<p>Im not sure I like this concept. Doesn't really seem logical. You should get the score you earn. Anyway u got the infos?</p>
<p>uci does…well from what i heard from my friends they do.</p>
<p>The reasoning I’ve heard for this is because in the upper div science classes the average score is like 20-30%. The concept works in terms of that. However, it also creates some fierce competition.</p>
<p>i dont understand why the average score is 20-30%, do they just make it like super hard, so that no one can really do it, and then have an insane curve? i just don’t get why they make it easier if the average score is 20-30%</p>
<p>The plus to a curve is that at least some people get A’s, with most passing. The downside is that some people must fail. They’re great for hard sciences, but not so good for humanities, liberal arts, or the social sciences.</p>
<p>It’s not so much that the tests are made impossible intentionally (although some are). Many times, professors grade much more harshly on the upper division tests. Even though you might leave the testing area feeling like you did a reasonably good job, you could get the test back and you got a 59%. What’s frightening is when a professor tells the class that he or she is NOT going to curve, and half the class is failing.</p>
<p>@hesdjjim, that makes sense, though it would make sense that the longer they teach the less they would have to curve, because they would make more reasonable exams.</p>
<p>i can see why they would curve in a more technical field like engineering or hard science. but does it really make sense to curve in like history or something?</p>
<p>^It depends on how you define grades. If grades relate to a student’s mastery over a particular course, then there should never be a curve. If grades are intended to measure a student’s performance relative to his peers, then there should always be a curve.</p>
<p>If a professor chooses not to grade on a curve as a policy, but then has a class where everyone fails, he should consider the course’s material. If, historically, students’ grades have mirrored the normal curve, then this simply a group of subpar students, and they should all receive F’s. However, if all students are consistently failing, something is wrong, and the course should be made easier, or should have prerequisites added. The same should go for a class where everyone gets A’s. </p>
<p>I guess what I’m saying is that if a course is well-designed and executed, a curve should not be needed (assuming nothing changes).</p>
<p>Now, there are exceptions to this. If a class is, by it’s nature, necessarily easy or difficult, then it’s acceptable to have a high percentage of students fail. But this should be a direct result of the content, not just an easy or hard professor. If there was a required graduate school arithmetic class, everyone should pass with flying colors. If it’s an advanced course on nuclear reactor safety, it would neessarily be difficult–only the very best should be passing such a course.</p>
<p>If a course is well-designed, there should only be a curve when the professor drops the ball–but having the whole class isn’t sufficient evidence of that.</p>
<p>This has turned into a rambling post. Sorry about that. Ha.</p>