4 ms·
Wait... How on earth do they justify redefining 50% as 75% ? (or whatever the actual numbers are)
by s_kilk 14y ago
Wait... How on earth do they justify redefining 50% as 75% ? (or whatever the actual numbers are)
- hashmymustache 14y agosounded like teachers were scaling performance to meet standards instead of adjusting teaching quality
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- GuiA 14y agoIt's called grading on a curve, and it's (imo, unfortunately) very common in undergraduate courses in the US :)
- katbyte 14y agoit was used by many of my math & science classes here in canada, and i'm unsure why it is a problem? The prof would make the test very hard so the average was around 50-70 and then use a curve to get grades.
- colomon 14y agoIn my first semester (I think, might have been second) honors calculus class, the (great) teacher got carried away on one midterm. I got something like 40%, and that was the second highest grade in the class, the average was more like 30%. He was so disappointed we didn't do better on that exam...
- GuiA 14y agoCurve grading is just conceptually silly. If a test does indeed cover the material, then answering correctly half of it should lead to a 50%, no more, no less. If curve grading is required because the test doesn't properly assess what the students have been working on, that means the test was bad in the first place.
- auctiontheory 14y agoI understand grading on a curve. This is not that. What we're talking about here is remapping a fraction (what the student scored) to a higher-than-equivalent percentage (what the "standard" requires).
- Avshalom 14y agoBecause if they don't they get defunded.
- alok-g 14y agoMy undergrad professor in electrical engineering asked us to calculate voltage on a diode as part A of a problem. This came out as 0.7V. The part B was to convert this to percentage! (Don't ask me how and why the answer was 70%).