On 6 Feb 2003 06:30:59 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J. MacG.
Dawson) wrote:

> 
> 
> Herman Rubin wrote:
> > 
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > EAKIN MARK E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The students did understand that I said that 79 was a C. Some told me
> > >later  that since many faculty round 79 up to a B, they feel that I
> > >should also round it up regardless of what I said on the syllabus.
> > 
> > I do not give that type of exams.  I would have 70% to be an A.

If they moved the cutoff, I guess Harvard could use the same 
tests that they used 35 years ago.  The 'scoring inflation' would
be illustrated by the change in the labels.

However, that's not the reason I'm joining this discussion.
What Robert says next seems so *unthinking* -
 
>       I'm afraid I don't see the rationale for this. An examination has
> little value *except* as a way of setting grades; and setting an exam so
> hard  that a student performing at an excellent level will only get 70%  would
> seem to reduce the sensitivity of the test as a measuring instrument in

I imagine several extra values, beyond setting grades;  
I don't see that 70% passing is "low sensitivity" for the test --

This is scaling, and weighting.  What should count for what?
Over the term, do you want to tend-to-pass the individual 
who once aced the work, or do you want to tend-to-fail
the person who blew off one exam?

Other purposes for a test? --
In my own experience in high school, I almost *never* saw
any test or any homework that I missed any problems on,
except by carelessness.  As a result, I was  *not*  inspired 
to read anything extra.  To some extent (I think), my folks 
had chosen our town and its schools, because of  great 
reputation.  Is that supposed to be a good education?

> the range for which it will be used.  It's like the macho speedometers
> on rather basic cars that extend to a speed (say 220kph) that the car
> could only reach in free fall.

So you test on next month's curriculum,  a few quick questions.

Is the SAT, etc.,   a test with rotten sensitivity because the 
average number correct is set to be near 50%

Almost all the tests that I had were formally scored with
"100 points total"  with the 10-point intervals for A, B, C, D.
 -  As a statistician, I it is fine to set a point total if you want; 
but I think that transforming percents into letter-grades has
to be  *ignorant*  behavior, almost to the point of 
being outrageous, if it weren't so 'traditional'.  

I know that I have heard teachers/ professors say such 
anti-educational things as, "I'm going to have to make the
next test easier in order to bring up the averages."
Well, if they weren't wedded to the superstition about
making the percents equivalent to the letters, they would
never be tempted to screw up their tests that way; they 
would go ahead and ask the questions that they THOUGHT
they should ask, instead of  trying to predict the eventual 
grade point score.


-- 
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
.                  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/                    .
=================================================================

Reply via email to