Testing Is the marking system for exams fair in different universities worldwide?

[leright]

Test scores and grades say little more than nothing about how much someone understands about a subject, period. As was stated above, from the graders standpoint, there is almost always no percieveable difference between the student that has a deep understanding of the material and the student that memorizes everything. This is sometimes troublesome to me, especially since some students will be competing for the same grad school positions as me and might have better grades but far less understanding, so no matter how much I lie to myself by saying "grades do not matter...learning does", grades DO matter.

So, to mathwonk, grades do matter, unfortunately, even though they are innacurate portrayals of someones capability and understanding.

I guess I try my best to communicate with my professors outside of class to at least show them that I have a deep understanding, despite my less than perfect grades, and that professor might write me a decent letter of recommendation.

 

[JasonRox]

Test scores and grades say little more than nothing about how much someone understands about a subject, period. As was stated above, from the graders standpoint, there is almost always no percieveable difference between the student that has a deep understanding of the material and the student that memorizes everything. This is sometimes troublesome to me, especially since some students will be competing for the same grad school positions as me and might have better grades but far less understanding, so no matter how much I lie to myself by saying "grades do not matter...learning does", grades DO matter.

So, to mathwonk, grades do matter, unfortunately, even though they are innacurate portrayals of someones capability and understanding.

I guess I try my best to communicate with my professors outside of class to at least show them that I have a deep understanding, despite my less than perfect grades, and that professor might write me a decent letter of recommendation.

Grades don't matter. A professor, mathwonk, himself confirmed that.

They only matter to a certain extent. If you got a B+ average or higher, then you're good. If you don't, then now I may become skeptical myself on whether or not you understand it.

I don't have the best grades, but I talk to my professors from time to time. One of them already let me know that if I ever need a letter, he'd be happy to write one for me. It was a great feeling to hear that. It was better than getting 120% on a test, which I never did ever do, but I know it's better!

 

[Maxwell]

I assume you're talking about a B+ in Canada, correct? Because a B+ in the US is roughly a ~3.6-3.7, which is very competitive and a fantastic average.

 

[JasonRox]

I assume you're talking about a B+ in Canada, correct? Because a B+ in the US is roughly a ~3.6-3.7, which is very competitive and a fantastic average.

I maintained a B+ in my first year and I never went to school. I doubt that's being competitive.

I thought it was more like ~3.2.

 

[0rthodontist]

At my school a B+ is a 3.3. But it does depend on the school. A B+ at Harvard wouldn't be unimpressive. For most of my courses a B+ here means you didn't get it or weren't thorough in your assignments.

 

[JasonRox]

http://www.graduateshotline.com/gpa/index.html

That's what I looked at.

 

[leright]

I assume you're talking about a B+ in Canada, correct? Because a B+ in the US is roughly a ~3.6-3.7, which is very competitive and a fantastic average.

A B+ in the US is about a 3.333 gpa. It is respectable, but not great.

 

[JSBeckton]

The tougher your teacher is the luckier you are. that is why paris island is tough, so the marines will more liklely survive afterwards.

As a veteran of the Corps I find your idealology a bit skewed. You cannot compare bootcamp to college. If you barely finish bootcamp, you are forever called a "Marine", If you barely graduate college, you are forever, "unemployed".

And besides, every Marine I've ever met has not had an easy time in bootcamp, I've had easy clases and hard clases. I believe the point here is that hard or easy, students deserve consistancy. Bootcamp consistantly sucks the same for everybody, not some people who get a bad Di or a good DI, everybody!

I think that if a student has one of those prefessors and has a solid B, he's not going to worry about that final too much because he knows that that perfect A he needs to bump up is unlikely with the professors grading. Now I'm not saying give up, a Marine never gives up, but he does know that the "situation dictates", and "adapt and overcome", well that might mean blowing that class off and investing your efforts where that are more likely to effect the outcome of the situation. Its called damage control and the final result unfortuante.

Professors do not always grade hard because they want you to learn more, the do it because they are miserable teaching and they want to feel good about themselves at your expence. Just my opinion.

 

[matt grime]

Professors do not always grade hard because they want you to learn more, the do it because they are miserable teaching and they want to feel good about themselves at your expence. Just my opinion.

Thank you for sharing your opinion upon my motivations (and others') for demanding high standards (actually I'd say demanding moderate standards); nice to know it's not because I'm an idealist, or wish for better for my students, but because I'm a bitter and twisted individual.

(And it's spelled ideology.)

 

[leright]

At my school a B+ is a 3.3. But it does depend on the school. A B+ at Harvard wouldn't be unimpressive. For most of my courses a B+ here means you didn't get it or weren't thorough in your assignments.

A B+ at Harvard is unimpressive. Grade inflation is a major problem at Harvard.

 

[JSBeckton]

Thank you for sharing your opinion upon my motivations (and others') for demanding high standards (actually I'd say demanding moderate standards); nice to know it's not because I'm an idealist, or wish for better for my students, but because I'm a bitter and twisted individual.

I can't remark on your grading because I have never had you. I believe that if there are 150 students in a class and they are all smart and determined enough to get into the University, and they average a 40% on a test, maybe, just maybe, its not the students... its the test. The best professor I ever had once said, " I do not curve grades, curving grades is a method used by professors who are too lazy to write a good test." I agree with that, and I know I'm not alone.

 

[matt grime]

I believe that if there are 150 students in a class and they are all smart and determined enough to get into the University, and they average a 40% on a test, maybe, just maybe, its not the students... its the test..

I disagree with your premise, never mind the conclusion. Getting into a university is not hard, in general. The standards demanded at university ought to be (and are in most cases) higher than those previously expected; previous performance is not a particularly good indicator of ability. Numerics are not important: the average student is almost by definition one who gets an average mark, it doesn't matter what that mark is.

Exams where students are able to average 60% or higher on raw marks are bad exams since they don't let the good students shine; the questions should be hard, the marks should be low, the good shall prosper (ie don't bother to inflate the actual mark, just give it as a raw mark, let the teaching staff then define the boundaries accordingly) and if none makes the grade so be it; there is no need to see 70% in order to be happy with your performance.

But of course I have a completely different perspective on it than you and wish for courses to measure different things than you do. I would, for instance, also demand that most of what is taught in the first two years of an average US university's mathematics programs be put in high school where it belongs, and I am equally depressed at the necessity to alter UK maths degrees to accept that even the well qualified students are not familiar with matrices or differential equations on arrival.

 

[JasonRox]

I disagree with your premise, never mind the conclusion. Getting into a university is not hard, in general. The standards demanded at university ought to be (and are in most cases) higher than those previously expected; previous performance is not a particularly good indicator of ability. Numerics are not important: the average student is almost by definition one who gets an average mark, it doesn't matter what that mark is.

Exams where students are able to average 60% or higher on raw marks are bad exams since they don't let the good students shine; the questions should be hard, the marks should be low, the good shall prosper (ie don't bother to inflate the actual mark, just give it as a raw mark, let the teaching staff then define the boundaries accordingly) and if none makes the grade so be it; there is no need to see 70% in order to be happy with your performance.

But of course I have a completely different perspective on it than you and wish for courses to measure different things than you do. I would, for instance, also demand that most of what is taught in the first two years of an average US university's mathematics programs be put in high school where it belongs, and I am equally depressed at the necessity to alter UK maths degrees to accept that even the well qualified students are not familiar with matrices or differential equations on arrival.

Getting a hard exam wouldn't be a bad idea.

I just think we must differentiate between hard and annoying.

Hard questions should be something where you need to "make the connection" to solve.

Annoying is just something everybody knows how to do, but instead you made it longer to solver. These types of questions are utterly useless in my opinion. They seem hard because no one bothers to solve such absurd questions.

Also, if someone really enjoyed mathematics, they should finish their mathematics degree with lots of background regardless of what school because their passion would have driven them to learn more outside of the school.

 

[Dumbobaby]

Getting a hard exam wouldn't be a bad idea.

I just think we must differentiate between hard and annoying.

Hard questions should be something where you need to "make the connection" to solve.

Annoying is just something everybody knows how to do, but instead you made it longer to solver.

I think it is also one of many ways to measuring one's ignorance.
If you have experience and a strong background on i.e math, you sure can understand how hard it is to feel when you fail at a very simple problem or is judged by so-called professors who are much more stupid, for example.

Also, if someone really enjoyed mathematics, they should finish their mathematics degree with lots of background regardless of what school because their passion would have driven them to learn more outside of the school.

Here is to say since what you say really makes me chuckle.
In life as a fact, it is not what you like or what you do not like that decides what you can get, but those that benefit you most or more at a certain moment urge you to make a choice...and you are not teh one who have teh right to do things you think you like. Professionals all have high adaptability to actively change their behaviors from time to time... Are you a professional enough to understand that fact of real life ? I would be delighted to give more details if that is not well understood..!

 

[0rthodontist]

What makes a good course?

Probably the (completed) course I got the most out of was my linear algebra course. The homework problems were really simple, the tests were really simple, and we moved slowly. In lectures, proofs were always done rigorously but we were not tested deeply on them. The instructor was a very good lecturer who had humility and was not afraid to be wrong sometimes. Despite the slow pace and superficial requirements, I found the time on my own to do everything else in the book.

The runner up was my discrete math course. This was actually two courses, and again everything was superficial and slow-moving. The lecturer was not particularly good (in fact she was nuts). I didn't manage to do everything in the book, seeing as the book was a thousand pages long and could probably serve as a text for a graduate course, but I went beyond what the course demanded.

What I see in common between these two courses is the slow pace and the focus on easy fundamentals, giving me freedom to pursue the subjects as far as I saw fit.

What if every math course were taught with an easy, simple, fundamentals-oriented approach like I described, with a requirement that each student go beyond that and do a large amount of self-motivated work in the subject? And I don't necessarily mean a project, just some kind of work, maybe meaning fifty challenging problems from the book (of the studen't choice) or some presentations of research papers by other people (again, student chooses the papers). The problem would be placing the extra work on the student's initative, without psychologically giving the impression of "assigned work," but ensuring that the students actually do a respectable amount of extra work.

Is my experience on what courses allowed me to learn the most different from others' experiences?

 

[JSBeckton]

I disagree with your premise, never mind the conclusion. Getting into a university is not hard, in general.

Sure its not hard to get into a University, but its not easy either. It takes some dedication and shows that one is a good student. I think your comment on the average being below 60% is just funny. A good student can't "shine" if the average is 75%? If you think that it helps when everyone gets a 60% you need a reality check. It might encourage a few but I bet it discourages more and takes the motivation away.

And if that's what you want to do, fine, the problem is that everyone dosen't agree or grade like you. It makes me mad when I fail a hard test and someone else with a easier professor gets an A even though I studied harder. Now this might tempt you to claim that a harder teacher made me study harder when in fact I just do my best and avoid that teacher thereafter.

I guess my point is that students want to learn but they also want their grades to reflect what they have learned, and with the inconsistancy in grading, I think that that is not always the case. Every section should have the same average. You probabally think that putting "trick" questions on an exam let's the "bright" students shine when in fact it might just be that a few people happen to figure it out, does that make them smarter or does that just mean that they were lucky?

Let me put it this way, I think that if you put 10 trick questions on an exam, and the average person figured out 3 of them, the 3 would all be different for the most part, that's your anwser right there and it shows that the "trick" question shows luck more than knowlage. Are you testing for luck or knowlage?

And as far as your comment on sub-par US university standards, I know that Americans have fallen behind the math curve but to enter college with Calc1,2,3, DiffEQ, and linear algebra completed is a bit of a streach. Are you telling me that UK engineering students enter college having completed all of those courses?