Doing what is asked of you is a C?

[A Free Man]

snip.

You think that's bad try being me. Although I finished school this year, a few years ago a new grading system was implemented throughout my whole school, in which you get graded based on what dificulty of work you have completed. Now this might make sense in theory but it doesn't grade you on how well you did in the work only on how hard it was. So for example if one person passes a year 10 course of maths and another passes a year 11 course despite being in year 10 they will receieve a B for the year whereas the student doing a year 10 course will receive a C (assuming they both pass), now that is fine with me however look at it this way. If two students both doing a year 10 course and one gets 55% (with 50% being the pass mark) and the other gets 95% they will both receive a C because they both passed a course that was at a year 10 dificulty. I find it absolutely ridiculous because in most cases people aren't given an opportunity to do harder coursework so they never have a chance of getting better then a C. I just don't understand grading schemes.

But in your case I think it kind of makes sense. I mean think about it. In the real world if you have a job and your employer tells you "I want you to do A and B" and you complete those tasks, you aren't doing anything worthy of praise or reward you are simply doing what you are being paid to do. But if you did those as well as tasks C and D and providing a new method of performing task B in the future then you certainly deserve extra consideration, if that makes sense. Though I don't know if there is a chance of getting a better grade through extra work but perhaps there is.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Well, how's this: Two tutors teaching separate classes on the same course are talking about the same essay. One of them says that you should be working on the essay for ten hours to do it properly. The other says that you should work on it for twenty. By the logic that doing what you're asked gets you a C, one class did twice the work for the same grade.

It's something that the world of academics has got people to buy into beautifully, as demonstrated on this forum. That by using the phrase 'above and beyond' they excuse themselves of all responsibility for helping their students achieve the best grade. For example, a student goes to their teacher/lecturer/professor and asks what they should do to get the best grade possible; are they supposed to merely give a mysterious wink and tell them to "Surprise me"? Of course not! Okay, so you expect the instructions to get least detailed at higher levels; an average grade has very specific requirements attached to it such as doing specific essays on specific topics for certain deadlines, but it should be made clear to students what they should be doing if they're aiming for better.

This entire argument has caused people to start believing that quality work isn't about results. A teacher should be helping students to produce the best work that they can, and in doing so, learn as much as they can. Though apparently they cease to have any responsibility for those working at above average levels.

This is an awesome analogy, so I'm going to use it to argue against you

I say I want you to bring the groceries in and put them away, but I haven't told you where I want everything to go. If you come in and drop everything in a cupboard, you get a C, because you've done what I've asked.

If you, instead, come in, look around at where things are placed, then place all the groceries in their respective place, you get an A as you did a little bit of extra and non-described work to improve the result of the task.

Same applies here.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that I would prefer, in this analogy, to be told "Oh, and if you want to be really helpful you could pack them away like this" and then I could ask for a general guide on that. It would still be more work for a better result, but compare that to how it often feels now: sort everything away in cupboards as you think it should be, but then get told that you did it wrong anyway.

 

[FrostyCoolSlug]

-- Snip

I suppose what I'm saying here is that I would prefer, in this analogy, to be told "Oh, and if you want to be really helpful you could pack them away like this" and then I could ask for a general guide on that. It would still be more work for a better result, but compare that to how it often feels now: sort everything away in cupboards as you think it should be, but then get told that you did it wrong anyway.

Fair enough, I can accept that logic, I'm kinda on the fence about the whole thing myself, if this is uni, then you should generally pick subjects you actually have an interest in and would read up on outside the classroom, and not just coast by on exactly what you are taught, but at the same time, the whole point of going to an educational institute is to be taught, if you're doing most of the work yourself, then what's the point in having tutors?

I dunno..

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

Life isn't fair,
RULE: Do as much as you can in assignments/essays and pray that you wrote down what they where thinking. EXCEPTION: Sleep with the teachers spouse (film or take photos) then black mail the spouse into secretly editing your results while the teacher is sleeping.

 

[thylasos]

So... the grade which indicates your work is adequate for adequate work.

Sounds reasonable, really. If you want the top grades, do more work. I think this a fairly well-understood system, in all honesty.

If the issue is about being spoon-fed knowledge vs. doing independent research, whether or not that applies depends on your level of education, though it's never too early to start independent learning.

 

[Enverex]

Am I the only one concerned about the fact that it seems teachers all grade using their own method, therefore your grades are defined by your teachers marking methods rather than purely your own skill. i.e. person A may be better at a subject than person B, but because person A has a teacher who likes to be more strict on marking, they get a lower grade than person B?

 

[Something Amyss]

C is pretty much "meets expectations." Doing what's asked of you, therefore, is C work.

 

[dystopiaINC]

-- Snip

I suppose what I'm saying here is that I would prefer, in this analogy, to be told "Oh, and if you want to be really helpful you could pack them away like this" and then I could ask for a general guide on that. It would still be more work for a better result, but compare that to how it often feels now: sort everything away in cupboards as you think it should be, but then get told that you did it wrong anyway.

Fair enough, I can accept that logic, I'm kinda on the fence about the whole thing myself, if this is uni, then you should generally pick subjects you actually have an interest in and would read up on outside the classroom, and not just coast by on exactly what you are taught, but at the same time, the whole point of going to an educational institute is to be taught, if you're doing most of the work yourself, then what's the point in having tutors?

I dunno..

thing about college is while you can pick classes you want your major will force you into classes you may have no interest in. man is i wasn't already interested in psychology i would be pissed about having to take it, or something to that effect. really the only thing is you can take some classes in a different order or drop them if you find your not ready to take them yet.

OT: i think if what your doing is what he asked for you deserve better than C. if he gives you a list with a clear grading scale and you abide by it then you deserve an A, you can't just say "i want you to do this" but really mean "i want toy to do this, but to pass you ALSO need to do these three other obscure tasks they may or may not be possible in the time frame you've been given, and i'm not going to tell you about these tasks because i want you to 'figure it out on your own' but really think you'll only figure it out when i hand you a C for doing what i asked but not what i expected."

 

[CrystalShadow]

Hmmm. I would agree in principle for mathematics, but I noticed the university I went to did something even more annoying.

They graded tests based on a bell curve. That means, you aren't graded on how well you did, but how well you did in relation to everyone else taking the same test that year.

That doesn't sound so bad until you realise that it means 40% of the class fails! Every time! regardless of actual performance!

If 60% of the class gets 100 out of 100 right, anyone that gets less than that fails.

Sure, it identifies the best of the best. But it also means people potentially fail even if they're better than 99% of the rest of the population...

AAAGGHH! I remember this an none too fondly. Seriously, if you ever come across a teacher who announces this as his grading method you need to IMMEDIATELY do as earnest evaluation of your expected strength in the material and how smart you think you are compared to your peers. I was stupid enough to stay on in a statistics class that did this when maths and I have always had a rocky relationship. Even though I ended the semester having understood and learned the core material (a personal accomplishment I felt proud of, since again I knew this was a subject that would challenge me) actually having LEARNED the damn subject counted for nothing because I performed worse at it than my brilliant fellow classmates. And my professor never had to worry about whether or not he actually TAUGHT the damn subject well because on paper the perfect percentage of students will always fail and succeed.

Yeah... Now you now how I felt. And this wasn't a subject by subject or lecturer by lecturer choice either.

It seemed to be university wide policy as near as I could tell.

This was true regardless of if you were studying physics, literature, or, say... Japanese.

I mean, applying that to language skills? Few jobs have that as a sole requirement. And those that do expect you to be sufficiently competent at it to do the job. It doesn't really matter if you are better or worse at it than anyone else in most cases, as long as you aren't terrible at it...

 

[axlryder]

I'll go against the grain and agree that this seems unfair, but I'll explain myself as to why. You see, these days it's expected that you get all A's if you want to qualify for quite a few scholarships.

Not everyone should qualify for merit based scholarships. Those are supposed to be the best, not the bottom rung that barely did the basics.

You've missed the point entirely. The American education system, being set up the way it is now, makes it unfair to the students who have to deal with particularly difficult teachers when, by and large, the majority of teachers make it very feasible for the average student to achieve straight A's. This means that an intelligent, hard working student with a big workload who has to deal with an exceptionally hard teacher and gets a B+ might get passed over for a lot of scholarships when a less deserving student with average teachers might get that A and receive a scholarship that the other student really deserves. Is it right that the system is set up so that any average Joe can get straight A's? No, but I'm addressing whether or not asking the student to perform far above and beyond what was explicitly asked of them (and, knowing most hardass teachers, in a vague or impractical way) to receive an A (in comparison to the average teacher who considers doing/studying exactly what was directed to be an A or maybe a B) is fair. Based on the way the current system is set up, I'd have to say that it really isn't fair to those who wish to apply for scholarships, as it's saddling them with an extra and potentially impractical burden that many lesser students won't have to deal with. Now, if the difficulty of the teachers were taken into account when divvying up scholarships, I'd be humming a different tune right now. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

I didn't think I would have to explain this in more explicit detail than I already did, but it looks like I was sadly mistaken.

I have no sympathy for gradeflation. Those teachers are the ones doing it wrong.

To blame it solely or even primarily on the teachers reveals your general ignorance on the matter. There's a paradigm in place throughout most of the American education system (that is consistently reinforced by the administration) and the majority of teachers are merely doing what they themselves were educated to do and grading on a scale that has been established for a very long time. Even if they are "doing it wrong" in terms of properly educating students, that point is moot in context to what students have to deal with right now. It really doesn't matter if you're unsympathetic, it's still unfair to the students and the teachers sticking out like a rusty nail should recognize this and attempt to accommodate them. Otherwise, in their misguided attempt to instill a better education within the student, they may ultimately be hindering it. Yes, the system needs reworking, but right now it's more important that everyone is on the same page. Thankfully, most teachers and administrators do agree with me on that, as the general "gradeflation" trends seem to be fairly consistent throughout most educational institutions (in my experience).

 

[axlryder]

To blame it solely or even primarily on the teachers reveals your general ignorance on the matter.

Oh of course you are right, I am totally ignorant. I don't work in a registrar's office at a university.

Gradflation is bad, for everyone.

I couldn't care less where you work (not that you can even prove it), you're marginalizing groups of students for the sake of what you feel is correct and you have yet to provide a halfway decent rebuttal for the issue I've clearly outlined here. So unless you work on a scholarship committee, I don't see how your particular insight into the educational system makes you fit to pass judgement on the situation. I also don't see how you could overlook the exact paradigm that I outlined above and how it's often expected of teachers to operate within the boundaries of said paradigm if you do indeed have a degree of insight into the high school education system. You have done little to remedy your apparent ignorance.

 

[Shivarage]

It was the same way in all our university modules. The point is that you aren't supposed to do the minimum possible work. The stuff the lecturers give you are guidelines to read around and research the subjects on your own.

The thing about university is that what you are learning will be directly applicable to the job you get. So if you do the minimum amount of work at uni, and get a job in the field you studied, then you'll find yourself lost in all this new information you haven't heard of before and asked to do things you don't know how to do properly.
At school you always had a few subjects you never bothered with, because you were never planning on using them later. (how many times has the knowledge of Oxbow lake formations helped your daily problems?) At university you don't have that luxury. You need to know as much as possible about everything otherwise you won't be able to adaquetely perform the job they are training you for.

University is all about independent learning. Get several books out of the library, read the relevant chapters (you'll rarely find an book that is 100% relevent to the subject, usually there is only a chapter or two you'll need to read.)

And finally, don't get mad at the lecturers who appear to be very hard-nosed. In my experience they are always the fairest markers. If you don't work they will slaughter you for it. If you can show extra knowledge about subjects they will be absurdley generous with their marks.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA xDDD

99% of graduates end up with a job irrelevant to their degree =P

BTW I mean in the last few years, back in the early 2000's there was opportunity

 

[axlryder]

To blame it solely or even primarily on the teachers reveals your general ignorance on the matter.

Oh of course you are right, I am totally ignorant. I don't work in a registrar's office at a university.

Gradflation is bad, for everyone.

I couldn't care less where you work (not that you can even prove it), you're marginalizing groups of students for the sake of what you feel is correct and you have yet to provide a halfway decent rebuttal for the issue I've clearly outlined here. So unless you work on a scholarship committee, I don't see how your particular insight into the educational system makes you fit to pass judgement on the situation. You have done little to remedy your apparent ignorance.

You just keep tossing out insults so why debate you?

People should get the grade they earned. Seems simple enough to me.

Ignorance is merely lacking information. I don't consider that an insult. You also have yet to even provide a decent rebuttal and your idealized position is completely disregarding the politics and standards that are currently in place. Even if these things are wrong, they're a reality. So please, simply explain to me how my entire position on the scholarship situation is wrong and I'll be happy to concede. Otherwise, it seems more like you just don't want to admit you might be mistaken here.

 

[axlryder]

It was the same way in all our university modules. The point is that you aren't supposed to do the minimum possible work. The stuff the lecturers give you are guidelines to read around and research the subjects on your own.

The thing about university is that what you are learning will be directly applicable to the job you get. So if you do the minimum amount of work at uni, and get a job in the field you studied, then you'll find yourself lost in all this new information you haven't heard of before and asked to do things you don't know how to do properly.
At school you always had a few subjects you never bothered with, because you were never planning on using them later. (how many times has the knowledge of Oxbow lake formations helped your daily problems?) At university you don't have that luxury. You need to know as much as possible about everything otherwise you won't be able to adaquetely perform the job they are training you for.

University is all about independent learning. Get several books out of the library, read the relevant chapters (you'll rarely find an book that is 100% relevent to the subject, usually there is only a chapter or two you'll need to read.)

And finally, don't get mad at the lecturers who appear to be very hard-nosed. In my experience they are always the fairest markers. If you don't work they will slaughter you for it. If you can show extra knowledge about subjects they will be absurdley generous with their marks.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA xDDD

99% of graduates end up with a job irrelevant to their degree =P

I'd have to say that figure might be just a wee bit exaggerated.

 

[Shivarage]

that figure is exaggerated.

Prepare to be surprised

 

[axlryder]

that figure is exaggerated.

Prepare to be surprised

I'd extend that statement a bit so you don't get a low content warning (seriously, I hate those) but feel free to provide a link. I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[370999]

In uni OP the general idea is that you have an active interest in what you are studying and thus are willing to go out and do more research then you are required. This is expected, the goal of the reading list for intance is to give suggestions from which you then branch of with your own readings and the like. As such your teacher is reiiterating the obvious, do the bare minimum and you can scrape a pass, but you are wasting both his and your time if you really just want to do the minimum. He expects more of you, and you should expect more of yourself then simply doing what you are told and calling it a day.

That's the uni system, and while it is flawed and a bit divorced from the real world, that's the beast you should of known you were getting into. Personnally I'm crap at self study stuff and really appreciated school more know as the structure forced me to work but that's growing up for ya.

I would reccomed asking your proffessor though what an A answer would ential, what he suggests you start looking at.