Huh, research shows that you guys are right. Amusingly, then, the mean academic average to get in to the University of Saskatchewan med school was a B.
Why on earth not? A grade is the professor’s certification that the student has learned the material that the class covers. In a biology class that deals with evolution, “learning the material” includes knowing the details of evolution by natural selection and the high points of the theory. Depending on the depth of the class and whether it covers human evolution, it may go into the fossil record, common ancestors, missing links, etc. It also should cover scientific challenges or problems with the theory, and how to discuss these challenges intelligently.
Injecting ID into a scientific discussion of evolution is not discussing the theory intelligently. By doing that, the student showed that she doesn’t know the difference between scientific and faith-based arguments, and the teacher should have some doubt as to whether or not the student really learned the subject matter.
It should absolutely affect the girl’s grade.
In high school, and several undergrad classes I’ve been in, A’s are 100 to 93, B’s 92 to 85, C’s 84 to 77, etc. And, if she plans on rebelling for no damn reason, she needs to take her lumps as given to her. Serves her right, maybe next time she’ll learn that there’s a time and place for assholery and it usually isn’t when the other person holds all the power.
[hijack]Whenever I’ve taught I’ve always used a straight 10 point scale (90-100 A, 80-90 B, etc.). It’s just easier to remember and somehow “neater”.
From what I understand, this is one of the areas where the US and Canadian grading systems are very different. (I gather that it’s also well-nigh impossible to earn a score in the high 90s in the Canadian system; not so here.)
For what it’s worth, the grading scale at my high school was 94-100 = A, 90-93 = B+, 84-89 = B, 80-83 = C+, and so on down. And people earned As all the time. (I majored in English, so we didn’t typically get numerical scores at the college level.)
That must be it. It’s not so hard to get high 90s in the introductory sciences, based as they are on multiple-choice tests, but 90s in the humanities are exceedingly rare. I won an award for the highest average in the History department one year, and I’ve never received a 90.
No, it is not irrelevant in a college course, where students are expected to think, not just reguritate the lectures and text.
The answer is not wrong, although I would challenge the student to cite the ‘controversy’.
The process and mechanism of evolution have been further explored in the last quarter century, and teaching has not kept up. People will still argue that homosexuality must be ‘unnatural’ because ‘evolution would select against it’.
Now, if the student was just being a PIA on the final after trying to hijack the class all semester, I would have some sympathy for the instructor. I would also expect the student to accept the grade as a lesson on how to live in the real world.
(The Darwinian/Malthusian/Mendellian model of genetic evolution is incomplete; molecular thermodyanmics are needed to explain development of organisms.)
U.S. Colleges often do some sort of modified (or straight) curve as well. A straight curve sucks, since it basically throws everyone on a bell curve and some people fail, even if they got 80%. I think straight curves are pretty rare. The most common (and easiest) modified curve I’ve seen is some version of “well, the highest score on the test was a 92 - that is now 100 and everyone gets an extra 8 points” - but there are versions where the prof just looks at the distribution and starts drawing lines in reasonable spots.
Honestly, she deserves those four or five points removed just for the attempt at “neener neener”-ing the prof when she’s more or less been told her notions are not relevant to the course as designed by the prof. Answer the question as it is asked and no more than is needed to answer it accurately. Juicing up your answer with a retort about your own pet theories on science that were not asked for is not appropriate.
Also: peer reviewed Chick pamphlet? WTF? :rolleyes: They let just about any moron into college these days, don’t they?
is what she was asked to answer. j666, this does not ask for commentary on any other theory than evolution, and thus commentary on theories other than evolution are irrelevant and detract from the answer.
Exactly. And the first part of the answer (biology, John Wilkes Booth) says that the student did learn the material the class covers. Obviously so, otherwise that student wouldn’t be able to repeat it and use examples. And so their grade should certify the knowledge that they left on the page.
The second part (ID, aliens), says other things about the student, but those things aren’t appropriate for the prof to grade. They’re irrelvant to the question, the answer, and the grade.
As the prof, I’d roll my eyes at the student - be thankful they’re out of my class, but I can’t say they didn’t learn the facts that I presented because I’m reading the facts I presented right there in black and white on the paper in front of me.
I think that including irrelevant, non-scientific ideas in the answer to a scientific question (especially since she offered the idea as an equally valid alternative to the scientific answer) shows a lack of critical understanding of the theory in general and of the way science works. The information she offered was irrelevant to the question, but the fact that she offered it at all shows that she doesn’t understand the science.
Without knowing exactly what the question was, no one here can say exactly what was or was not relevant. “Certain premise” could mean a lot of things. Would you mark off if someone mentioned genetic drift or sexual selection when asked only about natural selection?
Which, as I mentioned previously, would likely have been indicated by the score she received. But, if she answered the question correctly, as the OP has related, then one cannot reasonably argue that she doesn’t understand the science. It may still be true, but such is not necessarily evidenced by the inclusion of those two sentences.
Stand by the “irrelevant” comment but give back the deducted points. She knew the material. The points were deducted because she expressed dissent.
At any rate, she’ll have a good story about her “godless biased science prof”. 
I think he’s getting her on this technicality. I’ve seen plenty of professors (especially in science classes) take points off for irrelevant BS on essays, because they’re trying to avoid people taking the shotgun approach. Because of that, I don’t think she can reasonably call him to task for marking points off for an irrelevant answer unless he doesn’t do it for anyone else.
I don’t see the problem here; he can feel like he got the last word for her disrupting his classes to advocate a non-scientific point of view, and she gets to feel like a martyr. Everybody wins!
I’m not entirely sure that she’s going to be able to have any success from challenging the grade because of the closeness to the shotgun approach that the side commentary resembles. I had a few exams in which I tried the shotgun method when I was in high school, and I remember my instructors deducting points for incorrect or irrelevant information any time I or my classmates tried it.
See above.
She was supposed to have been graded for knowing the material. Assuming that her answer demonstrated that knowledge, the professor was penalizing her for thought crime.
So much for all the assertions in Airman Doors’ thread that professors never dock points for disagreeing with them.
Regards,
Shodan
Whoosh…I hope?
Thought crime? Y’know, it doesn’t count as “martyrdom” if you nail yourself to the cross, right?
Look, she gave the right answer and added an additional wrong answer that she knew the professor would object to. She obviously did this to provoke him, so she shouldn’t be surprised at his response.
How is it wrong? “many people believe” or “many people think” (remember, the quote in the OP is a paraphrase) ID is correct because they’re not swayed by the explanations of scientists is absolutely accurate. Many people are idiots.
Yes, but she didn’t include the standard disclaimer that “everyone who does should be burned at the stake”.
When someone mentions certain topics, it creates a disturbance in the Force. To remedy this, the person who mentioned it needs to publicly repent of her sin, or a designated enforcer to punish the miscreant and restore the universal balance.
Whether it is true or not doesn’t matter. The hive mind does not tolerate dissent.
Regards,
Shodan