Poll: Grading System Flawed?

[maxmanrules]

The flaw is not in the analysis, but the analyzer. Human error is the greatest weakness logic has ever had.

This.
The New Zealand education system has an insane amount of disagreement between the external moderators (the people who check the papers that the markers marked to make sure they aren't totally forked up.) and the markers. It's something like 25%.
The problem is that the disagreement rate between external moderators is STILL 25%
So the checkers do not agree.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

It may be just me, but I personally have always felt that anything less then an A was substandard and something that I have personally felt bad for getting.

Why should you find average acceptable average doesn't get you the best jobs average gets you an average job.

Even people who do above average are stuck in an average job a lot of the time. Your point?

I honestly don't get why some people feel bad for getting a B. It's still a good grade, yet some teens get grounded for even a single B on their report card, because some parents get it into their children's heads that if they don't get all A's then they're just not trying hard enough or doing a good enough job.

 

[maxmanrules]

Where I live, B = Average. I've viewed the current grading system as flawed for a while, and I really hate the whole "Start at %100, can only go down from there" thing they have going on. I'd much rather it be something where you earn a certain amount of points for any one piece of school work (Say, if you were to get perfect on a Huge test, you'd get 5000 points for it), and your goal is to reach a certain amount of points before the end of a semester (Such as 25,000). You start from the bottom, and you can only go up (Unless you get in trouble for something). You'd simply get 0 points for missing work. This'd be my ideal system, as it gets rid of the letter grades (Which I don't like for several reasons), and it starts from the bottom, where you can only go up, instead of starting from the top, where you can only go down.

The problem with this is that people will just do as much stuff mediocrely as they can.
That means they get lots and lots of points for doing craploads of stuff. They could get lots of points without actually having to study the material.

 

[LordFisheh]

The hilarious thing with ours is that teachers are rated on not which grades their students get but on whether or not those students do better or worse than predicted. So when I was in a class of A* students, we all got predicted B's and A's so that if we did better, the teacher would still get credit. The problem? Those predicted grades had to be used on our applications to 6th form, and another set of similarly predicted grades for university.

 

[Duol]

Massive grade inflation in the US system. I used to be in that system in high school and am glad to be done with it. At a Dutch uni now, which is very different. Grading is linear, so usually only 1-2 students are awarded a 10 (100%), couple of scores of nine and slightly more 8s. 6 is a pass and the average is ussually below this. It isn't uncommon to see a 50% fail rate. The exams are designed to achieve such low pass rates. In the end if you have a med degree, even if it's only at a 6 average you are considered good enough. The result is less people walking around with worthless degrees, as the minimum standard is so high. There are never any curves or anything like that either.

 

[RoBi3.0]

It may be just me, but I personally have always felt that anything less then an A was substandard and something that I have personally felt bad for getting.

Why should you find average acceptable average doesn't get you the best jobs average gets you an average job.

Even people who do above average are stuck in an average job a lot of the time. Your point?

I honestly don't get why some people feel bad for getting a B. It's still a good grade, yet some teens get grounded for even a single B on their report card, because some parents get it into their children's heads that if they don't get all A's then they're just not trying hard enough or doing a good enough job.

Yup, sometime above average people get stuck in average jobs, but very rarely does a below average person get an above average job.

I can't speak for everyone, but I am usually not happy with a B because I know I can do better then that. I accept nothing but my very best, but hey that is just me.

 

[hutchy27]

Well all I know is C is a pass grade, where I live anyways. (England)
I got predicted B for most subjects and A for art. Got over a year left and passed this grade for most subjects or I'm currently working at that grade.

But I think our grading system is different to yours.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think the biggest problem with it is the number of interpretations that exist.

One teacher says C is average, another says A is average, and a job says B is average and everything in between.

I think the whole system would be fine if people would just agree, but since they are not, I believe a new system is needed.

 

[Zaeseled]

I think the new grading system over here in Finland is even worse. It goes like this
1 = Bad, didn't pass the class
2 = Ok
3 = Amazing

This kind of grading system is too broad. >.>

 

[Guffe]

In Finland this is the system we use.
From classes 1-9 (age 7-16) 4 = not pass 10 = best possible and everything in between well, then it dpends on how the teacher classifies the points.
Then from 17-19 you can choose 2 lines of school, one is more theoretical and gives you higher basic knowledge in evertyhing from languages to biology, history, math etc, this is called a gymnasium/Lukio (has nothing to do with a gym) and the other one, also a 3 year exam, were you get a profession and basically study that + some languages and math to keep basic skills you've learnet so far up. Builder, Cook, Hairdresser, Computers and loads else, this is called a Yrkesskola/Ammattikoulu.
In the Gymnasiums you have the same scaling as earlier except in the ending exams were the scaling is very different.
In the Yrkesskola the scaling of tests etc are from 1 - 3, yeah 1 = very bad, 2 = mediocre and 3 = very good. Not really sure which system is better, I guess both have their ups and downs.

 

[thylasos]

You should be trying to do better than average, I think, really.

Hell, the school I went to essentially made B's only vaguely acceptable. C was as good as a fail, in the eyes of the students due to the school's jealously guarded position in the league tables, and the ethos instilled in every pupil. High stress. High acheivement, though.

 

[thylasos]

I have friends who are in far worse colleges than me (because they didn't do that well) and have higher GPAs. Just because I'm at a good university means that I have a lower GPA, while they mainly go to parties and still pull a 4.0. Tell me how that's fair.

Well, take the view that you're working harder and will have a higher quality degree through your own work and the comparative prestige of your much better institution.

 

[FEichinger]

This is the point at which I actually like the German secondary II system.
0 to 15 points, 15 being flawless, 4 and below being literally bad. You know exactly where you stand.
Of course teachers still apply their own measures, but with this system you have at least a much more precise standing.

Anyways, as for the topic itself ... Most students here gets 7 or 8 points, that's a C. There are a few guys down in the 3-6 section, a decent chunk in the 9-12 section and few with 13+.
Just the way it's supposed to be, imho.

 

[Woodsey]

If most people achieve higher than a C then a C isn't the average.

 

[Lawnmooer]

In the school I went to "C" was the average, it was considered the passing grade by many students (Because for any education after school they want people with 3-4 C's)

In reality A, B, C, D, E and F were all passing grades (With the only non-pass being U for Unclassified meaning it wasn't finished or wasn't good enough to reach an F)

I think the main mentality of it came from the fact that all the core subjects were catagorized into "Sets" of which there were 4. Sets 1 and 2 both were taught the same things (With set 1 getting less support) and were given the Higher version of the tests which only allow for the grades A*-C anything below a C on those tests resulted in a U. Sets 3 and 4 on the other hand were taught only what was required to pass the exams (I.E. They were taught how they should answer specific question types rather than being given information about the subject) and they did the Foundation version of the exams, in which the highest grade acheiveable is a C.

This method of grading seems a bit strange, because what if someone who was placed in the Foundation exam could have got a better grade if they'd taken the Higher exam? Why should someone doing the Higher exam get a fail if they may have acheived a D (Which could be then boosted by coursework whereas a U cannot)

I know I got B's in subjects that I was put in the Foundation exam for because of my A grade coursework + the C I got in the exams (I was predicted A* in everything but got moved around the sets because dicking around was funner than working in lessons)

I'm finding that my college grading criteria is more logical, there is a set number of assignments to do that are each worth a Pass, Merit or Distinction. In order to get an overall Pass all the core units need to have all the Passes done. In order to get an overall Merit 18 of the 36 Units need all the Passes and Merits to be achieved and to get an overall Distinction All the Passes, Merits and Distinctions need to be done.

 

[Omnific One]

Grading (and grade inflation) is what screws up our education system.

I have friends who are in far worse colleges than me (because they didn't do that well) and have higher GPAs. Just because I'm at a good university means that I have a lower GPA, while they mainly go to parties and still pull a 4.0. Tell me how that's fair.

Because when competing for a job, your lower GPA from a much better school will trump their higher GPA from a shitty school.

Also work harder you lazy git

Haha, haven't gone to a single party this entire time, so I'm working my ass of; it's not that much lower, just 3.7.

 

[renegade7]

School basically boils down to how much homework you're willing to put up with, not how much you've actually learned.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I see it as a flaw system in that if you got a C than it should acceptable as in you just barely made it. I view C as a bronze medal and you still get praise for a bronze medal well smaller compare to silver and gold.

 

[Yopaz]

C is OK, B is good. So you don't do well with anything lower than B.

 

[violinist1129]

Here at Princeton we dealt with pretty bad grade inflation for a while, but now they limit how many people are allowed to get As or Bs in any given class. The mean grade is a high C which seems about as close to fair as possible. At first people complained about the limits, but there's never really a situation where enough people do well enough to warrant any more "high" grades.

I'm pretty sure the OPs getting C=Average from the fact that almost everywhere you see grade explanations a C is "average", a B is "above average", and an A is "outstanding"

On a side note, it is absolutely hilarious to watch people from private schools who are used to getting only As suddenly realize how much more work it takes to get a real A. That and the fact that their parents disown them when they see the B average their "brilliant, gifted wunderkind" is struggling to maintain.