It's not a one-size-fits-all scenario. Some benefit from validating, others may suffer.So, given this huge adjustment, and all the stress associated with plebe year - why would DS try to place out of any classes?
A 5 point curve would be well received by the Mid staying in my house.My son just took it. He said there could be a 5 pt curve?
Also, it sounds like (at least some) profs are sympathetic to the idea that not everyone is in the same environment with the same resources. And online learning is a new thing that both teachers and learners are figuring out on the fly. So I would expect that final letter grades would be somewhat more lenient than in other semesters. (Though admittedly I am projecting what I would do, as a retired prof.)
I mentioned the curve to my DD. As she understands it, since Chem is a class wide course, the curve works that way as well. The curve would be across the entire class not just one class. That is, it is not at one instructors decision, but all instructors of Chem 2. Seems a bit inequitable considering some instructors are better than others, but statistically it probably works out.Also, it sounds like (at least some) profs are sympathetic to the idea that not everyone is in the same environment with the same resources. And online learning is a new thing that both teachers and learners are figuring out on the fly. So I would expect that final letter grades would be somewhat more lenient than in other semesters. (Though admittedly I am projecting what I would do, as a retired prof.)
Mine too! Heard the same quote at my house!DS is pretty happy tonight that he’ll “never ever have to take chemistry again”.
Interesting... USNA bases GPA on A,B,C.... No A+, A-... So an A is an A, a B is a B...A curve would be fine. But there are many that got excellent grades as well.
This thread is a keeper to use as a reality-setter for incoming plebes.
Interesting... USNA bases GPA on A,B,C.... No A+, A-... So an A is an A, a B is a B...
A person could have a high 'B' in a class, and a curve could bring him/her to a low A. Another person could have an outright high A. But in the end they are both 'As'... The person who got the A via the curve could theoretically end up with a higher OOM than the person who had the higher original grade, thanks to the curve.
I know a case where a person got a 4.0 last semester with low 90s in all classes. But a student got less than a 4.0 despite having high 90s in most classes and an 89.7 in one class.
I have never thought of midterms as you have described. Eye opener! Made me think of a marathon race... The first person to cross the finish line is the winner. It doesn't matter where he was at the 13.1 mark. Or the first mile, or... All that matters is where he was at the end of the race.Assessment is not an exact science, and certainly not reliable to within 0.3%. I remember having similar situations when starting as a prof when I would grade individual assessments very generously, to make up for the subjectivity, and then assign strict grades at the end. It led to many distraught students who argued that they were very close to the next higher grade (even with +- grading schemes). So it *may* not be as painfully close as it appears. (Unless the prof is just a %$#@, and certainly there are plenty of those in academia, as in anything.)
The way we currently assess in US higher ed has many problems anyhow. E.g., Formative versus summative. If 2 students walk out of a course at the end with the exact same understanding of the material, should they get the same course grade? Our current system says No to that, because, e.g., midterms are often summative, and end up assessing how fast you learned the material, not just that you understood it in the end.
Also, one could argue that the goal is clearly stated as meeting a 90 minimum threshold to get the A. The first student clearly did not allocate their efforts well. If you are getting high 90's in all classes but one, then you are clearly putting too much into those classes, and not enough into the one you need to. I mean, we seem to accept that the speed at which students learn content has a significant impact on grades and so GPA. Why wouldn't effort allocation and management be fair game as well? Should it be?
And as far as its impact on OOM, is it just the academics that has this kind of issue? E.g., in the physical assessment, it doesn't matter that one mid barely eeeks out reaching the max in each section, and another mid could could have gotten 150% in each section, they both get the max assessment, yeah? (<-- real question, I am admittedly a little fuzzy on how that works) That would be similar to a 90 and a 100 average in a class both getting A's? But they actually stop you when you've maxed out an area on physical tests? Wouldn't that be similar to a student who has low 90's in all their classes (i.e., they have maxed out their GPA) redirecting their energies into other things that effect OOM, instead of going for the higher 90's?
We could just give raw numeric scores in everything for determining a ranking? But then a student with 3 courses 100, 100, 50 (total 250) is better than an 80, 80, 80 (total 240). Is that okay? Because in current system, it's the opposite; the over all GPA's would be 2.67 and 3, respectively.
Okay, sorry. I will climb off soap box and stop playing devil's advocate now. I spent decades struggling with authentic assessment in my classrooms, so its problems raise my hackles just a bit.
It wasn't an argument. It was simply an analogy to @DKTKT's point. I'm not getting into any debates.I don’t buy your marathon argument necessarily.