6 ms·

Given that students are almost always graded on how well they do on assignments/exams rather than how long they studied, your strong-man competition analogy doe

by jartelt 10y ago

Given that students are almost always graded on how well they do on assignments/exams rather than how long they studied, your strong-man competition analogy doesn't make much sense.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Qwertious 10y ago
You're implying that grades are an objective metric of value. This is often false, because the metrics for grading are oriented around what's easily testable, rather than what's actually a sign of good work. Kind of like hours spent in a gym, actually.
- jartelt 10y ago
  No, I am just arguing that someone's grade on a test is directly linked to how well they do on the test and not necessarily on how much studying they did. If you don't like university tests, that is fine (I do not believe they are perfect either). But, they do a decent job of determining if a student knows a specific set of facts and can solve a specific set of problems. I have graded these tests before and no where during the process do I ask myself how long someone studied (because I don't know how long people studied). Very smart people can ace tests with minimal studying. Some people do poorly after studying a lot.
  - Retric 10y ago
    The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. So, when you look objectively you find the most highly paid author has zero relevant accolades. in academic terms, gave the appearance of doing what was necessary".[18] Rowling recalls doing little work, preferring to listen to The Smiths and read Dickens and Tolkien
    - selestify 10y ago
      > The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. Interesting, do we have any explanations for this phenomena?
      - Retric 10y ago
        Not sure how much research backs this up, but I think it's a change in what's important. A 10 year old who copies someone else brilliantly is praised, an adult doing the same thing makes minim wage. "Even prodigies who avoid burnout and resist social pressures are unlikely to make a big splash as an adult. The problem, notes giftedness researcher Ellen Winner, is that to make a major contribution in the arts, and even the sciences "you need a rebellious spirit and the type of mind that can see new things." Most prodigies, however, are acclaimed not for their innovation but "for doing something that's already been done, like playing the violin in the style of Itzhak Perlman." Only prodigies who can reinvent themselves as innovators, she says, are likely to leave a lasting mark during adulthood." https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigies-fail https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigie...
        crazy2be 10y ago
        Well, I guess it all depends on what you mean by do poorly in life. High school valedictorians and child prodigies (especially the former) are disproportionately likely to hold positions of societal power. Just read the bio of any president of the IMF or the World Bank or the Federal Reserve. Essentially all of them graduate university summa cum laude or magna cum laude. Innovative scientists and people who move the world forward? Perhaps less likely to come from this group, for a variety of reasons.
        Retric 10y ago
        Sure, when all you need for 'successes' is to be accepted credentials are useful. But, that just means you where picked it does not mean you actually succeeded at something. It's the difference between getting funding, and not just having an IPO but actually pay real dividends for significantly more than total investments.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    One thing I really appreciated in higher education was to be graded based only on an exam where our name was unknown to the persons who graded us. I skipped a lot of boring lessons, read the books (yes, practical and visual type) and got really good grades.
- wfo 10y ago
  They are pretty objective, but you're right they are oriented around what's testable. This mostly is true in large intro classes -- specialized grad courses (well really qualifiers), advanced undergrad courses with 10 students, they're testing good work. But what's testable is generally straightforward and pretty easy. So if a student can't even do well on what's testable they don't have a prayer at moving farther than that. Excepting for students with special needs, learning disabilities, etc. It's like if we wanted to test someone's ability to run a mile but had no way to measure time. We'd still test them to see if they could complete it, and if they can't, well they certainly can't do it quickly. But anyone competent can most certainly pass that basic test. Grades aren't an opportunity to show off, they're an opportunity to express basic competence.
jacobolus 10y ago
The assignments are often (even typically) crafted to be straightforward but require significant amounts of time to complete, and often graded more for diligence than understanding. Exams are sometimes more about flattering the grader or following a fixed procedure than developing an interesting argument and defending it well or solving novel difficult problems. Add course attendance and participation on top, and what you get is grades that generally correlate more to time spent than to competence per se. Obviously someone clever can figure out how to get away with putting in less effort than the average student while still scoring well, but that’s more about learning to play the school game than learning how to think according to the methods of inquiry whatever field is ostensibly being studied. It makes sense that school takes this form: instructor time is much more scalable to many students when assignments and exams are simple and uniform. Mentoring students who are working on real research problems takes much more time and effort.
- akinalci 10y ago
  This doesn't hold in my experience with an engineering education. The objective is for students to gain and demonstrate basic competence in fundamental concepts of their field, and straightforward answers to straightforward questions suffice. There's not a lot of room here for novel arguments, and the objective is not to solve novel problems; that comes later. This is time consuming because, for most of us, learning a new concept and applying it takes some time. It's not a sinister plot by the system to waste our time. Regarding mentoring students to work on real research problems: yes, this doesn't scale to huge number of undergrads. But most undergrads don't yet have the drive or the fundamental knowledge required to tackle real research questions. That said, if a student does well in a class and shows interest, a lot of professors will give an undergrad a chance to work with their research lab.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    Who ever said there was a “sinister plot” involved? The best (most time efficient) way to learn factual knowledge is using some kind of spaced repetition. The best (most time efficient for the student) way to learn mechanical or conceptual tools to mastery is to be presented with a problem which needs the tool, struggle with it for a while and develop some personal familiarity with the problem and personal ad-hoc methods; then have the standard tool presented, then go back and struggle some more using the standard tool to solve various types of problems and combinatorially trying the new tool out with various old tools to see what it can do and how they all relate. Then after basic competence is achieved, continuing to occasionally apply the tool to new problems over the course of months or years, including problems which require unusual uses of the tool or unexpected combinations with other tools, generalizations of the tool, etc. This is all generally much faster and more effective with some amount of 1-on-1 tutoring/mentorship between the student and a subject expert than with any other known arrangement, whether the tool in question is a pair of scissors, argument analysis, google search, rhetoric, regular expressions, or complex multiplication. The best way to learn methods of inquiry or creative work which characterize various human endeavors (history, journalism, physics, graphic design, ethnography, mechanical engineering, pure mathematics, philosophy, literary criticism, acting, technical illustration, sales, ....) is to spend time actually doing real or realistic work, watching experts do real work, and looking at lots of finished work. Unfortunately it’s hard to make 1-on-1 tutoring or research project mentorship scale to a classroom. Strategies like putting the students into groups to solve project-type problems of a variety of scopes, “flipping” the classroom by presenting lectures via video outside of class, mixing up assignments to include a mix of easy small-scope problems of the new material combined with harder problems highlighting past material, and so on can help, but there is a huge gap still between (even average quality) 1-on-1 tutoring and the best alternative method, which educators and education researchers would love to know how to fill.

by jartelt 10y ago

Given that students are almost always graded on how well they do on assignments/exams rather than how long they studied, your strong-man competition analogy doesn't make much sense.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Qwertious 10y ago

You're implying that grades are an objective metric of value. This is often false, because the metrics for grading are oriented around what's easily testable, rather than what's actually a sign of good work. Kind of like hours spent in a gym, actually.

jartelt 10y ago
No, I am just arguing that someone's grade on a test is directly linked to how well they do on the test and not necessarily on how much studying they did. If you don't like university tests, that is fine (I do not believe they are perfect either). But, they do a decent job of determining if a student knows a specific set of facts and can solve a specific set of problems. I have graded these tests before and no where during the process do I ask myself how long someone studied (because I don't know how long people studied). Very smart people can ace tests with minimal studying. Some people do poorly after studying a lot.
- Retric 10y ago
  The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. So, when you look objectively you find the most highly paid author has zero relevant accolades. in academic terms, gave the appearance of doing what was necessary".[18] Rowling recalls doing little work, preferring to listen to The Smiths and read Dickens and Tolkien
  - selestify 10y ago
    > The problem is final GPA means almost nothing. High School Valedictorians are an interesting population because they tend to do poorly in life. Prodigies similarly underperform vs expected results. Interesting, do we have any explanations for this phenomena?
    - Retric 10y ago
      Not sure how much research backs this up, but I think it's a change in what's important. A 10 year old who copies someone else brilliantly is praised, an adult doing the same thing makes minim wage. "Even prodigies who avoid burnout and resist social pressures are unlikely to make a big splash as an adult. The problem, notes giftedness researcher Ellen Winner, is that to make a major contribution in the arts, and even the sciences "you need a rebellious spirit and the type of mind that can see new things." Most prodigies, however, are acclaimed not for their innovation but "for doing something that's already been done, like playing the violin in the style of Itzhak Perlman." Only prodigies who can reinvent themselves as innovators, she says, are likely to leave a lasting mark during adulthood." https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigies-fail https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200511/why-prodigie...
      - crazy2be 10y ago
        Well, I guess it all depends on what you mean by do poorly in life. High school valedictorians and child prodigies (especially the former) are disproportionately likely to hold positions of societal power. Just read the bio of any president of the IMF or the World Bank or the Federal Reserve. Essentially all of them graduate university summa cum laude or magna cum laude. Innovative scientists and people who move the world forward? Perhaps less likely to come from this group, for a variety of reasons.
        Retric 10y ago
        Sure, when all you need for 'successes' is to be accepted credentials are useful. But, that just means you where picked it does not mean you actually succeeded at something. It's the difference between getting funding, and not just having an IPO but actually pay real dividends for significantly more than total investments.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  One thing I really appreciated in higher education was to be graded based only on an exam where our name was unknown to the persons who graded us. I skipped a lot of boring lessons, read the books (yes, practical and visual type) and got really good grades.
wfo 10y ago
They are pretty objective, but you're right they are oriented around what's testable. This mostly is true in large intro classes -- specialized grad courses (well really qualifiers), advanced undergrad courses with 10 students, they're testing good work. But what's testable is generally straightforward and pretty easy. So if a student can't even do well on what's testable they don't have a prayer at moving farther than that. Excepting for students with special needs, learning disabilities, etc. It's like if we wanted to test someone's ability to run a mile but had no way to measure time. We'd still test them to see if they could complete it, and if they can't, well they certainly can't do it quickly. But anyone competent can most certainly pass that basic test. Grades aren't an opportunity to show off, they're an opportunity to express basic competence.

jacobolus 10y ago

The assignments are often (even typically) crafted to be straightforward but require significant amounts of time to complete, and often graded more for diligence than understanding. Exams are sometimes more about flattering the grader or following a fixed procedure than developing an interesting argument and defending it well or solving novel difficult problems. Add course attendance and participation on top, and what you get is grades that generally correlate more to time spent than to competence per se. Obviously someone clever can figure out how to get away with putting in less effort than the average student while still scoring well, but that’s more about learning to play the school game than learning how to think according to the methods of inquiry whatever field is ostensibly being studied. It makes sense that school takes this form: instructor time is much more scalable to many students when assignments and exams are simple and uniform. Mentoring students who are working on real research problems takes much more time and effort.

akinalci 10y ago
This doesn't hold in my experience with an engineering education. The objective is for students to gain and demonstrate basic competence in fundamental concepts of their field, and straightforward answers to straightforward questions suffice. There's not a lot of room here for novel arguments, and the objective is not to solve novel problems; that comes later. This is time consuming because, for most of us, learning a new concept and applying it takes some time. It's not a sinister plot by the system to waste our time. Regarding mentoring students to work on real research problems: yes, this doesn't scale to huge number of undergrads. But most undergrads don't yet have the drive or the fundamental knowledge required to tackle real research questions. That said, if a student does well in a class and shows interest, a lot of professors will give an undergrad a chance to work with their research lab.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  Who ever said there was a “sinister plot” involved? The best (most time efficient) way to learn factual knowledge is using some kind of spaced repetition. The best (most time efficient for the student) way to learn mechanical or conceptual tools to mastery is to be presented with a problem which needs the tool, struggle with it for a while and develop some personal familiarity with the problem and personal ad-hoc methods; then have the standard tool presented, then go back and struggle some more using the standard tool to solve various types of problems and combinatorially trying the new tool out with various old tools to see what it can do and how they all relate. Then after basic competence is achieved, continuing to occasionally apply the tool to new problems over the course of months or years, including problems which require unusual uses of the tool or unexpected combinations with other tools, generalizations of the tool, etc. This is all generally much faster and more effective with some amount of 1-on-1 tutoring/mentorship between the student and a subject expert than with any other known arrangement, whether the tool in question is a pair of scissors, argument analysis, google search, rhetoric, regular expressions, or complex multiplication. The best way to learn methods of inquiry or creative work which characterize various human endeavors (history, journalism, physics, graphic design, ethnography, mechanical engineering, pure mathematics, philosophy, literary criticism, acting, technical illustration, sales, ....) is to spend time actually doing real or realistic work, watching experts do real work, and looking at lots of finished work. Unfortunately it’s hard to make 1-on-1 tutoring or research project mentorship scale to a classroom. Strategies like putting the students into groups to solve project-type problems of a variety of scopes, “flipping” the classroom by presenting lectures via video outside of class, mixing up assignments to include a mix of easy small-scope problems of the new material combined with harder problems highlighting past material, and so on can help, but there is a huge gap still between (even average quality) 1-on-1 tutoring and the best alternative method, which educators and education researchers would love to know how to fill.