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

[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.

 

[Ryker]

deRham, you make some valid points and perhaps my statements have been too strong. I am still convinced that in general there is a positive correlation between how you do on tests and how you do later on, though, as well as that there can't exist a significant amount of people that would function exceptionally well in research or demanding jobs, but who just do bad on tests. But I'm beginning to sound like a broken record now, so I'll leave it for someone else to chip in their 2 cents, as well

 

[deRham]

Yeah, the question is what the definition of very well is. I am sure most people who are smart can do B to A level work no matter what, but when one is comparing within that level, the means of assessment can make a bigger difference. And randomness in tests is one of the worst things. I feel asking students to master certain (not easy) ideas that take some time is good.

 

[jeebs]

I came to a very important realization a few years ago and it turned my education around. That realization was that doing past papers are the number one way to getting good exam grades. It doesn't matter if you understand every last word in lectures etc. if you are not familiar with the style of the questions. The exams that get set in my university all have pretty much the same type of question year after year, and once I started revising with them rather than just going through notes and solving problem class problems, my grades leapt up.