4 ms·

> One manifestation of this has been grade inflation Pet peeve: there is no such thing as grade inflation because there is no grade after (or before) A. What

by bambax 9y ago

> One manifestation of this has been grade inflation Pet peeve: there is no such thing as grade inflation because there is no grade after (or before) A. What we're witnessing is much worse, it's grade compression where all grades move up with a hard limit. Inflation wouldn't matter a lot, it would simply make comparisons between periods of time more difficult (we would need to "adjust for inflation"). Compression is much worse because it destroys information, namely, the difference between good and bad works in the same class. If we had "price compression" in real life, society wouldn't be able to function (everything would cost the same).

Noseshine 9y ago
EDIT: Oh I get it. Should have responded AFTER the morning espresso.
- Sean1708 9y ago
  I think GP is saying that it's precisely because grades are limited to a handful of values that you get grade compression instead of grade inflation, and that if prices were limited to some upper value you would get price compression which would be bad.
  - bambax 9y ago
    Yes! ;-)
watwut 9y ago
Should grades reflect absolute knowledge (e.g. if you have this grade then you are that good) or should they reflect relative ordering? With increasing competition, the relative difference of the top should become smaller. That is one factor. Grades inflation happens because grades and having finished the school once you started now matter more to students then they used to. The techniques they often use (negotiation) are not exactly commendable, but it still had more to do with price and benefits of it then self-esteem and trophies when they were four years. old.
- kqr 9y ago
  > Should grades reflect absolute knowledge (e.g. if you have this grade then you are that good) or should they reflect relative ordering? This is a can of worms all by itself, too. Grades can reflect 1) Absolute knowledge, but this unfairly favours students from rich and well-educated parents; 2) Relative superiority compared to your age group, but this encourages children to not help each other because they are afraid they're competing for a limited number of higher grades; 3) Speed of development, which is largely determined by genetics at any given age; 4) Effort, which is unfair to the bright students who have nothing to put their effort in to; or 5) Potential future ability, which is nigh impossible to measure and not necessarily even an important marker of anything. There are many more options, and neither is obviously right. I don't think any of these really help with the issue mentioned in the article.
  - mamon 9y ago
    Option 1) is the right thing to do, only it's hard to accept for people who are prejudiced against having rich and well-educated parents. Option 2) is also fine on small scale, but makes it harder to compare results between different schools, states, countries. Options 3 - 5 are just dubious (how would you measure "potential future ability"?)
    - aninhumer 9y ago
      >it's hard to accept for people who are prejudiced against having rich and well-educated parents. No, it's problematic for people who believe an education system which privileges the rich is a recipe for systemic inequality. Now personally, I don't think a grading system is the right place to address this inequality, but insisting anyone who does is just "prejudiced against the rich" is facile.
      - mamon 9y ago
        Being rich is not a crime (although some social justice warriors try to make it so). Helping your own children get a good education is not a crime also. I agree that there should be some form of help for the poor, but gaming the grading system is not the way to go. Whatever you do the children of rich and well-educated will always be in top 5-10% of their class. We shouldn't promote equality by trying to bring them down, instead we should focus on bringing other students up, making the gap between top 5% and bottom 5% percent narrower.
joncrocks 9y ago
FWIW, in the UK, you can get A*s (A 'star'). We've had these for GCSEs (typically sat at around 16 years old) for ages, and they were introduced into A-Level in 2010. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level_(United_Kingdom)#Grade_inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level_(United_Kin...
- m-i-l 9y ago
  A "grade 9" was also introduced in 2017, and that is higher than an A* [0], so some people refer to that as A* * (A star star) [1]. [0] https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/05/setting-grade-9-in-new-gcses/ https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/05/setting-grade-9-in-new... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/shortcuts/2014/sep/14/new-gcse-super-grade-9 https://www.theguardian.com/education/shortcuts/2014/sep/14/...
Steve44 9y ago
There is a big difference in the grades students are getting in the UK. I don't have an answer as to why but here are some examples for A level Chemistry. The links below give the tables with GCSE and A level exam results from 1993 to 2016. In 1993 16.8% got an A and 10.3% a U by 2016 8.4% were A* and 23.5% got an A (31.9% at A/A*) with only 2.7% getting a U. http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm
Clubber 9y ago
Talking to old timers when I was young (I'm getting to be an old timer), they were all graded on a bell curve in college: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_on_a_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_on_a_curve That sounds great when the tests are hard, but when they're easy, if you got a B and you had the lowest B, it would turn into an F. Of course, the worse students (relatively) would flunk out of school. If you were in a batch of really bright students and you were one of them, that would suck. When I went to college, I remember professors only applying the curve when everyone did poorly on the exam. For what it's worth, my wife recently completed her college degree and it was about the same in difficulty as mine 20+ years ago.

by bambax 9y ago

Noseshine 9y ago

EDIT: Oh I get it. Should have responded AFTER the morning espresso.

Sean1708 9y ago
I think GP is saying that it's precisely because grades are limited to a handful of values that you get grade compression instead of grade inflation, and that if prices were limited to some upper value you would get price compression which would be bad.
- bambax 9y ago
  Yes! ;-)

watwut 9y ago

Should grades reflect absolute knowledge (e.g. if you have this grade then you are that good) or should they reflect relative ordering? With increasing competition, the relative difference of the top should become smaller. That is one factor. Grades inflation happens because grades and having finished the school once you started now matter more to students then they used to. The techniques they often use (negotiation) are not exactly commendable, but it still had more to do with price and benefits of it then self-esteem and trophies when they were four years. old.

kqr 9y ago
> Should grades reflect absolute knowledge (e.g. if you have this grade then you are that good) or should they reflect relative ordering? This is a can of worms all by itself, too. Grades can reflect 1) Absolute knowledge, but this unfairly favours students from rich and well-educated parents; 2) Relative superiority compared to your age group, but this encourages children to not help each other because they are afraid they're competing for a limited number of higher grades; 3) Speed of development, which is largely determined by genetics at any given age; 4) Effort, which is unfair to the bright students who have nothing to put their effort in to; or 5) Potential future ability, which is nigh impossible to measure and not necessarily even an important marker of anything. There are many more options, and neither is obviously right. I don't think any of these really help with the issue mentioned in the article.
- mamon 9y ago
  Option 1) is the right thing to do, only it's hard to accept for people who are prejudiced against having rich and well-educated parents. Option 2) is also fine on small scale, but makes it harder to compare results between different schools, states, countries. Options 3 - 5 are just dubious (how would you measure "potential future ability"?)
  - aninhumer 9y ago
    >it's hard to accept for people who are prejudiced against having rich and well-educated parents. No, it's problematic for people who believe an education system which privileges the rich is a recipe for systemic inequality. Now personally, I don't think a grading system is the right place to address this inequality, but insisting anyone who does is just "prejudiced against the rich" is facile.
    - mamon 9y ago
      Being rich is not a crime (although some social justice warriors try to make it so). Helping your own children get a good education is not a crime also. I agree that there should be some form of help for the poor, but gaming the grading system is not the way to go. Whatever you do the children of rich and well-educated will always be in top 5-10% of their class. We shouldn't promote equality by trying to bring them down, instead we should focus on bringing other students up, making the gap between top 5% and bottom 5% percent narrower.

joncrocks 9y ago

FWIW, in the UK, you can get A*s (A 'star'). We've had these for GCSEs (typically sat at around 16 years old) for ages, and they were introduced into A-Level in 2010. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level_(United_Kingdom)#Grade_inflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCE_Advanced_Level_(United_Kin...

m-i-l 9y ago
A "grade 9" was also introduced in 2017, and that is higher than an A* [0], so some people refer to that as A* * (A star star) [1]. [0] https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/05/setting-grade-9-in-new-gcses/ https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2017/04/05/setting-grade-9-in-new... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/shortcuts/2014/sep/14/new-gcse-super-grade-9 https://www.theguardian.com/education/shortcuts/2014/sep/14/...

Steve44 9y ago

There is a big difference in the grades students are getting in the UK. I don't have an answer as to why but here are some examples for A level Chemistry. The links below give the tables with GCSE and A level exam results from 1993 to 2016. In 1993 16.8% got an A and 10.3% a U by 2016 8.4% were A* and 23.5% got an A (31.9% at A/A*) with only 2.7% getting a U. http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm

Clubber 9y ago

Talking to old timers when I was young (I'm getting to be an old timer), they were all graded on a bell curve in college: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_on_a_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grading_on_a_curve That sounds great when the tests are hard, but when they're easy, if you got a B and you had the lowest B, it would turn into an F. Of course, the worse students (relatively) would flunk out of school. If you were in a batch of really bright students and you were one of them, that would suck. When I went to college, I remember professors only applying the curve when everyone did poorly on the exam. For what it's worth, my wife recently completed her college degree and it was about the same in difficulty as mine 20+ years ago.