Does Grading on a Curve make sense?

Post Reply New Topic

to me it never has, because it means people do not pass or fail based on their own abilities, which I think is just wrong.

IMO:
Any school that teaches people what they need to know in life after
graduation is good. Grades matter so much less than that!
Any school that doesn't isn't even worth the time going to it.

My father got a job and a car and a house after poverty in high school.
Anyone else know anyone who has done that lately? Hooray for their schools!

Boo to all the Colleges and Universities that give you a lifetime of debt instead!

Even with a curve, you are still passing or failing based on your own abilities. Is see little difference between:

(A) a teacher (i) developing a test (ii) in which students are likely to score an appropriate range of As, Bs, Cs, Ds and Fs and (iii) then giving the students that test; and
(B) a teacher (i) developing a test, (iii) giving the students that test, and then (ii) fitting the actual test scores to fit a range of As, Bs, Cs, Ds and Fs.

It's just a different order of mapping the test scores to letter grades.

Oh, ok.
So there is a grading formula that changes from correct answers to most
likely average results, so if the average correct answers is 50%, instead of F,
it would be C. There may be a justified use for this, if the teacher is teaching
more important stuff that isn't on the test, but not if it is done so the teacher
can cheat by not teaching and then passing a class full of flunkers.

It would be worse to give everyone different tests and grading thresholds.
I misunderstood grading on a curve as grading each individual differently.

Its done to make it fair for all, so if there is a bug going around and people are sick and miss material, they can be more effectively graded on what they were taught and what was retained from the teaching (or so im guessing). That, or its a way to make the class more average, so if you're teaching a class that has a definate line between high and low IQ, or those with attention disorders, it pretty much makes everyone average out. It also helps the ones with the better information retention because it increases their scores even more (i got to the point of being allowed to skip finals because taking it would not really affect my semester grade).

The thing people tend to forget is that school is not about grades, but about education. Though as Mark Twain said you should never let your schooling interfere with your education, grades should be representative of your comprehension of the material, not how good you are in relation to the class. If everyone does not grasp the material, then they should all fail the class because you can't pass them if they're not doing it right.

When you put it on a curve, it's unfair. If I'm really good does that make someone else less good, or vice versa? If class average is low, then the class is on average not doing well. Raising their overall grades will cause grade inflation but provide no educational benefit. If you undermine the system of grades, there's no point in giving them at all because they no longer mean anything.

I agree that a curve should not be used to pass students who are not proficient in a subject.

When I was a student I preferred a curve because it usually meant that the teacher was giving a harder test. I would study to master the material, while I knew most students memorized notes for the test. A hard test would give me the opportunity to show how much I knew and understood the material above and beyond my classmates and I would get the benefit of a higher grade.

I disagree that school is about education and not about grades. I didn't understand this when I was in school as I was always focused on mastering the material. But, applying to a next school after graduation the focus was 100% on grades. Same thing when I went for a job, my grades ended up on my resume and job applications, but nowhere did it offer anything to prove my knowledge. I can learn any subject without school, but I need school to give me grades and a degree to validate what I have learned.

Well, it really depends on the situation. In some classes, if there wasn't a curve, only 2-5 people out of 100 would pass. Back when I took P-Chem, the professor always tested us on insanely difficult subjects that weren't' covered in class, the homework (which wasn't for credit), or the book, so the class average was between 20-40%.

Heh... I've blown the curve in every class I've taken.

No flunkers passing when I'm around!! !

It's often done to help people do better, but it's based on who gets the best grade in the class.

The only time I've felt it was the right thing to do is when a teacher sees a lot of mediocre grades and realizes he/she asked questions that really weren't well-covered in the material or just not covered at all.

Sometimes teachers make up exams and don't check that it is fair to what the students would are supposed to know.

I have always hated curves. I'd end up getting the highest grade and screwing it up for everybody else, and then everyone would hate me. The kids who would have passed the test if not for me were the worst, and I could always count on them to make recess, lunch, and the walk home from school a living hell. To this day, classes with curves make me cringe.

sounds like the grades derived from a curve are illusory.

I don't know, but it certainly helped me.