I would like to add my voice to what Annette has put so well.  After reading 
all of the emails
that have been generated from this thread I have come away thinking that we 
must always do whatever
we can to help the student.  I think that the most important issues that Carol 
DeVolder must answer is:
was this assessment fair?  Did the student have every opportunity to achieve 
their grade, just like everyone
else?  I think we may have to accept that some students are not cut out to get 
a degree in psychology, they just do
not have the skills and abilities to do the work.  Rather than hanging this 
student's fate on one lone faculty member
should you be looking at the others who gave in to pressure from the student 
and yes even their peers.  Carol is the 
department chair and so the decision is not as easy as it seems -- what she 
decides to do can have a profound impact on
those faculty who observe this action and may start to think -- I have 
standards but it does not matter because the chair
will overrule me anyway -- so why should I have these standards.  Trust me, 
this is a very slippery slope where i think 
she runs the risk of alienating many more people in the long run.  I also think 
that providing this student with this 
additional opportunity is patently unfair to the other students in that class 
that worked their behinds off to get the
grades that they received.  Fairness in all respects should be the credo.

Bob Intrieri


----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 9:27:15 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: RE: [tips] An analogy for the Weighty Problem

I have to say that I am a bit amazed and taken aback that almost the vast 
majority of responses have suggested that we, as instructors might be faulty in 
only one direction of grading: erring against the students and therefore having 
to make a correction in the student's favor and against our better experience 
and judgement.

Comments have suggested that how can I be so sure my standards are correct? 
Well, maybe they're not, but then how can you be sure that your standards are 
faulty in only one direction?

Why is that?

Why isn't it equally possible that the error is the other way around?

Is there any evidence one way or the other? I think I definitely err by giving 
students too much slack all semester long and so in the end, after very many 
years of teaching decided my standards needed to be elevated. These were NOT 
all A and B students I was teaching, but if I had the grading scheme I've seen 
from other schools, my god, I'd be passing students who absolutely are clueless 
about the science of psychology. I'm a bit apalled, frankly.

I like the driver's license analogy and I can't think of anyone who tries the 
hard 
luck stories there. Reminds me of what I did to my kids--made them take the 
test in a stick shift car--and they failed several times before they got over 
their 
nerves during the test and made it through without ever killing the engine. 
Maybe that's a good insight into my general approach to learning in life. But 
both are so grateful they can drive a stick shift in any circumstance now! And 
yes, the occasions do come up!

Annette


Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
619-260-4006
[email protected]


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([email protected])

---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([email protected])

Reply via email to