Kinda the opposite, but I took a physics exam once where everyone else did so badly that when the professor curved the exam grades mine went up to 114%. Still not quite sure how I managed that.
I once faced the anger of my entire class because my Inability to pay attention to lessons meant i was the only one that knew how to brute force reverse engineer formulas using the fancy calculator and oblivious to the fact the teacher had forgotten to teach that specific material.
My Imposter syndrome peaked when we got the test and teacher pointed at me directly as proof we had covered the material.
I never really understand what the point of grading on an average is. An individual’s ability isn’t measured against everyone else’s ability is measured against the test. So then to take that and change the grade to something else based on what is essentially arbitrary doesn’t seem to have any point except to make it look like more people passed than didn’t.
A class of 200 students performing much worse than the last class is very unlikely. 200 Students is enough to make even small differences statistically significant.
A single test being much harder than the last test is much more likely, since it isn’t an averahe of 200, it’s a single datapoint.
That’s why if this semester’s class performed much worse than last semester’s, you can assume it’s because of the test, not the students.
Not unlikely enough, even something as simple as more students studying harder between years would mean the next set of average students drop in score despite the same performance.
Grading on a curve is always unfair when the grade carries forward and isn’t just for a one-off application. More unfair when classes are smaller and student cohorts differ.
I guess this makes sense in a university context and with aggregated data.
As an example of how you do not want to do grading based on an average, I once had a high school professor rescale my 85%-ish percent on a test to 65%-ish, because most people did well in that test so the professor decided he had made the test too easy and scaled grades down.
That was only one of the reasons I hated that guy’s guts.
Or when there are 1000 students over multiple classes getting 5 different versions of the test (to make looking over someone’s shoulder more difficult.)
If one of those has a significantly lower average it’s more likely it just had a few badly worded questions than that those 200 randomly picked students are all bad at the given subject.
It wasn’t a regular thing in my class; the professor just realized he had screwed up and made the exam way too difficult. I agree that doing it for every exam is a bad idea.
Kinda the opposite, but I took a physics exam once where everyone else did so badly that when the professor curved the exam grades mine went up to 114%. Still not quite sure how I managed that.
I once faced the anger of my entire class because my Inability to pay attention to lessons meant i was the only one that knew how to brute force reverse engineer formulas using the fancy calculator and oblivious to the fact the teacher had forgotten to teach that specific material.
My Imposter syndrome peaked when we got the test and teacher pointed at me directly as proof we had covered the material.
Your prof curved to the third quartile. Interesting.
Yeah it was originally 20 points, but the highest score aside from mine was 17.5, so he changed it to 17.5. Putting my score at 20/17.5. :D
deleted by creator
I never really understand what the point of grading on an average is. An individual’s ability isn’t measured against everyone else’s ability is measured against the test. So then to take that and change the grade to something else based on what is essentially arbitrary doesn’t seem to have any point except to make it look like more people passed than didn’t.
A class of 200 students performing much worse than the last class is very unlikely. 200 Students is enough to make even small differences statistically significant.
A single test being much harder than the last test is much more likely, since it isn’t an averahe of 200, it’s a single datapoint.
That’s why if this semester’s class performed much worse than last semester’s, you can assume it’s because of the test, not the students.
Not unlikely enough, even something as simple as more students studying harder between years would mean the next set of average students drop in score despite the same performance.
Grading on a curve is always unfair when the grade carries forward and isn’t just for a one-off application. More unfair when classes are smaller and student cohorts differ.
I guess this makes sense in a university context and with aggregated data.
As an example of how you do not want to do grading based on an average, I once had a high school professor rescale my 85%-ish percent on a test to 65%-ish, because most people did well in that test so the professor decided he had made the test too easy and scaled grades down.
That was only one of the reasons I hated that guy’s guts.
Or when there are 1000 students over multiple classes getting 5 different versions of the test (to make looking over someone’s shoulder more difficult.)
If one of those has a significantly lower average it’s more likely it just had a few badly worded questions than that those 200 randomly picked students are all bad at the given subject.
It wasn’t a regular thing in my class; the professor just realized he had screwed up and made the exam way too difficult. I agree that doing it for every exam is a bad idea.
Were you in Hogwarts?