5 ms·

Grades are relative to other people. That's the point of places asking for GPA. If you were just evaluating your effort / learning, your grades could just say "

Grades are relative to other people. That's the point of places asking for GPA. If you were just evaluating your effort / learning, your grades could just say "learned a lot" or "made a good effort". But GPA is a way to discriminate between potential candidates for schools/businesses, and thus needs to be quantifiable and comparable.

azhenley 8y ago
Some schools have found how useless GPAs are and have adopted narrative evaluations [1]. The grading in my course is not relative. I set a rubric that I assess each individual on. Sure, within the class you can compare grades, but I wouldn't say it is particularly meaningful. Comparing between classes or universities is completely meaningless. People just want a simple number that can accurately represent someone's knowledge/learning/skill/effort, but it doesn't exist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_evaluation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_evaluation
nijave 8y ago
The increase in technical interviews and decrease in reliance on GPA/grade suggest that's generally a poor metric It's fairly easy to boost your GPA by mixing in easy courses
closeparen 8y ago
No, not at all. GPA tells the difference between "mastered the material" and "did well enough not to get expelled" which can be a useful signal for an employer, but universities and professors don't view it as their responsibility to sort students for industry's needs. For starters, the quality of students is not uniform across universities. Middle of the pack at Harvard is a very different thing from middle of the pack at a party school. To get a useful ordering, you'd need to give every CS graduate the same standardized test, like the bar exam.
- wahern 8y ago
  Grades are relative to other people in your school and program; it's why you mention the institution on the resume. And IME you don't often communicate your grade but your class rank, most notably if you're at the very top (valedictorian, etc); even with grade inflation schools still must be able to differentiate the very top students from everybody else so they can actually provide these honors. You can't graduate an entire class of "top" students, no matter how earnestly they studied. With few exceptions there is no mastering the material, or at least there shouldn't be. Not in college. There's always more complex material you can use to differentiate students. When you grade on a curve the test should be difficult enough that even the best students will typically get at least one question wrong, with most students falling along a nice bell distribution. (I say most because it's probably better to err on the side of a handful of students clustering at the top rather than at the bottom, especially if the bottom means flunking out.) This can be more difficult for smaller, seminar style classes. One solution is giving the professor leeway to shift up and tighten the curve so he's not forced to give Fs or Ds. These classes are usually in the latter years of a program, particularly in undergraduate, where it's less important to winnow students out and ensure challenging curriculums. That latter point is important. If you don't enforce some sort of statistical distribution how can you gauge the quality of your curriculum? If everybody is getting As is that because all your students are smart and disciplined, or because the material is too simple? If you require a bell distribution, then the curriculum will by necessity be a good fit for your cohort of students. In this way a university can maintain a quality curriculum without having to resort to external metrics or comparisons with other schools.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    I'm aware that this philosophy of education and grading exists, and it may well be superior, but it's not how things worked in any part of my education. Grades indicated how well you met the instructor's expectations. Most classes gave mostly As and Bs: if you weren't going to do well relative to the course, you wouldn't let it get to the point of a letter grade. Instead the differentiation was between departments and courses. It was well understood that X majors were Y majors who couldn't hack it, and that within a major, certain classes were for high-achieving masochists while others were schedule padding. (This was crucial information, not just dick-measuring. You could easily put yourself in crisis by taking a class beyond your abilities, or multiple hard classes at once. Friends helped each other avoid such nightmares). If you asked me to evaluate a classmate's transcript, I wouldn't even look at their grades, only at the classes they allowed themselves to have grades in. No one has ever asked me that, or to see my transcript.
sethammons 8y ago
Let's say you are right. You can only compare students from the same class if a curve is used. And then, it doesn't tell you anything about competency. Just if they were better or worse in that small cohort. If a class is filled with C and D students (objectively), the curve will spread them out and those C's become As. If a different class is filled with A and B students, they are spread out and those B's can fail or become C's. Now the first group's curve A's are not as good as the second group's A's, and are, in fact, worse than the second group's F's or C's. I often set the curve in my classes. I was offered money to not do my best on exams because of how it affected other's grades. My ability or lack there of should not affect another's grade which should reflect their demonstration of subject mastery.

azhenley 8y ago

Some schools have found how useless GPAs are and have adopted narrative evaluations [1]. The grading in my course is not relative. I set a rubric that I assess each individual on. Sure, within the class you can compare grades, but I wouldn't say it is particularly meaningful. Comparing between classes or universities is completely meaningless. People just want a simple number that can accurately represent someone's knowledge/learning/skill/effort, but it doesn't exist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_evaluation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_evaluation

nijave 8y ago

The increase in technical interviews and decrease in reliance on GPA/grade suggest that's generally a poor metric It's fairly easy to boost your GPA by mixing in easy courses

closeparen 8y ago

No, not at all. GPA tells the difference between "mastered the material" and "did well enough not to get expelled" which can be a useful signal for an employer, but universities and professors don't view it as their responsibility to sort students for industry's needs. For starters, the quality of students is not uniform across universities. Middle of the pack at Harvard is a very different thing from middle of the pack at a party school. To get a useful ordering, you'd need to give every CS graduate the same standardized test, like the bar exam.

wahern 8y ago
Grades are relative to other people in your school and program; it's why you mention the institution on the resume. And IME you don't often communicate your grade but your class rank, most notably if you're at the very top (valedictorian, etc); even with grade inflation schools still must be able to differentiate the very top students from everybody else so they can actually provide these honors. You can't graduate an entire class of "top" students, no matter how earnestly they studied. With few exceptions there is no mastering the material, or at least there shouldn't be. Not in college. There's always more complex material you can use to differentiate students. When you grade on a curve the test should be difficult enough that even the best students will typically get at least one question wrong, with most students falling along a nice bell distribution. (I say most because it's probably better to err on the side of a handful of students clustering at the top rather than at the bottom, especially if the bottom means flunking out.) This can be more difficult for smaller, seminar style classes. One solution is giving the professor leeway to shift up and tighten the curve so he's not forced to give Fs or Ds. These classes are usually in the latter years of a program, particularly in undergraduate, where it's less important to winnow students out and ensure challenging curriculums. That latter point is important. If you don't enforce some sort of statistical distribution how can you gauge the quality of your curriculum? If everybody is getting As is that because all your students are smart and disciplined, or because the material is too simple? If you require a bell distribution, then the curriculum will by necessity be a good fit for your cohort of students. In this way a university can maintain a quality curriculum without having to resort to external metrics or comparisons with other schools.
- closeparen 8y ago
  I'm aware that this philosophy of education and grading exists, and it may well be superior, but it's not how things worked in any part of my education. Grades indicated how well you met the instructor's expectations. Most classes gave mostly As and Bs: if you weren't going to do well relative to the course, you wouldn't let it get to the point of a letter grade. Instead the differentiation was between departments and courses. It was well understood that X majors were Y majors who couldn't hack it, and that within a major, certain classes were for high-achieving masochists while others were schedule padding. (This was crucial information, not just dick-measuring. You could easily put yourself in crisis by taking a class beyond your abilities, or multiple hard classes at once. Friends helped each other avoid such nightmares). If you asked me to evaluate a classmate's transcript, I wouldn't even look at their grades, only at the classes they allowed themselves to have grades in. No one has ever asked me that, or to see my transcript.

sethammons 8y ago

Let's say you are right. You can only compare students from the same class if a curve is used. And then, it doesn't tell you anything about competency. Just if they were better or worse in that small cohort. If a class is filled with C and D students (objectively), the curve will spread them out and those C's become As. If a different class is filled with A and B students, they are spread out and those B's can fail or become C's. Now the first group's curve A's are not as good as the second group's A's, and are, in fact, worse than the second group's F's or C's. I often set the curve in my classes. I was offered money to not do my best on exams because of how it affected other's grades. My ability or lack there of should not affect another's grade which should reflect their demonstration of subject mastery.