system isn't much different (in practice) from a system with 0s and in fact there is a very strong argument that it is much better for the students. Like I said before however, it places a massive burden on the teachers (where there shouldn't be, not without significant compensation or additional resources).
That doesn’t mean students are coasting to graduation without doing the work, Schmidt said.
“When assignments are given, the expectation is that they will be done,” he said. “Really, we’re actually pursuing students to try to get them to demonstrate what they know.”
If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said.
“So this is not, in any way, making life easier for kids. It is, in fact, continually finding ways for them to actually demonstrate the work and demonstrate their knowledge,” he said. “We believe it’s a fairer practise to clearly lay out to students and often to parents through their progress reports what they have been assessed on and what level of performance they’ve achieved.”
Such feedback is much more motivating than a zero, Schmidt said. “Simply taking them off the hook with a zero that says they don’t have to do it anymore is actually not helping kids get to the learning.”
Your quote I believe came from the CBC article?
What Schmidt is saying is basically useless information. The teacher that was assigning the zeros, basically did everything that Schmidt is saying. He pursued them to do it, gave them second chances, etc. However, if they did not use this options, and than they would receive a zero.
As I stated earlier, how the is it fairer? If a students does all the assignments, and another did one or two assignments, they could have the same mark. Fair, eh?
Lastly, how is giving a student a zero taking them off the hook? They're not off the hook. They don't have to do it anymore, but there is a repercussion.
Maybe a better method can be used to motivate them, but I don't think the no zero method is it. Even if administrators believe that those feedback would encourage them, but I would see is that most students would just learn to game the system.
As a student in the city of Edmonton, I think this is complete bullshit. Unfortunetly, most schools around here follow this practice, they have a 'no-zero policy'.
If a student deserves a zero, then that's what they get.
On June 04 2012 13:22 SimoNostalgia wrote: Well that is just annoying. That teacher is doing his job: grading his students the way it should be don. If someone gets a zero then they probably deserve it.
My school here that I graduated from this year had a.super cool school cop and he got fired from wearing a speedo during one of the school parties . Funniest thing ever haha
Is that what he should have done? Clearly, cops are acting professional by wearing speedos and partying. That's certainly how I think they're best upholding the law. :: rolls eyes :: Also: how is that relevant?
You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on what a teacher "should" be doing, as if you know what they should be doing. Teachers should be doing a lot of things. By being insubordinate, there was obviously a grey area as far as whether or not the teacher was doing his job. He clearly wasn't doing what he was told by his employer, but he may have been doing what he felt was best for his students. Which one is more important? Well, there's a spectrum. He needs his job, but he needs to be able to properly educate the students too.
That's complete bs, give the man his job back. Doing nothing is a 0, how can you possibly give a grade to something a student doesn't hand in. I can't believe the school district has such a dumb policy...
On June 04 2012 08:27 GeneralStan wrote: The school's policy is not to give out zeroes. The teacher gave out zeroes, and was warned against continuing in this behavior. Teacher continues to hand out zeroes. Teacher gets suspended. This all sounds right and proper to me.
I don't, therefore, understand defending the teacher as much. The school's policy is certainly debatable, but for this teacher to pointedly ignore this policy and continue to do as he pleased was clearly not the right call.
If the school's new policy was "every sentence a teacher says to the class has to start with the word 'jellyfish'" and a quality veteran of 30+ years wanted to keep structuring his sentences the non-ridiculous way that always works, then people would come to his defense despite him being insubordinate.
The case in the OP is much less severe, but it's the same idea.
It's not the same idea at all.
If I were to contest this policy, it would be on the basis that it puts far too much responsibility on the teacher to hunt down students for work, not that it's a terribly reasoned policy (if you read what the administrator says it's pretty well thought out).
Not that administrators and school boards aren't stupid. Many times they are. Many times they will get sweet talked by some bull shit researcher into buying their hyped up useless recycled shit and waste everyone's time, money, and effort. In every case they way to change a policy is not a unilateral "fuck you" to your boss. It's just stupid.
After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation for how it isn't the same idea. I'm not saying what you are talking about is bad... just that I don't see what problem you have with what I said.
After reading your post I see no evidence or explanation how it is the same idea, but I do see evidence that you don't understand the policy.
Randomly saying the word jellyfish is just fucking stupid and not even remotely relevant in a comparison to a reasonable but controversial policy. There's nothing ridiculous about this policy because in theory students can still fail and be forced to repeat classes, they just don't get "0s" along the way. The teacher is supposed to hunt them down and harass/encourage/whatever them until they do the work. Whether or not they actually do get failed in practice is another story, but that doesn't really matter in the end because I can hand out 0s all day long and most kids still wouldn't be able to fail my class. The reality is that this no 0 system isn't much different (in practice) from a system with 0s and in fact there is a very strong argument that it is much better for the students. Like I said before however, it places a massive burden on the teachers (where there shouldn't be, not without significant compensation or additional resources).
That doesn’t mean students are coasting to graduation without doing the work, Schmidt said.
“When assignments are given, the expectation is that they will be done,” he said. “Really, we’re actually pursuing students to try to get them to demonstrate what they know.”
If the work still isn’t done, a student might have to retake the class or find alternate ways to show they know the material, Schmidt said.
“So this is not, in any way, making life easier for kids. It is, in fact, continually finding ways for them to actually demonstrate the work and demonstrate their knowledge,” he said. “We believe it’s a fairer practise to clearly lay out to students and often to parents through their progress reports what they have been assessed on and what level of performance they’ve achieved.”
Such feedback is much more motivating than a zero, Schmidt said. “Simply taking them off the hook with a zero that says they don’t have to do it anymore is actually not helping kids get to the learning.”
What I said in the post you quoted was not taking a stance on the school's policy; it was pointing out (to the person I originally quoted) that there is a time to defend the teacher, despite him violating the new rules of his school. Again, I did not say that this is necessarily the time when we should be defending the teacher. Getting upset at me doesn't change the fact that you simply misunderstood my point.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
How is a teacher supposed to know how good you are in a certain subject if you don't hand in assignments? Also, just because someone does well on a test doesn't mean you can just skip everything else. School is not only about being good at a subject. It's also a place to somewhat learn dicipline. Which is learned by doing homework and actually attending.
At a job, you can't just attend 60% of the time you're schedualed. You must attend the whole 100% or when the job is complete, depending on what your career is. Also, many jobs have "homework" if you will. Where you must prepare for the next day or throughout the week on projects and assignement. Again, it's all dependent on the job. So even if you're the best at a certain subject, you will still have to actually work and attend which is what working is for the most part.
School is basically a place where you learn a wide range of things while preparing you for different jobs.
If you will not attend school or do assignments, prepare for repercussions. Just like if you bearly showed up at work or didn't do the work asked of you.
The system this school bored has for not completing assigments thing is for lazy people and shouldn't be incouraged.
On June 04 2012 13:22 SimoNostalgia wrote: Well that is just annoying. That teacher is doing his job: grading his students the way it should be don. If someone gets a zero then they probably deserve it.
My school here that I graduated from this year had a.super cool school cop and he got fired from wearing a speedo during one of the school parties . Funniest thing ever haha
Is that what he should have done? Clearly, cops are acting professional by wearing speedos and partying. That's certainly how I think they're best upholding the law. :: rolls eyes :: Also: how is that relevant?
You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on what a teacher "should" be doing, as if you know what they should be doing. Teachers should be doing a lot of things. By being insubordinate, there was obviously a grey area as far as whether or not the teacher was doing his job. He clearly wasn't doing what he was told by his employer, but he may have been doing what he felt was best for his students. Which one is more important? Well, there's a spectrum. He needs his job, but he needs to be able to properly educate the students too.
Well the "school" cop works for the school. Like a teacher works at a school. And he got fired like the teacher got suspended. That is how I find it relevant. Just a personal story.
If a teacher has been teaching for 35 years or so, that is experience right there. A zero is a grade. And real life does require due dates. If a student fails to turn in an assignment on the date it is required then a zero is appropriate. I feel bad for the teacher, because I feel he was given wrong judgement by his board. Their system should change, not the teacher. And besides, the teacher let his students turn in their assignments late, so there really should not be any problem with the teacher, just the students who were lazy to not turn in their assignments.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
How is a teacher supposed to know how good you are in a certain subject if you don't hand in assignments? Also, just because someone does well on a test doesn't mean you can just skip everything else. School is not only about being good at a subject. It's also a place to somewhat learn dicipline. Which is learned by doing homework and actually attending.
At a job, you can't just attend 60% of the time you're schedualed. You must attend the whole 100% or when the job is complete, depending on what your career is. Also, many jobs have "homework" if you will. Where you must prepare for the next day or throughout the week on projects and assignement. Again, it's all dependent on the job. So even if you're the best at a certain subject, you will still have to actually work and attend which is what working is for the most part.
School is basically a place where you learn a wide range of things while preparing you for different jobs.
If you will not attend school or do assignments, prepare for repercussions. Just like if you bearly showed up at work or didn't do the work asked of you.
The system this school bored has for not completing assigments thing is for lazy people and shouldn't be incouraged.
I also want to add that tests are a really bad indicator to show what you know.
There's a reason portfolios are so valuable in employment, because there's plenty of people out there with top grades who make terrible employees. In my first interview the employer didn't even give a damn about what I did at uni, he wanted to see if I had anything to show for it.
In the end we get educated so we can go out and work. Rarely do people remain as academics their whole life. A zero mark should be a wake up call for the student. I remember being shocked at how low my final score for year 12 was, and I ended up going back to school to fix it.
This happened for many students at my school, ironically because of the hand-holding, my school ended up having some of the worst performing graduates. Many of them re-did year 12, but we could have done without that extra year and less hand holding to make us feel much better than we actually were. Come exam time we all thought we were going to ace the test, only problem was, now we were up against students other schools.
What? When did teachers stop giving 0s? I'm not that old. When I was in high school still 3 years ago we got 0s for not turning stuff in. This teacher was in the right. This whole thing is just utterly ridiculous. We need to stop holding everyone's hand and just passing them because they're enrolled. If they aren't willing to do the work they don't deserve any credit.
Hmm, I fully agree on the teacher's part in giving out zeros to the students. Maybe it was because I was raised in a more "eastern" way, I believe that a student's duty is to do his or her daily set of work. I'm currently studying IB in an international school in Beijing, and am in my final year. For those of you guys who haven't heard of the IB, it is basically consisted of four different components, 3 higher 3 standard level subjects, a "theory of knowledge", an extended essay and CAS (Creativity, Action and Service). Each subject is graded from 0 to 7, with 7 being the highest. What I like about the IB is that you have to hit a certain grade quota in order to pass this 2-year diploma, or else you fail the entire thing. Now its not only the exams that factor into the grade, but courseworks as well. That means if you half-assed your coursework you are losing valuable points. The extended essay and TOK aren't really subjects, but completing them with either an AA/AB combo would give you 3 extra points, which is really valuable if you wanna apply to university and your grades haven't hit the makr the university is looking for. CAS is another thing, where you need to commit certain hours into various activies such as working at a charity or playing certain sports. You then have to write evidence and upload it to a website, where you have supervisors tracking your entire CAS career. If you fail CAS you fail the entire diploma, simple.
I guess what the IB is trying to do is to create a well rounded student, and prepare them for university life. I've asked various friends who just entered university, and I found out that those people that take IB have it easier as to intergrating into university life. Now I'm not trying to promote the IB or anything, but I feel that the purpose of school, high school to be specific is that it it suppose the train the students, not just educate them but "improve" their behaviour as well, and to prepare the students for university/adult life. The IB is a good example of such thing, as it removes laziness from the equation and forces a student to at least commit to some aspects of school work. Going back to the OP's point, giving zero might be a harsh way of punishing the students, but if all else fails I can only see as the only way to make the students go back on the right track. Life is harsh, and sometimes sacrifices are neccessary.
On June 04 2012 15:06 Shellshock1122 wrote: What? When did teachers stop giving 0s? I'm not that old. When I was in high school still 3 years ago we got 0s for not turning stuff in. This teacher was in the right. This whole thing is just utterly ridiculous. We need to stop holding everyone's hand and just passing them because they're enrolled. If they aren't willing to do the work they don't deserve any credit.
Yeah, wtf? So how does this work, do you get like a 70/100 for not turning in a homework assignment nowadays? What a joke.
On June 04 2012 13:22 SimoNostalgia wrote: Well that is just annoying. That teacher is doing his job: grading his students the way it should be don. If someone gets a zero then they probably deserve it.
My school here that I graduated from this year had a.super cool school cop and he got fired from wearing a speedo during one of the school parties . Funniest thing ever haha
Is that what he should have done? Clearly, cops are acting professional by wearing speedos and partying. That's certainly how I think they're best upholding the law. :: rolls eyes :: Also: how is that relevant?
You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on what a teacher "should" be doing, as if you know what they should be doing. Teachers should be doing a lot of things. By being insubordinate, there was obviously a grey area as far as whether or not the teacher was doing his job. He clearly wasn't doing what he was told by his employer, but he may have been doing what he felt was best for his students. Which one is more important? Well, there's a spectrum. He needs his job, but he needs to be able to properly educate the students too.
Well the "school" cop works for the school. Like a teacher works at a school. And he got fired like the teacher got suspended. That is how I find it relevant. Just a personal story.
If a teacher has been teaching for 35 years or so, that is experience right there. A zero is a grade. And real life does require due dates. If a student fails to turn in an assignment on the date it is required then a zero is appropriate. I feel bad for the teacher, because I feel he was given wrong judgement by his board. Their system should change, not the teacher. And besides, the teacher let his students turn in their assignments late, so there really should not be any problem with the teacher, just the students who were lazy to not turn in their assignments.
I don't necessarily agree with the system either; the teacher certainly does seem experienced and it seems he gives students plenty of chances to hand in their work. I was raised in schools where not doing your work = getting zeroes as well, and that made sense to us too.
That being said, surely there's a better way to get the policy changed than being insubordinate and risking your job. Quite obviously, the teacher still didn't do what his employer asked him to do, so he still deserves his punishment. You can't just disobey your boss and not expect consequences.
On June 04 2012 13:22 SimoNostalgia wrote: Well that is just annoying. That teacher is doing his job: grading his students the way it should be don. If someone gets a zero then they probably deserve it.
My school here that I graduated from this year had a.super cool school cop and he got fired from wearing a speedo during one of the school parties . Funniest thing ever haha
Is that what he should have done? Clearly, cops are acting professional by wearing speedos and partying. That's certainly how I think they're best upholding the law. :: rolls eyes :: Also: how is that relevant?
You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on what a teacher "should" be doing, as if you know what they should be doing. Teachers should be doing a lot of things. By being insubordinate, there was obviously a grey area as far as whether or not the teacher was doing his job. He clearly wasn't doing what he was told by his employer, but he may have been doing what he felt was best for his students. Which one is more important? Well, there's a spectrum. He needs his job, but he needs to be able to properly educate the students too.
Well the "school" cop works for the school. Like a teacher works at a school. And he got fired like the teacher got suspended. That is how I find it relevant. Just a personal story.
If a teacher has been teaching for 35 years or so, that is experience right there. A zero is a grade. And real life does require due dates. If a student fails to turn in an assignment on the date it is required then a zero is appropriate. I feel bad for the teacher, because I feel he was given wrong judgement by his board. Their system should change, not the teacher. And besides, the teacher let his students turn in their assignments late, so there really should not be any problem with the teacher, just the students who were lazy to not turn in their assignments.
I don't necessarily agree with the system either; the teacher certainly does seem experienced and it seems he gives students plenty of chances to hand in their work. I was raised in schools where not doing your work = getting zeroes as well, and that made sense to us too.
That being said, surely there's a better way to get the policy changed than being insubordinate and risking your job. Quite obviously, the teacher still didn't do what his employer asked him to do, so he still deserves his punishment. You can't just disobey your boss and not expect consequences.
On June 03 2012 01:39 Ripebananaa wrote: More teachers need to have the guts to give 0s. I used to see many people doing dickall in highschool, and still passed without deserving.
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
On June 04 2012 13:22 SimoNostalgia wrote: Well that is just annoying. That teacher is doing his job: grading his students the way it should be don. If someone gets a zero then they probably deserve it.
My school here that I graduated from this year had a.super cool school cop and he got fired from wearing a speedo during one of the school parties . Funniest thing ever haha
Is that what he should have done? Clearly, cops are acting professional by wearing speedos and partying. That's certainly how I think they're best upholding the law. :: rolls eyes :: Also: how is that relevant?
You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on what a teacher "should" be doing, as if you know what they should be doing. Teachers should be doing a lot of things. By being insubordinate, there was obviously a grey area as far as whether or not the teacher was doing his job. He clearly wasn't doing what he was told by his employer, but he may have been doing what he felt was best for his students. Which one is more important? Well, there's a spectrum. He needs his job, but he needs to be able to properly educate the students too.
Well the "school" cop works for the school. Like a teacher works at a school. And he got fired like the teacher got suspended. That is how I find it relevant. Just a personal story.
If a teacher has been teaching for 35 years or so, that is experience right there. A zero is a grade. And real life does require due dates. If a student fails to turn in an assignment on the date it is required then a zero is appropriate. I feel bad for the teacher, because I feel he was given wrong judgement by his board. Their system should change, not the teacher. And besides, the teacher let his students turn in their assignments late, so there really should not be any problem with the teacher, just the students who were lazy to not turn in their assignments.
I don't necessarily agree with the system either; the teacher certainly does seem experienced and it seems he gives students plenty of chances to hand in their work. I was raised in schools where not doing your work = getting zeroes as well, and that made sense to us too.
That being said, surely there's a better way to get the policy changed than being insubordinate and risking your job. Quite obviously, the teacher still didn't do what his employer asked him to do, so he still deserves his punishment. You can't just disobey your boss and not expect consequences.
Im pretty sure he complained, a lot.
I'm pretty sure you're pretty sure
If he wants to do something that's not allowed by policy of School A so badly, he can just attempt to get a job in School B. It's not like there are no school systems that give out zeroes anymore. I know for a fact that mine still does (my mom still works at my old high school and I just talked to her). He might get his wish after all, although leaving on not-so-good terms probably isn't the best way to do it.
The unfortunate thing is...School creates a kind of "intelligence" mentality. Everyone's looking to who is the smartest, who knows the most...But that's not really all school is about; it's about hard work as well. Yeah, I was one of the ones who didn't do homework and aced tests...But now I realize that the homework is part of preparing the student for life. Sometimes there's work that needs to be taken home, and sometimes you have to stay late..That's just how it is. Homework is part of that.
The problem comes when you realize that children don't take their responsibilities seriously, and moreso, they're forced to go to school, it's not something most people particularly enjoy, which is a big component in being a hard worker. Most people can't work hard on something they don't care for; they need something they're passionate about.
On June 03 2012 01:39 Ripebananaa wrote: More teachers need to have the guts to give 0s. I used to see many people doing dickall in highschool, and still passed without deserving.
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
There is a reason for this.
To get good scores from test, it is by far the most time efficient to just do a ton of studying right before the test. This is bad thou because usually this just means the student only has the knowledge on hes/her short term memory.
However, if you study certain things for a long period of time, multiple times, the knowledge usually gets into long term memory, which is much more useful.
So if a student gets good scores from assignments and test of the same subject over a long period of time, this usually proves that the knowledge has gotten into the long term memory so the student gets a good grade. If a student just aces one test, but has not proven knowledge at any other times, it does not really mean anything at all, and there is a good reason to give the student a bad grade.
You might say that "I actually still remember all the stuff because I am smart, so the school should still give good grades." Well guess what. The school is designed to be the the best place to study for the masses, so you should just suck it up because the school wont do special arrangements for the people who have it easy.
All these spoiled students should go to my ex-university. Zero tolerance. Miss the deadline by a minute, get 0%. A few people got hit by it, and they started submitting their work on time thereafter.
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
As a high school teacher, this post makes me laugh. The sense of entitlement and level of conceit (and hypocrisy) here is ludicrous.
School absolutely does reward intelligence - or as I would define it, mastery of material. As educators, we have to hold ourselves accountable for making sure those that pass have enough facility with the subject matter to succeed at the next level of study in that discipline. That's how you were able to pass - though in my school you would have failed, and deservedly so. Why? Well...
It also, as it should, rewards effort. As educators, we are also responsible for preparing our students for lives beyond being in school and developing habits that will help you succeed in a job. Guess what? If you skip a day of work, you're probably going to get fired. You're going to have to work beyond your scheduled hours too. You're going to have to prepare for work outside of the workplace. If you don't do these things, then you're probably going to lose your job bceause you're costing your employer money. Employers keep the guy who works hard all day even if he's not the smartest and lay off the guy who's very talented but lazy.
Lastly, we as educators are responsible for holding students accountable for their actions, because the adult world does that too. You chose to skip, you chose to blow off homework, you knew the consequences, and now you're complaining about what happened to you because of YOUR actions that you consciously performed? Ha. Sorry, you don't even know the meaning of a hard day's work and having no spare time to yourself. Life and work doesn't stop just because you don't want to deal with the BS - you have to, even if you don't want to.
There's a lot more to life than knowledge, and you've got a lot more to learn than you think.
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
As a high school teacher, this post makes me laugh. The sense of entitlement and level of conceit (and hypocrisy) here is ludicrous.
School absolutely does reward intelligence - or as I would define it, mastery of material. As educators, we have to hold ourselves accountable for making sure those that pass have enough facility with the subject matter to succeed at the next level of study in that discipline. That's how you were able to pass - though in my school you would have failed, and deservedly so. Why? Well...
It also, as it should, rewards effort. As educators, we are also responsible for preparing our students for lives beyond being in school and developing habits that will help you succeed in a job. Guess what? If you skip a day of work, you're probably going to get fired. You're going to have to work beyond your scheduled hours too. You're going to have to prepare for work outside of the workplace. If you don't do these things, then you're probably going to lose your job bceause you're costing your employer money. Employers keep the guy who works hard all day even if he's not the smartest and lay off the guy who's very talented but lazy.
Lastly, we as educators are responsible for holding students accountable for their actions, because the adult world does that too. You chose to skip, you chose to blow off homework, you knew the consequences, and now you're complaining about what happened to you because of YOUR actions that you consciously performed? Ha. Sorry, you don't even know the meaning of a hard day's work and having no spare time to yourself. Life and work doesn't stop just because you don't want to deal with the BS - you have to, even if you don't want to.
There's a lot more to life than knowledge, and you've got a lot more to learn than you think.
Look, I understand that you need to work with a lot of students and you need rules that work for the majority of the students not just some individuals.
But even if you think there's no easy way to solve the problem you have to admit that there is a problem. The system is often wasteful. In this case it was wasteful with the poster's time and effort. Don't say it's right, because it isn't.
So yes, if a kid already has mastery of some material they should absolutely be allowed to prove it and skip the class. If you're worried about retention make them pass 3 exams 1 month apart.
Cut out the lame excuses including the "this is how the real world works too" part. Sure, sometimes you just need to work within very inefficient systems and kids need to learn how to do that too. But more importantly, they should learn to fight waste and indifference whenever they can.
I actually agree in principle with Figgy, school is a waste of time for some students. Really, a waste of time they would spend learning something else.
I personally skipped a ton of undergraduate classes and it was nbd. I did do the homework though, you can't really get away with not doing that at a university.
However, the reason that doesnt work is because for 99 out of 100 students, or maybe even 999 out of 1000, they just aren't that person. So, I think it's appropriate that there be real consequences for not turning in assignments.
btw TGalore you should consider a different job. I work as long as it takes me to finish what I am doing. Even more telling is my father, a neurologist, who just comes home when he is done doing what he has to do. If he does it faster because he is simply smarter than the next person who would theoretically do his job, then he doesnt have to work as long.
I get that being a teacher sucks and kids seem entitled, but there are some that deserve to be. You will have kids who are smarter than you, and your attitude seems vindictive rather than helpful.
On June 03 2012 01:39 Ripebananaa wrote: More teachers need to have the guts to give 0s. I used to see many people doing dickall in highschool, and still passed without deserving.
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
As someone who had that exact same attitude in HS (Proven on paper to be far smarter than my entire class), I can say that a few years of experience taught me what an entitled arrogant and wrong little prick I was and you currently are. You will learn this at some point in the future, or you will spend your life wondering why you never get ahead. Do yourself a favor and learn from someone who had the exact same attitude as you. Lose it now or face a lifetime of misery. It took me until I was 30 to realize this. I could of been making what I make now in my mid 20s had I learned that sooner. So instead of having basically everything I want, I am just now starting to pay off years of mistakes.
What makes people think that every job is the same and that just because their life played out a certain way, others will play out the same?
No, every job doesn't have a bad fucking boss. If you guys think that I'm wrong by saying no to my teacher, then why the hell are you agreeing that this guy did the right thing when he stood up and said no to his boss?
No, every job doesn't make you work overtime and bring home a bunch of work all the time (yes you get homework all the time), people choose what they want to work with, if you chose to be a teacher and you think it's terrible that you have to bring home work and "that's how life is" then maybe you should search for greener pastures.
I don't understand this negative attitude people have towards life, that job is miserable and all that shit, people should really try work with what they like.
Since so many of you are so convinced that is a completely black and white issue I'm going to quote what I said earlier as a perspective of a student and teacher.
On June 03 2012 06:56 CustomKal wrote: For all of you getting into arguments about tests vs. homework in grading, take it from the perspective of a teacher. I'm currently in school to become one and can tell you that a test is NOT an overall expectation of what you learned in the course and never will be. Unless you want a test that is 50 pages long(Which is STILL NOT an accurate representation due to focus of a student), do your homework because that's how they grade everything else that generally isn't on your test.
The other issue (one that comes up a lot these days within the curriculum) is that tests are not an accurate representation of everyone's learning styles. The way people work is that they generally fall into three categories; Kinesthetic, Oral, and Visual learners. They either learning by physically being involved to learn, listening or watching. The same goes for their tests. Someone with Visual will generally do a lot better on a written test that an kinesthetic or oral learner simply because it suits their learning style. Look at it from the other perspective and they are less likely to do well on a hands on test. Tests simply don't work because perhaps one student gets a 90 on their presentation and then get a 60 on the test. Is that an accurate representation of their intelligence and learning in the course?
As for the 0 issue. This I believe was also recently introduced into the education system in my areas school board, and the way it works is to not fail students based on uncompleted work because you are unaware of potential situations at home etc. I personally don't 100% agree with it and believe that at some point a 0 should be allowable, however as a teacher this still comes back to you and whether or not you feel it is an accurate representation of the student. If it is work ethic, that is their fault and yes they should be penalized for it. However, if it is a learning or personal reason, how you way that may not be as a 0, but instead in a different fashion. This of course also can allow more freedom at the end of the year as to what mark they get, giving an accurate reflection of the student in the class, and not a representation of what they were able to do on your work (e.g. when they may be a different learner)
Stop saying homework is useless. Stop saying that homework is necessary. Education as a whole is a very grey area, especially right now when many education systems around the world are now looking at what needs to be redesigned about it.
One size does not fit all and never will. However, the current system is something that has worked for the majority (or at least that is assumed) for a long time. So until we find something better this is what we have. The "no zero policy" was one of the experiments that has been put in as a change to education, attempting to make it a place of learning, not grading. Agree or disagree 0's are not helpful to a students learning. Maybe to their time management, but not their learning of the subject.
The same can be said for tests however. They are strictly a sense of evaluation not learning, thus are an absolutely horrible tool for learning and evaluation unless they look at all the learning I have addressed earlier.
What this teacher did is not right or wrong. To enforce proper time management zero's can be necessary. But in learning they don't do anything for a students, and can in fact bring self-esteem done, demotivating them.
Before any of you respond, stop and think, are you speaking from your perspective or a perspective for a greater education. One size does not fit all!!!!!!
I agree with some of the posts above that high school homework can be very boring, especially in topics you either dont like, or are too good at.
However, it is normal to give a zero if a student doesnt do his homework.
The teacher has to grade everyone, and cannot start by making exceptions based on said student's specificities (i.e. skills).
Imagine a foreign language class : student A is a native speaker (immigrant opr w/e the reason). Student B is not so good. Student A is clearly losing his time and would rather not do the homework, nonetheless acing the finals. Student B, can do the same, and fail the finals (or get a lower grade) and he can also do the homework, with may be 60%, and get 70% in the finals. How would you grade that? I am sorry but if I were a teacher I would give student B a better or even grade if he does his homework and student A doesnt. Either the teacher gives homework to everyone (and if you re that good, it shouldnt take you hours, I mean come on man you are in high school!) or he doesnt give any.
Yes it is boring for student A, but deal with it. Life gets boring at times, even if you get your dreamjob, you ll do boring tasks once in a while.
EDIT: it gets better during university, since you can normally choose most of your topics!
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
A high school should not be rewarding intelligence. In fact no school should reward intelligence. You should be placed into a higher functioning class which makes you work at the same difficulty as all your "less intelligent" peers. This isn't always and rarely is possible just based on the resources available. Does that mean you still get to escape that work? Hell no. Sometimes you just have to do the grunt work. In fact I believe this sentiment is actually reflected in a handful of psychology studies that have been put out, which basically say you're not supposed to credit a student with being smart but how much work they are putting in.
On June 04 2012 22:45 Felnarion wrote: The unfortunate thing is...School creates a kind of "intelligence" mentality. Everyone's looking to who is the smartest, who knows the most...But that's not really all school is about; it's about hard work as well. Yeah, I was one of the ones who didn't do homework and aced tests...But now I realize that the homework is part of preparing the student for life. Sometimes there's work that needs to be taken home, and sometimes you have to stay late..That's just how it is. Homework is part of that.
The problem comes when you realize that children don't take their responsibilities seriously, and moreso, they're forced to go to school, it's not something most people particularly enjoy, which is a big component in being a hard worker. Most people can't work hard on something they don't care for; they need something they're passionate about.
This is the biggest problem for me aswell. half of my subjects, I don't care for. I enjoy math, physics, chemistry and biology. And try my best for them. But the other half(languages/history/latin) I just don't enjoy doing my homework for these classes. How am I supposed to work hard for something I don't enjoy? Combine that with awful teachers for some of these subjects.. I know I should just suck it up or whatever but it bothers me.
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
As a high school teacher, this post makes me laugh. The sense of entitlement and level of conceit (and hypocrisy) here is ludicrous.
School absolutely does reward intelligence - or as I would define it, mastery of material. As educators, we have to hold ourselves accountable for making sure those that pass have enough facility with the subject matter to succeed at the next level of study in that discipline. That's how you were able to pass - though in my school you would have failed, and deservedly so. Why? Well...
It also, as it should, rewards effort. As educators, we are also responsible for preparing our students for lives beyond being in school and developing habits that will help you succeed in a job. Guess what? If you skip a day of work, you're probably going to get fired. You're going to have to work beyond your scheduled hours too. You're going to have to prepare for work outside of the workplace. If you don't do these things, then you're probably going to lose your job bceause you're costing your employer money. Employers keep the guy who works hard all day even if he's not the smartest and lay off the guy who's very talented but lazy.
Lastly, we as educators are responsible for holding students accountable for their actions, because the adult world does that too. You chose to skip, you chose to blow off homework, you knew the consequences, and now you're complaining about what happened to you because of YOUR actions that you consciously performed? Ha. Sorry, you don't even know the meaning of a hard day's work and having no spare time to yourself. Life and work doesn't stop just because you don't want to deal with the BS - you have to, even if you don't want to.
There's a lot more to life than knowledge, and you've got a lot more to learn than you think.
Look, I understand that you need to work with a lot of students and you need rules that work for the majority of the students not just some individuals.
But even if you think there's no easy way to solve the problem you have to admit that there is a problem. The system is often wasteful. In this case it was wasteful with the poster's time and effort. Don't say it's right, because it isn't.
So yes, if a kid already has mastery of some material they should absolutely be allowed to prove it and skip the class. If you're worried about retention make them pass 3 exams 1 month apart.
Cut out the lame excuses including the "this is how the real world works too" part. Sure, sometimes you just need to work within very inefficient systems and kids need to learn how to do that too. But more importantly, they should learn to fight waste and indifference whenever they can.
You're talking about something else entirely. If a student shouldn't be in that class because he's at a higher level, then that's a problem with where he's placed, not with how the teacher is conducting his class or grading.
However, if he's in the class and not following the rules and expectations of the class, then he deserves to fail. I do not have to admit that there is a problem, because in this case, there isn't one, and I will say it's right, because it is. There isn't anything wrong with getting the proper, anticipated, and expected consequence for an intentional action. If it were otherwise, then in Starcraft, the perceived "better" player would beat their opponent every single game - that's like saying "Oh, we'll allow MMA a walk over his opponent because his opponent has no chance, and he should get by on his skill and knowledge without having to sit down at the computer and play the game." Call it lame if you want, but that really is how the "real world" works. If your company tells you that you will lose your job if you don't show up for a day of work, and you don't show up for a day of work without any excuse other than you feel like you're above the work being tasked to you, then do you really think you shouldn't lose your job?
You also mentioned rules working for the majority of students. There's a difference between a rule and a style, and as a teacher, it's my job to incorporate as many different teaching techniques as often as possible in order to sufficiently address the diversity of learning styles in my classroom. There's nothing in my job that says I should make rules different for students based on how smart they think they are. You simply cannot apply rules differently - that's like sentencing two people differently for the same crime. It would be unjust to those who follow them.
On June 04 2012 23:44 red_b wrote: btw TGalore you should consider a different job. I work as long as it takes me to finish what I am doing. Even more telling is my father, a neurologist, who just comes home when he is done doing what he has to do. If he does it faster because he is simply smarter than the next person who would theoretically do his job, then he doesnt have to work as long.
I get that being a teacher sucks and kids seem entitled, but there are some that deserve to be. You will have kids who are smarter than you, and your attitude seems vindictive rather than helpful.
I love my job, and moreover, the feedback I get from my students every year tells me that I'm doing the right thing in the right place. It doesn't suck. I work 90 hour weeks sometimes, and it still doesn't suck.
The ones that do not do well in my classes know exactly why they do not and own up to it when they slack off or do not put their full effort into something. That, I think, speaks volumes to their character and shows that they're much better people than the above posters who want things that they are not willing to work for.
You can't compare two jobs like a neurologist and a teacher. I know that I have to do more work out of the classroom than other professions do and I'm fine with that because I think I'm very lucky to have a job focused on improving people's lives rather than just making money.
By the way, you should also ask your dad if he had to study outside of his classes or internships during medical school, or if his school handed him his doctorate simply because he was smart.
On June 05 2012 03:46 TGalore wrote: You're talking about something else entirely. If a student shouldn't be in that class because he's at a higher level, then that's a problem with where he's placed, not with how the teacher is conducting his class or grading.
However, if he's in the class and not following the rules and expectations of the class, then he deserves to fail. I do not have to admit that there is a problem, because in this case, there isn't one, and I will say it's right, because it is. There isn't anything wrong with getting the proper, anticipated, and expected consequence for an intentional action. If it were otherwise, then in Starcraft, the perceived "better" player would beat their opponent every single game - that's like saying "Oh, we'll allow MMA a walk over his opponent because his opponent has no chance, and he should get by on his skill and knowledge without having to sit down at the computer and play the game." Call it lame if you want, but that really is how the "real world" works. If your company tells you that you will lose your job if you don't show up for a day of work, and you don't show up for a day of work without any excuse other than you feel like you're above the work being tasked to you, then do you really think you shouldn't lose your job?
You also mentioned rules working for the majority of students. There's a difference between a rule and a style, and as a teacher, it's my job to incorporate as many different teaching techniques as often as possible in order to sufficiently address the diversity of learning styles in my classroom. There's nothing in my job that says I should make rules different for students based on how smart they think they are. You simply cannot apply rules differently - that's like sentencing two people differently for the same crime. It would be unjust to those who follow them.
Well, IMHO that's the thing - a top section of the students will always have a 'problem with placement'. Specially with systems that don't allow skipping school years, etc. As far as Latvia goes, I cut one year in grade school + started a year early, but there was no such option after that. Wish I could cut at least a few more. Like I said before, it is similar to tying a high masters player to a chair and making him watch gold league streams for 12 years. That's neither fun nor productive. There either needs to be a way to get an extra challenge, or a shortcut...some of my favorite teachers include those who'd provide custom homework when asked.
As far as enforcing rules go - in this case, if you go with a custom approach, those who are average will feel unjust. If you rule everything the same, then those who are talented and those who struggle will feel unjust. Rewarding effort is great, but under-appreciating talent/skill and forcing effort where it is not needed; that's not very good. The student who aces every single test probably does a lot of things that are connected to the subject in his free time, on his own will. Of course, initially teacher cannot know who is skilled and who isn't, but it doesn't take long to find out.
Now, for the later-in-life argument, I call bs on the whole issue. Usually you choose your job and field, and even if you make a bad choice, there are opportunities to switch both. It is much easier to handle grunt work, if it was your choice in the first place that got you there, if you are motivated. It is hard to be motivated when tied to a chair. Besides, if it is a good job, there is an option to do the grunt work extra careful, or add something to it; show initiative, and eventually the effort pays off. You can't get more than A for your useless revision gruntwork grade, and grades aren't all that useful anyway(country depended ofc) >.<
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
As a high school teacher, this post makes me laugh. The sense of entitlement and level of conceit (and hypocrisy) here is ludicrous.
School absolutely does reward intelligence - or as I would define it, mastery of material. As educators, we have to hold ourselves accountable for making sure those that pass have enough facility with the subject matter to succeed at the next level of study in that discipline. That's how you were able to pass - though in my school you would have failed, and deservedly so. Why? Well...
It also, as it should, rewards effort. As educators, we are also responsible for preparing our students for lives beyond being in school and developing habits that will help you succeed in a job. Guess what? If you skip a day of work, you're probably going to get fired. You're going to have to work beyond your scheduled hours too. You're going to have to prepare for work outside of the workplace. If you don't do these things, then you're probably going to lose your job bceause you're costing your employer money. Employers keep the guy who works hard all day even if he's not the smartest and lay off the guy who's very talented but lazy.
Lastly, we as educators are responsible for holding students accountable for their actions, because the adult world does that too. You chose to skip, you chose to blow off homework, you knew the consequences, and now you're complaining about what happened to you because of YOUR actions that you consciously performed? Ha. Sorry, you don't even know the meaning of a hard day's work and having no spare time to yourself. Life and work doesn't stop just because you don't want to deal with the BS - you have to, even if you don't want to.
There's a lot more to life than knowledge, and you've got a lot more to learn than you think.
Look, I understand that you need to work with a lot of students and you need rules that work for the majority of the students not just some individuals.
But even if you think there's no easy way to solve the problem you have to admit that there is a problem. The system is often wasteful. In this case it was wasteful with the poster's time and effort. Don't say it's right, because it isn't.
So yes, if a kid already has mastery of some material they should absolutely be allowed to prove it and skip the class. If you're worried about retention make them pass 3 exams 1 month apart.
Cut out the lame excuses including the "this is how the real world works too" part. Sure, sometimes you just need to work within very inefficient systems and kids need to learn how to do that too. But more importantly, they should learn to fight waste and indifference whenever they can.
You're talking about something else entirely. If a student shouldn't be in that class because he's at a higher level, then that's a problem with where he's placed, not with how the teacher is conducting his class or grading.
Cool. It's a problem with where he's placed. It's still a problem and the main one at that. Yet you decide to focus on the fact that he did the bare minimum to pass. Which might also be a problem or it might have been the right call on his part. Hard to say without knowing more about the situation.
However, if he's in the class and not following the rules and expectations of the class, then he deserves to fail. I do not have to admit that there is a problem, because in this case, there isn't one, and I will say it's right, because it is. There isn't anything wrong with getting the proper, anticipated, and expected consequence for an intentional action. If it were otherwise, then in Starcraft, the perceived "better" player would beat their opponent every single game - that's like saying "Oh, we'll allow MMA a walk over his opponent because his opponent has no chance, and he should get by on his skill and knowledge without having to sit down at the computer and play the game." Call it lame if you want, but that really is how the "real world" works. If your company tells you that you will lose your job if you don't show up for a day of work, and you don't show up for a day of work without any excuse other than you feel like you're above the work being tasked to you, then do you really think you shouldn't lose your job?
So many things wrong with this paragraph I don't even know where to start. So I'll give my main objection:
You are not the students' boss. You don't get to waste their time and tell them: this is how it is, do it or you're fired.
Second, just because you have to do what your boss told you (within reason) it doesn't mean his decision wasn't dumb. You can't escape criticism by saying people in positions of authority make dumb decisions all the time.
You also mentioned rules working for the majority of students. There's a difference between a rule and a style, and as a teacher, it's my job to incorporate as many different teaching techniques as often as possible in order to sufficiently address the diversity of learning styles in my classroom. There's nothing in my job that says I should make rules different for students based on how smart they think they are. You simply cannot apply rules differently - that's like sentencing two people differently for the same crime. It would be unjust to those who follow them.
I never said rules should be applied differently for different people. But you have to recognize when the rules don't work for some people. That's the first step in designing better rules.
I don't think people should ignore dumb rules. But I do think they should be changed. As far as I understand you are defending dumb rules with the justification that there are dumb rules everywhere and kids might as well get used to that in school.
I'm very impressed you fellow TLers have managed to write 22 pages of pointless rambling about a completely undecidable problem. Some people here should probably start working on the Millenium Prize problems. That will be plenty of fun for everyone.
Did I say undecidable ? Well, OP, you provide us with two sources, none of which bothered giving us a detailed copy of any of the said assignments. Yet the question simply boils down to knowing whether said assignments are useful to the pupils and enable them to learn more physics, or are a completely waste of time designed to occupy their free time, being too easy and asking for mounts of tedious and boring explanations about tedious and boring things. It is entirely impossible to condemn or praise the teacher without knowing that.
It may be such a thing has been posted in the course of those lengthy 22 pages, which I have not read for the reason I just explained ; in that case I would advise the OP to edit his post so everyone can see it and reflect (although I doubt that would happen).
Statistically, physics and chemistry assignments in high school are a useless chore (at least in my country but I haven't heard the high school science level in the US was higher ), so it's likely the teacher is deeply wrong, but I wouldn't blame anyone without certainty.
I feel like I was definitely one of those students that stopped doing homework because I was "too smart". In the regular classes I got mostly C's. Then in my junior year of high school they opened up a bunch of AP classes, and I signed up for all of them and got straight A's. If the course material wasn't challenging I was unmotivated. And no amount of telling me "it's important for your future" would have motivated me, because something stupid doesn't suddenly become interesting simply because of some distant promise.
I am just glad teamliquid doesn't run things. I've heard many people on this forum suggest that schools should cut AP programs because they don't benefit the "majority" of students. Utilitarian scum in my opinion.
I've always seeked out the hardest professors in college for the challenge, and it is very rewarding in many ways. I would never even dream of taking a class for an "easy A".
I don't blame the professor for giving out zeros. The solution to the problem isn't to give unmotivated students a free pass to skip their assignments. The solution is to give them challenging course work, like AP classes.
if you dont deserve to pass. then you shouldnt pass. american schools need to toughen the fuck up and stop letting people slide through their early formative years.
You're talking about something else entirely. If a student shouldn't be in that class because he's at a higher level, then that's a problem with where he's placed, not with how the teacher is conducting his class or grading.
Cool. It's a problem with where he's placed. It's still a problem and the main one at that. Yet you decide to focus on the fact that he did the bare minimum to pass. Which might also be a problem or it might have been the right call on his part. Hard to say without knowing more about the situation.
However, if he's in the class and not following the rules and expectations of the class, then he deserves to fail. I do not have to admit that there is a problem, because in this case, there isn't one, and I will say it's right, because it is. There isn't anything wrong with getting the proper, anticipated, and expected consequence for an intentional action. If it were otherwise, then in Starcraft, the perceived "better" player would beat their opponent every single game - that's like saying "Oh, we'll allow MMA a walk over his opponent because his opponent has no chance, and he should get by on his skill and knowledge without having to sit down at the computer and play the game." Call it lame if you want, but that really is how the "real world" works. If your company tells you that you will lose your job if you don't show up for a day of work, and you don't show up for a day of work without any excuse other than you feel like you're above the work being tasked to you, then do you really think you shouldn't lose your job?
So many things wrong with this paragraph I don't even know where to start. So I'll give my main objection:
You are not the students' boss. You don't get to waste their time and tell them: this is how it is, do it or you're fired.
Second, just because you have to do what your boss told you (within reason) it doesn't mean his decision wasn't dumb. You can't escape criticism by saying people in positions of authority make dumb decisions all the time.
You also mentioned rules working for the majority of students. There's a difference between a rule and a style, and as a teacher, it's my job to incorporate as many different teaching techniques as often as possible in order to sufficiently address the diversity of learning styles in my classroom. There's nothing in my job that says I should make rules different for students based on how smart they think they are. You simply cannot apply rules differently - that's like sentencing two people differently for the same crime. It would be unjust to those who follow them.
I never said rules should be applied differently for different people. But you have to recognize when the rules don't work for some people. That's the first step in designing better rules.
I don't think people should ignore dumb rules. But I do think they should be changed. As far as I understand you are defending dumb rules with the justification that there are dumb rules everywhere and kids might as well get used to that in school.
A) - So you're acknowledging a possible problem with where he's placed and blaming the teacher for that when it's either the kid's fault for not earning high enough grades earlier to get into the AP classes he should be in or the student not being in the right school. Awesome. There's little more that needs to be known he said "I didn't do the work because I felt I was above it and I got penalized for it as I knew I would."
B) - Of course I'm not the kid's boss. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I think you mistook what I was saying as literal rather than drawing a comparison between the purpose of assigning the consequence to the action and how that's reflected in modern society. The educational value in high school work often isn't the content matter but more often the building of critical life skills and traits. I don't assign a paper because you need to know the symbolism of the green light in The Great Gatsby in order to live, I assign it because it's great practice for analyzing details and drawing connections.
That said, I do get to tell the kid "this is the work you need to complete, or you won't pass." If you'd like you could compare that to an employer saying "this is the work you need to complete in order to earn your paycheck."
There's a huge difference between the student doing the work and then saying to the teacher "I don't think this is helping me" and the student not doing the work and saying "I shouldn't have to work because it won't help me." There are some things that I have to do as a teacher, specific to my school, that I find not worth my time. But, the way that changing that comes about is by doing what I'm told, then talking to my boss and saying "this isn't helping me or my students because x, y, and z."
I'm not saying that dumb rules aren't worth changing (lord knows there have been plenty of those in my country's history), but what I am saying is that you don't have the authority to comment on them if you summarily dismiss them without any effort to analyze or find value in them or without having attempted to follow them.
Lastly, I'm sorry, but you ARE saying rules should be applied differently for different people. You're saying one person gets to be special and pass while everyone else has to do the hard work to pass.
And I have to add this in, because it always gets to me - nobody who isn't a doctor tells a doctor how to perform surgery, and nobody who isn't a pilot tells a pilot how to fly a plane. Why is it that so many people who have never studied or practiced education feel like they can tell teachers how to teach?
lol, this is a joke. i remember i was in middle school in the virginia beach area and the school gave E's instead of F's.
i don't really think there is anything worth arguing on this matter. 0's, not completed, E's, whatever; students know that they did not get credit for an assignment they did not turn in.
Man at my high school there isn't a late policy, you miss the deadline you get a zero no exceptions. You could have a dying grandmother or get hit by a bus, that assignment has to be in or you get a zero.
On June 05 2012 06:37 TGalore wrote: And I have to add this in, because it always gets to me - nobody who isn't a doctor tells a doctor how to perform surgery, and nobody who isn't a pilot tells a pilot how to fly a plane. Why is it that so many people who have never studied or practiced education feel like they can tell teachers how to teach?
I don't really have time so I'll only address this. It's a point micronesia brought up too and I've been thinking about it recently. I think one problem is that "experts" are often biased or have a conflict of interest. I should not have a say in how a doctor treats their patients but I can certainly say that their relationship with drug companies shouldn't influence the treatment they prescribe. It might even make sense to restrict their options to avoid corruption.
Ideally you'd want the general public to set the goals and the "experts" to implement the policy that's the best in achieving them. But if the experts as a group have different goals they'll just set the policy that works towards their own goals rather than those of the general public.
Actually, it's often easiest to influence legislation at the "expert" level because that's where democratic oversight is weakest. We've seen this in recent IP legislation with "expert" opinions of economic damage that are clearly unfounded.
On June 05 2012 06:37 TGalore wrote: And I have to add this in, because it always gets to me - nobody who isn't a doctor tells a doctor how to perform surgery, and nobody who isn't a pilot tells a pilot how to fly a plane. Why is it that so many people who have never studied or practiced education feel like they can tell teachers how to teach?
Doctors and pilots have a much higher success rate?
But seriously this teacher should be given a medal and a raise not be suspended. The old saying, "if the student doesn't learn, the teacher hasn't taught" has a limit.
On June 04 2012 23:44 red_b wrote: btw TGalore you should consider a different job. I work as long as it takes me to finish what I am doing. Even more telling is my father, a neurologist, who just comes home when he is done doing what he has to do. If he does it faster because he is simply smarter than the next person who would theoretically do his job, then he doesnt have to work as long.
I get that being a teacher sucks and kids seem entitled, but there are some that deserve to be. You will have kids who are smarter than you, and your attitude seems vindictive rather than helpful.
I love my job, and moreover, the feedback I get from my students every year tells me that I'm doing the right thing in the right place. It doesn't suck. I work 90 hour weeks sometimes, and it still doesn't suck.
The ones that do not do well in my classes know exactly why they do not and own up to it when they slack off or do not put their full effort into something. That, I think, speaks volumes to their character and shows that they're much better people than the above posters who want things that they are not willing to work for.
You can't compare two jobs like a neurologist and a teacher. I know that I have to do more work out of the classroom than other professions do and I'm fine with that because I think I'm very lucky to have a job focused on improving people's lives rather than just making money.
By the way, you should also ask your dad if he had to study outside of his classes or internships during medical school, or if his school handed him his doctorate simply because he was smart.
your last paragraph is sheer poop, being a younger brother of a med school student (and hoping to gain acceptance next year myself), i can assure you there isnt a moment to waste, when people complain about how hard it is they arent joking, there is no "going out to meet new people" and getting good grades, youll probably only get past the acquaintance level the with the people u see in your classes, when your drinking coffee as you wake up, your studying, before bedtime your studying, on the bus, you will be studying. being smart will get your foot in the hallway that the door is located in, being hardworking, dedicated, focused with a never-give-up attitude is what youll need to finish, and to succeed. its saddening as a teacher you would say something so silly and immature.
and pretty much every single job focuses on improving peoples lives btw, just because your a teacher and you do it directly doesnt mean others dont do it as well
now i also have some family friends that are high school teachers, and i dont know if this same deal applies to you, but supposedly you can work for 4 years at 80% salary to get the 5th year off while getting 80% salary as well. ALSO, not to mention the 2 month 'break' teachers get every year.. and the weekends (although i understand your still grading/creating new work during this time, the students also have to study and prepare... the dedicated ones anyways.. and if you teach summer school, you only get paid more... and students do summer school as well!)
On June 05 2012 06:37 TGalore wrote: And I have to add this in, because it always gets to me - nobody who isn't a doctor tells a doctor how to perform surgery, and nobody who isn't a pilot tells a pilot how to fly a plane. Why is it that so many people who have never studied or practiced education feel like they can tell teachers how to teach?
Doctors and pilots have a much higher success rate?
But seriously this teacher should be given a medal and a raise not be suspended. The old saying, "if the student doesn't learn, the teacher hasn't taught" has a limit.
ive never heard that saying before, but it sounds stupid.
I've never heard of a teacher that didn't give zeros for things not handed in ( except maybe in elementary school?). Rather weird.
Personally I think the amount of homework kids are given ad/or the amount it's worth is terrible. Kids should be given lots of school work, and some tests, and have most of their grades based on that. Homework doesn't show you've learned anything.
And I have to add this in, because it always gets to me - nobody who isn't a doctor tells a doctor how to perform surgery, and nobody who isn't a pilot tells a pilot how to fly a plane. Why is it that so many people who have never studied or practiced education feel like they can tell teachers how to teach?
I cannot believe there are still people using that argument, which is probably the weakest fallacy ever devised.
You're trying to imply all jobs are equally difficult and all areas of knowledge equally esoteric, through a naive comparison. Sadly, this doesn't hold. What a surgeon or a pilot knows, is something nobody in other fields (that is anybody who has not studied that particular field at university or any place it is taught) could possibly know. On the other side, everything linked to education can be perfectly assimilated by anyone ; because as human beings, we spend our time reflecting upon ourselves, the way we learn, mature, evolve, live and should live. And not only do we reflect upon it, but we also find the answers, because as human beings we have a good (not complete) understanding of our own nature. Beside that, we can also count on everything we've heard from others or read (most of literature and philosophy is concerned with those very questions). Finally we've all been to school for a long time, more than necessary to judge how things work and should work there. Few people spend their whole youth in operation rooms or planes, do they ? It follows than it is all but possible to know far more about education than a "teacher" without being one himself. Especially when it comes to trifle question such as : " Is it necessary to do assignments which do not improve our knowledge or abilities in the least ? " .
On June 04 2012 23:44 red_b wrote: btw TGalore you should consider a different job. I work as long as it takes me to finish what I am doing. Even more telling is my father, a neurologist, who just comes home when he is done doing what he has to do. If he does it faster because he is simply smarter than the next person who would theoretically do his job, then he doesnt have to work as long.
I get that being a teacher sucks and kids seem entitled, but there are some that deserve to be. You will have kids who are smarter than you, and your attitude seems vindictive rather than helpful.
I love my job, and moreover, the feedback I get from my students every year tells me that I'm doing the right thing in the right place. It doesn't suck. I work 90 hour weeks sometimes, and it still doesn't suck.
The ones that do not do well in my classes know exactly why they do not and own up to it when they slack off or do not put their full effort into something. That, I think, speaks volumes to their character and shows that they're much better people than the above posters who want things that they are not willing to work for.
You can't compare two jobs like a neurologist and a teacher. I know that I have to do more work out of the classroom than other professions do and I'm fine with that because I think I'm very lucky to have a job focused on improving people's lives rather than just making money.
By the way, you should also ask your dad if he had to study outside of his classes or internships during medical school, or if his school handed him his doctorate simply because he was smart.
your last paragraph is sheer poop, being a younger brother of a med school student (and hoping to gain acceptance next year myself), i can assure you there isnt a moment to waste, when people complain about how hard it is they arent joking, there is no "going out to meet new people" and getting good grades, youll probably only get past the acquaintance level the with the people u see in your classes, when your drinking coffee as you wake up, your studying, before bedtime your studying, on the bus, you will be studying. being smart will get your foot in the hallway that the door is located in, being hardworking, dedicated, focused with a never-give-up attitude is what youll need to finish, and to succeed. its saddening as a teacher you would say something so silly and immature.
and pretty much every single job focuses on improving peoples lives btw, just because your a teacher and you do it directly doesnt mean others dont do it as well
now i also have some family friends that are high school teachers, and i dont know if this same deal applies to you, but supposedly you can work for 4 years at 80% salary to get the 5th year off while getting 80% salary as well. ALSO, not to mention the 2 month 'break' teachers get every year.. and the weekends (although i understand your still grading/creating new work during this time, the students also have to study and prepare... the dedicated ones anyways.. and if you teach summer school, you only get paid more... and students do summer school as well!)
I think you're misunderstanding me, Jitnovi. The person I was referring to in my reply was arguing "well my dad is a doctor and he gets to go home when his work is done, so you're wrong about not ever having to work past your hours", and the point I was making to him was that his dad probably had to work harder than that poster could have imagined to get his medical degree and maybe he doesn't understand what his dad had to do in order to be where he is now. I have two friends in medical school as well, and I know what it does to them.
And as for myself, I don't get a break on weekends. I work at a boarding school, and there are Saturday classes and Saturday afternoon sports games, so I'm often teaching and then coaching until 8:00 in the evening. Half of the Sundays I'm working too, either supervising the dorm or leading activities for kids. I got a total of 3 days off in the last 8 weeks. I'm salaried too; if I was hourly, it would work out to be less than $2 an hour. So while summers are not spent in the classroom, it's not paid vacation like it would be in other jobs, and there's no such system that would allow you to take a year off and still get paid (at least not that I know of).
Lastly, I think people vastly underestimate the time it takes to prepare a good lesson. You can come up with a crappy one that fills the time but bores your students in twenty minutes, but a good one can take as long as the class itself to come up with, or more. So, if you're teaching three different classes and grading homework for each, that's a lot more than people realize, and it's not easy to push yourself to do it after a 12 hour day.
And I have to add this in, because it always gets to me - nobody who isn't a doctor tells a doctor how to perform surgery, and nobody who isn't a pilot tells a pilot how to fly a plane. Why is it that so many people who have never studied or practiced education feel like they can tell teachers how to teach?
I cannot believe there are still people using that argument, which is probably the weakest fallacy ever devised.
You're trying to imply all jobs are equally difficult and all areas of knowledge equally esoteric, through a naive comparison. Sadly, this doesn't hold. What a surgeon or a pilot knows, is something nobody in other fields (that is anybody who has not studied that particular field at university or any place it is taught) could possibly know. On the other side, everything linked to education can be perfectly assimilated by anyone ; because as human beings, we spend our time reflecting upon ourselves, the way we learn, mature, evolve, live and should live. And not only do we reflect upon it, but we also find the answers, because as human beings we have a good (not complete) understanding of our own nature. Beside that, we can also count on everything we've heard from others or read (most of literature and philosophy is concerned with those very questions). Finally we've all been to school for a long time, more than necessary to judge how things work and should work there. Few people spend their whole youth in operation rooms or planes, do they ? It follows than it is all but possible to know far more about education than a "teacher" without being one himself. Especially when it comes to trifle question such as : " Is it necessary to do assignments which do not improve our knowledge or abilities in the least ? " .
I'm sorry, but you're showing your ignorance here by stating that everything linked to education can be assimilated by anyone who hasn't gone through the proper education themselves. Using that justification, degrees and doctorates in Education shouldn't exist because we've all been in schools. Bullsh*t. I'm not implying that all jobs are equally difficult, but those that require certain levels of advanced education - teaching included in this category - have that requirement for a reason.
Do you think you know how to introduce and present mathematical concepts in the proper sequence in a math course just because you passed Geometry? Do you think you know what to look for in books when deciding how to structure an English curriculum? Could you define, or have you even heard of the terms "Understanding by Design", "Applied Learning", or "Differentiated Instruction"? How much familiarity do you have with learning differences and do you know the strategies to effectively teach different kids with different needs in the same class? Do you even know what to look for when judging whether an assignment is worthwhile or not?
No, you don't, and unless you go through the proper education, you never will. You can't "count on everything you've heard from others" - in fact, the mark of an uneducated mind is accepting what others say without making the effort towards properly evaluating it.
And I have to add this in, because it always gets to me - nobody who isn't a doctor tells a doctor how to perform surgery, and nobody who isn't a pilot tells a pilot how to fly a plane. Why is it that so many people who have never studied or practiced education feel like they can tell teachers how to teach?
I cannot believe there are still people using that argument, which is probably the weakest fallacy ever devised.
You're trying to imply all jobs are equally difficult and all areas of knowledge equally esoteric, through a naive comparison. Sadly, this doesn't hold. What a surgeon or a pilot knows, is something nobody in other fields (that is anybody who has not studied that particular field at university or any place it is taught) could possibly know. On the other side, everything linked to education can be perfectly assimilated by anyone ; because as human beings, we spend our time reflecting upon ourselves, the way we learn, mature, evolve, live and should live. And not only do we reflect upon it, but we also find the answers, because as human beings we have a good (not complete) understanding of our own nature. Beside that, we can also count on everything we've heard from others or read (most of literature and philosophy is concerned with those very questions). Finally we've all been to school for a long time, more than necessary to judge how things work and should work there. Few people spend their whole youth in operation rooms or planes, do they ? It follows than it is all but possible to know far more about education than a "teacher" without being one himself. Especially when it comes to trifle question such as : " Is it necessary to do assignments which do not improve our knowledge or abilities in the least ? " .
I'm sorry, but you're showing your ignorance here by stating that everything linked to education can be assimilated by anyone who hasn't gone through the proper education themselves. Using that justification, degrees and doctorates in Education shouldn't exist because we've all been in schools. Bullsh*t. I'm not implying that all jobs are equally difficult, but those that require certain levels of advanced education - teaching included in this category - have that requirement for a reason.
Do you think you know how to introduce and present mathematical concepts in the proper sequence in a math course just because you passed Geometry? Do you think you know what to look for in books when deciding how to structure an English curriculum? Could you define, or have you even heard of the terms "Understanding by Design", "Applied Learning", or "Differentiated Instruction"? How much familiarity do you have with learning differences and do you know the strategies to effectively teach different kids with different needs in the same class? Do you even know what to look for when judging whether an assignment is worthwhile or not?
No, you don't, and unless you go through the proper education, you never will. You can't "count on everything you've heard from others" - in fact, the mark of an uneducated mind is accepting what others say without making the effort towards properly evaluating it.
I don't think there is any need to get so specific. The core of the problem is here:
On June 05 2012 08:22 Kyrillion wrote: Finally we've all been to school for a long time, more than necessary to judge how things work and should work there.
This is completely wrong. You'd have no idea how wrong that statement is until you've been teaching for a few years, though. Everything else hinges on this misguided belief that being a student for years and years means you understand the teaching profession. I can say first hand it is completely different than I thought when I graduated from college (despite majoring in education).
I did dick all in high school. and I absolutely deserved to pass.
I literally showed up for maybe 10 classes of my Advanced Calculus math in grade 12 and still got through easily. I only showed up for test days and my exams. I passed with a 50 on the dot. (I skipped my final exam knowing I already had the 50) I'd already taken advanced Calculus prior to grade 11 and knew all the work to begin with.
I literally aced every test, nothing below 95%. I could answer any question, solve any proof, name and explain any equation in the grade 12 books. But I'm at the bottom of the passing class, why? Because school doesn't reward intelligence. AT ALL. Almost all of your grade in school is gruntwork.
No matter how much of what they are already teaching you already know, you are still forced to do hours upon hours of work OUTSIDE of school to have grades that are sufficient. Valuable time that could be learned doing other things.
The problem is not "incompletes", the problem is the bullshit called homework that especially high schools still force kids to do. If it can't be done during class, it shouldn't be done. A lot of students from poorer families also have to work through their high school years which can leave them almost no spare time to themselves, and can cause the less intelligent students to simply give up. Hence the large amount of drop-outs.
If the school policies nowadays are trying to fix that with "incompletes" so that smart students who don't want to deal with absolute BS at certain times during the year yet are still smarter than everyone by a longshot, then I'm all for it. Teachers like this need to be suspended.
As a high school teacher, this post makes me laugh. The sense of entitlement and level of conceit (and hypocrisy) here is ludicrous.
School absolutely does reward intelligence - or as I would define it, mastery of material. As educators, we have to hold ourselves accountable for making sure those that pass have enough facility with the subject matter to succeed at the next level of study in that discipline. That's how you were able to pass - though in my school you would have failed, and deservedly so. Why? Well...
It also, as it should, rewards effort. As educators, we are also responsible for preparing our students for lives beyond being in school and developing habits that will help you succeed in a job. Guess what? If you skip a day of work, you're probably going to get fired. You're going to have to work beyond your scheduled hours too. You're going to have to prepare for work outside of the workplace. If you don't do these things, then you're probably going to lose your job bceause you're costing your employer money. Employers keep the guy who works hard all day even if he's not the smartest and lay off the guy who's very talented but lazy.
Lastly, we as educators are responsible for holding students accountable for their actions, because the adult world does that too. You chose to skip, you chose to blow off homework, you knew the consequences, and now you're complaining about what happened to you because of YOUR actions that you consciously performed? Ha. Sorry, you don't even know the meaning of a hard day's work and having no spare time to yourself. Life and work doesn't stop just because you don't want to deal with the BS - you have to, even if you don't want to.
There's a lot more to life than knowledge, and you've got a lot more to learn than you think.
1) If you're an educator then you know most of the time a very large amount of educators in the United States simply give zeroes without attempting to hold students accountable. Rather than teaching them responsibility and accountability, they flat out give them a zero and just move on. That's unacceptable and you know it. There's a reason why alot of districts do not allow you to fail students on the basis of missing work anymore. It isn't just because parents complained alot either. Research has shown and proven that zeroes demotivate students and in fact cause students to perform even more poorly.
2) Because hardwork and intelligence are all wrapped up into one grade, grades in the public education system in fact do not reflect intelligence. Some school districts are already moving towards providing two grades, one based on mastery of content, and the other based on the student's work ethic and behaviors. It's a pretty good system, but alot of teachers and parents who are too hardlined completely disagree with this notion for some odd reason (even though it is a far more accurate representation of a student's abilities).
3) Your work resume is far more accurate than what your report card or GPA says. You could be an extremely intelligent person and graduate with a 2.5 GPA, or you could be average to below average in terms of intelligence but graduate with a 3.8+ due to an extremely hard work ethic. GPA/Report Cards/etc. are not very accurate representations of a student's abilities at all. This is why administrators across the United States do not allow you to fail any student based on the basis of missing work anymore. You try this at a Title I school and I guarantee you get fired on the spot.
1) If you're an educator then you know most of the time a very large amount of educators in the United States simply give zeroes without attempting to hold students accountable. Rather than teaching them responsibility and accountability, they flat out give them a zero and just move on. That's unacceptable and you know it. There's a reason why alot of districts do not allow you to fail students on the basis of missing work anymore. It isn't just because parents complained alot either. Research has shown and proven that zeroes demotivate students and in fact cause students to perform even more poorly.
2) Because hardwork and intelligence are all wrapped up into one grade, grades in the public education system in fact do not reflect intelligence. Some school districts are already moving towards providing two grades, one based on mastery of content, and the other based on the student's work ethic and behaviors. It's a pretty good system, but alot of teachers and parents who are too hardlined completely disagree with this notion for some odd reason (even though it is a far more accurate representation of a student's abilities).
3) Your work resume is far more accurate than what your report card or GPA says. You could be an extremely intelligent person and graduate with a 2.5 GPA, or you could be average to below average in terms of intelligence but graduate with a 3.8+ due to an extremely hard work ethic. GPA/Report Cards/etc. are not very accurate representations of a student's abilities at all. This is why administrators across the United States do not allow you to fail any student based on the basis of missing work anymore. You try this at a Title I school and I guarantee you get fired on the spot.
1 - Do you have any sources or references for this blanket statement?
Also, the zero is the thing that is supposed to teach accountability. I'm assuming you're talking about public school here, in which case I'll say that first, public schools are woefully underfunded and understaffed - of course a kid isn't going to be motivated if the teacher doesn't have enough time to meet with them one on one and encourage them to improve from their zero because they have 200 other students. Second, a lot of school districts discourage failing because their funding is partially based on the progress of their students, and artificially inflating grades helps get them more money.
2 - This would be great in a perfect world, and my school already does this because we're smaller and a private institution, but I have to ask you, how would you judge mastery when no work has been given in? We can't look at a kid in the back of the class who has shown up for maybe the fifth time this year and never turned in any homework and somehow psychically know that he or she is an Algebra whiz. It's incumbent upon the student to demonstrate mastery to the teacher.
3 - I'm not advocating for giving out no assistance to the kids who you know have learning challenges and require extra help. Each school has its specialties. However, the guy who knows his stuff and does well on tests and papers but does no homework needs some strong feedback from his teacher in order to realize that his habits won't fly in college or in any competitive work environment.
1) If you're an educator then you know most of the time a very large amount of educators in the United States simply give zeroes without attempting to hold students accountable. Rather than teaching them responsibility and accountability, they flat out give them a zero and just move on. That's unacceptable and you know it. There's a reason why alot of districts do not allow you to fail students on the basis of missing work anymore. It isn't just because parents complained alot either. Research has shown and proven that zeroes demotivate students and in fact cause students to perform even more poorly.
2) Because hardwork and intelligence are all wrapped up into one grade, grades in the public education system in fact do not reflect intelligence. Some school districts are already moving towards providing two grades, one based on mastery of content, and the other based on the student's work ethic and behaviors. It's a pretty good system, but alot of teachers and parents who are too hardlined completely disagree with this notion for some odd reason (even though it is a far more accurate representation of a student's abilities).
3) Your work resume is far more accurate than what your report card or GPA says. You could be an extremely intelligent person and graduate with a 2.5 GPA, or you could be average to below average in terms of intelligence but graduate with a 3.8+ due to an extremely hard work ethic. GPA/Report Cards/etc. are not very accurate representations of a student's abilities at all. This is why administrators across the United States do not allow you to fail any student based on the basis of missing work anymore. You try this at a Title I school and I guarantee you get fired on the spot.
1 - Do you have any sources or references for this blanket statement?
Also, the zero is the thing that is supposed to teach accountability. I'm assuming you're talking about public school here, in which case I'll say that first, public schools are woefully underfunded and understaffed - of course a kid isn't going to be motivated if the teacher doesn't have enough time to meet with them one on one and encourage them to improve from their zero because they have 200 other students. Second, a lot of school districts discourage failing because their funding is partially based on the progress of their students, and artificially inflating grades helps get them more money.
2 - This would be great in a perfect world, and my school already does this because we're smaller and a private institution, but I have to ask you, how would you judge mastery when no work has been given in? We can't look at a kid in the back of the class who has shown up for maybe the fifth time this year and never turned in any homework and somehow psychically know that he or she is an Algebra whiz. It's incumbent upon the student to demonstrate mastery to the teacher.
3 - I'm not advocating for giving out no assistance to the kids who you know have learning challenges and require extra help. Each school has its specialties. However, the guy who knows his stuff and does well on tests and papers but does no homework needs some strong feedback from his teacher in order to realize that his habits won't fly in college or in any competitive work environment.
Alot of research is out there, if you're an educator then you know what I'm talking about. Marzano's a pretty good basic start for some research on instruction and why giving zeroes is bad.
It's up to the teacher to do everything within their power to ensure that students are doing their work and mastering their content. You have to present every possible opportunity to the student in order to give them a chance to demonstrate that mastery. If the student isn't doing the work, then it's more than likely that the problem is with you as a teacher. Alot of old school educators have this notion that if the student isn't doing the work, then it isn't their problem. That's not the case anymore and me and you both know that. This is ESPECIALLY true in the public education system where teachers simply hand out zeroes left and right and do nothing to ensure that the student is on task and is on track, especially in secondary education.
Handing out two grades isn't hard at all; say a student passes all the in class assignments with good grades, but doesn't turn in any homework. It's pretty easy to see that the student has mastered the content, but just simply has bad work ethic. Punishing him by wrapping everything up into one grade however, is unfair. A two grade system that demonstrates both Mastery of Content and Work Ethic wouldn't be difficult at all.
Funding goes to schools that produce results, period. Artificially inflating your grades does nothing, because everyone does it anyways. The school that produces the best students gets the best funding, particularly in the public education system.
Most of the misconception that people have is that zeroes hold students accountable. It doesn't. In fact, it is extremely demotivating, especially towards low income students that don't have the luxury of attending private schools or highly prestigious schools in rich neighborhoods. In fact, one could argue that homework in fact can actually further create a rift between more well off students versus low income students based on the fact that students that come from low income families usually have to work, have to help their parents out with things such as their siblings, etc.
TGalore, reading your last post as well as other ones previously in the thread, you seem to love talking beside the point and try clouding the issue. I doubt this can work here. When did I declare education and doctorate degrees were valuable ? They may be or may not, I don't have an opinion on that, but you cannot take that kind of things as granted. It is a fact however that most teachers have very poor knowledge of education. I thought this was a well-known fact to everyone, apparently it is not. Nevermind, I guess I'll have to prove it (I've been schooled in France my whole life - although not being French myself - I may not be familiar with how school works in other places) : - The level ranges from extremely weak to weak in every single field. This is very important. Are you going to assert educating someone is better done when you teach themselves nothing ? Because most of your colleagues here think that way. And they may be right after all, I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to be explained why it is better to come to school rather than staying at home in order to reach such a goal. Let elaborate on that level. It is considered acceptable and normal that people are not able to write French correctly even near the end of high school. There were a time when everyone mastered that skill very early on, but the stress laid on it has diminished over time, and a lot of teachers are very dismayed that it turned out so (it always buggs me by the way how teachers spend their time arguing with eachother about anything (at least they do here)- even though they apparently all know the answers because they have received a formation that establishes how to teach, and that formation is trustworthy). A traditional exercise that was practiced very often in this regard in the days of yore was the dictée (dictation in English, apparently). The teachers read a text, slowly and repeating himself several times, and the pupils have to write it down. For each orthography mistakes points are deducted from one's grade. Nowadays this barely exists even more in middle school and when there are a few, the grade barely count anyway, even though a lot of pupils have very poor grades when everyone should be above 18. How about foreign languages ? Most pupils are barely able to build a ten-word sentence in English at the end of high school, after having learnt the language 5 or 7 years, albeit English is considerably similar to French and it usually doesn't take more than one or two years to reach a near-fluent level. Any serious student learns in his first two years and then has to progress on his own because every single thing except for a few exceptions (like subjonctive) that he will hear from his teacher afterwards he already knows. Would you believe that several years after beginning English I still wasn't aware there two pronounciations of "th" ? I learnt that one day in a book. Another anecdote : teachers first introduce the language orally without writing the sentences. Because if the pupils see them written, they're going to pronounce improperly. This is certainly an opinion that exists in a lot of countries, you may have heard it, it's also absolute tosh. As someone who has studied more than 7 languages (I do not necessarily speak them fluently for want of vocabulary), I can safely say this is not only wrong, but the exact opposite of the truth. I had to discover by myself what words the sentence "Wer bist du ?" (German) was composed of and what those words mean. But clearly learning the sentence without the ability to understand it was very beneficial. As a result, the final high school exam for German as a first foreign language asks you to identify what things underlined pronouns refer to. That's right, imagine a "she" in a text and you have to give the name of the girl as an answer. After 7 years of learning a language that's very close to your own to begin with. Useless to say, most students aren't remotely able to devise a sentence in German. But surely, you In Europe must be very proficient in Latin. Why yes, the high school Latin exam is very difficult. You have to translate one text out of an array that have been studied in class, and commentate it. You're also asked two trifle questions of Latin grammar : typically, identify a genitive absolute or the tense of a verb (in a text you already know, again). There used to be a version (translation from the Latin, I cannot find the English term) and anyone who has studied Latin or Greek knows how awfully hard those can be ; but they were suppressed. Barring a girl in my class who I reckon had a decent level, I was the only one in my class who could have been considered to have any basic knowledge of it. The pupils simply don't know declensions and conjugations at all, after six years. I could comment abundantly on science as well, but I think I've made my point clear already. Let's just say a ton of students have 18+ or 19+ on average without any studying at home and everyone agrees the level has dropped significantly. ax²+bx+c=0 equations used to be taught three years earlier than they are now. If you want to know more Professor Demailly will speak better than I could : http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~demailly/manuscripts/panel_hangzhou.pdf . The final examination is notorious for being particularly easy, taking between two and three hours out of four to finish. Why did I write all this boring and uninteresting stuff we all already know anyway ? Well, if I really am in no position to criticize school and the way "education" is done, pray explain to me what I am not able to understand, that is, how it is possible to teach without teaching (we would use two different verbs in French, I did not intend to use twice the same).
As for your inquisitive questions, I doubt I could introduce mathematical concepts well, but neither can most primary schoolteachers. I have no idea how you teach those things, but what I was told was that a line was just an infinite straight line, a line segment is a line which ends on both the sides, a circle is a perfectly round figure and so on. I reckon I could introduce pupils to geometry just as well as I myself was introduced, indeed, although I don't really see the point of all this. Do you teach your children Euclid's Elements or something ? I have no idea what an English curriculum is, neither "Understanding by design" and so on, but is it not a bit easy to take cover behind names of concepts I may very well know in another form ? Hardly anyone knows what hematemesis means, yet it's simply how physicians call the spitting of blood. I don't know how to teach different kids in different ways, but you're bestowing again on the teachers abilities they don't have. If they do, why do so many kids fail school ? Why are teachers notoriously unable to understand precocious children in the least ? Surely I don't need to be better than them to criticize. And yes, I would be able to rate assignments. Mind you, I've spent my fair share of time explaining things to my co-students, correcting their mistakes, guessing and explaining to them why they had done them. I am able to determine someone's level and weaknesses in physics and math fairly well.
Finally, congratulations on quoting me on something I have never said. It makes me wonder why I even bother answering. But I probably won't need to write another lengthy post now.
This is completely wrong. You'd have no idea how wrong that statement is until you've been teaching for a few years, though. Everything else hinges on this misguided belief that being a student for years and years means you understand the teaching profession. I can say first hand it is completely different than I thought when I graduated from college (despite majoring in education).
If something is completely ineffective while it could definitely be, someone is screwing up somewhere. If you want to recount your tales of education epiphany I'm all ears.
Many Edmonton public schools, particularly junior and senior highs, have operated under no-zero practices for several years.
Under the policy, teachers must pursue students to arrange for late assignments to be completed. If the student doesn’t turn in enough work for the teacher to assess progress, the teacher should enter “unable to evaluate,” the policy says.
After several warnings from the principal, Dorval attended a hearing May 15 with officials from the school and Edmonton Public Schools, including the district superintendent.
To summarize, an organization has a policy that explicitly states how certain situations should be handled. Employee regularly & repeatedly violates this policy. Management warns employee over & over again to follow organizational policies, but the employee refuses to do so. Organization finally fires employee after repeated warnings & interventions all fail.
I don't personally endorse this no-zero policy, but it isn't the role of individual employees to go around deciding which organizational policies they'll choose to follow & which to flagrantly violate. If you think a certain work policy is stupid, there are avenues to try & get it fixed. But no organization can operate effectively if people are ignoring all warnings & flagrantly violating organizational policies.
I had noticed that, but it doesn't make discussing which of the individual's and organisation's point of view is the better less interesting (although in this particular case it is not).
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
you're saying that intelligence should be your mark and effort should be less of it. come on now, how successful you are at a certain job is determined by your quality of work. i don't give a shit if you are extremely smart, if that average kid puts out a better product than you he's doing better than you.
So just because I wont work hard in an English class with a terrible teacher means I wont work hard if I get a job? I never understood this type of reasoning, it's not rocket science that people will work harder if they're motivated, it's hard to keep yourself motivated if your English teacher is a complete asshat and the school wont do much to solve the problem.
In a job you have certain things to keep you motivated, money is usually the biggest one ofcourse but depending on what job you have you might have different motivating factors.
As I said, I'm getting my grade in English class, not "how hard did you work class".
First of all, you're not entitled to anything. Second, in real life, you have to learn to work with the hand that you're dealt, that means having to deal with people that you don't particularly like. If you're not willing to put effort into your work because your teacher is an "asshat", then I doubt you'd be very good at anything except complaining. You need to give up that shitty entitled attitude because you're not special, you're just like every other Swedish kid that spends too much time on the Internet.
Completely agree. Don't blame your teacher if you're conceited enough to think you could easily get an A by just "applying yourself".
There are plenty of options available in Swedish schools for people who already know the material. It's just a matter of seeking them out.
For you, I'd recommend doing a "prövning" in English. There's absolutely no point in attending those classes if you feel you already know the material and feel you could pass with an A. With a "prövning" you can get that A and not have to attend classes.
They usually let you do "nationella prov" (if applicable in that subject). Give you a book to read which you'll have to do a written assignment on. Then they call you in one day to discuss the assignment orally and possibly do another exam on the course contents. You'll be done with it all in less than a month. Absolutely worth it if you already know the subject as you claim.
They usually have 2 teachers responsible for "prövningar". If your teacher is one of them, request the other.
I wish my country wasn't as backwards as yours in terms of education. I got straight As throughout high school with zero effort and learned fuck all because the classes were useless to me. Only in 10th/11th grade when I stopped caring at all about my grades did I let anything slip (English to a C, not doing a major 'creative' project). I had the privilege to be dual-enrolled in college while still in high school in my senior year, but the moment I split with my family I had a full reset on my education (I'm now working to pay for college, zero financial aid for me unless I get married / find a way to impregnate myself).
It'd be so wonderful if we could just take some solid European policies and bring them to the states, mainly pertaining to education and handling of welfare.
On June 04 2012 23:24 TGalore wrote: School absolutely does reward intelligence - or as I would define it, mastery of material. As educators, we have to hold ourselves accountable for making sure those that pass have enough facility with the subject matter to succeed at the next level of study in that discipline. That's how you were able to pass - though in my school you would have failed, and deservedly so. Why? Well...
It also, as it should, rewards effort. As educators, we are also responsible for preparing our students for lives beyond being in school and developing habits that will help you succeed in a job. Guess what? If you skip a day of work, you're probably going to get fired. You're going to have to work beyond your scheduled hours too. You're going to have to prepare for work outside of the workplace. If you don't do these things, then you're probably going to lose your job bceause you're costing your employer money. Employers keep the guy who works hard all day even if he's not the smartest and lay off the guy who's very talented but lazy.
Lastly, we as educators are responsible for holding students accountable for their actions, because the adult world does that too. You chose to skip, you chose to blow off homework, you knew the consequences, and now you're complaining about what happened to you because of YOUR actions that you consciously performed? Ha. Sorry, you don't even know the meaning of a hard day's work and having no spare time to yourself. Life and work doesn't stop just because you don't want to deal with the BS - you have to, even if you don't want to.
There's a lot more to life than knowledge, and you've got a lot more to learn than you think.
I thought schools were for teaching, not grading how hard of a worker you are. That's the problem with some people's perception of what school is for — that it's used for something it isn't meant to be for (or that people don't agree what it's for). College (technica/applied college to be more specific) is more for preparing people for working.
Nonetheless, even with regards to work preparation, there should not be much merit in homework, depending on the field. At least 90%(conservatively speaking) of jobs don't have any homework whatsoever, so why should students be pushed into a scenario where they will be doing 1-3 (or more) hours of homework every day? The work should mostly be doable just within school hours. You don't think taking notes, taking tests, doing class assignments, paying attention, and other things is work? It's just like a job, and even harder than many jobs. Tests are to judge if the student has learned the course material (in case they need to take it again), not to grade how good or even smart of a worker they WILL BE.
Parents give kids work at home too — or at least have the option to. That's habitualizing the children for real/paid jobs more than just school homework in my opinion (aside from things like research).
You also talk about effort, and not attending work. Attending work would be like class attendance, not homework completion. I would agree attendance is important. With regards to effort, why should effort matter? Should a plumber who tries really hard to fix your problem but doesn't, and in fact causes more problems get rewarded for that behavior? in the same light, why should a kid who gets all the questions wrong get any marks (I understand that using a "show your work" method that would be difficult to do, but not impossible) compared to a person who hasn't done it at all. Effort is never the bottom-line anywhere that I know of. Although I hate the phrase, it's like Yoda says: "there is no try, there is only do".
I'm definitely not saying there shouldn't be any homework — I think certain things like research is particularly useful as a homework assignment. Mandatory out-of-class homework math questions are pointless though. Whether the student does the homework or not, they may still be prepared or not prepared to do-so on a test. It should be optional yet encouraged work. If it's mandatory, it should be 10% of the grade (like universities often have for math grade breakdown)
On June 04 2012 23:44 red_b wrote: btw TGalore you should consider a different job. I work as long as it takes me to finish what I am doing. Even more telling is my father, a neurologist, who just comes home when he is done doing what he has to do. If he does it faster because he is simply smarter than the next person who would theoretically do his job, then he doesnt have to work as long.
I get that being a teacher sucks and kids seem entitled, but there are some that deserve to be. You will have kids who are smarter than you, and your attitude seems vindictive rather than helpful.
I love my job, and moreover, the feedback I get from my students every year tells me that I'm doing the right thing in the right place. It doesn't suck. I work 90 hour weeks sometimes, and it still doesn't suck.
The ones that do not do well in my classes know exactly why they do not and own up to it when they slack off or do not put their full effort into something. That, I think, speaks volumes to their character and shows that they're much better people than the above posters who want things that they are not willing to work for.
You can't compare two jobs like a neurologist and a teacher. I know that I have to do more work out of the classroom than other professions do and I'm fine with that because I think I'm very lucky to have a job focused on improving people's lives rather than just making money.
By the way, you should also ask your dad if he had to study outside of his classes or internships during medical school, or if his school handed him his doctorate simply because he was smart.
your last paragraph is sheer poop, being a younger brother of a med school student (and hoping to gain acceptance next year myself), i can assure you there isnt a moment to waste, when people complain about how hard it is they arent joking, there is no "going out to meet new people" and getting good grades, youll probably only get past the acquaintance level the with the people u see in your classes, when your drinking coffee as you wake up, your studying, before bedtime your studying, on the bus, you will be studying. being smart will get your foot in the hallway that the door is located in, being hardworking, dedicated, focused with a never-give-up attitude is what youll need to finish, and to succeed. its saddening as a teacher you would say something so silly and immature.
and pretty much every single job focuses on improving peoples lives btw, just because your a teacher and you do it directly doesnt mean others dont do it as well
now i also have some family friends that are high school teachers, and i dont know if this same deal applies to you, but supposedly you can work for 4 years at 80% salary to get the 5th year off while getting 80% salary as well. ALSO, not to mention the 2 month 'break' teachers get every year.. and the weekends (although i understand your still grading/creating new work during this time, the students also have to study and prepare... the dedicated ones anyways.. and if you teach summer school, you only get paid more... and students do summer school as well!)
Why would that make his last paragraph shit? He implied exactly what you said - that you have to do a shitload outside of class. I'm guessing you read it wrong?
On June 04 2012 23:24 TGalore wrote: School absolutely does reward intelligence - or as I would define it, mastery of material. As educators, we have to hold ourselves accountable for making sure those that pass have enough facility with the subject matter to succeed at the next level of study in that discipline. That's how you were able to pass - though in my school you would have failed, and deservedly so. Why? Well...
It also, as it should, rewards effort. As educators, we are also responsible for preparing our students for lives beyond being in school and developing habits that will help you succeed in a job. Guess what? If you skip a day of work, you're probably going to get fired. You're going to have to work beyond your scheduled hours too. You're going to have to prepare for work outside of the workplace. If you don't do these things, then you're probably going to lose your job bceause you're costing your employer money. Employers keep the guy who works hard all day even if he's not the smartest and lay off the guy who's very talented but lazy.
Lastly, we as educators are responsible for holding students accountable for their actions, because the adult world does that too. You chose to skip, you chose to blow off homework, you knew the consequences, and now you're complaining about what happened to you because of YOUR actions that you consciously performed? Ha. Sorry, you don't even know the meaning of a hard day's work and having no spare time to yourself. Life and work doesn't stop just because you don't want to deal with the BS - you have to, even if you don't want to.
There's a lot more to life than knowledge, and you've got a lot more to learn than you think.
I thought schools were for teaching, not grading how hard of a worker you are. That's the problem with some people's perception of what school is for. College (technica/applied college to be more specific) is more for preparing people for working.
Nonetheless, even with regards to work preparation, there should not be much merit in homework, depending on the field. At least 90%(conservatively speaking) of jobs don't have any homework whatsoever, so why should students be pushed into a scenario where they will be doing 1-3 (or more) hours of homework every day? The work should mostly be doable just within school hours. You don't think taking notes, taking tests, doing class assignments, paying attention, and other things is work? It's just like a job, and even harder than many jobs. Tests are to judge if the student has learned the course material (in case they need to take it again), not to grade how good or even smart of a worker they WILL BE.
Parents give kids work at home too — or at least have the option to. That's habitualizing the children for real/paid jobs more than just school homework in my opinion (aside from things like research).
You also talk about effort, and not attending work. Attending work would be like class attendance, not homework completion. I would agree attendance is important. With regards to effort, why should effort matter? Should a plumber who tries really hard to fix your problem but doesn't, and in fact causes more problems get rewarded for that behavior? in the same light, why should a kid who gets all the questions wrong get any marks (I understand that using a "show your work" method that would be difficult to do, but not impossible) compared to a person who hasn't done it at all. Effort is never the bottom-line anywhere that I know of. Although I hate the phrase, it's like Yoda says: "there is no try, there is only do".
I'm definitely not saying there shouldn't be any homework — I think certain things like research is particularly useful as a homework assignment. Mandatory out-of-class homework math questions are pointless though. Whether the student does the homework or not, they may still be prepared or not prepared to do-so on a test. It should be optional yet encouraged work. If it's mandatory, it should be 10% of the grade (like universities often have for math grade breakdown)
Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
On June 04 2012 23:24 TGalore wrote: School absolutely does reward intelligence - or as I would define it, mastery of material. As educators, we have to hold ourselves accountable for making sure those that pass have enough facility with the subject matter to succeed at the next level of study in that discipline. That's how you were able to pass - though in my school you would have failed, and deservedly so. Why? Well...
It also, as it should, rewards effort. As educators, we are also responsible for preparing our students for lives beyond being in school and developing habits that will help you succeed in a job. Guess what? If you skip a day of work, you're probably going to get fired. You're going to have to work beyond your scheduled hours too. You're going to have to prepare for work outside of the workplace. If you don't do these things, then you're probably going to lose your job bceause you're costing your employer money. Employers keep the guy who works hard all day even if he's not the smartest and lay off the guy who's very talented but lazy.
Lastly, we as educators are responsible for holding students accountable for their actions, because the adult world does that too. You chose to skip, you chose to blow off homework, you knew the consequences, and now you're complaining about what happened to you because of YOUR actions that you consciously performed? Ha. Sorry, you don't even know the meaning of a hard day's work and having no spare time to yourself. Life and work doesn't stop just because you don't want to deal with the BS - you have to, even if you don't want to.
There's a lot more to life than knowledge, and you've got a lot more to learn than you think.
I thought schools were for teaching, not grading how hard of a worker you are. That's the problem with some people's perception of what school is for. College (technica/applied college to be more specific) is more for preparing people for working.
Nonetheless, even with regards to work preparation, there should not be much merit in homework, depending on the field. At least 90%(conservatively speaking) of jobs don't have any homework whatsoever, so why should students be pushed into a scenario where they will be doing 1-3 (or more) hours of homework every day? The work should mostly be doable just within school hours. You don't think taking notes, taking tests, doing class assignments, paying attention, and other things is work? It's just like a job, and even harder than many jobs. Tests are to judge if the student has learned the course material (in case they need to take it again), not to grade how good or even smart of a worker they WILL BE.
Parents give kids work at home too — or at least have the option to. That's habitualizing the children for real/paid jobs more than just school homework in my opinion (aside from things like research).
You also talk about effort, and not attending work. Attending work would be like class attendance, not homework completion. I would agree attendance is important. With regards to effort, why should effort matter? Should a plumber who tries really hard to fix your problem but doesn't, and in fact causes more problems get rewarded for that behavior? in the same light, why should a kid who gets all the questions wrong get any marks (I understand that using a "show your work" method that would be difficult to do, but not impossible) compared to a person who hasn't done it at all. Effort is never the bottom-line anywhere that I know of. Although I hate the phrase, it's like Yoda says: "there is no try, there is only do".
I'm definitely not saying there shouldn't be any homework — I think certain things like research is particularly useful as a homework assignment. Mandatory out-of-class homework math questions are pointless though. Whether the student does the homework or not, they may still be prepared or not prepared to do-so on a test. It should be optional yet encouraged work. If it's mandatory, it should be 10% of the grade (like universities often have for math grade breakdown)
How is it that all you people are relating school to work after school. School is not work. It is a place of learning designed to better students. Yes, in today's system it is not in anyway optimized, and if any of you read something that wasn't just a reply from someone else you would see that.
Schools are in a grey area. There is no right or wrong way to teach all students. Everyone is different. The way we have it now is because it was a system designed AGES ago. Tests are meant to be a judgement of what the student has learned, however, are not. They are an evaluation of how well the student is able to write a test. Not all students are good at writing tests, but give them the a test on the same knowledge in an oral/kinesthetic approach and they pass the course with flying colours.
This is of course where homework comes in. It for many can be just a review of the learning that happens within a class. It can also be a secondary approach to teacher. Orally in class and kinesthetically in class by having inclusive teaching, visually by giving homework. Maybe a student is a terrible oral and kinesthetic learner, but an amazing visual learning. The homework benefits them greater. And don't give me any bull about then they student should pursue visual learning on their own. A school is meant to fit all learners, although with our current teaching format it doesn't very well.
Go somewhere like Australia these days and they are seriously rebuilding their educational curriculum and school layouts to find what works best (such as self-directed learning like my high school was where it is much more similar to university where you receive work that must be completely by the end of the year, and the oral seminars are completely optional).
Homework and tests are not an accurate representation of a students learning, but are necessary to fulfill as many students learning styles as possible.
AsYyoda said? Guess what, not everyone can DO everything. That's just not the way humans are.
Everything I have mentioned is a normal part of the beginning of educational learning to become a teacher as well. Don't mock the system when you don't have a solution. What they do currently is what they can to satisfy as many students learning as possible without leaving others behind. Good teachers accommodate all their students when possible and I dare say work harder than anyone else on this planet. When you say a teacher isn't good, realize that its that way in every job. Not everyone is the best at what they do, if you can do better, go do it yourself.
On June 05 2012 15:04 CustomKal wrote: How is it that all you people are relating school to work after school. School is not work. It is a place of learning designed to better students.
I think I partly agree? I'm only addressing that another person said school was for work— never really said that myself, or at least entirely agree with it. It is work to learn at school, though, so I will disagree with the second part. Explain how going to school is not work. Because you're not getting paid to do it? Because it's something a person should want ( because it's useful;even if they don't want it)? I don't see those as valid things to discredit calling it work. School isn't particularly fun (in-class). Sure, it can be sometimes, but so can jobs. In fact, many professional jobs people have more fun, as well as learn, too. Work takes work, just because you're learning doesn't mean it's not work. All you said is that school's a place of learning — so what? that doesn't mean it takes work to learn. Some people don't like learing much, some people take more effort to learn, some people consider it to be work more than others, but that doesn't make it non-work.
On June 05 2012 15:04 CustomKal wrote: Not all students are good at writing tests, but give them the a test on the same knowledge in an oral/kinesthetic approach and they pass the course with flying colours.
Sure, I don't care. I never said tests have to be written. I wasn't even advocating only tests in schools. I was just saying there should be less emphasis on homework — ie. more class interaction, more class work, more class learning.
On June 05 2012 15:04 CustomKal wrote: This is of course where homework comes in. It for many can be just a review of the learning that happens within a class. It can also be a secondary approach to teacher. Orally in class and kinesthetically in class by having inclusive teaching, visually by giving homework. Maybe a student is a terrible oral and kinesthetic learner, but an amazing visual learning. The homework benefits them greater. And don't give me any bull about then they student should pursue visual learning on their own. A school is meant to fit all learners, although with our current teaching format it doesn't very well.
I don't know if you understand what visual learning is. That or I'm interpreting what you're saying wrong, and/or have a different definition of visual learner. You have to tell me how homework helps visual people. Homework can help any people — oral presentations can be homework, same with sculptures, same with math, same with creative writing — they all use diferent parts of the brain. One problem with homework is that it's easy to cheat via parents, siblings, and friends, and doesn't really show true dedication or effort. Plaigerism is a big thing too. I'm all-for giving students optional assignments. If they want to do an assignment a certain way and the teacher allows multiple methods, then fine — again this is a SEPARATE issue than homework.
On June 05 2012 15:04 CustomKal wrote: AsYyoda said? Guess what, not everyone can DO everything. That's just not the way humans are.
I'm not saying everyone has to do everything! Where in the world did you get that from? If a plumber can't do his job, the fact he tried doesn't matter. If an investment banker screws all his clients — it doesn't matter if he was honest and trying to do good for them, he's still a crappy investment banker. That's all I meant by that, and like I said, I don't even like the quote personally (because it's normally used in a different way, I used it in an at least slightly out of original context way).
Overall your whole post didn't really seem to address what I'm saying. I'm sorry for saying this, but that's what I'm feeling. Can you explain how what you said is relevant to what I was saying?
If the teacher violated the systems put in place by the school at which he is employed, then I think it's understandable that he was suspended for giving zeros. If your boss tells you to do something, you do it, if you don't, your fired. However, I am of the opinion that the system shouldn't have been implemented in the first place, but that is beside the point of the suspension.
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
I don't understand the issue with giving a zero for an incomplete assignment. The grade reflects how accurate/correct the given assignment is and if there's nothing correct or no information at all then a zero seems appropriate.
The argument that a zero de motivates students is so silly, were talking about high school physics here not grade school with recess. In Alberta, physics 30 is completed by less than 20% of the graduating students. Obviously nobody is taking his class for the fun of it, they chose to be there so motivation is irrelevant, inflating their marks does them absolutely no good because you either know the material or you dont. As a BOSc in Physics at the UofC, i finished physics in highschool with a 92 and i found that there exists a large gap between high school physics and uni physics.
I'm actually quite surprised by this whole thing, it took me a few minutes to realize that this is in my home province, which has been rated as having the some of the most difficult high school math classes across north america in the past few years.
I think if you expect kids to do well in the real world then you have to be willing to tell them the blunt truth, and covering it up is only a delay for their inevitable failure.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
I don't think many people are arguing that he should be fired. It's because that he's been teaching for 30+ years and has the pension because of it, that he is willing to go through with this. He has stated that he expects to be fired. However, he is doing this to raise the overall point of zeros.
That was a pretty normal thing to do in my school. There was no question that a failure to turn in work would mean a failed grade unless you somehow made up for it which was to the teacher's discretion.
However, there might be more behind this. He might have done something else and this is just a pretense.
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
Well, nearly every economics textbook that goes into signaling (as well as class that teaches signaling) uses grades as the primary example. How many times have you heard that you only use 10% at most of what you learn in college at your job? That's because the purpose is to show work ethic - it's a signal on how hard you try to achieve those grades. Someone who gets mostly A's, all else equal, tried harder than someone who got a B. While far from a perfect method, when an employer doesn't really have anything to base your work ethic on, it's the best available source of information to them. In classes, at least, it's taught that that IS the primary purpose of school - a signal to your employers, not necessarily to learn.
Also, maybe it's like that in Canada, but I'd say over 80% of the jobs (and nearly 100% of good jobs) require at least a decent GPA. If you go on the UCI (my school) job website, there isn't a single job that pays over 50k per year that doesn't have a minimum GPA requirement, I believe. I have never heard from a single employer that doesn't care about grades that I have interviewed with, every single one put a fairly heavy emphasis on them. Multiple jobs interviews I attended had minimum GPAs of 3.5 only, and some were only paying ~$45,000, etc. Grades are huge.
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
Well, nearly every economics textbook that goes into signaling (as well as class that teaches signaling) uses grades as the primary example. How many times have you heard that you only use 10% at most of what you learn in college at your job? That's because the purpose is to show work ethic - it's a signal on how hard you try to achieve those grades. Someone who gets mostly A's, all else equal, tried harder than someone who got a B. While far from a perfect method, when an employer doesn't really have anything to base your work ethic on, it's the best available source of information to them. In classes, at least, it's taught that that IS the primary purpose of school - a signal to your employers, not necessarily to learn.
Also, maybe it's like that in Canada, but I'd say over 80% of the jobs (and nearly 100% of good jobs) require at least a decent GPA. If you go on the UCI (my school) job website, there isn't a single job that pays over 50k per year that doesn't have a minimum GPA requirement, I believe. I have never heard from a single employer that doesn't care about grades that I have interviewed with, every single one put a fairly heavy emphasis on them. Multiple jobs interviews I attended had minimum GPAs of 3.5 only, and some were only paying ~$45,000, etc. Grades are huge.
I'll put in my perspective about interviews. What information does your future employer have about you? Four things: grades, resume, recommendation letters and your interview performance. In no shape or form can the interview reliably conclude that you'll be a hard worker producing results instead of being a deadweight, many things (like your interview personality) can be faked. Thus, your grades become a proxy for your future performance. If you have good grades, there is a higher chance that you're hardworking and capable. If you have abysmal grades, then you're either lazy or stupid, which reduces your chances of getting that job.
Note that I'm talking about good grades here, not passing marks. Just "passing" is somewhat fine if there's no reason to excel, although I'll argue that the system is flawed. However, if you want to enter the best universities and get the best jobs, you need stellar grades. If you don't work hard for it, then you'll most likely be relegated to a shitty job with long hours and poor pay. Obviously exceptions exist, but on average your education level/grades have a huge influence on your future career.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
It's not 60%, but even dumber. If I read the article correctly, they replaced it with "unfinished", or a blank spot. But the concept is dumb nonetheless. If I hate a certain subtopic, I can just skip it instead of failing it, which instead boosts my average scores? Sounds like a good exploit.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
Grades aren't infallible indications of what a student has or has not learned. That must be considered.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
Grades aren't infallible indications of what a student has or has not learned. That must be considered.
Do you have an infallible solution that can be widely implemented without spending billions, or trillions of dollars?
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
Grades aren't infallible indications of what a student has or has not learned. That must be considered.
If you have a better solution that doesn't encourage kids to do as little as possible then by all means I am all ears. Otherwise if you have nothing of value to add, please refrain from uninformed statements like that.
As to the person on the 60% bit, I don't know what Canada specifically does but either way it impacts the average. After some research I found out a school here in Georgia does this and the lowest is a 60%, so those were the numbers I used. I have to assume the Canadian system is doing something to the effect of just eliminating the grade from the average calculation completely, which really screws up the numbers and basically makes it work the same as above. Now if they are counting an "incomplete" as part of the average, then that in turn forces it to be a zero. However if they were doing that we wouldn't all be up in arms about this.
No, the current grading system isn't perfect. However right now it is the best system available and not penalizing students for flatly not doing work is not an acceptable option. We got zero's in school and good teachers allowed extra credit and makeup work to help offset those. The system worked just fine as it was. I am sick and tired of this "everyone is a winner" politically correct bullshit. Our students progressively perform worse, our academic system is a joke, our teachers are beyond frustrated and yet they keep trying to make it easier.
It really is a black and white issue. You do the work and you get the appropriate credit for it. If you don't then you don't. If you don't like doing the work and think you are smarter than everyone else that is fine. I know lots of people who were smarter than everyone else and they serve me lunch regularly.
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
Well, nearly every economics textbook that goes into signaling (as well as class that teaches signaling) uses grades as the primary example. How many times have you heard that you only use 10% at most of what you learn in college at your job? That's because the purpose is to show work ethic - it's a signal on how hard you try to achieve those grades. Someone who gets mostly A's, all else equal, tried harder than someone who got a B. While far from a perfect method, when an employer doesn't really have anything to base your work ethic on, it's the best available source of information to them. In classes, at least, it's taught that that IS the primary purpose of school - a signal to your employers, not necessarily to learn.
Also, maybe it's like that in Canada, but I'd say over 80% of the jobs (and nearly 100% of good jobs) require at least a decent GPA. If you go on the UCI (my school) job website, there isn't a single job that pays over 50k per year that doesn't have a minimum GPA requirement, I believe. I have never heard from a single employer that doesn't care about grades that I have interviewed with, every single one put a fairly heavy emphasis on them. Multiple jobs interviews I attended had minimum GPAs of 3.5 only, and some were only paying ~$45,000, etc. Grades are huge.
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
Well, nearly every economics textbook that goes into signaling (as well as class that teaches signaling) uses grades as the primary example. How many times have you heard that you only use 10% at most of what you learn in college at your job? That's because the purpose is to show work ethic - it's a signal on how hard you try to achieve those grades. Someone who gets mostly A's, all else equal, tried harder than someone who got a B. While far from a perfect method, when an employer doesn't really have anything to base your work ethic on, it's the best available source of information to them. In classes, at least, it's taught that that IS the primary purpose of school - a signal to your employers, not necessarily to learn.
Also, maybe it's like that in Canada, but I'd say over 80% of the jobs (and nearly 100% of good jobs) require at least a decent GPA. If you go on the UCI (my school) job website, there isn't a single job that pays over 50k per year that doesn't have a minimum GPA requirement, I believe. I have never heard from a single employer that doesn't care about grades that I have interviewed with, every single one put a fairly heavy emphasis on them. Multiple jobs interviews I attended had minimum GPAs of 3.5 only, and some were only paying ~$45,000, etc. Grades are huge.
If you have a better solution that doesn't encourage kids to do as little as possible then by all means I am all ears.
What he just said. The right system is one with grades that actually reflect the student's level. I don't see how to make that clearer.
Except that there's no reason for it to work like that. Grades are in part reflective of your work ethic, so they can serve as proper signals to Universities (if you're in high school) and employers (if you're in university). If you only cared about knowledge, and not having grades as signals to other entities, why would you even care if you're not getting top marks? Fuck it, you know the material, good for you, right?
But if other people want to see how hard you tried in that class, they'll see that reflected in your grades as well.
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
Well, nearly every economics textbook that goes into signaling (as well as class that teaches signaling) uses grades as the primary example. How many times have you heard that you only use 10% at most of what you learn in college at your job? That's because the purpose is to show work ethic - it's a signal on how hard you try to achieve those grades. Someone who gets mostly A's, all else equal, tried harder than someone who got a B. While far from a perfect method, when an employer doesn't really have anything to base your work ethic on, it's the best available source of information to them. In classes, at least, it's taught that that IS the primary purpose of school - a signal to your employers, not necessarily to learn.
Also, maybe it's like that in Canada, but I'd say over 80% of the jobs (and nearly 100% of good jobs) require at least a decent GPA. If you go on the UCI (my school) job website, there isn't a single job that pays over 50k per year that doesn't have a minimum GPA requirement, I believe. I have never heard from a single employer that doesn't care about grades that I have interviewed with, every single one put a fairly heavy emphasis on them. Multiple jobs interviews I attended had minimum GPAs of 3.5 only, and some were only paying ~$45,000, etc. Grades are huge.
Grades don't matter at all in Canada. If you pass you pass, end of story.
Oh, well it's completely different in the States. That sounds like a poor system to me.
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
Well, nearly every economics textbook that goes into signaling (as well as class that teaches signaling) uses grades as the primary example. How many times have you heard that you only use 10% at most of what you learn in college at your job? That's because the purpose is to show work ethic - it's a signal on how hard you try to achieve those grades. Someone who gets mostly A's, all else equal, tried harder than someone who got a B. While far from a perfect method, when an employer doesn't really have anything to base your work ethic on, it's the best available source of information to them. In classes, at least, it's taught that that IS the primary purpose of school - a signal to your employers, not necessarily to learn.
Also, maybe it's like that in Canada, but I'd say over 80% of the jobs (and nearly 100% of good jobs) require at least a decent GPA. If you go on the UCI (my school) job website, there isn't a single job that pays over 50k per year that doesn't have a minimum GPA requirement, I believe. I have never heard from a single employer that doesn't care about grades that I have interviewed with, every single one put a fairly heavy emphasis on them. Multiple jobs interviews I attended had minimum GPAs of 3.5 only, and some were only paying ~$45,000, etc. Grades are huge.
Grades don't matter at all in Canada. If you pass you pass, end of story.
Oh, well it's completely different in the States. That sounds like a poor system to me.
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
Well I can definitely have an idea. For non major classes, you're allowed to take SOME classes as "pass/no pass." Now, you typically don't want more than 2 your entire college career if you're going to grad school or something, I know I only took one. But my god, in that class, I simply did not give a fuck, because I knew I was going to pass by putting in substantially less effort. It's crazy for me to try to comprehend EVERY class you guys take, especially you're major classes, are like that.
I remember proving the thread was pointless a few pages ago. Besides, I have browsed it and most of it is not worth reading anyway. So, sorry, still not obvious.
Except that there's no reason for it to work like that. Grades are in part reflective of your work ethic, so they can serve as proper signals to Universities (if you're in high school) and employers (if you're in university). If you only cared about knowledge, and not having grades as signals to other entities, why would you even care if you're not getting top marks? Fuck it, you know the material, good for you, right?
But if other people want to see how hard you tried in that class, they'll see that reflected in your grades as well.
But grades do not reflect what you call work ethic (which does not look like a legitimate expression at all by the way). I'd be surprised if that analogy hasn't sprung up in the thread already, forgive me then, but unless I'm misunderstanding you're claiming that compelling students to handcopy a 300-page book and deliver grades according to the degree of completion (say, proportionnally) would be a perfect system, and moreover would enable to rule out the lazy and keep the serious and hard-working students in. I'm definitely dubious as to how our society could even exist if we applied that.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
Grades aren't infallible indications of what a student has or has not learned. That must be considered.
Do you have an infallible solution that can be widely implemented without spending billions, or trillions of dollars?
An infallible solution, no; a better solution? I have my thoughts. But if you had paid attention to the context of my post, you'd have realized I wasn't posting with the intention of providing a educational treastise.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
Grades aren't infallible indications of what a student has or has not learned. That must be considered.
If you have a better solution that doesn't encourage kids to do as little as possible then by all means I am all ears. Otherwise if you have nothing of value to add, please refrain from uninformed statements like that.
As to the person on the 60% bit, I don't know what Canada specifically does but either way it impacts the average. After some research I found out a school here in Georgia does this and the lowest is a 60%, so those were the numbers I used. I have to assume the Canadian system is doing something to the effect of just eliminating the grade from the average calculation completely, which really screws up the numbers and basically makes it work the same as above. Now if they are counting an "incomplete" as part of the average, then that in turn forces it to be a zero. However if they were doing that we wouldn't all be up in arms about this.
No, the current grading system isn't perfect. However right now it is the best system available and not penalizing students for flatly not doing work is not an acceptable option. We got zero's in school and good teachers allowed extra credit and makeup work to help offset those. The system worked just fine as it was. I am sick and tired of this "everyone is a winner" politically correct bullshit. Our students progressively perform worse, our academic system is a joke, our teachers are beyond frustrated and yet they keep trying to make it easier.
It really is a black and white issue. You do the work and you get the appropriate credit for it. If you don't then you don't. If you don't like doing the work and think you are smarter than everyone else that is fine. I know lots of people who were smarter than everyone else and they serve me lunch regularly.
One of the assumptions with grades is that they are reflective of acquired knowledge, or work ethic. There are rare situations, though still common enough, which influence a grade a student recieves. I might be a poor professor, for example, and my tests might cover material never covered in the course or text books. Circumstances out of the students control might impact the grade he or she recieves if, for instance, she misses a due date, or the expectations I set weren't clear, or some other circumstance the student doesn't nor shouldn't be expected to account for. Perhaps I'm a professor of physics at a University and decide to teach a grade 9 physics class. I mark extremely hard because I'm used to University, and don't grasp why 13 year olds can't quickly learn concepts. There are many variables in the grading process.
Then there are clear cases of students failing courses, only to become massive successes in the same or related fields. That's all I'm saying, and context should have made that clear.
Now as to this matter of making "uninformed statements", you're in no position to judge whether I am informed or uninformed from a one-sentence post, best keep that in mind for the future.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
Grades aren't infallible indications of what a student has or has not learned. That must be considered.
Do you have an infallible solution that can be widely implemented without spending billions, or trillions of dollars?
An infallible solution, no; a better solution? I have my thoughts. But if you had paid attention to the context of my post, you'd have realized I wasn't posting with the intention of providing a educational treastise.
On June 05 2012 15:49 windsupernova wrote: Sad thing is that people will see this as:
"YET another example of the entitlement generation, durr hurrrr"
Just giving a 0 does nothing for the education process and overall just demotivates a student further.I have read a few studies regarding that.Just another sensationalist article that is trying to get hits based on the need of people to lecture and look down on other people.Hell lets even forget about the merits(or non merits) of giving out a 0 for a moment and lets think of this this way:
Imagine if the article was called:"employee breaks employers policy, gets fired"
Not penalizing them for failing completely to do the work is just as bad if not worse. It basically sets a standard of "you can just choose not to do this" and you will still only affect your overall slightly. The no 0 policy is just an unbelievably stupid policy and I cannot imagine how anyone could argue for it.
Some very simple math for you all to understand how much this policy encourages apathy.
Lets assume for a moment that you get 4 grades per semester that get averaged out to your final grade (yes I know you get more, I am trying to keep this somewhat simple.)
Example 1 without zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and fails to turn on assignment in completely resulting in a 0 Average - 65 Because that student only had average scores and failed completely to do 25% of it, they fail that semester. Anytime you fail to do 25% of your total job, you should fail.
Example 2 with zero policy) Student turns in a 100, 75, 85 and 60 as that is the minimum score. Average - 80 Now even though that student completely failed to learn 25% of their required material, they still somehow get a B for the semester. Sorry all, that is flatly unacceptable. What allowing zeros does is it Does teach them the value of responsibility.
Now clearly a single 0 among all the grades you get isn't going to make much of a dent. However get a few of them and it starts to become harder to overcome. By raising that number to a guaranteed 60 that significantly reduces the effort a student who is just scraping by has to do to achieve that. We need to be encouraging Excellence, not laziness.
Grades aren't infallible indications of what a student has or has not learned. That must be considered.
If you have a better solution that doesn't encourage kids to do as little as possible then by all means I am all ears. Otherwise if you have nothing of value to add, please refrain from uninformed statements like that.
As to the person on the 60% bit, I don't know what Canada specifically does but either way it impacts the average. After some research I found out a school here in Georgia does this and the lowest is a 60%, so those were the numbers I used. I have to assume the Canadian system is doing something to the effect of just eliminating the grade from the average calculation completely, which really screws up the numbers and basically makes it work the same as above. Now if they are counting an "incomplete" as part of the average, then that in turn forces it to be a zero. However if they were doing that we wouldn't all be up in arms about this.
No, the current grading system isn't perfect. However right now it is the best system available and not penalizing students for flatly not doing work is not an acceptable option. We got zero's in school and good teachers allowed extra credit and makeup work to help offset those. The system worked just fine as it was. I am sick and tired of this "everyone is a winner" politically correct bullshit. Our students progressively perform worse, our academic system is a joke, our teachers are beyond frustrated and yet they keep trying to make it easier.
It really is a black and white issue. You do the work and you get the appropriate credit for it. If you don't then you don't. If you don't like doing the work and think you are smarter than everyone else that is fine. I know lots of people who were smarter than everyone else and they serve me lunch regularly.
One of the assumptions with grades is that they are reflective of acquired knowledge, or work ethic. There are rare situations, though still common enough, which influence a grade a student recieves. I might be a poor professor, for example, and my tests might cover material never covered in the course or text books. Circumstances out of the students control might impact the grade he or she recieves if, for instance, she misses a due date, or the expectations I set weren't clear, or some other circumstance the student doesn't nor shouldn't be expected to account for. Perhaps I'm a professor of physics at a University and decide to teach a grade 9 physics class. I mark extremely hard because I'm used to University, and don't grasp why 13 year olds can't quickly learn concepts. There are many variables in the grading process.
Then there are clear cases of students failing courses, only to become massive successes in the same or related fields. That's all I'm saying, and context should have made that clear.
Now as to this matter of making "uninformed statements", you're in no position to judge whether I am informed or uninformed from a one-sentence post, best keep that in mind for the future.
I may not be, but now you have two posts and have yet to offer anything substantial to fixing the problem you claim.
There are always going to be exceptions to the rule and no system will ever be able to account for all exceptions. However giving a free pass to basically everyone is not the answer. It is demeaning to the effort the ones who want to get an education put in and it lowers the standard of education across the board. The entire concept of no zero's is completely asinine. Go back and read one of my earlier posts where I talk about some solutions when it comes to the teachers themselves. Certainly there are teachers out there who aren't doing their job right, that doesn't make this a viable solution. Allow me to put this into SC2 terms since this is an SC2 forum. This is on par with Blizzard patching the SC2 ladder and moving everyone in bronze up to master for playing x number of games even if they haven't improved a bit.
On June 06 2012 08:24 Kyrillion wrote: I remember proving the thread was pointless a few pages ago. Besides, I have browsed it and most of it is not worth reading anyway. So, sorry, still not obvious.
Except that there's no reason for it to work like that. Grades are in part reflective of your work ethic, so they can serve as proper signals to Universities (if you're in high school) and employers (if you're in university). If you only cared about knowledge, and not having grades as signals to other entities, why would you even care if you're not getting top marks? Fuck it, you know the material, good for you, right?
But if other people want to see how hard you tried in that class, they'll see that reflected in your grades as well.
But grades do not reflect what you call work ethic (which does not look like a legitimate expression at all by the way). I'd be surprised if that analogy hasn't sprung up in the thread already, forgive me then, but unless I'm misunderstanding you're claiming that compelling students to handcopy a 300-page book and deliver grades according to the degree of completion (say, proportionnally) would be a perfect system, and moreover would enable to rule out the lazy and keep the serious and hard-working students in. I'm definitely dubious as to how our society could even exist if we applied that.
Except it does act as an appropriate signal. There have been multiple studies into in fact and they nearly always yield the same results. Those with higher grades score better in annual reviews and have a lower turnover rate with the company.
On June 06 2012 08:24 Kyrillion wrote: I remember proving the thread was pointless a few pages ago. Besides, I have browsed it and most of it is not worth reading anyway. So, sorry, still not obvious.
Except that there's no reason for it to work like that. Grades are in part reflective of your work ethic, so they can serve as proper signals to Universities (if you're in high school) and employers (if you're in university). If you only cared about knowledge, and not having grades as signals to other entities, why would you even care if you're not getting top marks? Fuck it, you know the material, good for you, right?
But if other people want to see how hard you tried in that class, they'll see that reflected in your grades as well.
But grades do not reflect what you call work ethic (which does not look like a legitimate expression at all by the way). I'd be surprised if that analogy hasn't sprung up in the thread already, forgive me then, but unless I'm misunderstanding you're claiming that compelling students to handcopy a 300-page book and deliver grades according to the degree of completion (say, proportionnally) would be a perfect system, and moreover would enable to rule out the lazy and keep the serious and hard-working students in. I'm definitely dubious as to how our society could even exist if we applied that.
Except it does act as an appropriate signal. There have been multiple studies into in fact and they nearly always yield the same results. Those with higher grades score better in annual reviews and have a lower turnover rate with (the company.
Exactly. The only conclusion that I can draw is that Kyrillion and Gnosis are simply too young and immature to understand this. Probably stuck in an escalator system where there's zero motivation to excel. If you've been to college and/or started working, you'll realize that grades are pretty damn important to separate the wheat from the chaff. Grades aren't infallible, there's always exceptions to everything. If Kyrillion or Gnosis claim to have a better solution, let's hear it. Otherwise, you're just another anonymous keyboard warrior.
Edit: Changed to plural because I realized that there's two of them...
What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argumenting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argumenting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
How is who they pick relevant to the performance of the actual employees?
What I call a signal is extremely clear. It's a very defined concept, and it's not new whatsoever. It's even the prime example used on the Wikipedia page, very first paragraph.
In economics, more precisely in contract theory, signalling (or signaling: see American and British English differences) is the idea that one party (termed the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal). For example, in Michael Spence's job-market signalling model, (potential) employees send a signal about their ability level to the employer by acquiring certain education credentials. The informational value of the credential comes from the fact that the employer assumes it is positively correlated with having greater ability.
If you're telling me that, all else equal, if you were told prospect #1 had straight A's and prospect #2 had straight C's, and they both came from the same school, and you had to pick the hardest worker for a project that had the potential to make or break the company, you wouldn't pick prospect #1? You'd be indifferent between the two?
Sorry to say it, but your view on reality is distorted. That's how the world works, whether you think it should or not. And I think it's a great system.
Because if I were to hire someone for a entry level business position, I don't really give a fuck if they're really good at biology - I care that they made an effort to do what was asked of them to achieve the A in biology. Whether the grade in the class was comprised completely of your midterms and final exams, or if it was composed almost entirely of busy work, you made it happen. And that's what counts in the real world. Making it happen. You either noted that it was composed entirely of exams, figured out what the professor was looking for, and scored high (great skill to have, giving your superior what they're looking for), or you took in a ton of busy mind numbing work (great skill to have, even if you're presented with something not super stimulating, you can still be counted on to do what needs to be done).
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
my university prof's have also stated this exact same 'theory' that getting a degree in several majors means nothing to the employer about the major itself but rather that you have a degree and are hardworking, dedicated, etc
Don't do work: Get a 0, which is proportional to effort.
How school works right now:
Do work: Get grade proportional to effort.
Don't do work: Get a 60, which is NOT proportional to effort.
How hard is that to understand? The teacher gave those little shits a million opportunities to do their work, and they failed. Now, I was no model student (I once missed 25% of a school year), but I put in enough effort to average a B that year, and an A my senior year. High School is not hard: it is literally one hundred percent work ethic.
Now, as to whether or not grades accurately represent a good worker, that's debatable. I'm better at my job than some people with degrees (I've met them), and I haven't even taken a full year of college yet because I can't afford it. Some kids spend their whole life in school because that's all they can handle.
On behalf of my generation, I apologize. We are truly fucked.
On June 05 2012 14:50 FabledIntegral wrote: Most jobs in the world value your degree because it shows your work ethic, not what you learned. Of course, there are exceptions, such as engineering, people going into premed, etc. but the vast majority of fields don't care about anything, or possibly just a very basic understanding. Good marks show good work ethic, generally speaking. Or it's the best indicator they can get.
News to me. I'm not saying they don't care about the degree, but moreso that it's due to hard work, or their mark. Do you have a good source of information to confirm this?Most employers I know care about official education (for knowledge purposes) and experience, usually the experience part and even throw away official education (but obviously you can't get experience without some starter jobs which do look at official education and/or experience)
I know lots of schools that don't grade much on attendance, you think they'd be good workers since they do their homework (assuming they did), or no? What about attitude? Usually those two things attendance and attitude get put into like 5-10% of a grade (if at all, I suppose). Do you think that doesn't matter? I would assert that it's not the school's job to grade those things much, because the school is for teaching, not for grading someone for workforce competency. Most people I know who deal with employers, including college teachers and students have told me that employers don't care too much about grades, this seems to be in contradiction with what you're saying.
my university prof's have also stated this exact same 'theory' that getting a degree in several majors means nothing to the employer about the major itself but rather that you have a degree and are hardworking, dedicated, etc
I don't really understand why he quoted me anyways. He said it was news to him, then stated he was under the impression that "it's due to hard work, or their mark." Yes, of course experience is super valuable, as it also is a very strong indicator on what your future performance will be, but I never said it wasn't...
His second paragraph was unfortunately sort of a run on sentence, and I'm not sure exactly what he was looking for, so I can't really respond appropriately.
On June 06 2012 10:59 jeeeeohn wrote: Some of these last posts are just ridiculous.
Let me spell out how school is supposed to work:
Do work: Get grade proportional to effort.
Don't do work: Get a 0, which is proportional to effort.
How school works right now:
Do work: Get grade proportional to effort.
Don't do work: Get a 60, which is NOT proportional to effort.
How hard is that to understand? The teacher gave those little shits a million opportunities to do their work, and they failed. Now, I was no model student (I once missed 25% of a school year), but I put in enough effort to average a B that year, and an A my senior year. High School is not hard: it is literally one hundred percent work ethic.
Now, as to whether or not grades accurately represent a good worker, that's debatable. I'm better at my job than some people with degrees (I've met them), and I haven't even taken a full year of college yet because I can't afford it. Some kids spend their whole life in school because that's all they can handle.
On behalf of my generation, I apologize. We are truly fucked.
We're a super entitled generation that doesn't have a grasp on reality. =/
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students
meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well...
I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship)
for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg
tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students
meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well...
I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship)
for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg
tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years
I wonder how credits work in Canada because that's so odd compared to how it works here. For example, I entered university with 24 credits from high school due to AP courses. But you need like 225 credits to graduate, or something like that (maybe it's way less like 180, idk) on the quarter system...
To be fair though, Canadian education is dirt cheap, at least compared to the U.S. system. In retrospect, if you had truly as hellish of a schedule as you portray, you should have just taken out student loans! Although I can't possibly agree with you include "kept a steady girlfriend" as a time commitment. If anything, it shows you had a decent amount of free time, at the very least. Funny though considering from what it sounded like in this thread, Canadian marks mean nothing - it's pass/no pass, correct?
And I hope you know what I mean by time commitment... because I'm fully aware of how demanding and ridiculous women are....
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students
meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well...
I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship)
for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg
tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years
I wonder how credits work in Canada because that's so odd compared to how it works here. For example, I entered university with 24 credits from high school due to AP courses. But you need like 225 credits to graduate, or something like that (maybe it's way less like 180, idk) on the quarter system...
To be fair though, Canadian education is dirt cheap, at least compared to the U.S. system. In retrospect, if you had truly as hellish of a schedule as you portray, you should have just taken out student loans! Although I can't possibly agree with you include "kept a steady girlfriend" as a time commitment. If anything, it shows you had a decent amount of free time, at the very least. Funny though considering from what it sounded like in this thread, Canadian marks mean nothing - it's pass/no pass, correct?
And I hope you know what I mean by time commitment... because I'm fully aware of how demanding and ridiculous women are....
im going into my second year of university as a 19 year old, i spend 2 times a week with my girlfriend (this takes pretty much the entire day and is usually on a weekend and is exactly how it was in highschool)
high school was free for the most part for all years, and i do have student loans now that im in university (OSAP - $8000 in loans, $9000 in grants but that's entirely due to my current financial status and not to my grades), all my 'free time' was spent on either my girlfriend or my family, and even that wasn't a lot, i would see my friends sporadically outside of school, once every 2 weeks sometimes, other times once every 2 months
as for Canadian marks, grade 9/10 are completely useless, grade 11 is pretty useless as well, grade 12 goes straight to university so its important, for any good university you need around 85%+ to get into a decent program, in my high school the highest average was a 92% ... (i dont count social sciences or humanities as a 'decent program', if you like it and thats where your career is then okay, but its not a competitive program... ever)
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
hahah, i laughed also.. it's exactly how i feel. if you're a female indigenous australian (aboriginal / torres strait islander) then you get buried in scholarships.
i remember enquiring about them before i started uni and the only one i was eligible for was if i got a perfect score from my final year highschool results. 20/20 for all 5 of your subjects.
good times.
edit: especially in engineering, as females are under-represented in engineering.
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
hahah, i laughed also.. it's exactly how i feel. if you're a female indigenous australian (aboriginal / torres strait islander) then you get buried in scholarships.
i remember enquiring about them before i started uni and the only one i was eligible for was if i got a perfect score from my final year highschool results. 20/20 for all 5 of your subjects.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
EDIT: Just noticed that B is appearently something else in USA compared to Sweden (in Sweden, B is the new MVG, which was the highest grade possible in the previous grading system).
EDIT2: And before all Swedes jump me saying A is the MVG, A is MVG+ (which previously didn't give any points, but A does).
I can only speak for American universities, but often in the Sciences (read: my entire undergrad) your only grades are test. All of my Biology, Chemistry, and Physics classes were ~4 scores, all tests. This is perfect for me, as I am very much like you. I have an incredible memory, do not need to study (reading a chapter once I can memorize it), and I'm quite lazy about class attendance and completing homework. I had a mid-low GPA in highschool, and a stellar GPA at a fairly tough university.
The real world rewards performance, not being a sheep.
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argumenting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argumenting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth
however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence
your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth
however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence
your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth
I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree).
A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal .
I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify?
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth
however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence
your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth
I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree).
A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal .
I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify?
theres people who work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to go into masters/something else, and then theres others who just want their bachelors and in turn dont put in as much effort, so thats pretty much all there is to say for your first paragraph
as for a masters program, i myself am not all too familiar with them to be honest, im assuming a masters in math or physics is much harder and probably ends with a higher salary than say a masters in something social science/humanities related?
its pretty clear i meant post grad (this is clear when i said "masters, phd, etc") and yet you mentioned the 'bottom tier' of that. essentially, the bottom line as others have stated, is that the smarter you are the more you get paid, which makes perfect sense to me, and is quite realistic as well
the 'gray area' is already as ive said, theres 2 sides to this story, intelligence of undergrad and below isnt completely relevant to your salary as much as intelligence is to further post grad education
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth
however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence
your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth
I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree).
A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal .
I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify?
theres people who work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to go into masters/something else, and then theres others who just want their bachelors and in turn dont put in as much effort, so thats pretty much all there is to say for your first paragraph
as for a masters program, i myself am not all too familiar with them to be honest, im assuming a masters in math or physics is much harder and probably ends with a higher salary than say a masters in something social science/humanities related?
its pretty clear i meant post grad (this is clear when i said "masters, phd, etc") and yet you mentioned the 'bottom tier' of that. essentially, the bottom line as others have stated, is that the smarter you are the more you get paid, which makes perfect sense to me, and is quite realistic as well
the 'gray area' is already as ive said, theres 2 sides to this story, intelligence of undergrad and below isnt completely relevant to your salary as much as intelligence is to further post grad education
i hope this clears it up for you
Exactly
1) There are those that work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to get their masters - signal. 2) There are those that don't put in as much effort - also a signal (in the form of lower grades due to less effort).
Concerning masters programs, yes this is true, but it's just as true for undergrad, there isn't much of a difference (social science undergrad easier than a hard sciences undergrad).
I know what you meant by post grad. There's a reason I didn't address the PhD part because I wasn't trying to contradict you. I'm sure it takes a decent amount of intelligence to get one. I wouldn't know though, I don't know anyone who's getting one. But also anyone who's going to get a PhD has to put in a substantial amount of effort to get one, regardless of their intelligence (unless you're one of those prodigy children).
Sure, you can say the smarter you are, the more you'll get paid. But that's because you used your intelligence to get good marks. No one wants to hire the intelligent worker than got straight C's, except for very niche industries/situations. Instead, people will hire the hard working B+/A- average student, even if they are less intelligent. Intelligence isn't relevant at all when getting the job really.
Almost no job interview will try to extensively analyze what they perceive to be your intelligence, with some exceptions once again, of course. Rather they typically test your ability to reason on the spot (I'd say this would be correlated with intelligence, but more so related to how you handle stressful situations), a few technical questions (most related to what you know, rather than intelligence), and a ton of behavior questions (with purpose to determine your work ethic).
The reason I questioned your gray area thing was because I don't think the topic that was being discussed prior was remotely related to that. Sure, you can say intelligence matters more at higher educations, but I think that statement was kinda out of the blue, unless I missed something...
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth
however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence
your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth
I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree).
A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal .
I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify?
theres people who work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to go into masters/something else, and then theres others who just want their bachelors and in turn dont put in as much effort, so thats pretty much all there is to say for your first paragraph
as for a masters program, i myself am not all too familiar with them to be honest, im assuming a masters in math or physics is much harder and probably ends with a higher salary than say a masters in something social science/humanities related?
its pretty clear i meant post grad (this is clear when i said "masters, phd, etc") and yet you mentioned the 'bottom tier' of that. essentially, the bottom line as others have stated, is that the smarter you are the more you get paid, which makes perfect sense to me, and is quite realistic as well
the 'gray area' is already as ive said, theres 2 sides to this story, intelligence of undergrad and below isnt completely relevant to your salary as much as intelligence is to further post grad education
i hope this clears it up for you
Exactly
1) There are those that work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to get their masters - signal. 2) There are those that don't put in as much effort - also a signal (in the form of lower grades due to less effort).
Concerning masters programs, yes this is true, but it's just as true for undergrad, there isn't much of a difference (social science undergrad easier than a hard sciences undergrad).
I know what you meant by post grad. There's a reason I didn't address the PhD part because I wasn't trying to contradict you. I'm sure it takes a decent amount of intelligence to get one. I wouldn't know though, I don't know anyone who's getting one. But also anyone who's going to get a PhD has to put in a substantial amount of effort to get one, regardless of their intelligence (unless you're one of those prodigy children).
Sure, you can say the smarter you are, the more you'll get paid. But that's because you used your intelligence to get good marks. No one wants to hire the intelligent worker than got straight C's, except for very niche industries/situations. Instead, people will hire the hard working B+/A- average student, even if they are less intelligent. Intelligence isn't relevant at all when getting the job really.
Almost no job interview will try to extensively analyze what they perceive to be your intelligence, with some exceptions once again, of course. Rather they typically test your ability to reason on the spot (I'd say this would be correlated with intelligence, but more so related to how you handle stressful situations), a few technical questions (most related to what you know, rather than intelligence), and a ton of behavior questions (with purpose to determine your work ethic).
The reason I questioned your gray area thing was because I don't think the topic that was being discussed prior was remotely related to that. Sure, you can say intelligence matters more at higher educations, but I think that statement was kinda out of the blue, unless I missed something...
perhaps my comment was offtopic.. my english still isnt that good and i sometimes have trouble understanding text, so if i did just spur a topic completely unrelated i take the fault
but since we've already started this, i do have to argue one point you make, and its that people getting their phd (or going med school, or law school etc) its not enough to be smart, and its not enough to be hardworking, you have to be a fair combination of the both
i shouldve mentioned that i assumed the 'intellect' will strive for excellence while the 'average joe' will not
On June 06 2012 10:14 Kyrillion wrote: What you call a signal is not clear at all. Those studies, if they exist, prove nothing against what I said, but I'm not sure what you're trying to prove yourself. If employers had nothing but photos of the candidates, they would always pick the most beautiful. Hurray, we just proved beautiful people are the most hard-working.
As for you, Heh_ , perhaps you should start argu
menting instead of trying to imagine my life (and completely failing at that). I You ask for a better way to handle things, I reckon I phrased it just last page.
Ok, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That is straight bs and anyone who has worked more than a minimum wage job knows better. I dare say that even most minimum wage employees would know better. You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute or are carrying a massive chip on your shoulder because you think you are far more intelligent and entitled then you really are.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
i agree with both party's to a certain extent, there was a thread on teamliquid with an article attached to it saying how attractive people make 5-10% more than regular looking folk, and regular looking folk make 5-10% more than well, ugly people (something like that, the numbers maybe be off slightly). in addition, i have heard several times from several notable figures (lectures from profs) that with a bachelors degree it often doesnt matter what the major is in, the employers are simply looking to see that you have a bachelors to prove that you are hardworking, dedicated and so forth
however, the other side of this arguement is also very evident, in higher levels of education (masters, phd, etc) salary is without a doubt directly correlated to intelligence
your all correct. this arguement isnt black or white, its got some level of depth
I would say you'd have to put a pretty good argument with the masters. Why do you get a masters? Because you got accepted into the program. How do you get accepted? You got good grades as an undergrad, or you have good work experience from an entry level job, which you only got in the first place because you had good grades as well (or, if the economy is doing well, because you simply have a degree).
A masters program isn't really that hard and only takes 1-2 years to crank out. I don't understand why you'd say that a "masters salary" is directly correlated with intelligence. And by directly you probably mean just strongly, which I'm not even sure that is the case. You can get good grades in a masters program through sheer effort and dedication - which oh look, is once again a signal .
I'm not sure what gray area you're even discussing though. Care to clarify?
theres people who work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to go into masters/something else, and then theres others who just want their bachelors and in turn dont put in as much effort, so thats pretty much all there is to say for your first paragraph
as for a masters program, i myself am not all too familiar with them to be honest, im assuming a masters in math or physics is much harder and probably ends with a higher salary than say a masters in something social science/humanities related?
its pretty clear i meant post grad (this is clear when i said "masters, phd, etc") and yet you mentioned the 'bottom tier' of that. essentially, the bottom line as others have stated, is that the smarter you are the more you get paid, which makes perfect sense to me, and is quite realistic as well
the 'gray area' is already as ive said, theres 2 sides to this story, intelligence of undergrad and below isnt completely relevant to your salary as much as intelligence is to further post grad education
i hope this clears it up for you
Exactly
1) There are those that work hard in their undergrad because they know they want to get their masters - signal. 2) There are those that don't put in as much effort - also a signal (in the form of lower grades due to less effort).
Concerning masters programs, yes this is true, but it's just as true for undergrad, there isn't much of a difference (social science undergrad easier than a hard sciences undergrad).
I know what you meant by post grad. There's a reason I didn't address the PhD part because I wasn't trying to contradict you. I'm sure it takes a decent amount of intelligence to get one. I wouldn't know though, I don't know anyone who's getting one. But also anyone who's going to get a PhD has to put in a substantial amount of effort to get one, regardless of their intelligence (unless you're one of those prodigy children).
Sure, you can say the smarter you are, the more you'll get paid. But that's because you used your intelligence to get good marks. No one wants to hire the intelligent worker than got straight C's, except for very niche industries/situations. Instead, people will hire the hard working B+/A- average student, even if they are less intelligent. Intelligence isn't relevant at all when getting the job really.
Almost no job interview will try to extensively analyze what they perceive to be your intelligence, with some exceptions once again, of course. Rather they typically test your ability to reason on the spot (I'd say this would be correlated with intelligence, but more so related to how you handle stressful situations), a few technical questions (most related to what you know, rather than intelligence), and a ton of behavior questions (with purpose to determine your work ethic).
The reason I questioned your gray area thing was because I don't think the topic that was being discussed prior was remotely related to that. Sure, you can say intelligence matters more at higher educations, but I think that statement was kinda out of the blue, unless I missed something...
perhaps my comment was offtopic.. my english still isnt that good and i sometimes have trouble understanding text, so if i did just spur a topic completely unrelated i take the fault
but since we've already started this, i do have to argue one point you make, and its that people getting their phd (or going med school, or law school etc) its not enough to be smart, and its not enough to be hardworking, you have to be a fair combination of the both
i shouldve mentioned that i assumed the 'intellect' will strive for excellence while the 'average joe' will not
Oh I'm not sure why you'd have to argue that point - I agree with you entirely .
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students
meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well...
I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship)
for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg
tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years
I wonder how credits work in Canada because that's so odd compared to how it works here. For example, I entered university with 24 credits from high school due to AP courses. But you need like 225 credits to graduate, or something like that (maybe it's way less like 180, idk) on the quarter system...
To be fair though, Canadian education is dirt cheap, at least compared to the U.S. system. In retrospect, if you had truly as hellish of a schedule as you portray, you should have just taken out student loans! Although I can't possibly agree with you include "kept a steady girlfriend" as a time commitment. If anything, it shows you had a decent amount of free time, at the very least. Funny though considering from what it sounded like in this thread, Canadian marks mean nothing - it's pass/no pass, correct?
And I hope you know what I mean by time commitment... because I'm fully aware of how demanding and ridiculous women are....
im going into my second year of university as a 19 year old, i spend 2 times a week with my girlfriend (this takes pretty much the entire day and is usually on a weekend and is exactly how it was in highschool)
high school was free for the most part for all years, and i do have student loans now that im in university (OSAP - $8000 in loans, $9000 in grants but that's entirely due to my current financial status and not to my grades), all my 'free time' was spent on either my girlfriend or my family, and even that wasn't a lot, i would see my friends sporadically outside of school, once every 2 weeks sometimes, other times once every 2 months
as for Canadian marks, grade 9/10 are completely useless, grade 11 is pretty useless as well, grade 12 goes straight to university so its important, for any good university you need around 85%+ to get into a decent program, in my high school the highest average was a 92% ... (i dont count social sciences or humanities as a 'decent program', if you like it and thats where your career is then okay, but its not a competitive program... ever)
Oh my god. Canadian high school is not that hard. I'm happy that you seem to have a good social life and everything but wow you worked a lot for not much reward man.
It is. You have no idea how demotivating it is for there to be no difference at all when you get As and others get Cs.
The entire scholarship system is a joke too. Either you're a woman,minority, or some superhuman who is good at everything, otherwise you don't qualify for shit.
This is off topic but I laughed because that is a little bit of my perception of what it's like for scholarships (although there are plenty to go around for people who hunt hard enough for them).
This is the best part about going to a small school. I got $20k in scholarships for getting the highest marks out of my grad class of 30 students
meanwhile, i took private school, summer school, nightschool, and also a full course load for 4 years of highschool (many students take spares in grade 11 and especially in grade 12), graduated with 6extra credits than was required (i believe you need 30 to graduate, which in this case i had 36) and for all this, all my hellish nights doing extra work, all the beautiful summer days i missed out studying inside, i earned $3500... i spent $2200 alone on just private school, and all the time i put into all these things as well...
I applied for ~8 scholarships and got 1, 1 scholarship that i didnt even apply for manually but got put into automatically when i applied for OSAP (Queen Elizabeth The Second Scholarship)
for the record, i also worked part time 20hours a week at mcdonalds, kept a steady girlfriend (to this day), and graduated as an ontario scholar with an 88% avg
tl;dr, ontario (canadian?) scholarship programs are shit, work too hard for a minimal reward, regret not spending more time with friends, family during highschool years
I wonder how credits work in Canada because that's so odd compared to how it works here. For example, I entered university with 24 credits from high school due to AP courses. But you need like 225 credits to graduate, or something like that (maybe it's way less like 180, idk) on the quarter system...
To be fair though, Canadian education is dirt cheap, at least compared to the U.S. system. In retrospect, if you had truly as hellish of a schedule as you portray, you should have just taken out student loans! Although I can't possibly agree with you include "kept a steady girlfriend" as a time commitment. If anything, it shows you had a decent amount of free time, at the very least. Funny though considering from what it sounded like in this thread, Canadian marks mean nothing - it's pass/no pass, correct?
And I hope you know what I mean by time commitment... because I'm fully aware of how demanding and ridiculous women are....
im going into my second year of university as a 19 year old, i spend 2 times a week with my girlfriend (this takes pretty much the entire day and is usually on a weekend and is exactly how it was in highschool)
high school was free for the most part for all years, and i do have student loans now that im in university (OSAP - $8000 in loans, $9000 in grants but that's entirely due to my current financial status and not to my grades), all my 'free time' was spent on either my girlfriend or my family, and even that wasn't a lot, i would see my friends sporadically outside of school, once every 2 weeks sometimes, other times once every 2 months
as for Canadian marks, grade 9/10 are completely useless, grade 11 is pretty useless as well, grade 12 goes straight to university so its important, for any good university you need around 85%+ to get into a decent program, in my high school the highest average was a 92% ... (i dont count social sciences or humanities as a 'decent program', if you like it and thats where your career is then okay, but its not a competitive program... ever)
Oh my god. Canadian high school is not that hard. I'm happy that you seem to have a good social life and everything but wow you worked a lot for not much reward man.
i agree with you entirely, its not hard at all, and i did overwork myself and i completely regret it
the one thing i will say, the jump from highschool to university is very steep in terms of difficulty, and doing all those extra courses did pay off for my 'learning discipline', other than that, it was all essentially useless imo
There are obviously two appropriate answers here. A practical and philosophical one.
Practically, this was the wrong move. He had a job to think of, and if that meant not giving 0s, then he messed up.
Philosophically, he made the right call. Really, 0s are a great reminder to stop being a lazy ass and get your work done, or they were for me at least.
I just want to say something that I noticed in this thread. The people who don't think homework should be graded are referring to busy work: those bullshit worksheets which are supposed to "reinforce what you were taught". If you already get it, these SERVE NO PURPOSE, besides padding out the grades of those who don't get it and just copy blindly off their friend. However, essays and projects and homework that actually requires intelligent thought and applications of the material is important. For example, you want to know how to improve at writing, it's not mostly talent, nor is it about what classes you took, it is about how much you wrote and read. You want to get better, read a well respected author, write something of your own, and so on. Even creativity and improvisation can be practiced. Just keep doing it and trying and playing around with the concepts and you will improve. Also, if you hate your job, you have the wrong job. If you hate the people associated with you job, just tell them politely how you feel, or get a therapist.
On June 06 2012 14:22 slimcognito2012 wrote: I just want to say something that I noticed in this thread. The people who don't think homework should be graded are referring to busy work: those bullshit worksheets which are supposed to "reinforce what you were taught". If you already get it, these SERVE NO PURPOSE, besides padding out the grades of those who don't get it and just copy blindly off their friend. However, essays and projects and homework that actually requires intelligent thought and applications of the material is important. For example, you want to know how to improve at writing, it's not mostly talent, nor is it about what classes you took, it is about how much you wrote and read. You want to get better, read a well respected author, write something of your own, and so on. Even creativity and improvisation can be practiced. Just keep doing it and trying and playing around with the concepts and you will improve. Also, if you hate your job, you have the wrong job. If you hate the people associated with you job, just tell them politely how you feel, or get a therapist.
You didn't really state anything new. Both sides of the argument knew it was referring to busy work a lot of the time. Hence the work ethic discussion in the first place, as well as signaling discussion.
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
Are you doing it again ? I shouldn't even answer your questions but if it can make you hold your tongue I will. I'm 18, have always had top-notch grades and ben praised by my teachers, and just finished my second year at University as valedictorian. I intend to become a theoretical physicist (which is a low-wage job, at least you're dead on on that). Anything else you wish to know ?
Resorting to use your real-life status and age (which I'll assume you're not lying about because it does not matter) as an argument is so dumb there really is no need for an answer. All you're able to claim is that "real life" works in a particular way while I was explaining how it ought to work : yes, that's exactly talking beside the point. I don't need to experience a dozen of job interviews (by the way, yes, I have never worked one minute in my life ; I have studied far more than the average though, for I prefer knowledge to money) to understand that people should be judged on their ability to master their field and do their job well rather than wasting their time in mundane tasks (does the word pensum not exist in English ? surprising). Any child would understand that, may I say. If you don't while being over 20, it's time to seek why. And why did I put "real life" in quotation marks ? Because this real life you're claiming to know you have never experienced. Real life is competition, elitism, and the best status being given to the best. What you advocate is a system where underachieving persons can reap the most benefits because it has precisely being designed to that effect, a system that enables to bypass excellence through mindless obedience. This is deeply artificial or, in other words, couldn't be further from "real life". It's life made easier for you.
You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute
I just wanted to quote that in case some people may have missed that magnificent statement. Thank you deeply, Dekoth, for bringing a bit of fun into this thread.
So.... is there just no such thing as a zero? Does that mark simply not exist? How pathetic.
The zero is too difficult a concept to grasp for school. Just look how many years it took mankind to invent it !
How is who they pick relevant to the performance of the actual employees?
What I call a signal is extremely clear. It's a very defined concept, and it's not new whatsoever. It's even the prime example used on the Wikipedia page, very first paragraph.
How do they rate that performance ? If they do it in the same ways they're used to be evaluated, or if the persons who teach them how to evaluate are also people who teach future teachers, it's obvious people with higher grades will be rated higher again. I'm not familiar with that though, so I won't answer further, but one thing that buggs me in that you seem to imply everyone need to excel in their jobs. Yet most jobs are easy and can be accomplished by everyone more or less equally well. In which case the reviews you talk about are necessary pointless, and it's safe to assume they reflect previous grades blindly. If grades at school do not reflect pupils performance, why should I trust anyone they do in jobs ?
As for the well-defined concept of signal, I've never heard of it. There are tons of new concepts which appear, sometimes useful, most of the time not, I'm not supposed to know them all and neither can you. I'm also not sure whether Wikipedia is a reliable source on economics, but why not. I still think one could easily rephrase that so as to avoid confusion.
If you're telling me that, all else equal, if you were told prospect #1 had straight A's and prospect #2 had straight C's, and they both came from the same school, and you had to pick the hardest worker for a project that had the potential to make or break the company, you wouldn't pick prospect #1? You'd be indifferent between the two?
Because if I were to hire someone for a entry level business position, I don't really give a fuck if they're really good at biology - I care that they made an effort to do what was asked of them to achieve the A in biology. Whether the grade in the class was comprised completely of your midterms and final exams, or if it was composed almost entirely of busy work, you made it happen. And that's what counts in the real world. Making it happen. You either noted that it was composed entirely of exams, figured out what the professor was looking for, and scored high (great skill to have, giving your superior what they're looking for), or you took in a ton of busy mind numbing work (great skill to have, even if you're presented with something not super stimulating, you can still be counted on to do what needs to be done).
I would pick the one with straight A's if I absolutely have no idea what those grade means, but that never happens. If I were responsible, I would inquire as to how those grades are given. Maybe I would find out that students with C's are better than ones with A's, who knows ? If you have to chose the best out of two Russian pupils, one with 2's and one with 4's, whom do you pick ? The best one is the second, because 1 is the worst note and 5 the best in their system, but you need to know that beforehand. Let me ask you in return : let's not melt all grades and have two separate sets. One prospect has straight A's in exams and C's in chores. The other one has the opposite. Whom do you pick ? The one who likes copying books ? It has not escaped my notice tha you overlooked my analogy. I guess that means you consider it a good assignment. It makes me wonder if there's any point in us discussing anything, especially since it seems we're not talking about the same kind of jobs at all. I thought it was obvious the subject was difficult jobs, which require a high level of expertise, because they're the ones interesting to consider, but what you apparently had in mind was simple and boring ones in general, as your second paraph shows. If I were a recruiter for those, I may prefer the one who enjoys mind numbing work, if he really is the more apt. Unless I misunderstood something, we've just been talking past each other because you weren't clear in what you described. By the way, it's not true that people keen on mundane work are more fit than others to care about boring but mandatory part of a real job. The first ones are motivated only by grades, and if they have no immediate interest in doing something they won't do it with all their heart (the carrot-and-stick approach). But those who hate useless tasks are usually responsible minds that also hate poorly done work, and will strive to ensure that everything necessary will be taken care of, as they're aware of the importance and value of tasks in general. You're claiming that obedience is equivalent to responsability, which is a massive fallacy.
Too long to quote, half of it is just pompous statements.
Because you never worked a second, because you claim to have "top notch" grades, you don't know what it's like to be down in the gutter. You're out of touch with the rest of society. If you didn't bother to even hand in a single assignment, do you think you can get to where you are at right now?
You're dismissing the grade system as "mindless obedience". Yet you claim to have "top notch" grades. Does anyone else sense the hypocrisy? Tell you what, go be a politician and revamp the education system to this perfect ideal that you're hypothesizing about, but have not even described it. I bet you'll be a good politician, considering all the empty statements you're making.
I have no idea why the fuck you decided to convert the A's and C's into Russians, with numbers from 1-5. You spent half a paragraph saying absolutely nothing. If you think that getting A's is about copying books because that's what you do, think again. Some subjects require critical thinking, unlike the ones that you've been taking.
I'll treat you as gutter trash until you can actually make a coherent suggestion about how to improve the system.
The OP was about teacher giving a mark of zero (aka nothing) for any assignment not handed in The teacher accepted any assignments late - if anybody read the link it says the zero marks were not final. The teacher gave the students an example of what their marks MAY look like IF they did not complete and hand in something for the assignments Teacher cannot give any marks for something he cannot see - is that somehow unfathomable? He gives students ample warning and has been doing this for a long time so why does the school suddenly have a problem with it now? Either the school management is utterly inept or a parent with a lot of pull had a whinge because their lazy arse kid couldn't be arsed doing his homework GG no re Seriously what is going on in this thread? You want to compare dick lengths take it to pm's
He won't even get a minimum wage job with his attitude. Kyrillion: how old are you? Have you even spent a minute of your life working? You don't even have the slightest idea of how real life works. Let me give you a hint: ditch your terrible attitude or you'll suffer so badly.
If you compared education level and "grades", you'll notice a trend that the highest earners are the ones with the best grades. The ones on benefits are full of those who dropped out of high school and barely able to construct a grammatical sentence. It doesn't take rocket science (which you're incapable of) to figure this out.
Are you doing it again ? I shouldn't even answer your questions but if it can make you hold your tongue I will. I'm 18, have always had top-notch grades and ben praised by my teachers, and just finished my second year at University as valedictorian. I intend to become a theoretical physicist (which is a low-wage job, at least you're dead on on that). Anything else you wish to know ?
Resorting to use your real-life status and age (which I'll assume you're not lying about because it does not matter) as an argument is so dumb there really is no need for an answer. All you're able to claim is that "real life" works in a particular way while I was explaining how it ought to work : yes, that's exactly talking beside the point. I don't need to experience a dozen of job interviews (by the way, yes, I have never worked one minute in my life ; I have studied far more than the average though, for I prefer knowledge to money) to understand that people should be judged on their ability to master their field and do their job well rather than wasting their time in mundane tasks (does the word pensum not exist in English ? surprising). Any child would understand that, may I say. If you don't while being over 20, it's time to seek why. And why did I put "real life" in quotation marks ? Because this real life you're claiming to know you have never experienced. Real life is competition, elitism, and the best status being given to the best. What you advocate is a system where underachieving persons can reap the most benefits because it has precisely being designed to that effect, a system that enables to bypass excellence through mindless obedience. This is deeply artificial or, in other words, couldn't be further from "real life". It's life made easier for you.
You are either too young to have anything worthwhile to contribute
I just wanted to quote that in case some people may have missed that magnificent statement. Thank you deeply, Dekoth, for bringing a bit of fun into this thread.
How is who they pick relevant to the performance of the actual employees?
What I call a signal is extremely clear. It's a very defined concept, and it's not new whatsoever. It's even the prime example used on the Wikipedia page, very first paragraph.
How do they rate that performance ? If they do it in the same ways they're used to be evaluated, or if the persons who teach them how to evaluate are also people who teach future teachers, it's obvious people with higher grades will be rated higher again. I'm not familiar with that though, so I won't answer further, but one thing that buggs me in that you seem to imply everyone need to excel in their jobs. Yet most jobs are easy and can be accomplished by everyone more or less equally well. In which case the reviews you talk about are necessary pointless, and it's safe to assume they reflect previous grades blindly. If grades at school do not reflect pupils performance, why should I trust anyone they do in jobs ?
As for the well-defined concept of signal, I've never heard of it. There are tons of new concepts which appear, sometimes useful, most of the time not, I'm not supposed to know them all and neither can you. I'm also not sure whether Wikipedia is a reliable source on economics, but why not. I still think one could easily rephrase that so as to avoid confusion.
If you're telling me that, all else equal, if you were told prospect #1 had straight A's and prospect #2 had straight C's, and they both came from the same school, and you had to pick the hardest worker for a project that had the potential to make or break the company, you wouldn't pick prospect #1? You'd be indifferent between the two?
Because if I were to hire someone for a entry level business position, I don't really give a fuck if they're really good at biology - I care that they made an effort to do what was asked of them to achieve the A in biology. Whether the grade in the class was comprised completely of your midterms and final exams, or if it was composed almost entirely of busy work, you made it happen. And that's what counts in the real world. Making it happen. You either noted that it was composed entirely of exams, figured out what the professor was looking for, and scored high (great skill to have, giving your superior what they're looking for), or you took in a ton of busy mind numbing work (great skill to have, even if you're presented with something not super stimulating, you can still be counted on to do what needs to be done).
I would pick the one with straight A's if I absolutely have no idea what those grade means, but that never happens. If I were responsible, I would inquire as to how those grades are given. Maybe I would find out that students with C's are better than ones with A's, who knows ? If you have to chose the best out of two Russian pupils, one with 2's and one with 4's, whom do you pick ? The best one is the second, because 1 is the worst note and 5 the best in their system, but you need to know that beforehand. Let me ask you in return : let's not melt all grades and have two separate sets. One prospect has straight A's in exams and C's in chores. The other one has the opposite. Whom do you pick ? The one who likes copying books ? It has not escaped my notice tha you overlooked my analogy. I guess that means you consider it a good assignment. It makes me wonder if there's any point in us discussing anything, especially since it seems we're not talking about the same kind of jobs at all. I thought it was obvious the subject was difficult jobs, which require a high level of expertise, because they're the ones interesting to consider, but what you apparently had in mind was simple and boring ones in general, as your second paraph shows. If I were a recruiter for those, I may prefer the one who enjoys mind numbing work, if he really is the more apt. Unless I misunderstood something, we've just been talking past each other because you weren't clear in what you described. By the way, it's not true that people keen on mundane work are more fit than others to care about boring but mandatory part of a real job. The first ones are motivated only by grades, and if they have no immediate interest in doing something they won't do it with all their heart (the carrot-and-stick approach). But those who hate useless tasks are usually responsible minds that also hate poorly done work, and will strive to ensure that everything necessary will be taken care of, as they're aware of the importance and value of tasks in general. You're claiming that obedience is equivalent to responsability, which is a massive fallacy.
Well I suggest you read more on that Wikipedia page. And I'm not sure if you'r aware, but Wikipedia is considered to be now one of the best sources around, and is far more accurate than any other published encyclopedia in existence, afaik. You wouldn't use it as a source in a scientific/published paper, but beyond that, the validity of the articles shouldn't really be cast into question.
The entire point is that you don't have the other information and it's not possible to inquire about it. You can't find out the A person is a C's in chores. You don't have the information. A huge segment of economics focuses completely on asymmetrical information - how parties react when one side has perfect information, but the other doesn't. Adverse selection, moral hazard, principal/agent problem, you probably touched on them all briefly in high school economics, had you taken it, but they go quite in depth with numerous theories.
In the job market, potential employees seek to sell their services to employers for some wage, or price. Generally, employers are willing to pay higher wages to employ better workers. While the individual may know his or her own level of ability, the hiring firm is not (usually) able to observe such an intangible trait - thus there is an asymmetry of information between the two parties. Education credentials can be used as a signal to the firm, indicating a certain level of ability that the individual may possess; thereby narrowing the informational gap. This is beneficial to both parties as long as the signal indicates a desirable attribute - a signal such as a criminal record may not be so desirable.
You have in your head some system where you can determine the actual harder worker between the A student and C student. The point is you can't, so you use the grades as a signal. And do you know why I consider busy work, in moderation, good assignments? Because doing it represents your ability to do mundane tasks when you're asked to do them. And that's a highly desirable trait by companies, even when you're getting paid in the six figures.
So you need to stop having the mindset that the C worker might in reality be more competent than the A worker because the system is flawed. Sure, it's very possible, but with little other criteria to go off of due to asymmetric information, you have to make judgement given your limited information. And grades, as shown in numerous studies, are a strong indicator as to your future performance as an employee.
Unfortunately you really do come off as a know-it-all eighteen your old. Regardless of your supposed top marks, you have a really hard time not coming off as quite pretentious.
On June 06 2012 23:03 Heh_ wrote: Too long to quote, half of it is just pompous statements.
Because you never worked a second, because you claim to have "top notch" grades, you don't know what it's like to be down in the gutter. You're out of touch with the rest of society. If you didn't bother to even hand in a single assignment, do you think you can get to where you are at right now?
You're dismissing the grade system as "mindless obedience". Yet you claim to have "top notch" grades. Does anyone else sense the hypocrisy? Tell you what, go be a politician and revamp the education system to this perfect ideal that you're hypothesizing about, but have not even described it. I bet you'll be a good politician, considering all the empty statements you're making.
I have no idea why the fuck you decided to convert the A's and C's into Russians, with numbers from 1-5. You spent half a paragraph saying absolutely nothing. If you think that getting A's is about copying books because that's what you do, think again. Some subjects require critical thinking, unlike the ones that you've been taking.
I'll treat you as gutter trash until you can actually make a coherent suggestion about how to improve the system.
Thanks, you beat me too it. This about sums up his post completely. Basically most of his statements are direct contradictions of one another and things that no top student would ever say. Valedictorian? That made me laugh. Sounds like a typical kid who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Reality is going to be particularly brutal to this one, I should know I walked the exact path he is on.
Another case proving that IQ really isn't a good measure of intelligence.
Reading your posts is certainly not going to help me improve in that regard ; especially when you cannot help mentioning a crowd of economical concepts that I reckon could be rephrased quickly for everyone to understand, when they're not void (this wikipedia quote isn't very epiphanic). And may I inform you we don't have the option to take any lessons in economics if we opt for science where I live. I would gladly have attended those. May I also add I'm fairly sure in any civilized country, attacking someone's age is considered equivalent to instantly losing a discussion, especially when they're kind enough to give it away. I also appreciate that you doubt everything I said of myself, while I've so far trusted all your implicit claims. Do you not think I can choose to believe you're thirteen and ask your dad to write half of your posts ? Yet I don't.
I hated (and still hate) all forms of school. Maybe it was because I was forced to put some kind of effort into the school work, or else I wasnt going to pass and would get held back. I wish i was lucky enough to go to a highschool and passed students no matter what lol, but I got stuck with a strict school.
On June 07 2012 06:34 ishyishy wrote: I hated (and still hate) all forms of school. Maybe it was because I was forced to put some kind of effort into the school work, or else I wasnt going to pass and would get held back. I wish i was lucky enough to go to a highschool and passed students no matter what lol, but I got stuck with a strict school.
You'll feel differently when you get into a decent college. Schools that just "pass everybody no matter what" tend to be looked down upon.
On June 07 2012 06:34 ishyishy wrote: I hated (and still hate) all forms of school. Maybe it was because I was forced to put some kind of effort into the school work, or else I wasnt going to pass and would get held back. I wish i was lucky enough to go to a highschool and passed students no matter what lol, but I got stuck with a strict school.
You'll feel differently when you get into a decent college. Schools that just "pass everybody no matter what" tend to be looked down upon.
Ehh, it snt a "when". I know that age doesnt really matter for college, but im 25 and working a dead end office job, and i cant afford a decent college. It so happens I work for a student loan comany (lol) and seeing how much these milions of people owe is just stomach wrenching amounts. Most of them will never be paid back. Wonder what happens to these people lol. I refuse to dig myself this hole. The US economy is built off of the concept of 'make-believe' money, like credit, and when you cant pay back your loans, your life is over.
On June 07 2012 05:41 Kyrillion wrote: Reading your posts is certainly not going to help me improve in that regard ; especially when you cannot help mentioning a crowd of economical concepts that I reckon could be rephrased quickly for everyone to understand, when they're not void (this wikipedia quote isn't very epiphanic). And may I inform you we don't have the option to take any lessons in economics if we opt for science where I live. I would gladly have attended those. May I also add I'm fairly sure in any civilized country, attacking someone's age is considered equivalent to instantly losing a discussion, especially when they're kind enough to give it away. I also appreciate that you doubt everything I said of myself, while I've so far trusted all your implicit claims. Do you not think I can choose to believe you're thirteen and ask your dad to write half of your posts ? Yet I don't.
Everything else you say I've already answered to.
It is, however, somewhat telling when several people guess your age range and are correct. It would be fairly easy to infer that you share behaviors with many people from that age range. Chances are the people that you are so ready to dismiss once were very similar to you, and have since grown out of it. I guessed your age while reading your first post. Evidently, you are allowed to make observations that others may find offensive and mildly(or overly) judgmental, but others are not extended the same courtesy. Regardless of your age, you are an incredible hypocrit.
On a side note, signalling is an incredibly common concept that stretches much wider than economics. Personally, I've known the term since I was 12. It's in almost every game of incomplete data you have ever played. Even so, you should once again be able to infer what signalling is simply by knowing what a signal is and the context in which it was used. You seem to often make excuses for your mistakes and lack of understanding. One of my favourite sayings has always been "Intelligent people are very, very good at explaining away the stupid things they do". It was once a very bad habit of mine. Some things are your fault, not everybody else's.
If you wish to boast about your intellect, I would start with learning what a paragraph is. Your thoughts are only as good as your ability to present them. Many of your posts are completely unreadable, because they are nothing more than a big wall of text. Even if English isn't your first language, which would explain any other grammar errors, there is no excuse for not using paragraphs. It is also something that is consistent throughout almost all languages in Europe, Australia, North America, and South America.
You assume a lot of knowledge on your behalf. I was like that when I was 18, which wasn't that long ago. Real life teaches you a lot. Hopefully you're less bull-headed than I was at 18, because if you aren't, I'm sure you'll gain nothing from this post; you'll find someway where you are right and I am wrong. Here's to hoping you're better than that, because I won't be responding otherwise. I know that engaging with somebody like that is a practice in futility, for I used to be that person.
On June 07 2012 05:41 Kyrillion wrote: Reading your posts is certainly not going to help me improve in that regard ; especially when you cannot help mentioning a crowd of economical concepts that I reckon could be rephrased quickly for everyone to understand, when they're not void (this wikipedia quote isn't very epiphanic). And may I inform you we don't have the option to take any lessons in economics if we opt for science where I live. I would gladly have attended those. May I also add I'm fairly sure in any civilized country, attacking someone's age is considered equivalent to instantly losing a discussion, especially when they're kind enough to give it away. I also appreciate that you doubt everything I said of myself, while I've so far trusted all your implicit claims. Do you not think I can choose to believe you're thirteen and ask your dad to write half of your posts ? Yet I don't.
Everything else you say I've already answered to.
If it makes you feel better to believe that because your age was called into question you win, well more power too you. The reason why nothing was directly responded too in that post is because you didn't actually say anything. You made lots of statements with few of them being either constructive or coherent. You mostly just bragged about how accomplished you are which implies you aren't old enough to realize that no one cares how smart you believe you are. While that may or may not be true, I am just telling you why everyone is attacking you.
Now if you want to have a serious discourse as to a better system to replace the current one that doesn't allow students who don't care to pass anyhow, well then lets discuss. If you just want to make "I am superior and I say the system sucks" statements which according to your impressive credentials seems to be a bit of an insult to your accomplishments, well then continue on, but don't be surprised when you get blasted. I have never in my life met a single accomplished student who found it alright that students who put in less effort than themselves to be handed a free pass. I have met plenty who have much criticism for the system because of its shortfalls, but none who would support insanity that undermines the quality of education.
If you want to have a serious discussion, feel free to start back a few pages where I target some of the shortfalls of the education system and some potential remedies for it. Now bear in mind the post was somewhat ranty, but I made valid points nonetheless. If you want to argue that giving students a free ride because grades are meaningless, well that isn't a rational discussion and I am unwilling to entertain the blatant idiocy that those policies were born out of.
On June 07 2012 05:41 Kyrillion wrote: Reading your posts is certainly not going to help me improve in that regard ; especially when you cannot help mentioning a crowd of economical concepts that I reckon could be rephrased quickly for everyone to understand, when they're not void (this wikipedia quote isn't very epiphanic). And may I inform you we don't have the option to take any lessons in economics if we opt for science where I live. I would gladly have attended those. May I also add I'm fairly sure in any civilized country, attacking someone's age is considered equivalent to instantly losing a discussion, especially when they're kind enough to give it away. I also appreciate that you doubt everything I said of myself, while I've so far trusted all your implicit claims. Do you not think I can choose to believe you're thirteen and ask your dad to write half of your posts ? Yet I don't.
Everything else you say I've already answered to.
1. I'd say the vast majority of people would understand those economic concepts. They're incredibly basic. In fact, for a supposed valedictorian, you should be able to grasp them all within minutes. And I'm not kidding.
2. You're wrong about the age thing, it's extremely pertinent actually, which is why it's often brought up. Age and experience go a long ways in debates. Clearly you don't know that because you just brought up a supposed garbage precedent that doesn't even exist.
3. As far as I'm aware, I don't believe I've given off any reason for you to suspect I'm 13, while you on the other hand are exuding nearly every stereotype of the typical 18 year old student. That's the issue.
4. You haven't answered even a quarter of it with any backing besides what your own personal belief on what the system is - which is related to your experience and hence age is highly relevant. I've brought economic theory, which isn't even really debated economic theory (which, mind you, a lot of economic theory is) but rather generally accepted by all groups of the spectrum.
You generally just seem to lack experience in all regards (I mean, you've never even had a job, saying you "value knowledge" more, which actually made me laugh out loud, literally). I'm sure you could stomp me in every scientific field out there, even ones you've barely touched on, but concerning the issue at hand, I'm not sure where you've been going with anything.
On June 07 2012 08:35 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: You assume a lot of knowledge on your behalf. I was like that when I was 18, which wasn't that long ago. Real life teaches you a lot. Hopefully you're less bull-headed than I was at 18, because if you aren't, I'm sure you'll gain nothing from this post; you'll find someway where you are right and I am wrong. Here's to hoping you're better than that, because I won't be responding otherwise. I know that engaging with somebody like that is a practice in futility, for I used to be that person.
I'm not even significantly older, but I know I was told this countless times... and ignored it every time, even telling myself I was simply a step above the rest. I still have residuals of it now, but man... reading your post made me chuckle of how I used to be.
teachers gives 0s all the time where i live. I deal with it, you dont see me wanting to get the teacher fired. I got a 0 today for not doing my homework, i deserve it. Atleast this teacher was nice enough for you to make it up. Jeez what has the world come to :S
Hoho, you're not enough vultures devouring me, why don't you call some friends so that every single page here consists of 19 statements of my stupidness and my pointless answer.
It is, however, somewhat telling when several people guess your age range and are correct. It would be fairly easy to infer that you share behaviors with many people from that age range. Chances are the people that you are so ready to dismiss once were very similar to you, and have since grown out of it. I guessed your age while reading your first post. Evidently, you are allowed to make observations that others may find offensive and mildly(or overly) judgmental, but others are not extended the same courtesy. Regardless of your age, you are an incredible hypocrit.
Massive fallacy again. First, nothing keeps you from assuming anything with a certain chance of being true. If it's not, you can always either pretend you were right and the other person is lying, or you just made an assumption that turned out wrong. But if you're right, then it was definitely obvious from the very first moment. I should add calling someone "young" is not exactly guessing their age range. By the way, do you imagine someone exclaiming "Hey, I guess you must be around fourty" on that very thread ? That indeed does not happen. People will always claim their opponent is young, very young, because that's only natural when you want to discredit someone. I guess what most would then do is to make the same accusation in return but I'm above that. Also, please do not feel forced to give away your own age when commenting on other's, that would cost a lot of effort surely. Everything else you claim is downright blank. Let me just tell you that while it is established people's ideas change over time, nothing proves it depends on a gain of experience. It is all but normal that people grow more conservative when older, and want to maintain things as they are, albeit I never completely understood that process (my ideas tend to not change much, which of course you'll caracterize as immaturity). Students do demonstrate much more than employees (I don't) and one could mention many a demonstration that was legitimate and rightly motivated. Enough of that. I also have no idea what you mean about observations and courtesy. If I'm such a giant hypocrite, surely you can show it clearly rather than through incomprehensible allusions. The "we once were similar to you" argument is so void I can't hink of anything to reply. Why don't you tell about yourself instead of cloning me ? How easy is that to claim you've been through someone's ideas and have grown out of it ? Why even discuss if the oldest one instantly is right ? And why cannot you argue on the ideas rather than cloud the issue by discussing the life of others ? It won't work.
1. I'd say the vast majority of people would understand those economic concepts. They're incredibly basic. In fact, for a supposed valedictorian, you should be able to grasp them all within minutes. And I'm not kidding.
When did I claim I don't ? If they're so obvious, why not save me the expense of having to look them up by giving a definition instead of the word. And talking about economics, I really wish to know more about it, however it's not a secret science studies are the hardest and I don't necessarily have all the time I'd need to educate myself in every field.
3. As far as I'm aware, I don't believe I've given off any reason for you to suspect I'm 13, while you on the other hand are exuding nearly every stereotype of the typical 18 year old student. That's the issue.
I'm in second year at 18, speak (nearly) fluent English (barely anyone in France does that, if you didn't know) and try to debate with adults (I'm technically an adult but I'm not used to it yet) when most people my age would simply hush up. We may not use the same definition of stereotype. You assumed I was younger, I could have assumed you were older and been equally right. Why would that have been ? Because you talk about work and I don't bring it to the debate. What does it imply ? Nothing at all.
Edit : if you notice any language mistakes as it would seem you do, don't refrain from pointing them out. It will profit you by humiliating me, and profit me as well.
Second edit : by the by, while I do not doubt one second Fabled to be older than me, that's not that obvious for everyone else here.
On June 03 2012 01:47 sereniity wrote: As I go to school myself I find this a very interesting subject, a question I often bring up is "Are your grades a reflection of your knowledge/skill, or your work put into the class?"
Basically, I feel that even if my english is good enough for grade A, I cannot achieve it unless I come to almost every class and do every piece of homework, even if I get very high scores on my tests. Is this right or wrong?
In my own perfect world, a grade would reflect how a good a certain student is at said subject, not how much time dedicated into it. After all, when I'm looking for a job, my grades should show how good I am at said thing, not how nice I was in class. Just because I didn't come to every English class doesn't mean I wont come to work every day. I know a guy in my english class who is terrible at english, yet he's given grade C. The only reason for that is because he did his homework and was nice to the teacher.
Me on the other hand, had a grudge with the teacher (along with the rest of the class) and I've been having constant meetings with the principal to get ourselves a new teacher (she has a terrible attitude and constantly mocks us, has an aura of prestige as if we're crap and she's the best, yet she can't even spell the word boulder).
Anyway, back on topic, I'm getting an E this year because I basically haven't come to many of her lessons (I have about 60% attendance rate). I did however get a B on my final exams (called 'Nationella Proven' in Sweden).
Maybe this was abit off-topic, I got abit carried away :D...
That's a bit of a dicey question I think, since your grades should be a reflection of your knowledge, or maybe rather acquired knowledge. On the other hand how is anyone supposed to know if you're not there? My experience is a lot of courses are poorly structured as they require a lot of attendance in order to pass while the literature might be most of what you need to learn. In university courses attendance doesn't mean shit unless there are mandatory introduction lectures or seminars, but the your score on the exams are what counts. In high school thought most of what counts to your grade is done during classes together with exam results. Though in my experience nobody who skips out on a lot of classes aren't going to post a good result on exams or assignments.
Well I'm getting a B or more on every test I'm doing, including the final exams. Without studying at all. That's how they're supposed to know of my knowledge.
Yes but you know beforehand that your grade is made up of x% test, y% homework. If you want good grades you need to work. If you want to pass, good for you, from what you're saying the exam is enough.
Your knowledge of a subject cannot be fully summed up in a simple test, and has no relevance to your experience if it happens to be multiple choice.
Let me put it this way, I could ace some exams but to actually work on something practical there's no experience to back up the knowledge. It happened to me for programming, I was ace-ing every exam because I could come up with the solution and scribble a basic algo, but when it came to making something that works it took time and work to get to a decent speed.
On June 07 2012 17:33 Kyrillion wrote: Hoho, you're not enough vultures devouring me, why don't you call some friends so that every single page here consists of 19 statements of my stupidness and my pointless answer.
It is, however, somewhat telling when several people guess your age range and are correct. It would be fairly easy to infer that you share behaviors with many people from that age range. Chances are the people that you are so ready to dismiss once were very similar to you, and have since grown out of it. I guessed your age while reading your first post. Evidently, you are allowed to make observations that others may find offensive and mildly(or overly) judgmental, but others are not extended the same courtesy. Regardless of your age, you are an incredible hypocrit.
Massive fallacy again. First, nothing keeps you from assuming anything with a certain chance of being true. If it's not, you can always either pretend you were right and the other person is lying, or you just made an assumption that turned out wrong. But if you're right, then it was definitely obvious from the very first moment. I should add calling someone "young" is not exactly guessing their age range. By the way, do you imagine someone exclaiming "Hey, I guess you must be around fourty" on that very thread ? That indeed does not happen. People will always claim their opponent is young, very young, because that's only natural when you want to discredit someone. I guess what most would then do is to make the same accusation in return but I'm above that. Also, please do not feel forced to give away your own age when commenting on other's, that would cost a lot of effort surely. Everything else you claim is downright blank. Let me just tell you that while it is established people's ideas change over time, nothing proves it depends on a gain of experience. It is all but normal that people grow more conservative when older, and want to maintain things as they are, albeit I never completely understood that process (my ideas tend to not change much, which of course you'll caracterize as immaturity). Students do demonstrate much more than employees (I don't) and one could mention many a demonstration that was legitimate and rightly motivated. Enough of that. I also have no idea what you mean about observations and courtesy. If I'm such a giant hypocrite, surely you can show it clearly rather than through incomprehensible allusions. The "we once were similar to you" argument is so void I can't hink of anything to reply. Why don't you tell about yourself instead of cloning me ? How easy is that to claim you've been through someone's ideas and have grown out of it ? Why even discuss if the oldest one instantly is right ? And why cannot you argue on the ideas rather than cloud the issue by discussing the life of others ? It won't work.
I used age range to describe other people's comments. I guessed your exact age from the get go. I quite often try to imagine those who I am talking to, from age to occupation, regardless of personal bias, and find it a good exercise in figuring out what other people are thinking and why. To pigeonhole me into somebody who is so narrowminded that I just assume anybody who disagrees with me is young, while being young myself, shows your character. It's not that I can reason, or know a thing or two, or have been around the block or something like that - it's that you're younger than I am.
I'm not discrediting you, I have not stated whether I agree or disagree with you, nor do I have any desire to discuss that with you. I've talked about your conduct and presentation, nothing else.
I'm 23, as I said, I'm not that much older than you. My age was never requested.
How people's ideas change has to do with many, many more factors than age. In fact, the flexibility people have in their ideas spikes up and down many times throughout a lifetime. Personality, culture, education, upbringing and experience, which while not completely removed from age, is far more important. Experience is derived from what you are exposed to, and how you react and grow from it.
I know you have no idea about observations and courtesy. Which is why you won't understand why you're a hypocrit, and it takes a certain degree of self awareness to be able to admit when one is being a hypocrit. Very few will actually admit to it. It's also completely irrelevant and whether or not you are a hypocrit doesn't change how right or wrong I am.
Telling about myself wouldn't make anybody any less right or wrong. Deflection and dismissal doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look arrogant and incompetent. It's incredibly easy to claim, since almost every 16-20 year old male, especially intelligent(or those who percieve themselves as such), goes through the exact same phase. You're not special.
Nobody claimed the eldest was right, especially not I. People have asserted that your world view may be influenced by your age, and probable lack of experience as a result. Blasphemous, I know.
And I don't argue on ideas because I have nothing to add, or feel that it is pointless to argue with somebody like you about ideas. I did have something to say about your behavior. Why would I want to discuss something with somebody who expects things of me that he doesn't expect from himself? That demands explainations for obviously intangible ideas? Who will readily dismiss almost everything I say, claim conversational superiority, while consquently bringing nothing to the table himself?
Why would I have any desire to discuss ideas with an 18 year old who isn't half as smart as he thinks he is, and has nothing to say that I haven't already heard? I have people that would actually stimulate me, and wouldn't spare any more than the 10 minutes I've used on you already.
For what it's worth, I failed grade 12 at 14, because I decided it was a waste of time and stopped attending altogether. How wrong I was. I wish I knew then what I know now. I would've easily passed with a no-zero policy.
This has gotten so far off topic its ridiculous. The teacher gave zeros after the students still did not do their hw/make up exams after multiple warnings, as (in my opinion) he rightfully should, the school made him retract those grades, he refused and was brought up on insubordination charges and suspended. Whether or not 'someone was valedictorian' or 'is gonna get destroy in the real world because of their attitude towards education and busy work' is irrelevant. Lets try to keep this on topic, it was an interesting ethical issue before it got derailed a bunch of pages ago
Okay, enough "fallacies". Let's cut to the chase: Kyrillion, how do you suggest to revamp the education system, in a way that is cost-effective, non-subjective and can be implemented across many countries? This is the question I'm asking you (probably a few others too). You haven't mentioned anything that resembles an answer to this question.
If you can provide a working solution, I will shut up and make a public apology. I won't question your age or experience anymore. In fact, you can probably win a Nobel prize (for whatever category) for figuring out the perfect solution to a problem that has baffled educators for years.
Well I'm getting a B or more on every test I'm doing, including the final exams. Without studying at all. That's how they're supposed to know of my knowledge.
I'm assuming your in high school, which in this case ill say was essentially the same for me when i chose not to study. However, with that being said, if you even attempt this at a university (im canadian) you'll be slaughtered and kicked out of school before you even reach second semester.
Passing kids who shouldn't pass will almost always do more long term damage than holding them back. I got a 17% percent in grade 10 math back in highschool. Felt like shit. Did I pass with a 17? Fuck no. I failed and I went to summerschool for two months and passed with a 55%.
You gotta want it, baby. You don't want it. You don't get it.
Another example of social degradation thanks to the profit system. Schools get less funding the more people fail so they go to any length to make sure that doesn't happen nowadays. I talked to someone recently who went to rutgers university, none of his grades were above a 60 in organic chemistry yet he passed the class with a B.
On June 03 2012 01:43 Thecheef wrote: that is so stupid the only reason the school supsended him is because they want better grades in the schools to get more tax money. School isn't about teaching anymore its about money.
are you surprised? all companies are about making as much money as possible, wether it's coke, Minced Meat, Sc2, soccer , hospitals or schools, it's all about making as much profit as possible
Its kinda weird that they would suspend a teacher for giving zeros, if the students didn't to their graded assignments. I believe the guy who doesn't come to test or hands in "graded" assignments should get 0 points. But what annoyed me is, that teacher at our school gave us zeros for not completing homework which they didn't even grade or control, like reading 10 pages or doing a math question, they would just ask 2/3 guys and then continue with the lesson, everyone who didn't do the homework would get a 0 for the day.
Depending on the teacher he would harass the student all day and try to bully him into doing his homework. Had one teacher threatening me that he would like to fail me because he didn't like my attitude (not doing my homework) even though i passed every test.
EPT
...
Teachers try and flunk students out there or at least are very tough on them to instill work ethic and strive for excellence. Seriously all this mediocrity and passing people along will be reflected on a national scale eventually from diminished wealth to politics to compentecy/integrity of bridges to doctors when you have a majority of underacheivers. I'm not saying some kids don't need extra help and tutoring to try and give them opportunity but not even trying should be a zero like it is in real life. You don't get paid if you do no work unless you count unsustainble social welfare which is breaking the West.
.
