Lawry, At 16:38 05/10/02 -0400, you wrote: >Keith, I want to distinguish between grade creep (where the overall level of >grades rises) and grading 'on the curve' where grades are fit to a preset >distribution curve, and retain their average from grading cycle to the next. >With grade creep, the average grade rises from cycle to cycle. Yes, the >argument for defending grade creep is that the students are getting better, >but I see little evidence for that, again from anecdotal observations.
Sorry if I haven't been clear. Yes, grade creep (inflation) -- exams becoming easier -- has been occurring for decades, pari passu with the number of new universities being built (or converted from teaching and technical colleges). Grade deflation (decreasing the number of high grades) has been done to avoid embarras de richesses in particular subjects and to give the appearance of a general increase in achievement from year to year which can be plausibly attributed to hard work only. (Actually, I'm quite sure that students *have* been working harder in recent years, but this doesn't consist of tackling harder problems but of doing more practical exercises and portfolio modules at simple level. The problem with this, as examiners are now discovering fast, is that it is becoming impossible to discriminate between candidates at all and quite dense students are now attending universities. But, then, the quality of lecturers at our lesser universities is distressingly low also.) >I do wonder to what extent my own biases affect these judgments I am making. >For example, I am greatly aware of the growing linguistic inability of >students, and I have a background belief that if a person can't express >themselves well, it is unlikely that they can think well, either. (Worff, >and all that.) But then I wonder: perhaps I am not accepting a youthful >vernacular that in fact can communicate as well as mine. Perhaps I am just >applying the prejudice that an older generation has for a younger one? I haven't heard of Worff. Nevertheless, I would strongly agree that linguistic ability is firmly correlated with mental ability. > >In the end I did not have the pleasure of coming to university in England; I >chose to go the US, though England was closer to where I then lived >(Switzerland) and in many ways more sympatico, as the single largest >national group of my teachers until then had been British. Coming to the US >was quite a cultural shock. I was nearly slapped into 'remedial' English >because I didn't write in 'American." (And I still am grateful to my >spell-checker for worrying about my zeds and 'u's...I don't think I'll ever >get those straight. But then, I still automatically insert that missing 'e', >as well!) > >In the US, we went through a period some7-8 years ago (locally) in which >high school students and younger were the subject of 'self-esteem' worries >by grown-ups and teachers. Correcting the grammar of a student was viewed >with concern, as it might discourage them from writing. So kids were being >encouraged to 'express' themselves regardless of grammar, spelling, >descriptive values, etc. Then it began to dawn on the grown-ups and >teachers - and even a few parents - that they were graduating dunces from >one class to the next. The pendulum has now swung back, with the aid of >standard State-wide testing, and a new ethos that recognizes academic >standards and achievement. I do not know how good the standard tests are, >nor whether they permit the kind o diversity of learning curricula and >styles that seems necessary if the range of human experience and capacity is >to be supported and manifested. Not having great confidence in the ability >of bureaucrats to get their arms around problems that are in the least bit >complex or nuanced, and automatically worry about it. Standardization >around the wrong content or approach may be worse than the chaos of having >no standards. Absolutely! Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
