Comment by time_management | Hacker News Reader

Comment by time_management | Hacker News Reader

time_management

Making homework optional across the board (e.g. you can get an A if you ace the exams) is silly. It makes sense for a few courses (e.g. freshman writing, calculus sequence, intro language) which exist to train a specific mastery that can be objectively tested in a short period of time. It doesn't make sense, though, to pass a CS major based on exams alone (as opposed to programs), an English major without papers, or a math major without take-home proof assignments. He could argue that such assignments are tests, but then the distinction between tests and homework becomes so blurry as to be useless.

Making the tenth of a percent from 89.4 to 89.5 worth immensely more than the 9.4 percent from 80 to 89.4 is idiotic.

I'd argue that the problem is inherent in the fact that different grading scales (0-100 vs. A-F) are appropriate for numerically-graded exams and subjective assignments like papers. Converting a 0-100 scale to A/B/C/D/F has the problem the OP mentioned. But when it comes to papers, most people can only judge 4-5 levels of quality before inconsistencies pop up. This is one reason why the "E" (high fail) level of the original A-F grading system almost immediately dropped away, and D is rarely used. A/B/C/(D)/F exist, in effect, to mirror those separable levels of quality.

In fact, I'd argue that innate this 4-level limitation is one of the reasons many colleges (esp. Ivies) have such grade inflation in qualitative courses: with plus/minus grades, the three discernible levels of respectable work are mapped to A, A-, and B+/B, the one of mediocrity to B-/C+/C, depending on the professor's proclivities, and the truly awful work to C-/D/F... whereas a solid B (85%) in an intro science or language course is still a respectable grade.

I agree with your statement about only being able to judge 4 or 5 quality levels. This of course only applies to subjective work, not to things like math, grammar, etc. Subjective classes like Composition usually don't feature such an emphasis on daily or otherwise regular homework assignments, therefore the large assignments would be the tests. But I would also argue that 4-5 levels of quality is too much, because is the grader comparing papers to other papers, or to some ideal paper that exists in his mind? I think for subjective grading, the only options should be pass or fail.

But I would also argue that 4-5 levels of quality is too much, because is the grader comparing papers to other papers, or to some ideal paper that exists in his mind?

I think, in general, the grades A, B, and C map to the following standards of acceptable work:

A: That of a student intending graduate study in the field. B: That at a major. C: That of an ordinary student, e.g. a non-major.

Hence, C is failure in graduate school, whereas a C in Calc 2 for an English major is unambiguously not failure.

F obviously represents failure. D is essentially a high-fail that's counted as a pass. It means, "you didn't pass this class, and you shouldn't use it as a prerequisite, but you didn't do so poorly that I want to set you back a course." D would probably vanish if college weren't so fucking expensive.

Some schools already do something like this. For instance, I know that Brown does not have pluses or minuses, and they only have grades of A, B, C, and NC (no credit). Furthermore, the NC grades do not appear on official transcripts. On top of that, you can take almost any course Pass/No-Credit with an option of a written evaluation instead of a grade.

I doubt the author of the blog post is saying projects and papers shouldn't be assigned. He's probably just saying that normal homework is a complete waste of time for some people.

I personally abhorred homework and loved projects and tests.

Why does the 89.4 to 89.5% matters anyway? It will all average out over the 40 or so classes one takes in a typical B.Sc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com