"If 'everyone gets As', that means the laziest, dumbest, most unmotivated student graduates from high school with the same paper qualifications as the hardest working, brightest, and most motivated student. The result is that a high school diploma would mean virtually nothing and many employers would begin requiring a college degree for jobs that really shouldn't require one or give tests to applicants that would shock the weak "A" students when they fail these tests and reality hits" - Comment on NY Times article.
"Well written nonsense. Abilities are distributed on a bell curve. Not everyone deserves a blue ribbon. In nearly 40 years as a university professor I have watched institutions of higher education be turned into a business" - University professor comment on NY Times article
A recent NY Times Op-ed ('Why Can't Everyone Get As?- Excellence Is Not A Zero Sum Game) by Alfie Kohn questions why every manjack (or Jilljack) at a high school or university can't snag an A- and besides it shouldn't be a zero sum game. Well, I hate to break it to Mr. Kohn but it is, a zero sum game. Meaning there must be an essential delimitation of high quality grades in any given course situation else the grades become meaningless. Further, it then become impossible to distinguish actual high quality from mediocre or poor quality work.
Mr, Kohn writes, in defense of his claim::
"Consider widespread complaints about a supposed epidemic of “grade inflation” in higher education, a claim often accompanied by indignant expostulations about young people’s sense of entitlement. The reality is that even if more students today really are getting A’s — arguably a dubious claim if we look at transcript data rather than self-reports, by the way — that doesn’t prove these grades are inflated."
Yes I am afraid it does! Much of this can be traced to tests-exams and even homework assignments that are much too elementary for the levels taught. If an exam is proper for a given level - including a 3rd year Harvard course in astrophysics or economics- it should possess considerable discriminatory power. So, even in a class of 30 Harvard astrophysics over-achievers it ought to be possible to separate out the 10 percent or so who demonstrate peak excellence and really merit A's. This as opposed to having such an absurdly easy test that 40 percent or more get A's off it.
As I have argued in previous posts, the lack of discriminatory power in grading and the level of difficulty of coursework, assignments automatically lends itself to overly generous marking schemes. That is also in combination with the use of teacher's evaluations.
Basically, any student with more than air between the ears can extort a high grade out of a prof by merely the veiled threat of giving him a lousy evaluation. Since these evaluations are (often) the main instruments used to assess a person for promotion or even to remain on permanent staff (as opposed to adjunct) they are critical.
As for Kohn's citation of "transcripts" I have no idea which he's talking about but a study by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, and published in the prestigious Teachers College Record showed about three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are “A's or B's." This makes those A's and B's next to useless precisely because of their very commonality. An 'A' used to stand for academic excellence, but it can't if so many are getting them! It also renders the achievements of truly exceptional students ho-hum. How in the world can they truly stand out if middling or loser students get the same grades they do? It's preposterous!
Kohn blabs on (ibid.):
Yes I am afraid it does! Much of this can be traced to tests-exams and even homework assignments that are much too elementary for the levels taught. If an exam is proper for a given level - including a 3rd year Harvard course in astrophysics or economics- it should possess considerable discriminatory power. So, even in a class of 30 Harvard astrophysics over-achievers it ought to be possible to separate out the 10 percent or so who demonstrate peak excellence and really merit A's. This as opposed to having such an absurdly easy test that 40 percent or more get A's off it.
As I have argued in previous posts, the lack of discriminatory power in grading and the level of difficulty of coursework, assignments automatically lends itself to overly generous marking schemes. That is also in combination with the use of teacher's evaluations.
Basically, any student with more than air between the ears can extort a high grade out of a prof by merely the veiled threat of giving him a lousy evaluation. Since these evaluations are (often) the main instruments used to assess a person for promotion or even to remain on permanent staff (as opposed to adjunct) they are critical.
As for Kohn's citation of "transcripts" I have no idea which he's talking about but a study by Stuart Rojstaczer and Christopher Healy, and published in the prestigious Teachers College Record showed about three-fourths of all grades awarded at university level are “A's or B's." This makes those A's and B's next to useless precisely because of their very commonality. An 'A' used to stand for academic excellence, but it can't if so many are getting them! It also renders the achievements of truly exceptional students ho-hum. How in the world can they truly stand out if middling or loser students get the same grades they do? It's preposterous!
Kohn blabs on (ibid.):
"But here’s the key point: Many critics don’t even bother to assert that grades have risen over time or are undeserved. They simply point to how many students (in a given class or school) get A’s right now, as if a sufficiently high number was objectionable on its face. ..
Grades in this view should be used to announce who’s beating whom. And if the students in question have already been sorted by the admissions process, well, they ought to be sorted again. A school’s ultimate mission, apparently, is not to help everyone learn but to rig the game so that there will always be losers."
How in the name of Sophocles does Kohn come up with this codswallop? It isn't a question or issue of "who is beating whom" but rather who is deserving of the highest quality marks and the awards attendant on them. For example, the awards of Summa and magna cum laude are now almost meaningless because of the sheer numbers qualifying for these honors because of inflated grades. In effect the preponderance of the awards makes them less significant. Why not also just award Nobel Physics prizes to every top notch physics prof with a great physics theory? Well, because then the significance of the award is degraded, rendered "common". This isn't rocket science!
Nor is it a case of "rigging the game so there will always be losers", but if we are to ferret out the true highest performers with distinguished academic excellence then achievements have to be scaled by making upper courses much more difficult in content and demands. Thus, an astrophysics course, say AST 583 on stellar structure, has to be profoundly more difficult than an Astronomy (AST) 200 introductory course. That means a student who earned an'A' in the latter may only be able to snag a D or F in the former. The most likely reason? The level of mathematical difficulty of the higher level course is markedly greater and the student's mathematical aptitude is not commensurate. The student can handle the algebra for AST 200 but not the partial differential equations necessary for AST 583.
Is this forcing students to being "sorted again"? Well, in a way, kind of, but logically so because the professional or graduate level astrophysicist or astronomer needs to be able to use partial differential equations. We therefore must ascertain if the student at the higher level can do the math or not. If he can't then yeah, he becomes a "loser" with a loser's F. We do him (or her) a major favor - assuming they haven't already figured it out after two quizzes and withdrawn in time to avoid an F.
In the same way, in a medical school scenario one would like to have the discriminatory power of medical courses to ascertain - before student X graduates and becomes an intern - he or she has the medical basics down to not muck up a procedure. Say to deliver a spinal anesthetic without delivering 12 sticks in the wrong place first. Is this being cruel? Not at all, merely sifting through a population to identify the most qualified, competent people.
This is also why the author's next claim is absurd, i.e.
How in the name of Sophocles does Kohn come up with this codswallop? It isn't a question or issue of "who is beating whom" but rather who is deserving of the highest quality marks and the awards attendant on them. For example, the awards of Summa and magna cum laude are now almost meaningless because of the sheer numbers qualifying for these honors because of inflated grades. In effect the preponderance of the awards makes them less significant. Why not also just award Nobel Physics prizes to every top notch physics prof with a great physics theory? Well, because then the significance of the award is degraded, rendered "common". This isn't rocket science!
Nor is it a case of "rigging the game so there will always be losers", but if we are to ferret out the true highest performers with distinguished academic excellence then achievements have to be scaled by making upper courses much more difficult in content and demands. Thus, an astrophysics course, say AST 583 on stellar structure, has to be profoundly more difficult than an Astronomy (AST) 200 introductory course. That means a student who earned an'A' in the latter may only be able to snag a D or F in the former. The most likely reason? The level of mathematical difficulty of the higher level course is markedly greater and the student's mathematical aptitude is not commensurate. The student can handle the algebra for AST 200 but not the partial differential equations necessary for AST 583.
Is this forcing students to being "sorted again"? Well, in a way, kind of, but logically so because the professional or graduate level astrophysicist or astronomer needs to be able to use partial differential equations. We therefore must ascertain if the student at the higher level can do the math or not. If he can't then yeah, he becomes a "loser" with a loser's F. We do him (or her) a major favor - assuming they haven't already figured it out after two quizzes and withdrawn in time to avoid an F.
In the same way, in a medical school scenario one would like to have the discriminatory power of medical courses to ascertain - before student X graduates and becomes an intern - he or she has the medical basics down to not muck up a procedure. Say to deliver a spinal anesthetic without delivering 12 sticks in the wrong place first. Is this being cruel? Not at all, merely sifting through a population to identify the most qualified, competent people.
This is also why the author's next claim is absurd, i.e.
"This makes no sense in any context. Perhaps, for example, we can justify rating states or nations based on the quality of their air, health care or schools, but ranking them is foolish. Relative performance tells us nothing of interest because all of them may be shamefully low — or impressively high — on whatever measure we’re using. Comparative success just gives the winner bragging rights (“We’re No. 1!”)."
Again, failing to process that the separation of genuine quality from the mediocre isn't just a matter of subjective interest. It matters a great deal if an astrophysics student is given a pass in that AST 583 course, then goes on to muck up spectroscopic, astrometric or photometric data at an Observatory. It matters a great deal if a med school student is passed and allowed to intern (e.g. in anesthesiology) if he doesn't even know basics about anesthesia - and delivers an overdose of fentanyl to a patient. So no, it's not merely a matter of giving winners "bragging rights" but rather ensuring genuine recognition of competence, i.e. which says this person is truly qualified to undertake a photometric analysis of Beta Lyrae in an Observatory on his own. OR, to deliver an epidural anesthetic prior to a prostate cancer's brachytherapy template procedure - without mucking it up!
We see more bollocks emerging near the end of Kohn's piece:
Again, failing to process that the separation of genuine quality from the mediocre isn't just a matter of subjective interest. It matters a great deal if an astrophysics student is given a pass in that AST 583 course, then goes on to muck up spectroscopic, astrometric or photometric data at an Observatory. It matters a great deal if a med school student is passed and allowed to intern (e.g. in anesthesiology) if he doesn't even know basics about anesthesia - and delivers an overdose of fentanyl to a patient. So no, it's not merely a matter of giving winners "bragging rights" but rather ensuring genuine recognition of competence, i.e. which says this person is truly qualified to undertake a photometric analysis of Beta Lyrae in an Observatory on his own. OR, to deliver an epidural anesthetic prior to a prostate cancer's brachytherapy template procedure - without mucking it up!
We see more bollocks emerging near the end of Kohn's piece:
"Framing excellence in these competitive terms doesn’t lead to improvements in performance. Indeed, a consistent body of social science research shows that competition tends to hold us back from doing our best. It creates an adversarial mentality that makes productive collaboration less likely"
Most of all, it encourages the false belief that excellence is a zero-sum game. It would be both more sensible and more democratic to rescue the essence of the concept: Everyone may not succeed, but at least in theory all of us could."
Yes, in theory most of us "could succeed" IF we picked the right contexts and settings to do so. If, for example, we grasped our forte was in art and not science - so chose to major in the works of the "masters" rather than stellar astrophysics. But that usually isn't the case, hence the high rate of true grade inflation - not to mention the colossal rate of medical errors in this country, as well as academicians producing papers with suspect results that don't hold up to scrutiny. Demand more rigorous standards and competition and these missteps and calamities likely don't appear.
Another reason for lack of sufficient performance standard is entering 'winner take all sweepstakes' that do not ensure we will prevail over extreme competition. According to the authors of 'The Winner Take All Society' (Ch. 6, 'Too Many Contestants?', p. 102):
"Market incentives typically lure too many contestants into winner take all markets, and too few into other careers. One reason involves a well documented human frailty: the tendency to overestimate our chances of prevailing over our competitors."
Adding:
"The decision to compete in a winner take all market is akin to buying a lottery ticket. If you win you win many times more than if you were in a less risky career. If you lose, you earn much less."
One major example is the glut of those pursuing Ph.D.'s so that the over supply generates not tenured track profs but tens of thousands of adjuncts. If there were fewer people chasing Ph.D.s, i.e. who wanted to become academics, there'd be more chances for others to succeed, say in tenure track positions. But with the mass of newly minted post docs flooding academia, there simply aren't enough permanent academic positions available. The glut means universities can afford to offer only cheap positions with no benefits, e.g. adjuncts. This forlorn lot then have to patch together teaching at multiple sites, while often ending up on food stamps, e.g.
http://chronicle.com/article/From-Graduate-School-to/131795/
I suppose here too Kohn would whine about the "terrible" universities and cheapskate administrations creating "too many losers" with their "comparative rankings" leading to an indentured prof system. But let's pause to consider it's the sheer glut of apparent similar quality (via the Ph.D.) that created this cheap labor pool. This is given every manjack with that parchment now believes he merits the highest position in the halls of Ivy- but will now be brutally disabused by the reality of excess competition for those few choice posts. Cut the pool of hopefuls down by 50-60 percent and university departments would have to respond in more generous ways.
While I am at it, let me skewer another trope that's been making the rounds, i.e. in another NY Times article, that "maybe students are just a lot smarter and there is no real grade inflation". This hearkens back to the absurd premise of the Flynn effect, where most Americans are allegedly getting smarter and smarter each year as gauged by standard IQ tests. The phenomenon of incrementally increasing IQ first circulated in 1984, following a study in that year by James R. Flynn, purporting to show that citizens in advanced nations like the
Thus Americans – for example – have gained 3 IQ points per decade from the early 1900s to today, as reflected in both the Stanford –Binet and Wechsler Intelligence scales. By another test’s standards (the Raven’s Progressive Matrices) – for which scores go back to people born in 1872- the gains disclosed amount to 5 IQ points per decade. So a guy with the same genetic background who was born in 1910 and had an IQ of 100 then, would attain an IQ of 160 by 1970 thanks to the Flynn effect, or equal to the (accepted) IQ of Einstein.
Of course, the Flynn effect is supposed to apply to a statistical ensemble, not individuals - but I use the example of an individual measure over decades to make the point the claim is nonsense. Even if we just stick to ensembles, it is foolish. Using the Raven’s and scored against today’s norms, our ancestors in 1910 would have an average IQ of 70, or about moron level. By comparison, our mean IQ today – that is, disclosed within the ‘hump’ portion of a Gaussian distribution – would range from 130 to 150 depending on the test. For reference, 130 basically gets you into Mensa (accepting the top 2% of IQs) and 150 marks you as a “genius”. Are we all geniuses on our way to becoming Über-Geniuses? I don’t think so! Neither are all the cum laude honors recipients at Harvard really cum laude quality. They achieved that honor via a skewed grading system.
Most importantly, the ranks of neither Mensa or Intertel have increased markedly - nor have the potential members who would be accepted. (Taking into account all those who've no interest in joining either one). Select a random sample of the populace, say 10,000 or 50,000 – and dispatch them to sit the Mensa and Intertel IQ tests. Those making the cut will still be only 2% and 1%, respectively, as has been the case for decades. You will not find 50 percent getting through, or even 20 percent.
And you will certainly not find the mammoth proportions now receiving cum laude honors! An anomaly that suggests that either the courses taken are way too easy, or the professors - TAs are marking assignments, exams too easy.
Make no mistake, because of grade inflation, students use 'Rate My Professor' to avoid professors who believe the grade of “C” is the average grade and who set up standards that require students to do more than show up, read a couple of hundred pages, and answer a few questions. This then translates into fewer students in the more rigorous courses that also feature more no nonsense profs.
Bottom line: Kohn's piece is just another paean to entitlement or the next thing: generalizing honors (and A's) so any manjack can lay claim to them. Thereby destroying any special significance in the process. At the same time, he raises false expectations in too many that hey, they do have the right to get A's - even if they just show up for class.
No comments:
Post a Comment