How often did you get a poor grade in a class despite knowing the material well?

[Simfish]

It just happened to me. And it's immensely frustrating. Not to mention the difficulty of convincing professors that I understand the material well (certainly well enough to get more than a 3.5 in it) despite getting below a 3.0 on the course. Yes, I made mistakes. My first few weeks were tumultuous. I turned in 3 assignments late (this isn't something that I often do, but I just screwed up for whatever reason - it honestly puzzles me how I could have screwed up so badly, but it motivates me not to do it again). I quickly caught up with the material later on, but it was too late to reverse the first few weeks. And it's a senior-level class too, making it hard to "avenge" it with a higher grade in a later course.

 

[Phyisab****]

More than once. This is the main reason I hate school and sometimes it completely infuriates me. I have found that when I work one on one with a supervisor, they are very impressed with my skills and work ethic. But no amount of studying makes me a perfect 4.0 student, and apparently I studied more than most people, judging by this forum. Thankfully, I graduated today!

Edit: Sorry I thought you meant on a test, not in the course. I think I only got one B-.

 

[symbolipoint]

Never Happened... A few times, the opposite happened, or I occasionally received a grade higher than I expected. If one knows the material, one will not earn a grade lower than how well one learned it; and performance depends on how well one has learned. Anyone who gets a grade lower than deserved, probably had a very tough teacher, or very tough in grading. If he gives all students equal treatment, then other students would get lower grades too.

 

[axiomatic7777]

Not really. I did once got an A- instead of an A that I expected based on how well I know the materials (in fact I knew well enough to get an A+ in the second semester of the same course). Other than that, I almost always get what I expected, and in a few occasions was pleasantly surprised with a (slightly) high grade than I expected.

 

[Chaostamer]

Never Happened... A few times, the opposite happened, or I occasionally received a grade higher than I expected. If one knows the material, one will not earn a grade lower than how well one learned it; and performance depends on how well one has learned. Anyone who gets a grade lower than deserved, probably had a very tough teacher, or very tough in grading. If he gives all students equal treatment, then other students would get lower grades too.

That's not always true. One could know 95% of the material. Certainly, that's "A-level" comprehension. However, one question on a five-question exam could come from that 5%, thereby making the highest possible grade an 80% (assuming absolutely no comprehension of that 5%), an inaccurate indication of material understood. Similarly, one could know the material thoroughly, but make mistakes in simpler math that add up. In a course with only a few grades, a couple mistakes like that could be the difference between an 'A' and a 'B'. It's certainly happened to me before...

 

[mathwonk]

I hope and believe I have never given a student a grade that reflects less than the student's knowledge of the course. Most of the time it is the opposite, my grades have been far too generous, and yet this is not the feeling of my unsuccessful students. I give three grades, one for homework, one for tests and one for a final exam. Then I average them, 60% for the best 3 of 4 tests, dropping one low test, 15% for hw, dropping a couple of low ones, and 25% for the final exam. Then if the final exam grade exceeds that average I just give them the final exam grade. This is to give the student the benefit of having learned the material late. I only care what they leave knowing, not when they learned it. Still I have a lot of low grades, and many students believe they have been mistreated.

I believe that high schools in my state have almost completely abdicated the job of teaching reasoning, replacing it with trivial computation, so that when students reach college they have a huge adjustment to make from calculaTING TO THINKING.Now I admit there are cases where the professor is an a** h*** and screws the student unfairly. My roommate in college freshman year received a D- in calc 1 in spite of receiving a B+ on the final because the prof was p***ed that he did not attend class, because he already knew the material. I myself have never ever known a case like this in the intervening 50 years.

99.9% of the time the student who says he knows the material but got a low grade anyway, is totally deceiving himself and has no chance of succcess until he gets a clue.

 

[mathwonk]

As to myself, I got a D- in 2nd semester calc (well deserved) , a D in abstract algebra 1st semester (entirely deserved), and flunked out of school sophomore year (perfectly fair). I never complained about those grades as they were quite fair. Instead I worked for a year in a factory, went back to school, paid my own way, and began to earn better grades. Eventually I became a mathematician. Take your lumps, they are meant to teach you something. If you think you deserve a better grade than you got, most of the time it means you do not even have a clue what you are expected to know,. Go talk to the prof.

 

[General_Sax]

^^^ happens to everyone that I've ever met.

 

[Chunkysalsa]

Not really, I'm a good test taker. I don't get too nervous or stressed out and I'm good at answering questions I don't know.

Its kinda funny that if I study a little bit I do worse than if I don't study at all. So its go big or don't go at all for me.

 

[General_Sax]

I hope and believe I have never given a student a grade that reflects less than the student's knowledge of the course. Most of the time it is the opposite, my grades have been far too generous, and yet this is not the feeling of my unsuccessful students. I give three grades, one for homework, one for tests and one for a final exam. Then I average them, 60% for the best 3 of 4 tests, dropping one low test, 15% for hw, dropping a couple of low ones, and 25% for the final exam. Then if the final exam grade exceeds that average I just give them the final exam grade. This is to give the student the benefit of having learned the material late. I only care what they leave knowing, not when they learned it. Still I have a lot of low grades, and many students believe they have been mistreated.

I want you as a prof.

 

[mathwonk]

thank you. it took me years though to learn that. your profs also are learning. i apologize for my tough love comments to those who were insulted by them. I was being a bit defensive.

 

[ych22]

Well awarding marks and grading fairly are not easy things to do. Moreover, I had an additional difficulty as a TA because I had quite a number of friends in two of my classes...

 

[eliya]

I don't think you can get a poor grade despite of knowing the material well. If you knew the material you wouldn't get a poor grade.

 

[Tedjn]

Here are two cases when I feel I received lower test scores than my understanding indicates:

1. On my algorithms final exam, I sunk all my time into proving a problem was NP-complete and never managed it.
2. On my philosophy exam, I was unable to answer any multiple choice question that started with "As the lecturer presented," because I did not attend class.

In the first case, I was frustrated but only at myself for not thinking of the right reduction method in time. In the second case, I was frustrated because the exam didn't really test knowledge of the subject. These indicate two main ways how this can occur: on an exam that needs a lot of critical thinking and on an exam that was poorly made.

In my opinion, if I know everything except that darn obscure question worth 25% the professor decided to ask, then it was my fault. Sure I will be slightly angry and disappointed but nothing to argue over. And if I skipped that last minute studying to get some extra sleep, that was a decision I can live with, since I knew and accepted the possible consequences.

 

[DrummingAtom]

snip...

99.9% of the time the student who says he knows the material but got a low grade anyway, is totally deceiving himself and has no chance of succcess until he gets a clue.

I completely agree with this statement. My experience of this has been this last semester in my Physics class. I felt I knew the material very well, and my grades were reflecting this. The class average was very low in comparison to mine and this gave me even more of a boost. Then the final came and the professor really challenged us to show him we know this stuff. Needless to say, I didn't do well at all on the final because I "thought" I knew it. Even talking with friends I felt I had a good insight with the material. But I just needed a rude awakening that I really didn't know the material.

Maybe the OP is one of the 0.01% mathwonk is describing, but I know I am one of the 99.9% and I've learned my lesson very early. For the coming semesters I'll need to dig deeper throughout my studying/problem sets to expose some weaknesses in my understanding.

 

[f95toli]

I don't think you can get a poor grade despite of knowing the material well. If you knew the material you wouldn't get a poor grade.

Sure you can, there are plenty of people who simply are bad at taking tests; simply because they get so nervous or excited whenever they have an exam that they can't function properly.
I had that problem myself during my first year at university and saw it quite frequently later when I was mentoring undergraduates. The good news is that it is something you can learn how to cope with.
I was never very good at written exams but always did well whenever the course grades where mainly based on hand-in assignments and projects; I am still not very good at solving problems when I have a deadline, my brain works best when I have time to think about problems without feeling stressed.

 

[deRham]

Yeah, exams introduce the factors of being well written or not + ability to work well under very immediate pressure. Sometimes people work well with more extended, less immedite pressure.

 

[Ryker]

Sure you can, there are plenty of people who simply are bad at taking tests; simply because they get so nervous or excited whenever they have an exam that they can't function properly.
I had that problem myself during my first year at university and saw it quite frequently later when I was mentoring undergraduates. The good news is that it is something you can learn how to cope with.
I was never very good at written exams but always did well whenever the course grades where mainly based on hand-in assignments and projects; I am still not very good at solving problems when I have a deadline, my brain works best when I have time to think about problems without feeling stressed.

Hmm, well, see, but what is the point of grading? Do you give grades for how well someone can perform under the most favourable conditions or how well someone can perform under conditions he will be subjected to in "real life"? And don't worry, I'm not trying to get on your back, because I think I just bombed the Calculus final, even though I did really well thus far (on the midterms, homeworks etc.), as well, but really, looking at it objectively, what good does it do if you can supposedly do well when conditions are perfect, but not when they are just "normal"? Almost like that proverbial tree that no one hears falling conundrum.

I don't know, are you really better at, say, Quantum Mechanics, if you could, theoretically given 300 years, unravel the misteries of the world, than a person who couldn't do that, but can solve hard immediate problems faster and more successfully than you?

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

It only happens to me on test; when I know the material well but due to lack or practise I lack the speed or confidence to tear through test problems.


What usually happens in these situation is that I am too slow on the test and end up not completing it. Then again, in some way,this is well deserved since I did not "practise" or "study" enough and or properly.

 

[deRham]

Exam conditions are not the "normal" ones one usually deals with as a scholar. Extended problem sets with a lot of serious work, expectations of lucid writeup, etc.

 

[Ryker]

Well, they are normal as far as life after undergrad is concerned. Every workday feels just like taking an 8- or whatever-hour long test. If anything, test environments are easier on you, unless of course you've hit the jackpot with an easy-going job where you can slack off. And I don't think the aim of university is to prepare students just for a possible route in academia. Not in the slightest. Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "scholars" are free of pressure to make quick and correct decisions. I think they just have that extensive problem solving as an additional load.

edit: And by that, I don't mean that someone who is bad at taking tests will necessarily do bad when working or otherwise, and vice versa, but I think speaking generally test scores do somewhat reflect your mastery of the material taught. But there are going to be outliers, of course.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I've gotten good grades when I didn't have a clue, but never the other way around.

 

[lurky]

In my experience, if I didn't do well it was generally my fault. There are some exceptions, like extenuating circumstances that hit right before the final exam, or something, which I have definitely had happen before (and then I always tell the prof, who usually can do something about it, although not always). However, when I find myself whining that I'm never getting a fair shake throughout an entire course, that's my signal to bear down and get to work - it means I'm missing something fundamental and the only way I will ever get it is to just do more problems. Also, it usually means I need an attitude change. Sometimes I can fall into this rut of finding constant excuses for why I did poorly on this test or that assignment, and the only way out is to just accept responsibility for my own performance and move on. And it's important to learn how to spot the signs early enough so that you actually have time to do more problems before the end.

 

[Acuben]

isn't the question something everyone is going to say "oh yeah I have"?

just like physab said, it wouldn't matter too much as long as each teacher gives each students grades with fairness.
Although I do have met unfair teacher twice (not that many imo). One was English teacher back in high school who didn't have a set rule for grading. Like she would give extra credit whenever she felt like, take points whenever she felt like. Take late homework whenever she felt like, not take late homework whenever she felt like. Problem was that it wasn't a random chance, but it depended on who was doing it. =p
and anyone in the class can clearly tell who she likes and who she doesn't like and I happened to be the unlucky one. Either way, it didn't matter since even with her inconsistency, I lost some points, but still got an A- so it really didn't bother me
Another teacher I had in college was a teacher that graded the test in unique way. There is a essay portion on his test (although this was a science course) and I was under impression (ofc not 100% sure) that before he grades the tests, he separates the "good student" and "bad student" -grade wise. So the way he grades for "good student" is that he would take off 1 point for every mistake he find on the test.
As for the "bad student" section, he would give 1 point for each correct things he finds.
I was getting average 9 out of 25 points on essay section (which is really big portion of the total grade). And realized other got roughly 20~22 points out of 25 points in general.
After like 3 tests I started comparing the essay word to word and it was really bothering me. I also noticed that some students got less than 10 point, but I don't remember any essays between 10 and 20 points. It was mostly under 10 points or over 20 points.
When I asked the teacher, all he said was that he had a rubric.
When I asked him whether he gives points for every thing that is correct or take point off for every wrong information, he just said he grades fairly on rubric.
I guess that gave him alert call, he graded me fair on finals :D but damage was done and I got C in the course. I think I understood the material pretty well =/
He was cool teacher, but I don't why such thing had to happen ><

Anyways, those teacher who grades hard are just rough xD I just finished the electric circuit course. I think the teacher was being fair, but I made some algebra error in test which costs me a bunch...(little mistakes cost too much points in his test =x) IMO I don't think he can even get A in his own course.
like for e.g, the best test score I had was 80points out of 100 points. 10 points off for accidently switching sin and cos, 4 points for following error (that depended on the previous work, which was the sin and cos I accidentally switched). 2 points for wrong answer (obviously). and 4 points for an algebra mistake from another problem.
I do think I know the material well. Meh I hope I even passed the course >< ...still waiting for grades
fair, sure... but ...oh boy.

 

[deRham]

Ryker, I guess it depends on the course. Significant, deep observations tend to require the step back afforded by longer time. Also 8 hours is very different from 1.5 hours.

Work is about producing, at least often, while exams are about performing.

As for not being about academia/research preparation, that depends on the course type. A highly theoretical and advanced, specialized course often should and will be taught differently from a more popularized one.

I think for working, the best school approximation might be a combo of rigorous problem sets (a week is often how long people are given to do certain tasks in industry), and some basic exams (to ascertain ability to not crumble under pressure).

 

[Cinitiator]

This happens to me all the time. I always mix up letters and words when there's a lot of information given to me.

 

[deRham]

Let me be fair though: sometimes the reason one does not do well is also lack of patience to practice doing the work. And in some courses, the point is really to get some skills at your fingertips. But again, I don't see a point to making the tests of the skills tricky and with too much pressure.

In industry, you don't get partial credit so much. Getting a 50 percent on a hard exam graded on a curve gets you an A, but in industry someone who has the tenacity to do serious work over a slightly extended period and with awareness of deadlines is probably preferred.

 

[-IamLittle-]

i just know that i got D in algebra and real analysis
i don't think i deserve it, i did almost all the exercises in my textbook, i understand the material quite well, however the final contain 50% of computation problems, i didn't do any practice about computation, however poor in computation does reflect my knowledge

 

[zpconn]

There have been only two instances in my education where I feel like this has happened to me to some extent.

In one case, I don't want to go into details, but I was accused of cheating on a take-home exam in front of the class and challenged to reproduce my submitted solutions on the board without notes, on-the-spot, while being questioned by the professor. I succeeded in this challenge but was still given a B in the class. I was so infuriated by this incident that I refused to take credit for the course, and given the circumstances of what happened the university allowed this and also permitted me to take the next class anyway. I later got a letter of apology from the president of the university. The professor himself never apologized but only indirectly sent me this message via the university president: "Share your success with the other students." I don't know what that was supposed to mean.

In another case, I just got an A- instead of an A. The grade was my fault. This was in a general topology course which bored me to tears and spent all its time on pathological examples which I hated (though the teacher always insisted that he hated them too and that he tried to avoid him). There were no tests, only homework sets and a final presentation. The homework problems universally dealt with weird pathological examples--I repeat I hate this stuff, so I just was not motivated to do all the homework well. Hence an A-.

 

[General_Sax]

Well, they are normal as far as life after undergrad is concerned. Every workday feels just like taking an 8- or whatever-hour long test.

Aren't you a freshman?

 

[Ryker]

Second degree, work experience

 

[chiro]

I agree with mathwonk and others on the premise that the vast majority of students who lose marks do so because they can't show a level of understanding required to get the high marks.

I think it was Feynman who came up with the idea of fragile knowledge (he may not have invented but he brought it up and went into depth with students about it).

I think Feynmanns point is an important one. A lot of us can go through uni or other tertiary studies having more fragile than non-fragile knowledge.

For most of us it takes a lot of practice, time, and hard work to see something in a way that isn't just a collection of things, but a cohesive, integrated body of knowledge and most importantly understanding.

The professor has the advantage that they can see things in a way that no undergraduate could and to challenge the higher percentile, can use this to get the student to think about things outside of an amateur context.

It may not be the fairest thing in the world for a professor to do this, but in my opinion its things like this that help "patch" the fragile knowledge and lead to a better understanding of what is being taught.

 

[f95toli]

Hmm, well, see, but what is the point of grading? Do you give grades for how well someone can perform under the most favourable conditions or how well someone can perform under conditions he will be subjected to in "real life"?

But tests do not reflect the conditions of "real life", at least not in research. The problems I work on now often takes weeks of months to solve, and if I get tired I can get up from my desk and have a cup of coffee (and/or go to the lab and do something that does not require much brain activity).
Of course I have to meet deadlines, but those rarely involve any real problem solving since the only deadlines I have now involves finishing reports, presentations etc. Moreover, I tend to have most of my "eureka" moments when I am NOT sitting at my desk (usually when doing the dishes or something similar).
Hence, it is perfectly possible to have been bad at taking tests (as in "solve 5 problems in 4 hours") and still end up being a good researcher. This is one reason why I thing grades based on a combination of projects, hand-in assignments and written exams are more likely to reflect how much someone has learned from a course than a single exam alone.

 

[Ryker]

But tests do not reflect the conditions of "real life", at least not in research. The problems I work on now often takes weeks of months to solve, and if I get tired I can get up from my desk and have a cup of coffee (and/or go to the lab and do something that does not require much brain activity).

Of course I have to meet deadlines, but those rarely involve any real problem solving since the only deadlines I have now involves finishing reports, presentations etc. Moreover, I tend to have most of my "eureka" moments when I am NOT sitting at my desk (usually when doing the dishes or something similar).

Alright, I don't have any research experience, so perhaps you're right about that. But how many people amongst those that graduate or take university courses do research? My point is you just can't treat tests as a beast completely different to what happens in real life, and fool yourself into thinking that you're just bad at test taking. I mean, sure, like I said, you can be "bad at it" and still succeed in life, but being bad at test taking, at least in my opinion, doesn't just signify being bad at test taking, but unfortunately accounts for a lot more. Even though you're not going to replicate the test environment, what I've found is you'll still be in similar ones over and over and over ... Depends on the job, too, to what degree that will be true, of course, but I think any job that is suited so as to enable you to further your career and take on increasing responsibility will be like that.

Hence, it is perfectly possible to have been bad at taking tests (as in "solve 5 problems in 4 hours") and still end up being a good researcher.

Like I said in my previous post, I'm not disputing that.

This is one reason why I thing grades based on a combination of projects, hand-in assignments and written exams are more likely to reflect how much someone has learned from a course than a single exam alone.

I agree on this, as well.

 

[deRham]

Ryker, my own belief is most people definitely do not do research. However, it depends on the course one is talking of. I think an exam that is hard and tricky poorly replicates work conditions, and projects with strict deadlines replicate it better, and most I know in the workforce tend to agree. Honestly, the workforce hires plenty of engineers with way less than straight A's, and work experience and project coursework tend to be more important.

Which is why I think, if someone is taking theoretical classes like QM, algebraic topology, etc, it makes sense to grade them with the assumption that they may do research. I mean, algebraic topology is not about industry. If employers in industry want to hire mathematicians, it makes sense for them to interview them for a skills match themselves, have asked them to take some practical courses, or have a PhD and hire them to research anyway. A degree in math says the person is smart, and then one must
have a few additional indicators of willingness and ability to cope with the work nature of industry.

I do agree one must be careful not to make excuses though. I just am a stickler for grading being of the proper nature.