Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/education/08grades.html?hp

Can't say that I disagree with the concept. It could definitely be a problem if it serves to alienate many students.

Dr. Reynolds said he used a similar grading policy — “A, B, or do it over” — when teaching college classes in Wichita, Kan., in the late 1990s. About half of his students in those classes had to rewrite their initial papers, he recalled, but eventually nearly everyone was turning in work that merited an A or B. “I have never given less than a B,” he said.

On the other hand, this could be considered bad teaching. Why not just have A's? It seems the logical option, if two grades are good, one grade is better.

Aphrodite...seriously?



Who names their daughter after the Greek goddess of sexuality?

In any case, I don't see how this changes anything. There was a threshold for failure before, and there is a threshold for failure now.

Unless, of course, the district did not change the actual GPA calculation. That would create some sort of weird, nebulous intermediate zone. Though it is possible that could be a solid metric for the nomination of repetition.

Sexuality in Greece, both today and of yesteryear, was a very different thing. That was only one aspect of her portfolio anyway.

Further off-topic, in Cyprus they called her 'Astarte', which almost has something to do with Space Marines! That's pretty cool!

It isn't a problem if it alienates the students who were going to get D or F anyway. It would be better for the good students to get the wasters out of school as early as possible.

Wiki wrote:"Foam-arisen" Aphrodite was born of the sea foam near Paphos, Cyprus after Cronus severed Uranus' genitals and threw them behind him into the sea, while the Erinyes emerged from the drops of blood.

Woah...

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't a problem if it alienates the students who were going to get D or F anyway. It would be better for the good students to get the wasters out of school as early as possible.

Or help the less successful students learn...

If a D is an F, then what good does a C do? Only A and B students should stay in school. Everyone else should become a fry cook.

Students who continue to fail will be placed on a “watch list” to receive extra-help classes, as well as tutoring from other students. If they need to make up a failed course, they will be given the option of attending an evening school, known as “Sunset Academy,” that will charge a fee of $150 per class.

It doesn't really seem like much has changed, and it is more a matter of presentation that anything else. I don't think it will actually become a problem, just to be clear.

As well as getting rid of D's, the school increased expectations slightly. I don't think it is make or break, especially in a small community with money to put into helping students that fall behind. I don't think there is a problem with setting standards, as long as they are reasonable. This appear to be reasonable.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Sexuality in Greece, both today and of yesteryear, was a very different thing. That was only one aspect of her portfolio anyway.

Love, beauty, sexuality, and, in some sects, lust.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Or help the less successful students learn...

As an 'A' student, I can tell yo that this doesn't happen.

Wrexasaur wrote:
If a D is and F, then what good does a C do? Only A and B students should stay in school. Everyone else should become a fry cook.

As I said, it changes nothing but nomenclature.

dogma wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Sexuality in Greece, both today and of yesteryear, was a very different thing. That was only one aspect of her portfolio anyway.

Love, beauty, sexuality, and, in some sects, lust.

Is telling me what I said supposed to be a new point? The fact that she was born of Uranus' genitals is one thing, that fact that you were born of your mother's is another.

I really don't see the problem. The negative association of a few people never stopped a hundred thousand Mexicans calling their baby boy Jesus.

/offtopic

dogma wrote:As I said, it changes nothing but nomenclature.

Under the old system, students could pass with a 65 — 389 of the 1,500 students at Mount Olive High had a “D” on their final report cards in June — but now anything lower than a 70 will be considered failure.

Did I miss something about a 70 being easier to achieve? I don't even consider the change to be unreasonable.

Also it doesn't 'just change the nomenclature' when more students flunk because of it. If the scale doesn't change, as you said, it is raising the bar.

Many colleges have a policy of dropping students with a C average, and I don't consider that unreasonable either, as there is usually more than enough warning beforehand.

True enough, many people cruise through university/college gunning for the pass-mark and nothing else.

Or help the less successful students learn...

If a D is an F, then what good does a C do? Only A and B students should stay in school. Everyone else should become a fry cook.

There are a lot of students who go to school and absolutely refuse to learn. They don't try to learn and fail. They don't try in the first place. There are of course ways to combat this mentality, but you need to nip it fast. By the time a student enters high school it can be near impossible to catch them up if they're already drastically behind and have no desire to even try.

There comes a point when trying to teach these students becomes a waste of time and resources.

As to the article, there are a lot of things like this going on these days in universities. There have been more than a few teachers in the US that have been trying unconventional methods of teaching students by changing the way they grade assignments. There's a teacher at Michigan State I think it was who isn't giving grades at all. He's giving experience points

dogma wrote:As an 'A' student, I can tell yo that this doesn't happen.

An exclAmAtion student.

The only reason I would understand that to be the case, is if the majority of students simply refused the resources offered. That doesn't appear to be a common thing from what I have seen, if anything there is a rush to the assistance when required. This change provides that requirement.

LordofHats wrote:There are a lot of students who go to school and absolutely refuse to learn. They don't try to learn and fail. They don't try in the first place. There are of course ways to combat this mentality, but you need to nip it fast. By the time a student enters high school it can be near impossible to catch them up if they're already drastically behind and have no desire to even try.

There comes a point when trying to teach these students becomes a waste of time and resources.

When is that made clear?

I think that a passing grade in high school is perfectly fine at set at 65-70%. In college, I think it is perfectly fine to pull the students that try to maintain that average out when necessary. Kilkrazy and yourself appear to be portraying any failing high-school student as a waste of resources automatically. There does come a point where school is simply not a great place certain people, but those cases are often very limited. I have had teachers that just asked too much of me (yes a teacher can ask too much of you) so I had to drop the class to focus on others. I don't mind a standard but teachers that eat into the time I have set aside for other classes, tend to lack perspective on what a student is doing in a given week concerning their education overall.

Some teachers are bad, some students are bad. Creating a system that deals with all of that effectively, can be difficult.

As to the article, there are a lot of things like this going on these days in universities.

The article was about a high school, I really don't care what specific universities are doing and I support their ability to adjust their methods any way they like. Ultimately, I can choose a different school when it comes to college, that isn't always true for high school.

There have been more than a few teachers in the US that have been trying unconventional methods of teaching students by changing the way they grade assignments. There's a teacher at Michigan State I think it was who isn't giving grades at all. He's giving experience points

I want to see a teacher that only gives A's. I'm not kidding, Pass/Fail, literally passing at 90% plus. I would be interested in seeing how that worked out in a college setting. I am sure there are many programs where it really wouldn't make much of a difference at all, assuming that the common achievement was an A in the first place.

Students from the 'A-only' group get the same tests (if not slightly more difficult) as students from the 'A-B' group. It would be interesting to see if it had any negative effect, or if it improved the average from 90-95, to 95-100.

Who names their daughter after the Greek goddess of sexuality?

Uhhh? Maybe somebody who realizes their daughter is going to be that cute? Good lord, cover the girls up, Aphrodite.

A+ for effort though.

Plus she's clearly Greek, her last name looks like the O truck ran into a wheelbarrow full of U's.

Wrexasaur wrote:
There does come a point where school is simply not a great place certain people, but those cases are often very limited.

You should have seen the educational system I attended in high school. Down right horrible. Of two dozen public schools, only 2 were scoring GPA averages above 2.0. If you had a kid who wanted to learn, you sent them to the private school. The kids at the public schools never seemed to try, save a few. Teachers were wasting their time on people who spent the entire class texting, talking, and playing their PSP's (yeah...).

There comes a point where someone has become unteachable. Where is that point? I don't know. Teachers are probably the ones qualified to answer that question. If they don't want to learn why should the teacher have to teach (EDIT: Well, they don't really teach them anyway. It's more like babysitting) them and why should tax payers have to pay for it?

I want to see a teacher that only gives A's. I'm not kidding, Pass/Fail, literally passing at 90% plus. I would be interested how that worked out in a college setting. I am sure there are many programs where it really wouldn't make much of a difference at all, assuming that the common achievement was an A in the first place.

Well it would drop the number of graduating students where I go. My university has a reputation for being a school full of students who just try to skirt by. I wouldn't mind seeing the roaming mobs of people who never attend classes disappear. But then again how will the school make it's $$$ once they go

LordofHats wrote:You should have seen the educational system I attended in high school. Down right horrible. Of two dozen public schools, only 2 were scoring GPA averages above 2.0. If you had a kid who wanted to learn, you sent them to the private school. The kids at the public schools never seemed to try, save a few. Teachers were wasting their time on people who spent the entire class texting, talking, and playing their PSP's (yeah...).

'Multi-tasking' seems to be the term many have slapped onto that. Yes, watching youtube on your laptop in class is comical. Sitting in front of you, is one of the most powerful learning tools ever to hit the common population, so stop looking at lolcats in class.

There comes a point where someone has become unteachable. Where is that point? I don't know. Teachers are probably the ones qualified to answer that question. If they don't want to learn why should the teacher have to teach (EDIT: Well, they don't really teach them anyway. It's more like babysitting) them and why should tax payers have to pay for it?

I agree with K-10 systems with the option to continue for 2 years in order to prepare for college, and further your education in general. Standard K-12 could be considered wasteful in some situations.

As to the question about tax payers paying for it, I strongly support what money would be spent on that (plus more obviously) being moved into alternative 'end of high school' institutions. There is option in some areas to test out early, and many already do so. Having an option that supports those interested in something besides going to college seems like a great idea. The other point is what those kids would be doing if they weren't in school, assuming they are attending classes in the first place.

I would guess that kicking students out at 16 would promote extra crime to some degree. On the other hand, providing another option than 11-12 standard, could promote the opposite effect, and you could end up with more productive citizenry in general. I don't assume it would be true, it seems possible though.

Well it would drop the number of graduating students where I go. My university has a reputation for being a school full of students who just try to skirt by. I wouldn't mind seeing the roaming mobs of people who never attend classes disappear. But then again how will the school make it's $$$ once they go

It is slightly surprising that the school allows them to get away with that. Personally, I feel that having online education combined with class tests/support would serve to both filter out people that are more interested in drinking with their buddies, as well as give students that are serious a flexible schedule. Do I want to drive 20-30 minutes to school because the public transit system takes me two hours? Umm... no. That isn't to say that having small to medium lectures can't be a good thing, just that besides the cost to implement online education on a large scale, it is generally an obvious fix to a lot of problems. At least IMO.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Wiki wrote:"Foam-arisen" Aphrodite was born of the sea foam near Paphos, Cyprus after Cronus severed Uranus' genitals and threw them behind him into the sea, while the Erinyes emerged from the drops of blood.

Woah...

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't a problem if it alienates the students who were going to get D or F anyway. It would be better for the good students to get the wasters out of school as early as possible.

Or help the less successful students learn...

If a D is an F, then what good does a C do? Only A and B students should stay in school. Everyone else should become a fry cook.

There need to be remedial classes and extra support for students falling into the D/F trap.

A -- Academics, lawyers, engineers, and professionals generally.
B -- Mid-managers, staff who need a good level of intellectual skills, and skilled technical workers.
C -- semi-skilled workers.

D,F -- The problem is that there are no longer enough jobs for people who can only dig ditches along lines drawn by someone better educated. That's why it's good to minimise the number of children falling to that level.

Bear in mind that any grading system is an artificial distinction. It has to be based on the real need of society to set particular levels and grade people accordingly. Stone-age man had no need for writing. The Victorians required increasing numbers of literate people to be clerks. In the 21st century there are no clerical jobs that do not require computer skills.

Before we get all too forum-elitist here, it's worth mentioning that there are plenty of extremely intelligent and skilled people without formal qualifications, who were perhaps unfortunate enough to start working at an early age and miss out on a lot of the opportunities that people with less potential had to grind through. Those people can have trouble later in life with regards to senior positions available, depending on their line of work up until that point. I know plenty of people who were just not fortunate enough to be able to go on and study, and that's just in my country... I won't even start on Australia's neighbouring countries and their relative social structures.

I'm a different sort of person again... it's not like I didn't have the opportunity - I did very well at university for a couple of years, and got great marks, but it always frustrated me when I'd get a 'C' to the point that I just left and started working again. I only got... like three or four of them. To be honest, I felt like scum as a student anyway, but was never able to find work that I could do at the same time full-time study. I have a bit of OCD (CDO to us ), and that nature had a lot do with the dissatisfaction, and I also know that I only have a 12-18 months of study left if I ever want to finish my degree. I can't study part time because I dedicate myself to my work too much, and I'd be just as dissatisfied not being able to put all of my time into it.

My adult employment has always been in the 'B' category as Kilkrazy has laid out above, despite my having 'no' tertiary qualifications... a hairdresser is technically more qualified than I am, but I'm not bothered for now. I haven't paid for a haircut in ten years anyway, so it's not like they're getting any of my money. It's unlikely that I'll work in the 'A' category (unless I finish my degree), but fortunately I'm not the sort of obsessive that has a problem with that.

Edit: Somewhat coincidentally, my mother just called me to ask about her assessment work... She has been doing the same job for 44 years and is a high grade public servant, and doing a certificate through a university with regards to an aspect of her department that she can take up with the qualification. I basically told her not to worry and just pass through it... she knows the material, she's just worried about getting it perfect. For people in some situations, a pass is perfectly good enough.

I personally think it's a good idea. If you do badly, you have a chance to try again. If your still doing badly you get extra classes. If your still failing you have the option to pay for even more extra classes (I know that not every one can do that though). After all that, if your still getting under C I say the protesters are right and we should let you back into the wild because keeping you in captivity is cruel.

I agree with Arktik_Firangi's argument. Not everyone gets the chance of a good formal education, and a lack of qualifications doesn't automatically mean uselessness.

However people ought to get those chances. Those who do, which is most people in a modern westernised country, should make use of their opportunity.

The ones who fail to do so, whether because of laziness or innate incapacity, should be supported and helped to achieve the level they are capable of.

...and I'm very likely going to meet some incredibly useless people at the national Mensa Convention next month...

Kilkrazy wrote:A -- Academics, lawyers, engineers, and professionals generally.
B -- Mid-managers, staff who need a good level of intellectual skills, and skilled technical workers.
C -- semi-skilled workers.

D,F -- The problem is that there are no longer enough jobs for people who can only dig ditches along lines drawn by someone better educated. That's why it's good to minimise the number of children falling to that level.

You actually believe that? What a load of shyte.

School grades don't mean anything to most employers unless it's some bs corporate environment or perhaps some academic role.

I know "skilled technical workers" with about two gcses.

They don't teach you skills in school. They teach you bs so half, or more, of the population thinks that is what life is about and end up becoming another cog in the system. So the people with a real idea of how to make money have someone to employ.

Regardless of how bad the UK public school system is, it's very much arguable whether or not "the people with a real idea of how to make money" are anywhere near the most useful. Sometimes it's just about knowing who to kneecap.

To put it simply, they employ everyone else.

The qualities that make people good in business aren't taught in school.

The percentage of self-employed persons in the western world has dropped by some 45% over the past half century... it's certainly a changing world.

If they actually taught you how easy it was to make money with a bit of self saught knowledge in a particular area and some dogged determination the/your government would be fethed.

That figure doesn't surprise me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If world war three ripped down society as we know it and we all went back to the stone age. Acedemic ability would have no bearing on the system of leadership which would develop. No one will be taking orders from a grade a student simply because they are a grade a student. And in actual fact, it's no different today. The business owners, the people who employ everyone else, the people who effectively rule the world, are a group who vary academicly from people with straight As to no qualifications at all. That's because grades have no bearing on what they do. It wasn't their grades which got them where they were. Chances are if you got where you were because of academic achievement, your an employee not an employer. And the guy at the top knows less than you about what you do.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:...and I'm very likely going to meet some incredibly useless people at the national Mensa Convention next month...

I'd guarantee it. The difference between between a circle jerk and a Mensa meeting is you remove the girl and add crossword puzzles.

Yea this ultimately seems more like semantics but that article's introduction mentioned D-quality workers which reminded me of this George Carlin joke :

"Do you realize that somewhere in the world there exists a person who qualifies as the worst doctor? If you took the time, by process of elimination you could actually determine the worst doctor in the world. And the funny part is knowing that someone has an appointment to see him tomorrow."

As for the importance of gradeschool education - I'd argue that acing the hidden curriculum is more important for the "real world" but ideally you want to have a balanced gradeschool career including being able to focus and achieve goals like earning a decent GPA, being a productive member in interpersonal relationships (friends, girlfriends, project groups, being able to communicate well, lunches/dinners/parties, etc - part of the hidden curriculum imo), and extra-curricular stuff like athletics (imo learning about and maintaining physical fitness is incredibly important and Gym class isn't enough) and clubs like speech and debate. Oh yea and also balance that while not going crazy or getting ultra stressed out; having fun and the importance of physical and mental health are also huge lessons to learn.

Hell if we really want to go all the way - adapt the ways of the Swiss and South Korea by requiring civil/community/military service in addition to gradeschool education. That way you learn the lessons above, how to defend yourself, how to function as a team and further build confidence, and get a first-hand perspective on how good of a life you have and the sacrifices it took to get there and maintain it. And in the hellish yet unlikely case of a zombie alien Nazi Bin Laden invasion we'd be better prepared as a nation

whatwhat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:A -- Academics, lawyers, engineers, and professionals generally.
B -- Mid-managers, staff who need a good level of intellectual skills, and skilled technical workers.
C -- semi-skilled workers.

D,F -- The problem is that there are no longer enough jobs for people who can only dig ditches along lines drawn by someone better educated. That's why it's good to minimise the number of children falling to that level.

You actually believe that? What a load of shyte.

Show me the hordes of doctors, lawyers, engineers and other high level professionals who got a string of Ds and Es at A level.

Cane wrote:
As for the importance of gradeschool education - I'd argue that acing the hidden curriculum is more important for the "real world" but ideally you want to have a balanced gradeschool career including being able to focus and achieve goals like earning a decent GPA, being a productive member in interpersonal relationships (friends, girlfriends, project groups, being able to communicate well, lunches/dinners/parties, etc - part of the hidden curriculum imo), and extra-curricular stuff like athletics (imo learning about and maintaining physical fitness is incredibly important and Gym class isn't enough) and clubs like speech and debate. Oh yea and also balance that while not going crazy or getting ultra stressed out; having fun and the importance of physical and mental health are also huge lessons to learn.

Nah, you just have to truant grades 7-9 and have a good time. I did and learned the following:

Self-sufficiency (theft, hunting, fishing, swimming, climbing, making fire, building shelter, first aid)
Self-defense (fighting/skirmishing with mates, making traps, testing homemade projectile weapons and explosives, fleeing fire response teams - see making fire, first aid)
Teamwork (alibis, group decision making, if you truant alone you've got other problems anyway, first aid - doing your own stitches sucks, doing your mate's is hell fun)
Athletics and fitness (running - see fleeing fire response teams - see making fire, just about everything else above, don't forget first aid)
First Aid (if you didn't hurt yourself, you learned nothing)
Social (if you don't have any stories to tell from this, you probably would have failed at school too)

Living in a regional area helps though. I feel sorry for you city kids.

Now what did you learn at school between the ages of 11-13? Seriously, I wouldn't actually know. Kids these days are probably just watching the Jonas Brothers and Twilight or some crap. I didn't have any trouble with the maths in tenth grade so it can't have been anything important.

Sounds like the boy scouts on most of those points

Oh yeah... I did that too.

Was it during one of those years you learn to write the number '6' from the top? Because I've always done it from the middle.