TA Refuses to Give Out 100%s on Lab Reports: Analyzing Pros & Cons

[Jack21222]

So this semester as a teaching assistant, I've decided that I simply do not give out 100%s on lab reports. On quizzes and homeworks I'm happy to give out perfect scores, but on something like a lab report, I have determined that nobody is perfect and there is always something that could have been done better.

As a concrete example, I could find nothing obvious wrong with a lab report last week, but his conclusion was a bit too long-winded and some of the stuff presented there should have been in the analysis, so I took off a point. He got a 99%.

I feel that if somebody received a 100%, they stop trying to improve and perhaps get complacent. If somebody gets a 99%, they have a better chance at trying to figure out ways to improve. Meanwhile, the 1 percentage point difference on their lab grade is exceedingly unlikely to affect their letter grade, particularly if they're good enough to be getting 99%s on a regular basis.

Does anybody have any thoughts about this? I can see the argument that perhaps it's unfair to take a point off from one person's paper that I don't take off from a paper that got, say, an 80%. But in my mind, the person who got an 80% has enough major stuff to work on without getting nitpicky.

Are there any other arguments against this? Will this actual reduce the morale of higher-achieving students? Is anybody aware of any physics education research about this tactic? Has anybody used this to good effect?

 

[micromass]

Many teachers of mine never gave out a 100% for exactly the same reason, but I never really liked the system.

I feel that beforehand, you should set some criteria about what you want to see on an assignment and then you should grade according to that criteria. If somebody meets all criteria, then I don't see a reason not to give him 100%.

If I grade papers that students need to write, then I always keep in mind the eventual goal: the students are learning this stuff in order to write good research papers. If I read the paper of a student and if I think that it is the quality of a good research paper, then I feel that the student has met the goal and he should get a 100%.

Besides, getting a 100% as a student can be an extremely good motivator. I don't think students are likely to start slacking off or stop improving. On the contrary, I think that they want to keep repeating their success and they will put in even more time in writing a good assignment (at least, that is what I would do).

I'm not saying a 100% should be easy to get, on the contrary: a student would have to work very hard to get it. But I disagree that it should be impossible.

 

[Number Nine]

You should have clear guidelines about what makes for a good lab report, and the grades should correspond to how well the students adhered to those guidelines. Docking someone marks because they could conceivably have done better maybe somehow doesn't seem like a good practice.

 

[Jack21222]

I feel that beforehand, you should set some criteria about what you want to see on an assignment and then you should grade according to that criteria. If somebody meets all criteria, then I don't see a reason not to give him 100%.

Thing is, so many of the criteria are subjective. There is a grading breakdown in the beginning of the lab manual which I have to follow, but it has things like this:

Each experiment will get a numerical grade based on your prelab quiz, the quality of your data, the analysis of the data (including the error), and the neatness and organization of the lab report.

Things like "neatness and organization" of the lab report is extremely subjective. When I'm grading, I have a list of key points I look for in every lab report, each worth between 3-6 points. If somebody loses points on a few of them, I don't subject the paper to any more scrutiny, I just give them their 88% or whatever they earned and move on. Maybe I should have taken off a couple more points because in addition to being wrong or incomplete, their paper wasn't quite organized properly. But, it's more important for them to get the major points right and it's less time-consuming for me.

On the other hand, if a paper survives my "first pass" where I am specifically looking for my list of key points, I'll re-read it to make sure I haven't missed anything. If it survives the second pass, I give it a 3rd read to find something they could do better next time, and that's when they end up with a 99%. I'm sure at some point, if everything really was perfect, I'd give up and give a 100%.

So I guess the way I grade, I make it really difficult to get a very poor grade. As long as they cover most the main points adequately, they get a high grade. The average grade I gave this semester was 86%. Out of the 160 papers graded, I've only given a 99% 3 times, and on one of them the point was taken off on a prelab question that was wrong. In reality, I should probably be harder on those people getting in the low 80s, because they're doing a lot of things I could nitpick for points (weak introductions and conclusions, mainly), but I want them to focus on actually doing the analysis properly.

So, it isn't a situation that happens often, but I am still interested in hearing more peoples' opinions.

For me, I didn't mind getting nitpicked for points because I saw it as a motivator. If I got a 100% on something, I'd pat myself on the back and move on. If I got anything less, I'd try to learn something. I guess everybody's different.

 

[pongo38]

What students need (but may not want) is proper constructive feedback other than a grade.

 

[Jorriss]

I have graded 6 labs (so 108 lab reports) this quarter so far and given out two 100%'s. They were not perfect but they were exceptional by the standards of a freshman course so I feel comfortable with giving a perfect score.

 

[EricVT]

Consistency of grading was very important to me as a student. If I'm docked a point for something, then I expect every other student to be held to the same standard. Of course I would never ask that other student's grades be lowered for any reason, but if I found out that I was being penalized for something that other students weren't being penalized for (even if my overall grade was higher), then I would take issue with that.

I also agree that perfect scores (for students who deserve them) are motivators for continued hard work, not motivation to suddenly become complacent.

 

[mfb]

If you never give 100%, students cannot improve compared to a 99%-grade, at least in your grading system. Where is the difference to 100%-scores then?
In addition, every grade has some (very fine) internal structure - there might be a "good 99%" and a "bad 99%" (which is very similar to the former one). So where is the problem with a "bad 100%", which is better than a "good 99%", but not perfect?

 

[Dale]

IMO, grades are a measuring device to determine how well a student has learned the material. If any student gets a 100 then your assignment is too easy and it was not a good measurement since the quantity measured exceeded the range of the measurement instrument. Similarly, an average score should be about 50.

This may be more appropriate for tests than for homework.

 

[doppelganger]

I feel that if somebody received a 100%, they stop trying to improve and perhaps get complacent. If somebody gets a 99%, they have a better chance at trying to figure out ways to improve. Meanwhile, the 1 percentage point difference on their lab grade is exceedingly unlikely to affect their letter grade, particularly if they're good enough to be getting 99%s on a regular basis.

I find this attitude ridiculous and patronizing. You are basing your grade on how you 'feel' a student would react to that grade (without any real proof for your feeling) rather than on the quality of the student's work. I despise instructors who carry that type of attitude.

 

[Pengwuino]

When I was a student doing lab reports (and I feel MOST students think this way), anything greater than a 95% was pretty much the same thing. No one ever feels challenged to do better for that extra meaningless 1%. We would always just call it nit-picking and feel that the TA is just being a jerk instead of being motivated to get that extra 1%.

I had a professor who went a bit more extreme in a way that was far more effective. He wouldn't give 99%s or even 95%s. You had to go above and beyond what is normally expected out of an undergrad at the level of that class in order to even get an A on a lab. When your actual grade can be affected, THEN you see students get serious about perfecting a lab report. Of course, you need to be willing to give out the >95%s or whatever as well otherwise they will assume that you just don't want to give out the best scores and that it's meaningless to even try to get an A/A+.

Remember, there certainly are students who will strive for perfection, but all students are under time constraints and any bright enough student will realize that the extra work for the extra 1% is not going to be worth the time especially when they realize that they can't actually get that extra 1% anyways (and they figure this out very quickly).

 

[Jack21222]

Consistency of grading was very important to me as a student. If I'm docked a point for something, then I expect every other student to be held to the same standard. Of course I would never ask that other student's grades be lowered for any reason, but if I found out that I was being penalized for something that other students weren't being penalized for (even if my overall grade was higher), then I would take issue with that.

The problem with this is that your two statements are contradictory. You wouldn't want me to lower everybody else's grade, but you also want them to be penalized for the same mistakes. You can't have both.

If I've killed somebody's grade over not answering the questions properly, and they're getting a 60%, it would be cruel to continue to beat them down by nickle and diming their grade with the small things, like not putting enough detail or background information into their introduction.

If you get a good grade on an assignment, it's petty to "take issue with" the teacher giving out "pity points" to somebody who is struggling.

I must say, though, this thread has made me reconsider giving out 100%s. Perhaps I can still comment on papers on things that need to be improved without taking points off for it.

I find this attitude ridiculous and patronizing. You are basing your grade on how you 'feel' a student would react to that grade (without any real proof for your feeling) rather than on the quality of the student's work. I despise instructors who carry that type of attitude.

And you're getting very angry over 1 percentage point on rare assignments for students who are getting an A no matter what. The feeling is mutual.

 

[doppelganger]

And you're getting very angry over 1 percentage point on rare assignments for students who are getting an A no matter what. The feeling is mutual.

I am not angry about it, but I do have strong feelings on this topic. I have been subjected to this type of grading system many times in the past.

If I've killed somebody's grade over not answering the questions properly, and they're getting a 60%, it would be cruel to continue to beat them down by nickle and diming their grade with the small things, like not putting enough detail or background information into their introduction.

If you get a good grade on an assignment, it's petty to "take issue with" the teacher giving out "pity points" to somebody who is struggling.

I find it ironic that you feel it is petty for others to take issue with pity points you might have given to poor students, but not petty for you to take away 'perfection' points from exceptional students.

I must say, though, this thread has made me reconsider giving out 100%s. Perhaps I can still comment on papers on things that need to be improved without taking points off for it.

This would be my preferred method. The internet works!

 

[MarneMath]

So, I used to be a TA for the most subjective class in the world, a writing class!

While I agree that, in theory, a person can always present information better, I think it's asinine to form a grading policy on this. In the real world, which I hope is something we are preparing students for, there is balance between perfection and time. No one wants to put in the extra work, if in the end, the person reading the material will just nit pick it, and to the same extent, you can't expect a person to not be able to do something better.

My approach when it came to grading was simple. On the first assignment, I laid out my grading criteria. If they met the criteria, but I found errors or had tips for them, I would make note of it in my massive journal, and leave them a note on their paper explaining what I expect them to improve upon. If they failed to improve, then I would mark off on the assignment, but if they did improve on it, I see no reason why I should still punish them.

 

[EricVT]

The problem with this is that your two statements are contradictory. You wouldn't want me to lower everybody else's grade, but you also want them to be penalized for the same mistakes. You can't have both.

If I've killed somebody's grade over not answering the questions properly, and they're getting a 60%, it would be cruel to continue to beat them down by nickle and diming their grade with the small things, like not putting enough detail or background information into their introduction.

If you get a good grade on an assignment, it's petty to "take issue with" the teacher giving out "pity points" to somebody who is struggling.

What I meant is that I wouldn't ask that another student's grade be lowered retroactively once I found out about a grading inconsistency, there is no contradiction. And I don't consider it petty in the least to expect consistent grading from an instructor.

 

[Jack21222]

And I don't consider it petty in the least to expect consistent grading from an instructor.

Let me give you a concrete example, and let's see if you still have this sentiment.

A student has a two sentence introduction, where they give only the most barebones information about what is to be accomplished in this experiment. This introduction should really get about a 6/10. The rest of the paper is riddled with errors and is in many places incomplete. The student would get a 68%. Well, in comparison with the rest of the paper, the introduction isn't that bad, so I give an 8/10 on the intro, and the student gets a 70%. A second student turns in a paper with a very similar introduction, but the rest of the paper is nearly flawless. I give that student 6/10 on the intro for a 96% total, because that's what the intro deserves.

Your desire for "consistent grading" is the difference between the weaker student getting a C- and a D+.

What you fail to realize is that grading is inherently subjective. Lab reports aren't multiple choice; you can't just flatly says "this is right" and "this is wrong" and apply it evenly for every student. Specifically, in the case of these lab reports, "neatness and organization" are right there in the rubric. Well, organization is a very subjective thing. If you put information which should be in the introduction in the conclusion instead, to me, that's disorganized. However, if I spent all my time tracking down every bit of information that should be in another section and docking points for it, I'd triple my grading time and I'd only hurt the students who were on the borderline anyway. However, in a perfect world, such disorganization SHOULD have points taken off, so I see nothing wrong for docking points where it's warranted even if I haven't docked points from the weaker students who made the same mistakes. Yes, it's inconsistent, but it only raises the grades of the weaker students, it does not lower the grades of the stronger ones.

 

[EricVT]

You've just said that you would give 80% credit for a 60% quality answer to one student and 60% credit for an identical 60% quality answer to another student, arbitrarily choosing to give the better student less points because they did so well on the rest of the paper.

I just hope you understand how the higher scoring student might not appreciate being held to a different grading standard than others.

 

[Jack21222]

I just hope you understand how the higher scoring student might not appreciate being held to a different grading standard than others.

No, I do not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you best talk to the professor whose class you are TA'ing for and get his/her advice. What you describe is, at best, more subjective than it needs to be.

It sounds a lot like you decide based on the overall quality what the final score should be, and then go trough the individual parts to try and make the numbers work out. As you point out, this means that two students who do exactly as well as each other on that part can end up with vastly different scores on it.

The professor - the person ultimately responsible for your grading - may have something to say about that.

 

[wotanub]

Edit: Ugh, I didn't realize this thread was 3 months dead until I typed all this out. Oh well, for posterity I guess...

I'm not an undergrad anymore, but honestly, if I got a 99% I would not be motivated to work harder for just 1 more point because I would assume either

A: The instructor is just one of those people that think they know me more than I know myself, and I'm never going to get a 100% no matter how hard I try anyway. If I can't get a 100, why bother? I'd probably think this I feel I did everything perfectly and was expecting 100.

or B: If I get a legit 99, it's not really worth the effort to try and get one more point when it won't effect my grade at all. I should work on something else. I'd probably feel this way if I was expecting an A, but not sure what kind of A.

But if I got a 100%, I would try hard to try to get the 100% again since if I don't, that means I'm slipping.

Your tactic would have an opposite effect on me. Not posting just to refute your hypothesis on teaching, this is seriously how I thought and TBH I think I'll feel the same in grad school. There are those kids that cry when they get a B, but I'm not one of them. If you want me to try 120%... find a way to slip a C grade on me, if you're going to base your grades on how motivated you want students to be. I got a low C on my first QM test... then straight ~100s on everything after that. I spent my whole life cruising through grade school and gen ed classes in college without really being pushed, so I don't even try unless it can actually effect my grade. I don't know what this says about my attitude, but it's the truth.

 

[iRaid]

Seriously, this is the most annoying thing. I always thought teachers did this, but this thread concludes that they really do. The worst thing is, is when it's a TA!

 

[wotanub]

No, I do not.

And I'll reply to this too. It's because you're basing grades off effort rather than competency and achievement. Do you think the nobel committee should award prizes based on how hard someone worked on a project? "Well, Prof. Johnson just discovered time travel in only a year, but Prof. Jones has been working so hard on his perpetual motion device for the last 50 years, so let's give it to him instead."

"Chair A is clearly higher quality materials and has better workmanship than Chair B, but they should be priced the same since Chair A was made in 12 hours by machine in a factory, while B took 2 days by hand in a shop class."

I might be exaggerating, but you get the point.

 

[turbo]

Be glad that you are not in sports. 110% is the minimum.

 

[Einstein Mcfly]

So this semester as a teaching assistant, I've decided that I simply do not give out 100%s on lab reports. On quizzes and homeworks I'm happy to give out perfect scores, but on something like a lab report, I have determined that nobody is perfect and there is always something that could have been done better.

As a concrete example, I could find nothing obvious wrong with a lab report last week, but his conclusion was a bit too long-winded and some of the stuff presented there should have been in the analysis, so I took off a point. He got a 99%.

I feel that if somebody received a 100%, they stop trying to improve and perhaps get complacent. If somebody gets a 99%, they have a better chance at trying to figure out ways to improve. Meanwhile, the 1 percentage point difference on their lab grade is exceedingly unlikely to affect their letter grade, particularly if they're good enough to be getting 99%s on a regular basis.

Does anybody have any thoughts about this? I can see the argument that perhaps it's unfair to take a point off from one person's paper that I don't take off from a paper that got, say, an 80%. But in my mind, the person who got an 80% has enough major stuff to work on without getting nitpicky.

Are there any other arguments against this? Will this actual reduce the morale of higher-achieving students? Is anybody aware of any physics education research about this tactic? Has anybody used this to good effect?

Many people are attracted to science classes because of the concrete nature of the investigations as compared to the subjective nature of other disciplines. You're undermining this by inserting your "feeling" that no lab report deserves a 100% and are willing to move the goal posts if necessary to achieve that. Grading lab reports isn't about YOU and your musings on perfection, it's about whether the students are learning what they're supposed to be learning. Take yourself out of the equation, give them some legitimate guidelines and if they get them all, they should get 100%. This is, honestly, one of the stranger things I've ever heard from a TA.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>Does anybody have any thoughts about this? <snip>

I applaud the sentiment, and based on my experience agree that lab reports are generally atrocious. OTOH, you *must* apply uniform standards to all students. Definitely 'set the bar high', but also clearly communicate your expectations and apply uniform standards.

 

[Mark44]

Let me give you a concrete example, and let's see if you still have this sentiment.

A student has a two sentence introduction, where they give only the most barebones information about what is to be accomplished in this experiment. This introduction should really get about a 6/10. The rest of the paper is riddled with errors and is in many places incomplete. The student would get a 68%. Well, in comparison with the rest of the paper, the introduction isn't that bad, so I give an 8/10 on the intro, and the student gets a 70%.

This doesn't seem reasonable to me. If the introduction is worth 6 out of 10 points, then that is what it should get. The comparison should made against whatever intro would get all 10 points.

A second student turns in a paper with a very similar introduction, but the rest of the paper is nearly flawless. I give that student 6/10 on the intro for a 96% total, because that's what the intro deserves.

I don't have any problems with that.

Your desire for "consistent grading" is the difference between the weaker student getting a C- and a D+.

What you fail to realize is that grading is inherently subjective.

But it can be made less so if you have a clear idea in advance as to what constitutes an "ideal" introduction (or whatever), and assign or deduct points on that basis. Giving two students different grades for essentially the same work (using your introduction example) is the height of unfairness, IMO.

Lab reports aren't multiple choice; you can't just flatly says "this is right" and "this is wrong" and apply it evenly for every student. Specifically, in the case of these lab reports, "neatness and organization" are right there in the rubric. Well, organization is a very subjective thing. If you put information which should be in the introduction in the conclusion instead, to me, that's disorganized. However, if I spent all my time tracking down every bit of information that should be in another section and docking points for it, I'd triple my grading time and I'd only hurt the students who were on the borderline anyway. However, in a perfect world, such disorganization SHOULD have points taken off, so I see nothing wrong for docking points where it's warranted even if I haven't docked points from the weaker students who made the same mistakes. Yes, it's inconsistent, but it only raises the grades of the weaker students, it does not lower the grades of the stronger ones.

One of the most important things you can do when you are grading papers is to be consistent in your marking. Students compare notes with each other, and can usually discern whether two papers are similar in quality.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

So this semester as a teaching assistant, I've decided that I simply do not give out 100%s on lab reports. On quizzes and homeworks I'm happy to give out perfect scores, but on something like a lab report, I have determined that nobody is perfect and there is always something that could have been done better.

As a concrete example, I could find nothing obvious wrong with a lab report last week, but his conclusion was a bit too long-winded and some of the stuff presented there should have been in the analysis, so I took off a point. He got a 99%.

I feel that if somebody received a 100%, they stop trying to improve and perhaps get complacent. If somebody gets a 99%, they have a better chance at trying to figure out ways to improve. Meanwhile, the 1 percentage point difference on their lab grade is exceedingly unlikely to affect their letter grade, particularly if they're good enough to be getting 99%s on a regular basis.

Does anybody have any thoughts about this? I can see the argument that perhaps it's unfair to take a point off from one person's paper that I don't take off from a paper that got, say, an 80%. But in my mind, the person who got an 80% has enough major stuff to work on without getting nitpicky.

Are there any other arguments against this? Will this actual reduce the morale of higher-achieving students? Is anybody aware of any physics education research about this tactic? Has anybody used this to good effect?

This is an absolutely asinine grading policy. Nobody is perfect, so nobody deserves 100%. And yet, who are you, the one subjectively judging these lab reports? Are you perfect? You're just some TA grading lab reports. The difference between a "perfect" Introduction and a "stellar, but less than perfect" Introduction is just your opinion, man.

In fact, there is no perfect lab report, because the qualities on which one might judge such a thing are not one-dimensional. What you think is an "improvement" is really just a "closer to how I would have done it", but it is not as though your own writing style is some universal, accepted, and expected standard. And you could be wrong! I hope you're not taking off points for grammatical mistakes, because almost certainly your understanding of correct grammar is wrong somewhere (as it is with most people, especially in sciences).

To account for the fact that you grade imperfectly, you should create a standard and adhere to it. And allow students who meet the standard to earn 100%. Even if the standard does not capture your personal opinion of perfection. Because the class is not about your personal opinion of perfection. It's about performing experiments and clearly documenting them.

 

[jesse73]

This is an absolutely asinine grading policy. Nobody is perfect, so nobody deserves 100%. And yet, who are you, the one subjectively judging these lab reports? Are you perfect? You're just some TA grading lab reports. The difference between a "perfect" Introduction and a "stellar, but less than perfect" Introduction is just your opinion, man.

In fact, there is no perfect lab report, because the qualities on which one might judge such a thing are not one-dimensional. What you think is an "improvement" is really just a "closer to how I would have done it", but it is not as though your own writing style is some universal, accepted, and expected standard. And you could be wrong! I hope you're not taking off points for grammatical mistakes, because almost certainly your understanding of correct grammar is wrong somewhere (as it is with most people, especially in sciences).

To account for the fact that you grade imperfectly, you should create a standard and adhere to it. And allow students who meet the standard to earn 100%. Even if the standard does not capture your personal opinion of perfection. Because the class is not about your personal opinion of perfection. It's about performing experiments and clearly documenting them.

There is no such thing as a perfect grader so you should give the students at least the slack they are giving you and give them 100% if they showed exceptional work albeit not perfect work.

 

[Redbelly98]

What this policy really does is change the scale range to 0-99 instead of the usual 0-100. I think that's fine IF the students are aware of this. If they are led to believe it is still a 0-100 scale, then there is some level of dishonesty at play. Striving for that final point is a futile effort. At the very least the students should be informed about the actual scale range.

Get rid of the notion that a maximum score must indicate a perfect paper. It does NOT have to do that. It's just an indication that a student is well above the ability of the others in the class.

 

[jesse73]

What this policy really does is change the scale range to 0-99 instead of the usual 0-100. I think that's fine IF the students are aware of this. If they are led to believe it is still a 0-100 scale, then there is some level of dishonesty at play. Striving for that final point is a futile effort. At the very least the students should be informed about the actual scale range.

Get rid of the notion that a maximum score must indicate a perfect paper. It does NOT have to do that. It's just an indication that a student is well above the ability of the others in the class.

This isn't true if there are other TA's for the course in which case there is a 0-99 scale in his section but a 0-100 in another section

 

[kurros]

Many people are attracted to science classes because of the concrete nature of the investigations as compared to the subjective nature of other disciplines.

HAHAHAHA! Well if that's the case, then best we crush that misconception as quickly as possible, and lab class is usually the place to introduce them to the real world.

As for the OP, I wouldn't stress about this issue, in the end it makes little difference. I give out 100's when marking not because I think the report it perfect, but because I don't often have the time to properly write down a justification of whatever I am still nitpicking at that point.

As for your policy of being harder on the good students, I do this too, but the motivation from my perspective is this:

1. Docking marks requires giving the students written feedback to justify it.
2. This takes time.
3. I have already burned enough time describing the big issues to be fixed to the weaker students. I am not going to waste more time telling them the minutia that need to be fixed; indeed this will distract attention from the bigger issues they should focus on and they probably won't read it anyway.
4. Strong students are more likely to actually pay attention to feedback about finer details, thus I in turn am more willing to give them this portion of my time.

In the end the bias is small so it is pretty unimportant. It may be perfectly "fair", but everybody gets the feedback most relevant to them. It is not worth the effort required to ensure that the marking meets some magic standard of consistency across every detail. So long as the overall final marks are a good reflection of the overall standard I think that is fine.

 

[ChiralWaltz]

<snip>

The people in that house need to take the trash out. It's a mess in there.

If he got under it, he could probably touch the goal. I doubt he would be able to get it down though. It is wrong to tape that just out of his reach. I'm glad a friend understood what was happening and handled the situation appropriately.

I assume some students are trying to score 100s on their labs. Have you been able to explain to them how to do so?

 

[MalachiK]

HAHAHAHA! Well if that's the case, then best we crush that misconception as quickly as possible, and lab class is usually the place to introduce them to the real world.

Err, I'm pretty sure that if a bunch of students are carrying out an experiment to find the Rydberg constant or something then we should probably expect them to be able to come up with a number that matches the one in the textbook (give or take the uncertainty in their experiment) or suggest a pretty good reason why their result is different. Sure, lab results are messy. But one of the first things we teach is that in science we should try to quantify the uncertainties in our results. It's not all just a subjective free for all!

 

[kurros]

Err, I'm pretty sure that if a bunch of students are carrying out an experiment to find the Rydberg constant or something then we should probably expect them to be able to come up with a number that matches the one in the textbook (give or take the uncertainty in their experiment) or suggest a pretty good reason why their result is different. Sure, lab results are messy. But one of the first things we teach is that in science we should try to quantify the uncertainties in our results. It's not all just a subjective free for all!

If you accept in advance that you understand perfectly well all the theory behind the experiment you are trying to do (and if indeed this is correct...) then sure you can make people go through this mechanical exercise of checking they can get the right numbers out, and yes this is what we make junior undergraduates to do get a feeling for how to operate in the lab.

But this is not what science is about or how it works. One does experiments that are supposed to push the boundaries of what accepted theory describes, and when discrepancies arise and they need to be understood then things can become incredibly subjective. We usually expose senior undergraduates to this by giving them longer, more complicated/realistic experiments to do, and giving them only a simplified theoretical model of what is expected to happen (partially because the full theory is a bit beyond them still). All kinds of weird discrepancies can show up and it is good for them to have to really think about the various explanations for what is going on. Things are rarely black and white.

But no, I didn't mean to imply it was a "free-for-all". But neither are the humanities total free-for-alls. In so much as there are various approaches to the philosophy of science there are also constraints on (say, for example) theories of meta-ethics or political thought.

 

[mathwonk]

you sound like a crooked gymnastics judge from a few decades ago. you don't determine your grade standards as you grade, but before giving the test. be honest; define your standards and give grades according to how students meet them. otherwise you are like a home base referee who brags about "my strike zone".

 

[kurros]

you sound like a crooked gymnastics judge from a few decades ago. you don't determine your grade standards as you grade, but before giving the test. be honest; define your standards and give grades according to how students meet them. otherwise you are like a home base referee who brags about "my strike zone".

The standards are of course determined before grading, but when there is a stack of 30 lab reports that are 20+ pages each to grade then there is a significant element of pragmatism that has to enter in terms of what aspects of the criteria one focuses on. Otherwise it is impossible to get through them before the universe fades into heat-death. There is also the matter of it being almost impossible to define what the standards are. These are complicated things to mark and the variation between markers is more significant than the variation due to focusing on different criteria.

 

[MalachiK]

But this is not what science is about or how it works. One does experiments that are supposed to push the boundaries of what accepted theory describes, and when discrepancies arise and they need to be understood then things can become incredibly subjective. We usually expose senior undergraduates to this by giving them longer, more complicated/realistic experiments to do, and giving them only a simplified theoretical model of what is expected to happen (partially because the full theory is a bit beyond them still). All kinds of weird discrepancies can show up and it is good for them to have to really think about the various explanations for what is going on. Things are rarely black and white.

Maybe you're right - I'm not a university level educator. But surely on a taught course where you're not looking for new science the assessment criteria can be pinned down pretty exactly? I understand that there are some very high level taught courses out there, but even so the aims of the course must surely be written down somewhere. If the student has demonstrated that they've achieved all of the objectives of the course (which may very well include outstanding organisation, written English and presentation to a standard that could be published) then why not give them 100%?

I've always wondered about what goes on in the humanities, where the 100% mark essay is as rare as hen's teeth. If the nobody can adequately define the standard required to gain all of the marks, can anyone in the faculty claim that they understand 100% of the course that they're teaching? Quite often you can ask what you could have done to improve on a >95% essay and you just get a shrug of the shoulders or some guff about the correct use of the semi colon.

 

[kurros]

...then why not give them 100%?

I am happy to do this, it was the OP who was concerned. I just sympathise with their issue.

I've always wondered about what goes on in the humanities, where the 100% mark essay is as rare as hen's teeth. If the nobody can adequately define the standard required to gain all of the marks, can anyone in the faculty claim that they understand 100% of the course that they're teaching?

Well, let's consider labs first. In the lab I TA in there are about 30 experiments (i.e. equipment for doing experiments) scattered about 3 rooms, and the students spend 12 or so hours over a couple of weeks trying to measure something interesting with the stuff. They are supposed to rigorously record what they are doing as they go in a log book. There are quite detailed guidlelines they are given about the way they are supposed to write this log book, which has a somewhat more vague marking scheme associated with it, but in the end every experiment is different and every student is going to have different experiment with their machine. Each experiment is assigned to a TA (who "supervises" several experiments) and who marks work done for that experiment. It is up to them to try and figure out the best mapping from what the student has done into the generic marking scheme. So it is not easy.

As for humanities, well I guess I don't know what they do, but I assume it is similar. Lecturer asks for an essay on some topic, gives the students some university-approved guidelines and generic marking scheme for how essays are supposed to be written/marked, and then either marks the essays themself, deciding what they think the essay is worth and then trying to map it to the marking criteria, or handball it to a grad student to do the same thing.

Quite often you can ask what you could have done to improve on a >95% essay and you just get a shrug of the shoulders or some guff about the correct use of the semi colon.

Probably they have a better reason but they can't quite articulate it. Often one has an overall "feeling" that a piece of work could have been done better, or even that specific areas were not quite up to scratch, but it is difficult to point to a sentence and say exactly what is wrong with it.

What I mean is that constructive criticism is quite an art form. It is easy to know that something isn't right, but much hard to clearly explain what that something is and how to fix it. I guess the former is an "intuitive" or system 1 inference, while the latter takes formal logic and reasoning, or system 2 (if you are into dual-process theory). Yet a lot of the actual marking is done by system 1 I expect, and merely rationalised into the given marking scheme afterwards. I'm not saying markers do this on purpose, but that is how the process looks to me.

 

[Redbelly98]

What this policy really does is change the scale range to 0-99 instead of the usual 0-100. I think that's fine IF the students are aware of this. If they are led to believe it is still a 0-100 scale, then there is some level of dishonesty at play. Striving for that final point is a futile effort. At the very least the students should be informed about the actual scale range.

Get rid of the notion that a maximum score must indicate a perfect paper. It does NOT have to do that. It's just an indication that a student is well above the ability of the others in the class.

This isn't true if there are other TA's for the course in which case there is a 0-99 scale in his section but a 0-100 in another section

It took me a while to get what you are saying here, or at least I think I get it. While technically it's unfair that students in other lab sections can earn a higher grade in the same course for the same quality of work, for all practical purposes I can't imagine there's any significant difference from this policy. It only affects a small fraction of students (those getting 99's and 100's), and only changes the grade by 1 percentage point on something that likely counts for a quarter or so of the total grade -- so around 0.25% in the overall grade.

 

[Andy Resnick]

If you accept in advance that you understand perfectly well all the theory behind the experiment you are trying to do (and if indeed this is correct...) then sure you can make people go through this mechanical exercise of checking they can get the right numbers out, and yes this is what we make junior undergraduates to do get a feeling for how to operate in the lab.

But this is not what science is about or how it works. One does experiments that are supposed to push the boundaries of what accepted theory describes, and when discrepancies arise and they need to be understood then things can become incredibly subjective. We usually expose senior undergraduates to this by giving them longer, more complicated/realistic experiments to do, and giving them only a simplified theoretical model of what is expected to happen (partially because the full theory is a bit beyond them still). All kinds of weird discrepancies can show up and it is good for them to have to really think about the various explanations for what is going on. Things are rarely black and white.

<snip>

I totally agree with this. The problem is that all labs, from intro 200-level courses to senior 400-level courses, by their very nature, are standard 'cookbook' procedures.

A better option is the authentic research experience, for example a senior thesis or 'capstone' project. The lab courses are then oriented towards learning specific measurement techniques instead of vague historical recreations of 'famous experiments'.

 

[atyy]

If you accept in advance that you understand perfectly well all the theory behind the experiment you are trying to do (and if indeed this is correct...) then sure you can make people go through this mechanical exercise of checking they can get the right numbers out, and yes this is what we make junior undergraduates to do get a feeling for how to operate in the lab.

But this is not what science is about or how it works. One does experiments that are supposed to push the boundaries of what accepted theory describes, and when discrepancies arise and they need to be understood then things can become incredibly subjective. We usually expose senior undergraduates to this by giving them longer, more complicated/realistic experiments to do, and giving them only a simplified theoretical model of what is expected to happen (partially because the full theory is a bit beyond them still). All kinds of weird discrepancies can show up and it is good for them to have to really think about the various explanations for what is going on. Things are rarely black and white.

I totally agree with this. The problem is that all labs, from intro 200-level courses to senior 400-level courses, by their very nature, are standard 'cookbook' procedures.

A better option is the authentic research experience, for example a senior thesis or 'capstone' project. The lab courses are then oriented towards learning specific measurement techniques instead of vague historical recreations of 'famous experiments'.

How can science be subjective? Hasn't one made an error if science is subjective?

 

[kurros]

How can science be subjective? Hasn't one made an error if science is subjective?

Science is subjective when you don't have sufficient data to easily discriminate between what competing explanations there are for a phenomenon, which is basically all the time for practicing scientists. In the end the summary of what you do and don't know should be pretty objective (although if you start reading into the philosophy of statistics/probability you quickly find that even that is not so straightforward as it seems...)* and that is what ends up being published, but the way you get there involves a lot of subjective guesswork and intuition. Not to mention that people have to decide what to spend time and money investigating, and there is no objective way to make this decision. You might argue that those concerns are not part of science, and ok maybe that is valid. But still the core practice of science is a game of probability and uncertainty. Eventually you hope the probabilities all collapse to approximately zero or one, but that is the only the best case scenario.


* or even aside from that consider say the current searches for dark matter: DAMA, Pamela (and now AMS it seems), CoGeNT, and I think at least one other experiment I am forgetting all see signals that could be interpreted as originating from dark matter. Yet other experiments (Xenon, CDMS etc) claim to be sensitive enough that they can exclude the usual dark matter models that could explain those signals. What is going on? Are all those experiments so flawed? Are there some strange other background sources that have not be considered? Do we really need to cook up some "ugly" (from an Occams razor perspective, itself a subjective criterion) convoluted dark matter model to explain all this stuff simultaneously? No one really knows. In the end we hope that some really excellent experiments will be done that clearly demonstrate what is happening, but this is not the ordinary state of affairs. If one starts looking at fields like medicine then the problems only get worse...

 

[kurros]

If you want to take it even further you can start thinking about the philosophy of science. Kuhn says we are all just working in a convenient theoretical framework that we as a community have collectively come to agree upon, and that we will cling to it for dear life until some sufficiently drastic experimental evidence force us to abandon it and begin the tower anew. We already know that our models are "wrong" in an absolute sense, so when we talk about gravity being due to the curvature of space and electrons being excitations of quantum fields, how literally do we mean it? People still argue about interpretations of quantum mechanics a century after its discovery. One can argue that as long as we are getting the right answers from the math then that is enough, that is the part that is science, but I have a hard time accepting that. Generally we grant quite different ontological status to the postulates of a theory motivated by physical principles versus one which is "merely" an empirical description (such as a neural network that has learned the patterns of some data, or even say the difference between Kepler's and Newton's explanations of planetary motion). So getting the right answers doesn't seem to be enough...

But there is still plenty of subjectivity in the daily practice of science even before you start to trek down such rabbit holes :p.

 

[MalachiK]

So the argument is that because human knowledge of the universe is less than absolute - you won't grade a paper to 100%. Why does the scale go up to 100 then?

Even where there are competing conclusions and it's not possible to objectively choose between them then it is still possible to give an account of these different interpretations and evaluate their merits. Even where there are differing statistical interpretations that would yield differing conclusions it's still possible to talk about them. If this is the best that can be done then that that's a 100% paper. Not giving full marks because your student isn't omniscient seems an odd way to go. But hey, it's not up to me.

 

[atyy]

Science is subjective when you don't have sufficient data to easily discriminate between what competing explanations there are for a phenomenon, which is basically all the time for practicing scientists. In the end the summary of what you do and don't know should be pretty objective (although if you start reading into the philosophy of statistics/probability you quickly find that even that is not so straightforward as it seems...)* and that is what ends up being published, but the way you get there involves a lot of subjective guesswork and intuition. Not to mention that people have to decide what to spend time and money investigating, and there is no objective way to make this decision. You might argue that those concerns are not part of science, and ok maybe that is valid. But still the core practice of science is a game of probability and uncertainty. Eventually you hope the probabilities all collapse to approximately zero or one, but that is the only the best case scenario.* or even aside from that consider say the current searches for dark matter: DAMA, Pamela (and now AMS it seems), CoGeNT, and I think at least one other experiment I am forgetting all see signals that could be interpreted as originating from dark matter. Yet other experiments (Xenon, CDMS etc) claim to be sensitive enough that they can exclude the usual dark matter models that could explain those signals. What is going on? Are all those experiments so flawed? Are there some strange other background sources that have not be considered? Do we really need to cook up some "ugly" (from an Occams razor perspective, itself a subjective criterion) convoluted dark matter model to explain all this stuff simultaneously? No one really knows. In the end we hope that some really excellent experiments will be done that clearly demonstrate what is happening, but this is not the ordinary state of affairs. If one starts looking at fields like medicine then the problems only get worse...

But if "no one really knows", that's pretty objective. It's only subjective if everyone really knows and disagrees. Or if no one can really know, and the question must be answered subjectively. In the cases you mentioned, more experiments should give the answer, not much different from a lab report.

For example, the OP mentioned "neatness and organization". That is indeed (objectively) subjective. Therefore I think it is fair that full marks are never given (which is quite different from saying one cannot get an "A" in the class).

I've always wondered about what goes on in the humanities, where the 100% mark essay is as rare as hen's teeth. If the nobody can adequately define the standard required to gain all of the marks, can anyone in the faculty claim that they understand 100% of the course that they're teaching? Quite often you can ask what you could have done to improve on a >95% essay and you just get a shrug of the shoulders or some guff about the correct use of the semi colon.

No one really understands what goes on in music. If Beethoven handed in Op 106 for his composition homework, would he deserve 100%? I think it is quite correct to say we don't know what a "perfect" piece of music is in general. Even then, while much of Mozart's work is perfect, not all the perfect works are masterpieces. On the other hand, Op 106 may or may not be perfect, but it is undoubtedly a masterpiece. And yes, I do believe that these subjects with subjective components have their place in school, alongside the objective subjects like physics.

 

[reenmachine]

Personally , in high school at least , I hated having a professor who added his little touch to my final result.When I ace the test , I ace the test.That means 100%.Scoring 100% was a great motivation to try and achieve 100% on every single math tests back in high school.

I disagree with this philosophy.

It might be different in university , I will reserve my judgement on this.

 

[kurros]

So the argument is that because human knowledge of the universe is less than absolute - you won't grade a paper to 100%. Why does the scale go up to 100 then?

This was just following on from an argument that I accidentally started regarding the objectivity of science. I actually said I was in principle happy to give out 100% on anything I mark. I guess I let that get a bit off topic, considering that the subjectivity of marking criteria is really what this thread is about, not the subjectivity of the scientific method.

 

[MalachiK]

If Beethoven handed in Op 106 for his composition homework, would he deserve 100%?

I don't know. Maybe. I guess it would depend on the criteria of the taught course that he was taking. I mean, if the assignment was to compose the most perfect piece of music then I can see how you could argue that he hadn't met the standard. On the other hand, if he was being assessed against a pre agreed set of compositional techniques then it would rather depend on if he'd demonstrated the required competences. I've never seen course titles like 'Writing the ultimate lab report; Perfect knowledge will be yours! Science will be complete!' or 'Write the one perfect poem so that we can clear out all the other stuff from the library!" Usually they're called things like - "Experimental Techniques" or "English 206".

Just because perfection is unattainable, I don't see why we can't specify the standard that would completely satisfy the requirements of the courses we teach. Or are we saying that nothing less than a complete ToE is needed to demonstrate that a student really gets that post grad course quantum field theory?

But whatever. I'll agree with any policy that you like if it means that I get to work with a bunch of students for whom the 100% is of immediate practical concern! It'd make a change from arguing the toss over rounding half marks over the pass / fail boundary.

 

[Andy Resnick]

How can science be subjective? Hasn't one made an error if science is subjective?

I think you are taking my comments out of context. The correct context for my point is that 'standardized' labs generally do not correlate with the actual practice of laboratory science.

 

[jesse73]

The standards are of course determined before grading, but when there is a stack of 30 lab reports that are 20+ pages each to grade then there is a significant element of pragmatism that has to enter in terms of what aspects of the criteria one focuses on. Otherwise it is impossible to get through them before the universe fades into heat-death. There is also the matter of it being almost impossible to define what the standards are. These are complicated things to mark and the variation between markers is more significant than the variation due to focusing on different criteria.

This is the longest way possible of saying you think its too much work to stick to your grading standards.