Re: grades, assessments, etc.

[Gary Turner <turner@MORNINGSIDE.EDU>]

> Note that in British universities there is a heavy emphasis
> on final exams (which are set by a university board, not by
> the individual course professors).  So there's centuries of
> data available for those who are interested.
>
> Weaknesses of the tripos-based approach include
> -- promoting slacking during the year followed by cramming
>    for the exams.

That sounds worse than it really is.  Cramming is not the night-before
finals that I find so prevalent here, but more of months-before-finals,
several hours a day, going over the notes and working problems.  Finals did
not immediately follow classes, we had a substantial break between (I was
able to schedule classes so that I had 2-3 months between my last class and
first final each year).

There are some other factors to be aware of when comparing the two systems:

Because there was no continual assesment in most of my courses (I went
through an interdisciplinary Math/Physics/Engineering), it offered
possibilities that are not available in a continuous assesment scenario.  I
was able to attend (or at least acquire the notes for) many more courses
than I could have taken if I was being continually assessed on
understanding. I could take courses that met at conflicting times and
obtain the notes from a friend in the same position.  I was then able to
study those in more detail when classes were through.

The counter-argument is that I was very self-motivated - I don't want to
sound pompous, but I was not an average student - just like the vast
majority of people on this list.  There were some students who tried to
slack and cram the night before.  They failed, almost universally (and that
meant re-taking the whole year in many cases; exams were offered once a
year and you had to pass a core set to move on to the next year)

More importantly, there were no introductory courses.  A certain amount of
physics was assumed (equivalent to calc based intro physics) or you did not
take a physics course at university.  Consequently, class sizes were
typically small (1 section).  My first physics class was special
relativity, my first math class was real analysis.  The entry level of
students is fairly constant because most students come in through the same
nationwide exam system.  This is not an SAT equivalent, these were in 3 or
sometimes 4 individual subjects.  A certain performance in those exams is
required by each university.



I mention these differences because they are profound.  It would be
theoretically possible to have a governing body at large universities or
overseeing several smaller colleges or high schools so that TAs and faculty
can "teach to the test".  It would, however, require a completely
independent body or I fear it would bring out the worst in people.  If
faculty were included on this body, there would still be the tendency to
be 'popular' at all costs just to get good evaluations.
I saw this as a TA - some TAs would grade homework extremely leniently,
consequently get good evaluations then have to curve those grades down to
be in line with the average (curving was done after evaluations).
Some TAs would not cover material that they knew would not be covered on
the test - and told their students this (to get better evaluations)
Having a TA proofread an exam was always inviting problems because then,
maybe even subconciously, that TA would help their students by steering
them towards the 'important' areas.  There was always a feeling of 'them'
vs 'us' between those who had inside information on the tests and those who
did not.
It can be done though - those nationwide test I mentioned are an example.
Students are taught what the instructors think they are most likely to need
to pass.