Grading on a curve...

[Guinastasia]

I always found the worst thing about a curve: if several students cheat, they screw the ENTIRE class.

[erislover]

The “strongest” curve I was ever subjected to was in a high-school chemistry class. Whoever got the highest grade was teh 100% standard. If there was extra credit, and a person scored 104%, say, the curve would still move down. Sound unfair?

I disagree. There were times it screwed me, but I also set a few of the curves. I find that curve grading accurately describes the amount learned in its own way. Most subjects, even math and physics(I would say especially math!) require a degree of understanding, not memorization. It is this understanding which gets graded, and a curve focuses on not punishing the student for the teacher’s shortcomings.

When I took the leap in high school from algebra to pre-calculus I found my grades went from the A-B range to a flat out F. The formulaic nature of math had enabled rote memorization to seep in in place of true understanding. I had to actually re-learn (or learn for the first time!) what math really was all about. I finished pre-calc with an A in the last quarter, went on to get a 98% in calculus the next year overall.

Any class, no matter how “logical” or “formulaic” at the start, will eventually reach a point where understanding takes precidence. That is the point of higher education, even at the late high school level. The competition to set curves between students is a drive to actually understand the topic because rote memorization will not help.

Now, I would tend to lean on the side that earlier courses which are largely memorization should not be graded on a curve. Freshman biology (we’re talking high school or college), history, any of the early algebras, these do not require understanding but application. As understanding becomes paramount curves aid the learning process. To this day I can’t remember half the theroems of the Calculus, but I can still perform calc problems at the same level because I grasped the concept of it, not formulaic representations of the maths. I would surely stumble on some tricky integrations problems, but none-the-less I would get the correct answer.

Thoughts?

[Space_Vampire]

Phouka- No, see, there was a formal system of written evaluations- it was just hopelessly unworkable, and not in any way preferrable to solid numbers.

[even_sven]

So as to hijack no more, I will start another thread on the value or non-value of grades. I hope to see you all there!

[Badtz_Maru]

I don’t like curves. Part of that is because in one of my classes one was applied unfairly. I took Advanced Physics my freshman year in high school, and because of personality conflicts with my teacher and my own laziness, I got bad grades on most of our assignments - the teacher liked to assign tons of homework, and if I couldn’t finish my homework at school or on the bus, I didn’t do it. I made up for it on tests. Well, on the exam at the end of the semester I aced it. No problem until I saw one of my friend’s tests - he had his grade adjusted upwards by nine points. I asked the teacher about that and she said it was the curve. She explained the concept to me, and I pointed out that I got a 100 on the test without the curve. She said that she used the second highest grade on the test (a 91) for figuring the curve - apparently without the curve a good portion of the class would have failed, and she didn’t think it was right to punish the rest of the class because of a ‘statistical fluke’.

Now, for one thing I am not a statistical fluke. I was a student who already understood everything taught in the course before I even got in high school - I did not guess on any of the questions in the test. Now, I wouldn’t have had a problem with that adjustment if I GOT IT TOO - after all, it was technically possible to get better than 100 on the test, I could have if I didn’t have this attitude at the time of ‘If I don’t have to do it, I won’t’. A 109 on that test would have pushed my average to a B- for that semester.

[Tominator2]

I agree if were dealing with ability, but learning in some subjects isn’t necessarily an ability. Through grades K-6, the ability of the kids are about the same, and the material being taught isn’t so difficult that we should see a curve in ability.

Why not? There’s a bell curve in just about every other meaningful measurement at that age.

The SAT is an acceptance test, not a test of what students learned. It is used to mesure the level of what someone learned, which across the nation is random because of different teaching requirements and styles. It is entirely different than say a midterm or a final in which we are measuring what students learned with all the variables approximately the same, and all in the control of the teacher.

Are you saying that all students from a particular high school get the same SAT score? Of course they don’t. Different schools most likely have different averages (for another whole bunch of Great Debate reasons) but I’d bet they’re each more-or-less normally distributed.

Why is grade inflation a problem?

So many reasons it’d require its own thread.

[brad_d]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
The “strongest” curve I was ever subjected to was in a high-school chemistry class. Whoever got the highest grade was teh 100% standard. If there was extra credit, and a person scored 104%, say, the curve would still move down. Sound unfair?

The only patently unfair thing I see about it is calling it “extra credit”.

Say it’s a 100-point test with a 5-point “bonus question” at the end. It’s only a bonus if your performance on that question can only help your final grade. It sounds like, in the implementation you describe, it would be just another question, and not getting it right would hurt you just as much as missing any other 5-point question on the exam. This test isn’t really out of 100 points any more - it’s out of 105.

There’s no such thing as “extra credit” if a grading curve is rigidly adhered to - anything you don’t do will count against you, whether it’s labeled “bonus” or not.

Adding in “extra credit” after adjusting grades to fit the curve seems OK, I guess…

[jk1245]

my 2¢

I’ve also been in classes where the “curve” ws simply adding however many points were needed to get the highest score to 100%. If some brainiac gets 99, then everyone gets 1 point.
In my experience (TA’d Biol 101 in college) a curve works pretty well in large intro classes where the scores are almost bell curved anyway.
Another factor in curving is that profs can get penalized for giving too many A’s or F’s

I also knew a prof who graded advanced chem on a strict curve. My argument was that this was not applicable for two main reasons:

1. small numbers. Most advanced classes are 10-30 people
2. Advance classes are not a random distribution of students. Presumably, students who hate/stink at math or chem or whatever don’t take the adv class so you’re dealing with the top 10-20% of the “normal” distribution.

[zut]

*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
It would seem to me that the curve reflects real life a bit better. It results in competition, which is generally a good thing.

However, the result is at the expense of co-operation (in, say, a study group), the lack of which is a bad thing. Note the following:

1. Grading on a curve results in a sort of zero-sum game. Students have an incentive to make their fellows do worse on the test. It would be better to not have this disincentive to co-operation (and it would be even better to have “reverse curves” to promote co-operation), because:

2. Students can learn from each other as well as from the teacher or from a book. The goal of teaching is to have the student learn, not to reflect real life. Why eliminate a possible source of learning?