Absolute vs. Relative Grading System: Pros, Cons, and Experiences

[gen x]

I am currently weighing the pros and cons of the absolute grading system versus the relative grading system (grading on a curve). I would love to hear your insights, experiences, and academic perspectives on this. Specifically, how do these systems impact student motivation, fairness, stress levels, and cooperation among peers in rigorous STEM fields? Which system do you personally prefer, either as a student or as an educator, and why?

If you use relative system so average must fit in 60-65%, now you get every year have same average grade, but every generation is different...So what is point of this, how can you judge how this generation is bad or good if every year you have same grades?

here are some links about problems in grading systems:

https://academia.stackexchange.com/...-too-high-for-the-department-what-should-i-do

https://academia.stackexchange.com/...at-all-are-there-any-arguments-in-favor-of-it

https://academia.stackexchange.com/...s-without-creating-competition-among-students


https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impact-relative-grading-university-education-sohail-khan-ph-d--q8enf

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/abso...undergraduate-education-rajendra-prasad-hp5cc

 

[.Scott]

You haven't made it clear whether this is college or high school. From your links, I am suspecting college - but I cannot tell for sure.

I think that the first thing that needs to be said is that grades (numbers or A, B, etc) are a terse way of describing some part of the learning situation. When I tutor, I don't give a grade - I just relate the progress to the learning goals in narrative terms. A "grade" focuses on some piece of that narrative.

Just for perspective (practical or not), I would start with a baseline description of what one would presume is happening: There is an institutional objective to the course. By the end of the course, some target goal or goals may be achieved and those goals should be expressible as a statement about the student that goes beyond "this student got a B-". Those target goals are development from stakeholder requirements:
a) The school "certification" standards - and how you course fits in with them.
b) The school itself. Its organizational methods, it public image, its business objectives.
c) The students. Are they there just for grade or are there actual learning requirements they will need.
d) You. What do you want to contribute to the course - for no other reason than to make your job easier or more rewarding?

In the easiest case, all of these requirements naturally align and are consistent with a particular grading method. I am guessing that that is the exception.

If the course you are teaching is a prerequisite to other courses or to a third-party achievement test (scholastic, professional licensing, etc) and the only (or the prevalent) goal is to serve as that prerequisite, then some approximate pass/fail criteria can be described. Presumably, any student that is ready for those follow-on courses/trials should pass and any that are not ready should not. Alternatively, you could pass them with the certain knowledge that they are so soured to the subject that they would never attempt to tackle those follow-ons ... (not my recommended strategy).
Beyond the final grade, interim grades provide feedback - encouragement, progress measurement, etc. So those interim reports are intended as a coded message to the student, parents, school, or other stakeholder and are used (intentionally or not) to reflect the progress, encourage the student, satisfy the schools image, or address issues with the schools credentials. That can be a lot of messaging for a single 2-digit number.

If the content of the course you are teaching is simply intended to provide general support for an unknown future employment or other such mission, then you need to recognize from the outset that you are not standing on rock. And if there will never be any tracking for how your students ultimately succeeded in their mission, you're probably standing on sand.

If you're standing on sand, there really is no solid argument against "grading on the curve". If it pleases any of the stakeholders listed above (including yourself), then why not?

Decades ago, I did teach as part of my job. It was a 2-week course (80 hours) with a very practical objective - the ability to add new features to an existing CAD/CAM system.
I wrote the entire curriculum. The only exam was at the start of the course. The stated prerequisite was experience with Fortran programming - and the students were asked to demonstrate that skill. If the failed, then I asked if they would prefer to spend the next two weeks dining out with sales/support people who could answer any of their questions. Otherwise we got down to business.

 

[gen x]

You haven't made it clear whether this is college or high school.

Yes I am talking about university, not high school. Especially for math-physics-engineering.

If you're standing on sand, there really is no solid argument against "grading on the curve". If it pleases any of the stakeholders listed above (including yourself), then why not?

How do you then explain that USA, India, South Korea, Oxford, Cambridge STEM etc use relative grading?

What do you think about this system below?
https://teaching.eng.cam.ac.uk/content/part-iib-examiners-and-assessors-faculty-board-guidelines

https://teaching.eng.cam.ac.uk/content/part-ia-examiners-and-assessors-faculty-board-guidelines