←back to thread

674 points peterkshultz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
joshvm ◴[] No.45636243[source]
One really important factor is the grading curve, if used. At my university, I think the goal was to give the average student 60%, or a mid 2.1) with some formula for test score adjustment to compensate for particularly tough papers. The idea is that your score ends up representing your ability with respect to the cohort and the specific tests that you were given.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/current/teach/general/...

There were several courses that were considered easy, and as a consequence were well attended. You had to do significantly better in those classes to get a high grade, versus a low-attendance hard course where 50% in the test was curved up to 75%.

replies(5): >>45636312 #>>45636394 #>>45636437 #>>45636823 #>>45639950 #
epolanski ◴[] No.45636823[source]
This posts sums up everything that's wrong with grading and modern colleges.
replies(3): >>45637703 #>>45639573 #>>45641619 #
1. jocaal ◴[] No.45637703[source]
The act of grading itself is what's wrong with colleges. Different people learn at different paces. Forcing everyone to work at the fastest rate and then judging them for not performing is what kills interest in subjects. People should be allowed to write tests when they want to, learn at the pace they want to decide for themselves when it's time to move on, because lets face it, not everyone cares about some prof's pet subject.

The problem is that higher education became something marketable and universities decided to sell diplomas instead of giving people a chance to learn skills they think might help them reach their goals.