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

[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?