Dennis:
You *seem* to argue that fairness requires that grades be aproximately
proportional to time spent on that part of the course. This *sounds*
superficially plausible; however, it's obviously wrong. Let me
illustrate.
<location="twilight zone">
Suppose students have 3 hours of lectures, 1.5 hours of quiz, and are
expected to spend another 3 hours per week on their assignments. After
7 weeks they have a 90 minute midterm, and after 12 weeks a 3-hour final
exam that they may spend 12 hours cramming for. If we accept your
hypothesis, the only fair grading scheme would be something close to:
Class attendance: 34%
Quizzes : 17%
Assignments : 34%
Midterm : 2%
Cramming : 10%
Final: : 3%
Note that the "cramming" grade is for *doing* the cramming; a note from
their parents / clergycritter / SO will do here. We cannot reasonably
expect them to do it in an invigilated "cramming hall", or to interrupt
traditional cramming activities for performance indicators.
You will note that I have omitted buying textbooks, lining up to
register, going to the registrar's ofice to complain about the grading
scheme, and sitting in the cafeteria discussing the prof's dorky
haircut. Probably unfair, as these all take up time, but I guess we have
to draw the line somewhere...
</location>
If you are prepared to accept that students can attend classes and cram
for their final without getting *any* marks directly for those
activities, or that a three-hour final can carry more marks than
attendance at three hours of lectures, then I don't see from what
general principle it follows that assignments must carry more than (say)
10% of the course marks - or indeed, any.
-Robert
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
