No one worked harder than Rudy. He played in one game, for one play.
Its ok. Can’t remember the name of anyone else on the team. His is ubiquitous.
The hard work pays off differently than the short term results. And outcomes are not possible to manage. Only inputs.
Can’t access the article, but understand its by Alfie Kohn? Well, I guess if you’ve read one article by him, you’ve read them all. (I’ve read his books, too).
Maybe Alfie Kohn should read up a little on Latin etymology. Excellere means “to rise out of”, to rise above, culminate, surpass…
You don’t want sorting, don’t use vocabulary predicated on sorting. Try “mastery”, and you might make sense.
At large, research state university, I have used grading contracts from time to time, particularly if I want the students to take intellectual risks. Grading contracts are detailed, formal contracts about the learning process as much as product. SO, for example, if a student comes to class, hands assignments in promptly and professionally, speaks in class, works well in groups, and solves some mid-level “problems,” s/he gets a B. A’s require somewhat exceptional work (product), though I tend to be generous.
There are problems with this model. There are students who think a B is promised, and if they do nothing, they will get a C. Others are looking to do the bare minimum, by contract, that will get a B. I thought it would put grades in perspective and reduce anxiety and competition, but for many–particularly weaker–students, grading contracts encourage marginal behaviors. Many students need carrots and sticks to engage in learning. I hate to say it, but it is true.
When I was in architecture school everything was pass/fail. I was actually quite good at my structural courses but the exams always were at the same time as big presentations which usually involved all-nighters. It was sort of embarassing to realized that I was more motivated by grades than I thought I was. I got a few C’s that just appeared as “P” on my transcript. (And I was absolutely prioritizing correctly. The portfolio gets you the job.) Years later when I took the licensing exam, I’m sure you will all be glad to know I studied all the structures stuff and got over 90 in every section!
I do think that it’s not impossible for more than half of a class at Harvard to be doing “A” work.
@mathmom “I do think that it’s not impossible for more than half of a class at Harvard to be doing “A” work.”
Absolutely. When I was in grad school at UIUC, I would TA the intro Bio class for pre-meds. The A-B boundary was 85%, and, every year, 40% would get A’s. So they decided that 85% was too low, and raised in to 90%. That year, once again, 40% got A’s. Same level exams, same labs, same requirements.
I agree with @gouf78 that the article conflating two things: that raising the bar on standardized tests is designed to ensure some kids fail and make classes harder to ensure there is a grade curve to compare kids. In many higher performing districts it is not unusual for all but a handful of kids to past the state benchmark tests. In low performing districts, however, a lot of kids fail. The benchmark tests are not setting a high bar for mastery. A higher rate of passing, while a cause for celebration, still suggests a harder test should be developed to ensure kids are getting the instruction they need.
OTOH, in college courses, especially higher level classes, it is easy to envision a scenario in which most kids get As (or master more than 90% of the material). If the assessments are good, no reason that most kids shouldn’t get an A rather than revise the assessment to add tricky or concepts that were not taught simply to reduce the number of As. If the course is not including complex material that would typically be included, that would be another story.
Teachers add “effort” grades through homework and class participation. There is no other way to objectively measure whether one kid is working harder than another. How would you do that? Kids’ (and parent’s) perceptions of working hard is certainly not objective. If it takes kid1 and hour to do the homework and kid2 15 minutes does the teacher know whether kid1 was also on his or her phone or daydreaming or that it truly took them longer because they were working harder? Why punish a kid that is more efficient or just works faster.
There’s also the awkward situation of students who succeed with minimal effort.
Getting back to my all-state honors band example, my husband felt that our daughter did not deserve to be in the honors band because she didn’t spend as much time practicing as he thought was appropriate. But she qualified anyway. The auditions were scored by people who don’t know whether you practiced for 20 minutes or 2 hours every day. I don’t know whether that’s fair, but it’s how it’s done.
Do you downgrade people who don’t put in a lot of effort because they don’t need to?
post 3, we don’t lie to kids about their athletic ability. Actually, some do. Everybody gets a ribbon, or a trophy. Some feel better to help the kid’s ego rather than say Tom can throw a ball better than Jack. Not to say I agree or disagree, just saying that this is a common occurrance and I think it has been so the last 25 years or so.
A driver’s license does not really demonstrate excellence. It is not intended to. A guy that scores a 100% all around gets the same license as the guy that just barely makes a passing score. The point of that license is only to demonstrate a minimum level of competence. An A in class should demonstrate that work product was better than another student’s C. How much effort it took either student is not measured.
Some people are smarter, or taller, or prettier, or more mechanically inclined, or more athletic, or harder workers than others. Some have natural advantages over others. Life not always fair, but don’t leave home without it. Is it fair to take away the work product, or materials, or prize, or money, or value of something from someone that has earned it, to give some to someone that tried but truly didn’t do as well?
Post 26- were those judging the band players seeking the best performers, or the most effort? A one-armed paperhanger may put in a whale of an effort but he is at a disadvantage. If we were hiring a contractor, we would choose a quality job over a poor job, even if the poor job was the contractor’s best effort, right?
Zero sum game? There are many things in life, where people feel that way. Someone achieved celebrity success at the expense of someone else, or financial success, or sports success? It is true only 2 teams go to the World Series, but it’s because they beat the other teams, not because someone cheated. I am poor because Bill Gates is rich? Some feel that way. Someone else’s A is because they made someone else get a C? If someone was more successful than me, then they must have cheated me? Many feel that way today.
As a computer science major I took 1 philosophy class: Logic.
The teacher’s principle was that what you knew at the end of the class was the most important thing. Therefore, any grade lower than the grade you received on the final would be replaced with your grade on the final. This rewarded those students who worked throughout the year, but also put the emphasis on what was known at the end. I had a roommate in the same class. Didn’t go back until the final, but used my roommates notes. I had a 0 on every test except the final, but ended the course with a 91. I didn’t put in the effort, but understood the material better than most in my class. Favorite class I never attended.
The PED scandals suggest that it is at least possible that some teams beat other teams because some of their players cheated.
I agree that grades shouldn’t be based on effort. I tried SO hard in the gymnastics unit in PE. I practiced and practiced and practiced, but never did manage to do a cartwheel or any tricks on the uneven bars. I shouldn’t have gotten an A in that unit. I was thankful I passed, probably because I did OK on the balance beam and managed somersaults eventually.
I don’t want an engineer to have a high GPA because he or she works hard. Working hard won’t guarantee the structural integrity of a bridge or building.
@MaineLonghorn It depends on the purpose of the gymnastics unit. If the purpose was PE, meaning that it was about getting you to be physically active, you deserved that A.
I know that people will say that kids who struggle with PE shouldn’t be treated any different than kids who struggle with math. However. math has different level classes, from classes for kids who struggle to classes for kid who are gifted in math, so each kid is being graded against their peers. PE has a single level, and kids who find running to be challenging are being graded on the same scale as kids who have the talent of sprinters. Almost all other classes which have very large differences in levels of talents are also either divided by talent level, or are not required (like studio and performing arts).
So, if a school wants to grade in PE based solely on accomplishment, they need to have different level classes (and I see no reason why there should not be “Honors Gymnastics”).
@Dudewith2 I don’t really like this approach. Sure, you can study hard for a few days and get a good grade on the final, but it will all be gone from your memory before long. Repetition over time is key to long-term retention.
Sounds like Father Guido Sarducci’s 5 Minute University: Teach you everything in five minutes that you will remember 5 years after college. Cost was $20 and included 20 second spring break, cap and gown rental and graduation picture.
I don’t understand the rational for grading on a curve. Instructors should have clearly defined learning goals for their students both in terms of knowledge and skills. Each student should then be evaluated in terms of the predetermined learning outcomes. It shouldn’t matter how the other students in the class perform. A student’s individual assessment should be relative to the course requirements, not the other students in the class. If there is a concern regarding grade inflation then what needs to be adjusted is the proficiency expectations. If a large portion of the class demonstrates mastery of the material according to the learning expectations then they should all be accorded a grade commensurate with that level of attainment. An A is an A is an A.
@gwnorth As an instructor, my rationale is that the exams and H/W differ from year to year, and the instructors generally are not that good at assessing the difficulty of their assignments. To adjust for that, they curve.
Of course, curving creates its own issues, because it does not allow for the many instances of classes which are, on average, better or worse. As somebody who has used and taught statistics, curving is meaningless unless you have a class of at least 100 students.
In most subjects, it is impossible to create “learning outcomes” that are clear and discrete. If I am teaching Biology, the learning outcomes are mastery of the different topics. How does one figure out “mastery”, by tests and homework, which are graded.
Moreover, unless you grade, it’s difficult to separate between proficiency and mastery, and an A is a grade which is achieved through mastery of a topic, not by proficiency. D - -basic familiarity, C - solid familiarity, B - proficiency, A - mastery. I do not believe in an A being the grade that a kid gets if they comfortably pass all the requirements of the course. That is what a B is for. An A means that they demonstrated the ability to use their knowledge to go beyond what I taught in class.
Because of how I grade, and what I expect, I am not surprised if very few students get Cs or Ds. However, unless it is a small, mostly graduate course, I would be surprised to see more than 30% of the class getting As. Surprised, but very happy.
@yucca10 I hear what you’re saying. In this scenario, I knew the material and didn’t need the class, but it was a requirement of my major. There were a few terminology holes I had to learn, but logical problem solving was already in my wheelhouse. There is no doubt I would have retained a more thorough grasp with more time in the class, but it would be nice to have more classes where students could NOT spend their time so they could focus on the classes where there is true value gain. Just as some kids use AP tests to skip classes where the needed level of mastery is present, it would be nice to have that an option for any class you are required to take. As it is, unless physically being present every day is required, along with regular busywork/homework, the ability to cram without repetition is always there.
@gwnorth - Thank goodness some teachers grade on a curve. Some of my D’s engineering classes this year had means in the 40s where the highest grade was in the 60s. The entire class of over 300 students would have failed without the curve.
When I hear about classes where the highest grade is a 60 there is something wrong with the class not the students. Either the material is not being taught or the tests are not reflective of what is being taught or the expectation of what can be done in the limited test taking time is unreasonable.
My daughter had a class (senior level college class) where nobody could do 3 of the 4 problems on the midterm exam. Turns out the teacher had forgotten to teach the method needed to solve the problem during class (and it was not something that was in any assigned reading or homework). He owned up and curved the test significantly. It was his fault not the students.
As far as PE, my husband would laugh every time my extremely nonathletic daughter got an A+ in Gym class. You can’t grade PE by ability, where only talented athletics get good grades. Not everybody is capable of running a 4 minute mile! My daughter was an excellent student who believed in putting in all the effort required and participating to the fullest extent. Every gym teacher recognized this and gave her the top grade.