Herman Rubin wrote:
> In article <83umq6$75s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <83ugke$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >says...
>
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>On 22 Dec 1999 14:47:38 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>
> ............
>
> >>>Actually, I see where I might want to be more arbitrary that just
> >>>changing a cutoff. How do you reward someone who is really trying
> >>>hard, vs. someone who is smart but is blowing it off?
>
> >>Why should you? The grade should be on knowledge and the ability
> >>to use it, not on effort. If somebody is born with the knowledge,
> >>he deserves the grade and credit. If someone works full time and
> >>cannot do it, he deserves to fail.
>
> >Hm, just because a student is born with the knowledge, he/she should deserve
> >the grade and credit although he/she didn't do well in the class???
>
> What is the purpose of a grade? The legitimate purposes are to
> tell the world what the student knows and can do, and to advise
> the student on the same matter. One can have the latter without
> the former; I believe in comprehensive examinations to provide
> information to others.
>
Your comment suggests that our primary job as educators is to rank the students. I
disagree. Our primary job to educate the students.
The latter purpose (advising) is indeed legitimate. The former (tell the world what
they know) is what we use in our current educational system, and its value as a
predictive tool is questionable. In the case of the student who slacks off and gets
an "A", the predictive use of the "A" is highly questionable. A future employer
might see the "A" as indicative of diligence, hard work, when such is clearly not
the case.
If the student already knows the material and slacks off through my class, I would
be happy to tell the world that this student is not someone you want (to hire, to be
in your class, to work with). My advice to such a student would be not to take my
class, especially if their thought is to receive an easy "A".
Related to this discussion is the well-documented low predictive ability of SAT
scores. Use of such tools (grades, SAT scores) that have low predictive ability to
make decisions that affect individuals' lives amounts to little more than a
lottery, mentioned previously in this discussion group by Eric Bohlman.
There have been at least three empirical examples presented in the current
discussion that suggest that the use of ranking is detrimental - one my example
about Texas Instruments, another a study on how ranking stifled creativity in art
students (see Steve Simon's post), a third mentioned in Eric Bohlman's post. What
empirical evidence is there to the contrary?
>
> >I respect students who try hard and give their best. I have no respect for
> >smart students who don't live up to their talents. If a student works full time
> >and still can't do it, I'll never ever fail him/her. To me, the most important
> >thing is that you give your best.
>
> This might be from the standpoint of socialist ethics, but not
> from the standpoint of education. Especially if grades are not
> public knowledge, one is doing a service by failing a student
> who is unable to grasp the material.
Better yet, such a student should be properly advised.
Peter
