On 23 Dec 1999 20:01:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
Rubin) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RU> ...
> >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?
HR>
> 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.
- okay, that was not very thoughtful, on my part. For math-stats, I
agree that "can-or-can't do it" is apt to be the case. There are
other courses of study where people have to practice, or cover a lot
of details, and not just know how to think. But you should be able to
design your tests accordingly. Most of the time.
RU > Or, to get
> >concrete in another fashion -- the football ratings reward/punish
> >teams more for the most recent games, the final games. But I think
> >more of my courses (as a student) used equal weighting across a term,
> >by halves or thirds, than used a highly weighted Final. Suddenly, I
> >see a virtue in having a heavy Final. And in having some subjective
> >grading of it (essay questions always gave room to fudge).
HR>
> I always use a non-linear grading scheme, with the course grade
> rarely lower than the grade on the final. This is the best I can
> do; we really should be giving comprehensive exams on many courses
> well after the end of the courses.
- I like that. Again, that may be only a fraction of all courses,
but I like it.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
