Forums → WEPR → Do Grades Prohibit Real Learning?
| 90 | 22778 |
I have recently read an article stating that grades make students only focus on homework and cramming before tests and they don't really absorb the material. to be honest i can agree, as a student i feel that i forget all my information of the years because i only focused on cramming for the test. Do you think that this is true? and what would be a new system to test the intelligence of the modern day student?
- 90 Replies
I've thought long and hard about this subject and here are my conclusions.
1) Grades in themselves are not bad. They are a gauge. They tell how much you know on that subject.
2) Grades/Test results have been severely perverted by the school system to the point where learning is secondary to getting the grade. So long as you can pass the test, you're "good" and that's all that matters.
3) Homework and other such activities should be for the benefit of learning, NOT to pad your grade in case you do badly on a test.
4) You should not be able to pass a class if you fail the final. "Oh, I got a 60% on my final, which tests on everything this class taught, but since I did all my homework and got A's and B's on my quiz's (which I last minute crammed for and now have absolutely no memory of) I got a B in the class!"
School should be about learning, but it's not. School is about putting up with all the bull**** and proving that you can do what you're told, when you're told.
4) You should not be able to pass a class if you fail the final. "Oh, I got a 60% on my final, which tests on everything this class taught, but since I did all my homework and got A's and B's on my quiz's (which I last minute crammed for and now have absolutely no memory of) I got a B in the class!"
Well is it only the final grade that gets counted there? Because over here, we have assignments and tests that count as well, though homework doesn't. So it evens out with the Finals to get the last grade.
All grades do is just remind you just how apathetic you are.... or have been. If you are in fact "smart" and "intelligent," then you're not going to fail.... as long as you're not lazy. You can't always go through life wikipedia'ing everything and re-learning it when you need it. Some jobs demand instant recall for high pressure situations. If you can't perform under pressure, then that's your problem. Grades aren't really for you, they're for your transcripts that get sent out to other places you'll apply to. You'll say that grades don't work for every body... well I'd say that's also the case with your way. College, for me, has been a night and day difference with high school. It's harder for me to study without the structure of high school. The less they give out that is to be graded, the less I study. If they didn't grade, then I wouldn't study. If my biochem teacher said "here are the 20 amino acids.... you will not be tested on how to draw their structures," then I wouldn't bother learning them. With as lazy as people are... grades are pretty much the only thing that make a lot of people learn at all. We all have our subjects that we just loooooooovvvvvveeeeeeeee to turbo nerd over, but there are others that we would rather sleep through than pay attention.
I don't see how knowing that when this experiment is going to take place could do anything other than skew the results.... they'd either work to do better than normal to make sure they're not graded in the future or others would sleep more knowing that they can.... if you don't tell them when it happens, then wouldn't they just work like normal b/c they don't know when they're not going to be truly graded? I don't see how you can actually legitimately test it.
School should be about learning, but it's not. School is about putting up with all the bull**** and proving that you can do what you're told, when you're told.
Yup. As long as you do what is asked, (which should be simple at that grade level) you will always pass. Often with B's or even A's.
1) Grades in themselves are not bad. They are a gauge. They tell how much you know on that subject.
Often. I know this kid who is much better at a subject then I am. Though my grade is higher. This is only because I do the work.
You can't always go through life wikipedia'ing everything and re-learning it when you need it. Some jobs demand instant recall for high pressure situations. If you can't perform under pressure, then that's your problem.
Yep, one thing good about exams and grades is that it forces you into a pressure cooker environment. Which, is just a taste of your coming work life.
Well is it only the final grade that gets counted there? Because over here, we have assignments and tests that count as well, though homework doesn't. So it evens out with the Finals to get the last grade.
My point is, you should not be considered to pass the class if you essentially fail the final, which tests you over -everything- you supposedly learned. How has the class achieved its goal if students can "ass" it without knowing half of the material?
I personally think that classes should not have a "grade" at all (aside from using it as a way to tell students how many questions they got right, I mean %'s back, not A-F) and that you should simply have to take a test to pass the class. If you can pass the test (passing would be 90% or better, showing that you DO know the material) then you go onto the next class. Screw GPAs, that's not learning. There should simply be a list of what classes you have taken, and which you have passed. Does it matter if it took you 10 times to learn the material? Not if you know it now.
passing would be 90% or better, showing that you DO know the material)
As you progress up the education bar, getting an A is harder. It was 90% when I was in Primary (Elementary) School, 80% when I was in Secondary (What's the equivalent?), and now it's 70% (I'm 17 now).
It's not possible to pass based on just 90%, because some subjects are well, subjective. Lit essays for one, don't have a structured marking criteria.
Does it matter if it took you 10 times to learn the material? Not if you know it now.
I'm not sure how it works over there, but if you took 10 times whilst others took once or twice, it clearly shows who comes out tops, and therefore is more desirable to employers.
As you progress up the education bar, getting an A is harder. It was 90% when I was in Primary (Elementary) School, 80% when I was in Secondary (What's the equivalent?), and now it's 70% (I'm 17 now).
Uh, as you gave it, it got easier.
It's not possible to pass based on just 90%, because some subjects are well, subjective. Lit essays for one, don't have a structured marking criteria.
I realize this, and of course individual subjects and things would account for this. The point is, you shouldn't pass a class if you can't retain the information.
I'm not sure how it works over there, but if you took 10 times whilst others took once or twice, it clearly shows who comes out tops, and therefore is more desirable to employers.
Here if you took say, a math class 10 times and failed it all but once, your GPA would now be horrible because you have 9 F's averaged in with your other class grades.
I learn the material. I fail my classes. So what?
Due to my likelihood of not going to college, I'm probably a bit freer than my peers. Still, the letters should really matter to anyone. Just try, and it comes.
Or be like me and never study and still pass higher than most of your classmates... or fail worse than the dumbest. It depends.
Letters, in summary, are pointless. They should matter to college, not to the person receiving them. I also think people should be allowed the choice of whether they think they're capable of moving on or not, especially at the high school level. Of course everyone is going to chose to move on, but they're just going to hurt themselves in the long run by bombing the next class even worse, if they scored poorly.
And homework? **** homework.
Uh, as you gave it, it got easier.
No, it got scaled down precisely because it got harder to score. I average anywhere from 60% to 70% for my tests, and my essays generally get a 16 out of 25.
The point is, you shouldn't pass a class if you can't retain the information.
Lots of tests aren't based on spoonfeeding and memorization. Lit essays as mentioned earlier are basically just thinking exercises on the spot, with an unseen poem or prose that you analyse to the best of your ability.
Here if you took say, a math class 10 times and failed it all but once, your GPA would now be horrible because you have 9 F's averaged in with your other class grades.
I know that, since we use the GPA system as well, though people tend to understand that, and hence look more at individual grades. At least here.
I learn the material. I fail my classes. So what?
If the school system weren't corrupt, learning the material and passing the classes would be one in the same.
Or be like me and never study and still pass higher than most of your classmates...
Which is what I did, and I got A's on almost all the tests/quiz's (I only don't when I just don't pay attention because I really hate the modern concept of school with all my being) and yet got an D's-C's in classes because I didn't do the homework or in class busy work.
They should matter to college
No. What a college should see is, "Oh, this person passed this class. They must know what they're doing." If you just -can't- pass that class, then you shouldn't be taking higher levels of it anyways.
Lit essays as mentioned earlier are basically just thinking exercises on the spot, with an unseen poem or prose that you analyse to the best of your ability.
I've got a whole other beef with Writing/Grammar courses that I probably shouldn't go into for fear of derailing the thread.
though people tend to understand that,
Colleges here don't. I went to an interview with a college here and they said, "Your test scores are very good, but your GPA is too low for us to accept you."
No. What a college should see is, "Oh, this person passed this class. They must know what they're doing."
Colleges don't want to see that you can do something, they want to see if you're smart enough to soak up new material, especially advanced stuff. If you get a low C in pre-cal, they probably don't want you for their advanced mathematics and physics departments. Numbers mean a lot when comparing different individuals as well. They want the best and brightest, and if one person has a 4.998 GPA and another has a 4.999, then the college knows who to pick. Some Joe off the street might be able to do it, or they could have the next Steven Hawking. They both passed the class, but who's really better?
If the school system weren't corrupt, learning the material and passing the classes would be one in the same.
I agree with you in that there should be more emphasis on actually learning material as opposed to simply memorizing it, but I think effort and one's work ethic should also be factored in. If someone knows everything covered in the class but doesn't do very much homework because it's "beneath them," then that shows poor work ethic, which nobody wants in an employee. When starting at a job, one can't just ignore something a boss tells them to do because it's too easy for them or they don't feel like doing it. I'd rather hire someone of average intelligence who completes all of their work on time than a genius who (for example) is an amazing presenter but doesn't every do paperwork because they view it as pointless.
If the school system weren't corrupt, learning the material and passing the classes would be one in the same.
I agree. Sometimes (actually most of the time) when a student is doing poorly, perhaps from a mental disorder, they tend to get 'help' (the type of help where the teacher gives them answers or simply does it for them) so they continue on to the next grade level without learning anything other than "someone will do it for me all the time".
Thread is locked!