Originally posted by Jon`C:
High school English courses focus on unquantifiable literary analysis at the expense of lexicon, syntax and semantics. It's not unbelievable that someone would get excellent marks and still be incapable of communicating her ideas eloquently.
Not that I think her grammar and spelling are bad.
The idea is that your grade reflects your abilities relative to all other students who have taken the course, regardless of circumstance.
Let's say it's English. One professor believes that nobody can be perfect and refuses to grade papers higher than 90%. Another professor believes that everybody is a beautiful unique butterfly and always grades every paper from 90% to 100%. Students from the second class are not better; their professor just grades higher. It's unfair that they would have a higher academic standing than the students who took the course from the more challenging professor.
Or Mathematics. One professor has a very cut-and-dry course teaching just the basics of calculus. Another professor throws in some partial differential equations because he thinks it's bloody fascinating. People who took the first course had an easier time and got higher marks, while people who took the second course got lower marks on average. How do you measure academic standing?
It's pretty basic statistics. If each class gets a truly random sample of students their abilities can be plotted with a bell curve. It doesn't always exactly work out that way, but it's close enough. It also prevents side effects like GPA inflation.
Not that I think her grammar and spelling are bad.
The idea is that your grade reflects your abilities relative to all other students who have taken the course, regardless of circumstance.
Let's say it's English. One professor believes that nobody can be perfect and refuses to grade papers higher than 90%. Another professor believes that everybody is a beautiful unique butterfly and always grades every paper from 90% to 100%. Students from the second class are not better; their professor just grades higher. It's unfair that they would have a higher academic standing than the students who took the course from the more challenging professor.
Or Mathematics. One professor has a very cut-and-dry course teaching just the basics of calculus. Another professor throws in some partial differential equations because he thinks it's bloody fascinating. People who took the first course had an easier time and got higher marks, while people who took the second course got lower marks on average. How do you measure academic standing?
It's pretty basic statistics. If each class gets a truly random sample of students their abilities can be plotted with a bell curve. It doesn't always exactly work out that way, but it's close enough. It also prevents side effects like GPA inflation.
Or how about a National Curriculum, and external exam boards? Have the exams written and assessed by someone other than the person teaching course, based on what the children should know. Standardise teaching, not the students.
This bell curve completely destroys incentive for self-improvement, as to get 100% you only need to come top of the class. If you get 50% and you come top of the class, you get 100%! But you still got half of it wrong.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935