|
The thought struck me today, while sitting in my Electric Circuits class waiting for the professor to arrive with what I was certain was a low grade that I hoped he was going to raise with a class-wide "curve", that our education system in the U.S. is completely and totally fucked.
Think about it. I'm a student taking an Electric Circuits course because assumably the course is going to be of practical or theoretical use to me at some point in the future. Ignoring the question of whether or not Cricuits analysis will ever actually be useful to someone who would love to call himself "a code-monkey", it seems fairly intuitive that I should leave this course with an understanding of the material being covered in the course.
Makes sense, right?
Right. Moving on. I need to learn the material being covered in the course. The University wishes to make sure that I learn the material being covered in the course, and by extension, so does the professor. How do they determine if I've learned the course's material? Tests.
Awesome. Tests suck, but whatever, they're a good way to figure out if a large group of people knows something that they need to know; give them some problems that can only be answered with the information or concepts that they need to know.
And from there we, for whatever reason, created this thing called a "grading scale" to group students into arbitrarily predefined levels of comprehension. And here, things start to fall apart. In order to "pass" the class, you must, typically, attain above a 60% or so, which corresponds to an F; a failing grade. This implies that the mandated amount of "stuff" you need to learn in a class using such a grading scale is just over half, right?
First of all, that is the most backwards requirement imaginable. In courses where you are learning concepts and ideas that will see application in later courses (a-la Calculus 1, 2 and 3, or Intro. to Programming and Linear Data Structures), knowing just over half of the material is academic suicide! But Universities typically require certain courses be taken prior to other courses (called pre-requisite courses), which very strongly implies that the material in the pre-requisite course will see moderate application in the higher level course. But even these pre-requisites operate under this "Just learn more than half of the material and you're good" mindset.
The fuck? The University requires that course A is taken before course B, because the students need to know the material from course A to succeed in or to understand course B. Great. Fine. But their general standard for "knowing the material" in a course is just over 50%? In what world does that make the slightest bit of sense?
That's like saying "You understand addition and subtraction well enough, so despite not understanding multiplication and division, I think we can safely move on to Algebra". You need to understand all of the material completely in order to move on, at least that's how pre-requisites typically (and effectively) work.
Once you get to High School though? That is gone. As are all pretenses of education as the focus of the educational system, but that's a rant for another day.
More importantly, however, is the fact that generally speaking a student can pull off a barely passing (or even convincingly passing) grade while comprehending close to nothing from the course. I could give anecdote after anecdote where I've done exactly that, but I'd rather just point out a widespread systemic cause for this issue, because that just seems more convincing to me.
Curves. We've all experienced them, and most of us have gotten a benefit of some kind from them. Theoretically, a curve is nothing more than the arbitrary raising of an entire class's grade due to perceived difficulty in an assignment or test being greater than the capabilities the class should ideally posess. If a prof or a teacher gives a test that is way too difficult for his/her students, or that could not be reasonably completed by a student that comprehends the material in the time allotted, that is when a curve should be implemented.
Practically speaking is another story entirely. In practice, curves are implemented whenever the graph of the class scores do not produce a curve that orients itself over the arbitrarily chosen "normal curve" which clusters it's scores around the 70%, or the C-grade portion of the graph. In other words, whenever the class as a whole scores lower than is arbitrarily and universally predicted across the board for all courses and students, it is expected that the scores will be arbitrarily raised to meet this arbitrary and universal standard.
Unfortunately, the moment we alter grades arbitrarily to fit a pre-defined standard, grades cease to be a trustworthy indication of student comprehension of concepts in the worst possible way. We aren't accidentily generating false negatives here; we're generating-en masse-false positives.
We're incorrectly and inappropriately flagging individuals with little to no comprehension of a course's materials as having a higher level of comprehension than they really do. Oftentimes this can actually lead to individuals that comprehend far less than 50% of the course's material receiving grades of 70%, or even 80%, which allows them to more or less pass a course that they comprehend next to nothing from.
And then, we send them on to the next course, because they've met the "more than 50% comprehension" requirement thanks to the arbitrary raising of their grades in order to conform to an arbitrarily chosen "standard comprehension level". Students with little to no comprehension are sent to Calc 2, feeling quite proud of themselves for understanding enough to pass Calc 1, and suddenly the topics are more complicated, and they build off of all the topics they never learned or understood from Calc 1, and they wonder why they fail!
This current system, with it's arbitrary grading standards and it's universal grading guidelines is completely insustainable, and eventually it's going to break under it's own failings. The already worthless grades are going to become that much more worthless, and the education system will have to be scrapped and remade from the ground up at that point.
But it's already a disservice to the students and companies that look towards grades as the only feasible indication of student comprehension, as they are constantly disappointed by the reliability of this data, and we really need to start looking at a way to fix this very broken system.
 
|
You know, not every course is graded on a curve; I have known many professors who give our low-C average to the class and not even raising an eyebrow about the so-called "curve".
|
On February 21 2012 07:22 Sufficiency wrote:
You know, not every course is graded on a curve; I have known many professors who give our low-C average to the class and not even raising an eyebrow about the so-called "curve".
Sure, but in my experience those professors are in the minority. Even if we find that a specific university as a whole does not curve, they admit students from schools that likely do, and those schools that do use curves are doing a disservice to the students and the universities that are using these curved grades to gauge whether or not they should admit one specific student or not.
|
There should be either be objective goals for the respective grades or, if you use the "curve", then the population need to be sufficiently large to assume that the grades attained should be approximately Gaussian, otherwise there is just to much variability from year to year and class to class.
So either you give grades which are normally distributed to a population of hundreds and hundreds of student or you have some objective, per-determined goals for each grade.
That is my opinion, at least.
|
I actually agree. The problem stems from the fixed, un-malleable schedules. People cannot finish courses at their own pace. I think that every class should require 100% understanding before moving on to the next thing. It's a shame that our education system is incapable of innovation, but that's what happens when government gets their claws on something.
Privatize education.
|
How about classes where the averages of the exam results are sub 60% due to its difficulty, should the majority of the students be failed? I believe a curve is helpful since it forces you to compete against other students in the class and this competitiveness can force out the best in some ppl. In my experience, a curve does't always "raise" your grade. There is this class at my university where the average of the class is so high ( say 94%) that if you get below a 90% it would be considered low B/Cs.
|
We have the curve here as well for every national exam.
|
United States10328 Posts
At our school, we don't get numbers added to our grade, but 80 or 85 is the A cutoff for many classes. (Depending on the class, test averages range from 50-80 usually.) So there's a "curve."
But I'd argue that a 70% test score can correspond to various levels of comprehension: perhaps the student understands all the material at a shallow level, or 70% of the material to a just-deep-enough level and the other 30% not at all, or 70% of the material very deeply and lost the other 30% to computation mistakes.
I do agree with your main point, however--the grade one gets from a course is only loosely correlated with how well one understands the course material, and students are often allowed to take courses they're not totally prepared for. I don't agree with the claim that (usually) you need to understand all material in the prerequisite course before moving on; in fact, an 80% understanding is usually sufficient to be in position to grasp all the material in the next class. (Someone who only understands 80% of the prerequisite material isn't that likely to get all the material in the higher class, though.)
|
85% of my study path failed Physics for Engineers I (one), noone is really caring about them having to repeat it and i dont think that such a curve exists at my university.
Edit: I think in Highschool those curves where still partly present, but who cares about highschool anyways.
|
Education is a simple weeding system to get the best to where the best need to be. This can be seen in HS where great students are funneled to the Ivies. This can be seen as well once you arrive to college - great students will always be above the curve. After 4.0ing the introductory courses, they will sooner or later be together in the higher courses, and there won't be a curve any more.
The curve is there because you pay money for college and you need to graduate. The majority of students at public university aren't great. There are many dumb people in electrical engineering, but they are there. The prof can't just fail them. (They could, but it looks bad) So the curve 'boosts' them up.
I think curving is the only practical thing to do in such a mass produced college degree environment we live in. Think about starcraft. Think how stupid 'bonus points' and league divisons are - They are really, even at masters level, not that distinguishing. True distinguishment occurs in the GSL/MLG/high stakes tournaments where the great players exist.
|
In your post you at some point assume that receiving 60% of a test means that you understood ~60% of the covered topic (or let's just say learned 60% of what was to be learned in the course). I don't know what exactly you base that on.
I study mathematics in University here in Germany. There are some courses in which you will get 80% without actually understanding anything you do (Hi @ Numerical Methods to solving Linear Equations and/or Probability Theory) but aside from those applied mathematics you will also find courses in which you will fail (as in fail horribly as in manage to score 10%) if you don't understand at least 90% of what's covered in the course (Hi @ Lie Algebra, Analysis IV and stuff like that).
And honestly the professors giving low-c averages certainly are not a minority here. If we have an average above 3,0 the test is actually considered 'too easy'. At least considering the introductory courses. In deeper courses like Real Analysis usually the average is much higher because only students that actually enjoy the course and care to learn as much as possible during lectures actually choose doing them. So the problem only applies to the courses that students 'have to do', since otherwise there is no sense in not being as good as possible.
Also about students 'wondering why they fail'.. I know that 'calculus' really isn't about doing real mathematics but rather doing computations and using mathematical methods, so I don't think anything besides basic arithmetical understanding is needed for passing it, thus I can't understand how anybody can fail that, that isn't too lazy to invest say... 2 months in learning the basics. There's nobody claiming you can do good in Calc. II if you managed to pass Calc. I. I think the way more correct way of thinking about it is if you don't even pass Calc I you certainly won't do well in Calc II so they keep you from doing it.
But why keep a person from doing Calc II that could manage to do good, if an appropriate amount of work is invested from doing it? Who knows what might have been the reasons why he was bad? Nobody would ever say 'hey, you scored 60% in Calc I, you will not have problems with Calc II !'. That's just what some students like to believe. (It obviously is just wrong.)
|
I believe that many universities are moving toward a very good and proactive way to handle final grading processes and other major grades in their politics and social sciences.
These courses are becoming more and more professional, in the sense that you are required to be writing about current events, go out into the city and find interviewers to do research rather than read books that may or may not be good sources, learn to give lectures as experts in a topic rather than write a thesis report, and ultimately as they graduate they have an apex project with lots of time and independent research being put in.
Sciences are following in the goals of apex research and project level creativity but at the same time scientists don't work in groups of 1. The average grades for PhD level engineers in their later years (uncurved) range from 50-70% of the total material covered according to their test grades. Engineers work with physicist, biologist, chemist, computer scientist, etc. etc. in groups ranging from 5-10 per project and also have outside research they may conduct. To simply test a scientist, it is impossible to do it 1 on 1 with high-level theory. Again, many universities treat the hard-science classes well, with A's ranging from 80-85+ to help with major difficulty of handling 5+ compound problems in an hour without notes or associates.
The point I'm trying to make is that instead of easing the perceived success of a student (past the "passing" grade) is to make the basic knowledge of the course earn a C or B and to earn the higher grades you must improve your professional self in some way according to the class. My CS classes are purely programmed, never theory of information and data. The final is communal and takes three hours to create a program of some sort to solve a complex array of problems. Students work together and can use resources for aid. Grades are assigned on the pass/fail of the final program and the skills observed by the professor that said "I helped create this program in some way".
In the end, you really don't need fundamental knowledge skills past a certain point. Those fundamentals are drilled in that "50th percentile" you need to just pass a class. Anything beyond is what is required to truly put them to use, and the best way to differentiate from a bad student and a good one is thier application. It is very easy to do if you structure the curriculum well at all levels.
|
At some point you are responsible for your own education.
|
That is because the system was to give millions of people education to become more productive workers. Focus on efficiency, not quality.
|
On February 21 2012 07:35 EternaLLegacy wrote:
I actually agree. The problem stems from the fixed, un-malleable schedules. People cannot finish courses at their own pace. I think that every class should require 100% understanding before moving on to the next thing. It's a shame that our education system is incapable of innovation, but that's what happens when government gets their claws on something.
Privatize education.
That is the most ironic post from my PoV ever. I go to a school that requires high understanding of subjects, allows you to finish at your own pace and is a private school.
As for the main topic, I agree that our education system can be pretty bad. Even the often used argument of "school is primarily for building your brain, not learning practical knowledge" doesn't really cover the bad habits we often build, like just having people memorize something for a couple of days and then forget it.
There are also quite a few "tricks" that schools don't teach that are so absurdly useful that everyone everywhere should use them, like memory castle or removing the little voice in your head when you read in order to allow you to read far faster.
|
On February 21 2012 11:26 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 07:35 EternaLLegacy wrote:
I actually agree. The problem stems from the fixed, un-malleable schedules. People cannot finish courses at their own pace. I think that every class should require 100% understanding before moving on to the next thing. It's a shame that our education system is incapable of innovation, but that's what happens when government gets their claws on something.
Privatize education. That is the most ironic post from my PoV ever. I go to a school that requires high understanding of subjects, allows you to finish at your own pace and is a private school.
How is that ironic?
|
On February 21 2012 11:30 Slithe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 11:26 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On February 21 2012 07:35 EternaLLegacy wrote:
I actually agree. The problem stems from the fixed, un-malleable schedules. People cannot finish courses at their own pace. I think that every class should require 100% understanding before moving on to the next thing. It's a shame that our education system is incapable of innovation, but that's what happens when government gets their claws on something.
Privatize education. That is the most ironic post from my PoV ever. I go to a school that requires high understanding of subjects, allows you to finish at your own pace and is a private school. How is that ironic?
Perhaps ironic isn't the best word, but as I was reading through I was pretty much taken on a guided tour on what makes my school unique and, in my opinion, better.
The ending where he said privatize education just made it for me.
|
I generally agree with your points here. However, I think you missed a couple really important ones.
1) Tests. For the most part, tests are not made properly. Aka multiple choice involves a lot more reading comprehension then actually understanding the material for the most part and in turn includes some luck. I'd say you can get as much as 5-10% extra by guessing per multiple choice test. But lets say we exclude that silly lazy profs test. Since you focus on math here lets talk about Calc 1. Usually in my experience the profs don't focus on the basics, which means a 50% (or 60%) in your case is actually an understanding far beyond the basics. As the hardest types of questions are on there that involve complex methods and the basics might get you a 20% in most classes on the test.
In my experience grading curves are rarely used, and the next midterm/test is made easier if the class had a high fail rate on the test before. (Many tests had below 40% average on a 50% pass)
2) Assignments, labs, all other marks except tests. Here in my opinion lies the farthest flaw in the education system. Most classes lets say have 10%-20% assignments 10%-20% labs/projects. For the assignments/labs, there no reason to get anything below a 90% if you don't want to. There is a good chance you can work with (or just copy) someone who knows there shits answer. Lets say you get a 90% average on assignments and labs, thats a 18% in the 20% case and 36% in the 40% case. On a 50% pass class, you would only need around a 40% average on tests and to pass the class. Unless there is a requirement to pass the tests. (Which in half the cases there actually is) and to the people who do poorly on the tests but still pass, there mark is brought up by these other marks. So it is reflected they get a C when actually they barely pass the exams.
3) GPA system. It depends on who you talk to but it seems extremely flawed. Someone who gets a 80 gets a 3.7, but someone who gets say 79.9 or 79, for profs who round (none) gets only a 3.3. in a 4.3 system. So overall students GPA can be a poor reflection of the persons academic ability in a positive or a negative way. And people actually get a lot of recognition and money based on this.
Overall there is a lot of questionable things in the education system. But to change it would require changing from the ground up in high school, and I just can't see that happening any time soon, at least not in my country.
|
On February 21 2012 07:55 Joni_ wrote:
In your post you at some point assume that receiving 60% of a test means that you understood ~60% of the covered topic (or let's just say learned 60% of what was to be learned in the course). I don't know what exactly you base that on.
I study mathematics in University here in Germany. There are some courses in which you will get 80% without actually understanding anything you do (Hi @ Numerical Methods to solving Linear Equations and/or Probability Theory) but aside from those applied mathematics you will also find courses in which you will fail (as in fail horribly as in manage to score 10%) if you don't understand at least 90% of what's covered in the course (Hi @ Lie Algebra, Analysis IV and stuff like that).
And honestly the professors giving low-c averages certainly are not a minority here. If we have an average above 3,0 the test is actually considered 'too easy'. At least considering the introductory courses. In deeper courses like Real Analysis usually the average is much higher because only students that actually enjoy the course and care to learn as much as possible during lectures actually choose doing them. So the problem only applies to the courses that students 'have to do', since otherwise there is no sense in not being as good as possible.
Also about students 'wondering why they fail'.. I know that 'calculus' really isn't about doing real mathematics but rather doing computations and using mathematical methods, so I don't think anything besides basic arithmetical understanding is needed for passing it, thus I can't understand how anybody can fail that, that isn't too lazy to invest say... 2 months in learning the basics. There's nobody claiming you can do good in Calc. II if you managed to pass Calc. I. I think the way more correct way of thinking about it is if you don't even pass Calc I you certainly won't do well in Calc II so they keep you from doing it.
But why keep a person from doing Calc II that could manage to do good, if an appropriate amount of work is invested from doing it? Who knows what might have been the reasons why he was bad? Nobody would ever say 'hey, you scored 60% in Calc I, you will not have problems with Calc II !'. That's just what some students like to believe. (It obviously is just wrong.)
I agree with just about everything written here, well done.
A big part of OP's post hinges on the assumption that tests are an accurate reflection of your understanding. I don't really think that's true, primarily for the reasons listed in the above post, combined with my own experience. Without that, the rest of OP just falls apart.
Curves are pretty stupid though, I agree. Despite having gained undeserving %s from them (and lost deserving %s as well... goes both ways), I don't agree with their concept and don't really think they should have a place in academia.
|
School is to make you learn how to learn.
Often times not much more than that.
Just take it for what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
