3 ms·
>It doesn't imply that the standards for passing the class were lowered That's literally what it implies. The curve was relaxed. It became easier to meet the s
by fromthestart 7y ago
>It doesn't imply that the standards for passing the class were lowered
That's literally what it implies. The curve was relaxed. It became easier to meet the standard of a minimum pass grade for a given level of performance.
> or the performance of underrepresented demographics was lower than non-underrepresented demographics once they enrolled in the course
Nor do I. But lower standards (easier to pass/earn a high grade) implies poorer qualification/ability.
Curves by definition bring up the grades of those who perform worse, without changing how they perform. In this example, if we peel away the euphemism, women were deterred from enrolling because the class was too hard to pass, so it was made easier to pass without changing the content. That does not necessarily mean that the women now taking the course are poor performers, but it does mean that on average the course will be graduating more students who would not have met previous standards.
- WoahNoun 7y ago>That's literally what it implies. The curve was relaxed. It became easier to meet the standard of a minimum pass grade for a given level of performance. A curve can be shifted without changing the standards for passing the class. Eg the original curve allowed only for 5% of the students to get A's while the new curve allows 10%. You can get that additional 5% by shifting B's, C's, and D's upward which doesn't change the cutoff for failing with an F. >Curves by definition bring up the grades of those who perform worse Curves can also drag down students who are performing at a high level. If 10% of the class has performance deserving of A's but the curve says only 5% of the class can have an A, then some group is getting B's instead.