5 ms·

The other difference is that student problems are graded starting at perfect and then points are deducted for every 'mistake', but professional projects start a

The other difference is that student problems are graded starting at perfect and then points are deducted for every 'mistake', but professional projects start at 0 and the value of a project is the sum contribution towards to the shared goals of the organization. You could come up with something totally new that totally changes the state of the art, and if you turn it in as homework but make a couple of insignificant mistakes you will still get a B. Additionally, student projects are strictly time boxed. If you go over by 1 day you will lose significant credit, no matter what the quality of your work is. Literally the best you can do is to avoid making 'mistakes' and accomplish the absolute minimum otherwise, and being late means 'no mistakes' is worth less, sometimes significantly less. In professional work if you go over by a week on a project that is supposed to take a week nobody will even be surprised and they'll just be happy that progress is being made. Taking more time to contribute a better work product is generally encouraged.

JackMorgan 5y ago
This is absolutely the most fascinating thought about education I've seen in a long time. Bravo for uncovering such a profound insight. As a former educator who then mentored many professionals, I've long seen disconnect between assessment in "school" vs "on-the-job training" but never put together this essential difference. I wonder what would a school look like that graded like we do at work.
- starfallg 5y ago
  >I wonder what would a school look like that graded like we do at work. I don't think we could compare them fairly as school and training is skill driven where learning at work is goal driven. When we focus on skills, there is a right and wrong way to do things based on how a skill is measured. Whereas when we focus on goals, there are in most cases multiple avenues to achieve the same result, some of which don't teach you anything as they don't require the same level of understanding to develop those skills, especially for one-off problems.
  - 411111111111111 5y ago
    You didn't spell it out exactly, so I want to add another point to your comment: there is also a value in teaching a skill versus the goal oriented problem solving at work, as these skills can become part of your toolbox to be able to solve the things you later encounter at work
  - ltbarcly3 5y ago
    I don't think schools put any thought along the lines you just did. I think schooling operates the way it does because that is just the easiest. It continues to operate that way because the people who decide how schools, especially colleges, are run are exactly the people who overachieved to a huge degree in that same environment, so they have their ego tied up in it being meaningful to do well in it. Take grading, why do they start at 100 and just take points off for mistakes? It's just easier, most people most of the time get most things correct (or at least most work isn't worth discussing) so it's less work to just skim the work and paint some red where necessary than it is to evaluate and explain how each part contributed to the final grade. The latter would require a lot of thinking and would take a lot longer. Why be very strict with timelines and time boxing of assignments and tests? Again, it is just practical and easier. Making everyone turn in work on time makes grading it less of a chore since you won't be grading this random assignment and that random assignment, you'll have a stack of 30 of the same assignment and you can get in the zone and burn through them with optimally low effort. The same with tests, why would we care if it took one student an extra week to get to mastery compared to a peer on test 1, and maybe vice versa on test 2? Isn't it better to encourage all students to reach mastery before continuing on, so they don't move to the next topic in the same class unprepared? Well then you have to have lots of equivalent tests, since once you give a test it is 'out there' and students aren't trusted not to cheat. I am confident there is no rational for any of the above besides it being practical and/or less effort for teachers, and it isn't questioned because the teachers had absolutely no problem performing in such an environment.
    - starfallg 4y ago
      We're talking about two very different things. Regardless of how schools teach, what they do is they teach skills. Skills are about how to do something in a certain way (including how to think about topics), and hence you have right or wrong answers that can be graded. Whereas work is goal oriented, it is about solving a problem as opposed to how to solve a problem in a particular way. Hence, there are solutions which may be great practically, but doesn't teach you any useful skill. There are a lot of jobs that don't require any real problem solving. In fact, I would argue that's the majority of jobs. Sometimes we need to be taught skills, and sometimes we need to be challenged with open-ended problems.
nicoburns 5y ago
> You could come up with something totally new that totally changes the state of the art, and if you turn it in as homework but make a couple of insignificant mistakes you will still get a B. In my experience in many cases you may even get a complete fail for novel work at any education level below graduate work.

JackMorgan 5y ago

This is absolutely the most fascinating thought about education I've seen in a long time. Bravo for uncovering such a profound insight. As a former educator who then mentored many professionals, I've long seen disconnect between assessment in "school" vs "on-the-job training" but never put together this essential difference. I wonder what would a school look like that graded like we do at work.

starfallg 5y ago
>I wonder what would a school look like that graded like we do at work. I don't think we could compare them fairly as school and training is skill driven where learning at work is goal driven. When we focus on skills, there is a right and wrong way to do things based on how a skill is measured. Whereas when we focus on goals, there are in most cases multiple avenues to achieve the same result, some of which don't teach you anything as they don't require the same level of understanding to develop those skills, especially for one-off problems.
- 411111111111111 5y ago
  You didn't spell it out exactly, so I want to add another point to your comment: there is also a value in teaching a skill versus the goal oriented problem solving at work, as these skills can become part of your toolbox to be able to solve the things you later encounter at work
- ltbarcly3 5y ago
  I don't think schools put any thought along the lines you just did. I think schooling operates the way it does because that is just the easiest. It continues to operate that way because the people who decide how schools, especially colleges, are run are exactly the people who overachieved to a huge degree in that same environment, so they have their ego tied up in it being meaningful to do well in it. Take grading, why do they start at 100 and just take points off for mistakes? It's just easier, most people most of the time get most things correct (or at least most work isn't worth discussing) so it's less work to just skim the work and paint some red where necessary than it is to evaluate and explain how each part contributed to the final grade. The latter would require a lot of thinking and would take a lot longer. Why be very strict with timelines and time boxing of assignments and tests? Again, it is just practical and easier. Making everyone turn in work on time makes grading it less of a chore since you won't be grading this random assignment and that random assignment, you'll have a stack of 30 of the same assignment and you can get in the zone and burn through them with optimally low effort. The same with tests, why would we care if it took one student an extra week to get to mastery compared to a peer on test 1, and maybe vice versa on test 2? Isn't it better to encourage all students to reach mastery before continuing on, so they don't move to the next topic in the same class unprepared? Well then you have to have lots of equivalent tests, since once you give a test it is 'out there' and students aren't trusted not to cheat. I am confident there is no rational for any of the above besides it being practical and/or less effort for teachers, and it isn't questioned because the teachers had absolutely no problem performing in such an environment.
  - starfallg 4y ago
    We're talking about two very different things. Regardless of how schools teach, what they do is they teach skills. Skills are about how to do something in a certain way (including how to think about topics), and hence you have right or wrong answers that can be graded. Whereas work is goal oriented, it is about solving a problem as opposed to how to solve a problem in a particular way. Hence, there are solutions which may be great practically, but doesn't teach you any useful skill. There are a lot of jobs that don't require any real problem solving. In fact, I would argue that's the majority of jobs. Sometimes we need to be taught skills, and sometimes we need to be challenged with open-ended problems.

nicoburns 5y ago

> You could come up with something totally new that totally changes the state of the art, and if you turn it in as homework but make a couple of insignificant mistakes you will still get a B. In my experience in many cases you may even get a complete fail for novel work at any education level below graduate work.