An A For Effort? Talk About A Lousy Idea

"Because, honestly, the only thing we look for in an intern around this joint is a warm body who can get to work more or less on time and remain conscious long enough to slog through some of the more tedious manuscripts that land on the editors' desks."

Well, that would explain Kirchik.

"Alternatively, now might be a good time to revisit my dream of becoming a concert pianist. I've never had much of an ear for music, but I bet if I quit my day job and worked at it really, really hard--or at least showed up at all my lessons and did the homework--someone would eventually reward my "excellence.""

Which would just give me the opportunity to fail you...

Spot-on.

This simultaneous lower and raising of expectations is rampant, and extraordinarily damaging. I think I first noticed it in elementary school, when I actually bothered to read the grading scale and noticed that a C is, and I quote, "average." Strange, that, when I was told over and over again that a C is basically a dismal failure. It's even worse today-I have coworkers fretting about their kids getting Bs in middle school, because a B means they can't get into college. With grade inflation, they're even right in some cases.

Also possibly relevant-I recall mandatory leadership material being part of my high school curriculum. For everyone. Somewhere along the line, someone decided that we all should be wonderful and unique valedictorian leader snowflakes and forgot that we actually need people to weld pipes and take out the garbage.

Somewhere along the line, people forgot that there is pride to be had in doing an honest day's work and knowing that even if you aren't the boss, you CONTRIBUTED to your community.

(apologies for the caps-we need basically formatting in these here comments allowing us to bold things.)

"I think I first noticed it in elementary school, when I actually bothered to read the grading scale and noticed that a C is, and I quote, "average." Strange, that, when I was told over and over again that a C is basically a dismal failure."

Evidently we are all Lake Wobegonians now.  All the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are above average.

"If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in teh [sic] book and does everythign [sic] the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves."

This guy clearly has undiagnosed dyslexia, which probably explains why he's working so hard for Cs.

On the other hand "I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B" looks to me like clearheaded self-reflection.  Although that may not be how it was intended.

Also: students think they deserve high grades, film at eleven.

This rant is soo five years ago.  The current trendy crotchety grumbling is to complain about how the internet is ruining kids' ability to concentrate and think deeply.

I can't find the study online so I don't know exactly what the question is.  The article presents it two different ways: students thinking they're entitled to good grades, and students simply expecting good grades.  The follow are all the later, and are all most likely true:

"a third of students surveyed said that they expected B's just for attending lectures"

"I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B"

Professor Grossman said.. “Some assert that they have never gotten a grade as low as this before.”

Probably more than a third of students could regularly get Bs just from attending lectures, and anyone who follows the reading and the lectures and still doesn't expect a B or better isn't going to be staying in school for much longer.  Grading varies pretty wildly so putting enough work into a paper to normally earn an A can get you a C if the professor is an embittered research prof.    That's a nasty surprise the first time it happens.

Maybe the kids get this from unionized grade school teachers, who themselves are among the most entitled beings on the planet.  Lavish praise for being a warm body with decent attendance, with no reference to actual merit?  That sounds like a public school teacher to me!

FWright, FOTFLMAO

I have to be honest, in my University classes I essentially seek to achieve an average of 80 on my exams, and year in an year out I average in the high 70's, that is for the students who attend class and do the work. Granted I am teaching English, which is not rocket science or statistics. I could not last as a teacher if I failed everyone, as much as possible I teach to the level of the class and not to the level of the material. I have known a lot of teachers who have taught to the level of the material and who burn out, or whose classes are avoided like the plague. So yeah, for a lot of classes if you do show up, work hard, do the work, you can attain a B average. I didn't say will, I said can. I also know a lot of my students pass on short term memory alone, that a few weeks or months afterwards any compositions they write will revert to the drivel that was there at the beginning. I just do the best I can.

Ideally Michelle is right, and for the Ivy league colleges what she says is fine, but community or state colleges you gotta teach to the class that you have, not some idealized version of what you hope exists.

From those of us in academia, thanks Michelle.  I couldn't agree with you more.  It's been difficult facing this mentality on a daily basis.    

Blame the parents.  I see it all the time with my two elementary school kids, one in 3rd grade and one in first grade.  My wife and I won't accept anything less than excellence and make sure they know they hve to WORK to get a good grade.  I have the attitude that nothing short of perfection is good enough as I get reminded daily that I have to meet that standard or else my job goes to China or India.  My kids better get used to that fact now.  

Why don't more Americans understand this?  My kids attend school with mainly affluent to outright rich kids, so no blaming "them po' folk" for dragging the standards down. I see plenty of well-off whiny parents protecting junior all the time.  No wonder the kids end up like that.

This goes all the way back to Prof. Tom Lehrer's rationale for "New Math." How you arrive at the answer is more important than getting it right.

How about requiring a bell curve distribution of grades.  That's what many law schools used when I attended (over 30 years ago).  Together with class rank, it really focused the mind, as every recruiter would ask class rank.  I understand that most law schools no longer require professors to use the bell curve distribution, and that the "best" law schools have even ended class rank.  

Let me push back and say that you're taking this line of thinking a little far, Michelle. Yes, I completely agree that we wouldn't be much of a functioning society if our sense of egalitarianism leaked into our system of credentials and professional certifications. But we're not talking about 3Ls unable to pass the bar, or aspiring actors being cut from auditions for the Royal Shakespeare Company. We're talking mostly (it seems) about undergraduates who are at once 1) at least encouraged, and often required, to take classes outside their expertise by an academic culture that embraces the liberal arts approach to learning, and 2) penalized by poor or average grades thanks to the hyper-competitive nature of internships, grad school, and to a lesser extent jobs, where the emphasis on undergraduate GPA will only grow as spots become more scarce.

I could write a whole other post on why I think liberal arts REQUIREMENTS are on balance detrimental to most students. But in the context of grading, I think we send conflicting messages to undergrads when we emphasize both generalized performance and specialization. I was a TA for Econ 1 at a large public university, where grades were curved, the econ-bound students sat with the kids who were just fulfilling a requirement, and the material was geared more towards econ majors rather than just the populace of bright kids at large. And I have to say, I was surprised how many clearly-smart students who worked hard, came to office hours, went the extra mile, etc., ended up getting Cs or low Bs. Given that the grading methodology was made clear to them at the beginning of the semester, I never felt I graded them unfairly, but I had the creeping sensation that a lot of these smart, hard-working, generally unspoiled kids would think twice before risking their precious GPA on another introductory class filled with "ringers" (who admittedly were guilty of nothing more than selection bias and being extraordinarily good at economics).

There are several ways to solve this: hold non-major introductory classes in particularly difficult disciplines like econ or physics. Make introductory classes pass/fail, or core requirements more flexible.

We could also take a long, hard look at the college prep/admissions culture prevalent in any reasonably good urban or suburban high school. The fact is, a lot of the kids who expect credit for mere effort developed this outlook in high school, where the administration genuinely wants to see their graduates go on the college of their choice (a good thing), and so responds by inflating grades, loosening requirements, and watering down the criteria for "honors" classes which get weighted more by selective universities.

I think you were to hard on Miss. Kinn.  

Why shouldn't a student that shows up to class and does assigned reading/homework expect that the assignments and lectures will prepared them to at least get a B on the graded parts of the class.  

That kind of student is well above the average student, and why shouldn't the student have an expectation that the instructor has the ability to instruct.

Peter.k - doing the bare minimum (i.e., going to class and doing the homework) isn't "above average", which is what a B grade indicates.  It is the bare minimum, merely a foundation for the study that produces work which exceeds, or doesn't exceed, the average.  In my view, you can still go to class and do all the homework and still fail the class.  In that case the message should be pretty clear - you just aren't cut out for astrophysics or whatever.  Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and move on.  

I agree with Peter,  you are way off the mark on Miss Kinn.  Unless you left out the context of the quote, it sounds like Miss Kinn's expectation of herself is that showing up to class, doing all the reading and doing all the homework she would earn a least B.  Peter's right, this is far and away better than most students.

The problem with bell curves is that a bell curve starts assumes a randomly sampled and large population, but isn't the population of students taking most college courses small and most definitely not random.  Its very possible that 90% of the students in a high level science or engineering course are smart, capable and hard working.  Are you really going to force half of their grades to be below average?

miller,

The quote was regarding that specific student, not that everyone should get a B, only that she believes she would manage at least a B in that scenario.

The article was juicy and the quotes were priceless, but a few points to consider:

First, grade inflation is not any individual student's fault.  To the extent a teacher or professor is grading tougher than everyone else, the student has a legitimate gripe, because the transcript won't end up accurately reflecting the student's relative performance, and they are playing the game according to the rules they're given.  Is it crass to view it as a game?  Yes, but more on that in a second.

Second, grades are important.  They're important to whoever is going to look at the transcript as a way to evaluate you, and they're important to parents for that reason.  Teachers and professors may not like to hear about grades or deal with arguments about grades, but, as long as they exist, kids care a lot about what they are.  Also, not their fault.

Third, let's be careful about blaming hippy-dippy supportive blah-blah for the sense of "entitlement."  The article actually points to somewhat different culprits: increased pressure to achieve -- meaning achieve the right grade -- and increased competition among students, all of whom use shortcuts.

Fourth, parents are a big part of the problem here, and it's not because they're loving or supporting their kids too much.  They are result-oriented -- that is, grade-oriented -- and the kids end up being that way too.  They don't give a shit about what they're ostensibly learning in school because their parents don't give a shit about what they're ostensibly learning in school, and, instead, want to see the right report card.  Because they are reluctant to face the fact that their kid might not be the best and brightest, they carry the delusion until a bad grade surfaces, at which point they assume that "something is wrong" -- meaning with the teacher or professor.  Often *they* argue grades, or the student is arguing the grade at a parent's behest.

The reason kids view the educational process as a system to be gamed -- with plagiarized work, Ritalin-fueled cram sessions, outraged emails arguing a grade -- is because they have never been taught *at home* the *value* of what they're doing other than obtaining a piece of paper that can get you to the next level.  In fact, the parents might not even perceive much value themselves.  Many adopt an adversarial posture toward teachers, as in, How dare you affect my kid's life with your grade?  Who the hell do you think you are -- you *public employee*?  Contempt is more common today than ever, and schools and acedemic institutions find that fulfilling their missions in even the most basic sense is an uphill struggle.  Now, I don't really think that the younger generations are populated by soulless shits, but I do worry a great deal about what strikes me as the pathetic state of our educational system even in relatively ideal locations.  And the problem I see most accutely isn't overpaid, lazy professionals -- although they exist -- but a lack of proper support at home, a lack of serious partnership between schools and parents, and a collective community-wide cluelessness as to what education is and what it should be.  When a kid grows up in such a culture -- one that doesn't actually value education or take it very seriously -- it's hardly surprising that they view the process as a tedious chore to be dispensed with using whatever tricks they've got up their sleeves.

csmiller- Except if you read Kinn's statement outside the context that the NY Times and Michelle Cottle have provided, she's clearly talking about her own expectations for herself.  She doesn't say she deserves or is entitled to a B, she says she feels she should be able to ACHIEVE one.  Now, maybe by that she means she deserves it; that's what the article wants to imply.  But it's not what she SAID.

If I say "if I get into work at 8 every day and work ten hours, I should be able to finish this project by Friday" nobody would think that I'm saying I'm entitled to anything.  I'm merely making an estimate of my own abilities.

Peter, the sad fact is that some kids just won't get it, or get all of it, or be able to retain it, or fully undrerstand it, or study properly for the exam, etc., no matter how good the instruction is.  Do you object to the idea that people are being evaluated according to their native ability to some extent, and not things that are more obviously within their control, like going to class?  If so, is that how you would evaluate a doctor?  A ball player?  B for effort?  The real world requires performance, and our schools and universities should as well.  There's nothing wrong with that or cruel about it -- indeed, it's essential.

Jhildner wins this thread.  Everyone thinks grade inflation is bad, but everyone also thinks their children deserve As.  

Acria, but what if Miss Kinn does all that and fails the final?  In law school, it doesn't even really matter that much if you show up to class all the time or do all the homework.  (Yes, that would be above average.)  Your grade is based entirely on the final, which is graded blind.  How would Miss Kinn fare in that environment?  The bottom line is that she needs to actually learn the material, to the extent she can, as opposed to checking off a to-do list, and she will be evaluated on the extent to which has, as shown on the exam.  What's wrong with that?

I am not quite sure what to make of this entry, or the NYT article itself. As a college student nearing graduation, I felt compelled to respond to this. To be sure, many in my classes feel that they deserve SOME credit for simply attending and trying. I think what the article misses is the fact that effort is one necessary ASPECT to doing well. I agree with Michelle that there needs to be a certain aptitude present in order for one to be successful. And I agree with her larger point that on a macro level, it is necessary for all of us that the best qualified, not the hardest trying, advance to their professional fields. However, my difference lies in the stereotype that college kids are whiny and spoiled. This does not apply to the many students I know and myself, who works 35 hours a week and attends college full time, I find this stereotype quite disconcerting. To be sure, there are some who complain and whine, but they are the minority. As for teachers and parents who encourage their young ones, what would you have them do? Sure, I would like maybe a more realist approach, but dampening spirits and not encouraging potential is a recipe for even fewer truly gifted individuals advancing to their fields. So yes, we should be rewarded for effort, but not on effort alone. We, as college students, should recognize that effort is necessary to our larger goal, and that is understanding and mastering our field, a task that is made extremely difficult by LACK of effort. The quote from Sarah Kinn somewhat proves my point, she says

"I feel that if I do all of the readings and attend class regularly that I should be able to achieve a grade of at least a B."

I interpret this to mean that based on her attendance and reading, the understanding and aptitude of her studies are implicit. The operative word in her statement is "achieve." This implies that there is some level of knowledge that has been generated by her effort and hard work. Her statement is not saying that she expects a B JUST for doing these things.

I may be wrong, but I just felt compelled to give a semi-defense of the college students I know, and the institution in which we operate.

hilder - You make an excellent series of points about the cloud of problems that surround our educational system. We do seem to have a cultural problem surrounding the value of education.

Nonetheless, I think that the point of the article is valid, and perhaps more important than merely the value of education: schools are teaching kids to expect success for minimal effort, and, in the larger scope of things, they are teaching kids not merely that failure isn't an option-it isn't something they need to worry about.

If kids grow up not merely seeking, but EXPECTING success, any encounter with failure will be a crippling, paralyzing experience, rather than momentary pain leading as part of a learning experience. It's like raising all of our kids to be like the geniuses who get into MIT and then commit suicide after receiving the first B of their lives.

A generation ago, Hunter Thompson wrote about "a generation of emotional cripples." He was speaking in hyperbole, but we seem to be moving closer and closer to it being a frank statement of reality, and it'd be nice if we could do something about it.

"phatkarp  said:

Maybe the kids get this from unionized grade school teachers, who themselves are among the most entitled beings on the planet.  Lavish praise for being a warm body with decent attendance, with no reference to actual merit?  That sounds like a public school teacher to me!"

No, fat stinky fish, this is not what they learn from the at least 95% of elementary school teachers who are committed, caring, and demand the best from their students.  I am sink and tired of having the debate framed by anecdotal tales about the small percentage of teachers who drag themselves in daily to receive a paycheck. I am not a teacher, but I collaborate with an elementary school in my work with high risk families and students. If the rest of this society -- you know this place and time where a common expression is "IF you're so smart why ain't you rich?" -- was as non-materialistic and dedicated as the teachers in the classroom, we'd be better off all the way around.

Teachers do spend a lot of effort, not convincing students that they are successful when they merely show up, but helping each student find an area in which they excel.

Additionally, in this district, teachers are prohibited from a holding a non-performing student back or getting special ed services unless the parents agree.  So the same people who don't have time to check whether homework is done are telling teachers what level their kids belong at....

Excuse me, in what time zone is it currently past 6:58 p.m.? Is this site moderated from Europe or something?

Nobody has mentioned another problem here, which is that collegeadministrations have all but completely given up on enforcing standards -- which means, backing up professors who try to enforce them -- and instead have responded to competition among institutions by embracing a view of students as consumers who, as long as they pay the money, are entitled to satisfaction and to take home  the "product" (which students understand to be the grade / credential).

I've been teaching college for 25+ years, and this is biggest difference from my own college years: Nothing matters more to my bosses than whether my students are happy with me. I am given virtually no instructions about how to grade and virtually no incentives to grade harder than students expect, but LOTS of incentives to make sure they don't grade ME hard on course evaluations (a system that is now completely out of control, and has been for a while). This problelm is only getting worse as fewer and fewer college instructors have tenure.

The upshot is that a great deal of undergraduate instruction, even at selective universities, is basically a waste of time these days. Students who want professional careers start to get serious -- and are socialized into (i.e. learn to accept) a more demanding system where they actually have to perform to be rewarded -- only once they start applying to law, medical and MBA schools; an even then, I imagine there's a lot of slacking until some later point when the actual competition for big-money placements finally gets underway.

Kylem, reading Miss Kinn's quote again, I agree with you that it may have been misinterpreted.  She may simply mean that she expects to be able to perform at at least a B level if she does all the work -- not that she's entitled to a B merely for doing the work.

Anyway, I still bristle at the notion that you should get credit for trying as such.  Is it so awful to contemplate a world in which you are simply graded according to your performance, as opposed to your good faith or effort or intentions?  That's the way the world works anyway, after all.  I'm sort of with Miss Kinn, here.  If you're smart and hard-working, you will probably end up doing well enough to merit a decent grade.  (Indeed, some who are smart and *not* hard-working will end up deserving a decent grade -- annoying but true.)  What if, however, you're smart and hard-working, but *still really don't get it*?  On what basis should you get a decent grade then?  I consider myself smart and hard-working, but I've run into subjects that are simply not up my street.  I have felt lost and confused.  A good professor will try to help such a student, but, at a certain point, you run up against an aptitude problem.  Now, as you know, you've got escape hatches, in college and in high school, so long as the course is not required.  I once had the stupid idea that I would minor in economics.  I went to a class or two and decided, Uh, no.  But if, for whatever reason, you try to make a go of it, shouldn't your grade simply reflect whether you were successful or not, as opposed to your moxie?

p.s.  I would probably feel pissed reading this thread if I were in college.  People some years removed from their own youth seem to take an unseemly joy in shitting on younger generations with condescending stereotypes -- an age-old preoccupation.  No, of course, not every kid today is a spoiled brat portending the downfall of civilization, I agree.  Still, you do see the sort of attitudes and behaviors discussed in the article.  I remember them from my own not-so-long-ago college days, and I know high school teachers whose stories are captivating and disheartening.

Jhildner, that's a fair question.  I don't know how Ms Kinn would do, but its not clear to me from her quote that she's saying there should be no exams and grades should only be effort.  It's sounds to me like she's saying if she did this work, she's probably get a B on the final.

On a slightly different point, how hard does everyone think undergrad actually is?  Ms Kinn is a junior english major, I may be biased as I was an engineer, but my experience of the liberal arts courses I took was that showing up and doing the reading was more than enough to get me an A on the tests.  If the problem you really want to address is low standards, how about making the courses tougher.  It's not the students fault they've figured out the minimal work necessary to get the grade they want, actually that's to their credit.

This is how to fix the economy - fix the students. Case in point:

I can't grow my business (which will then buy more supplies/use more services) because until I fill a certain position in that business, it can't happen. I've interviewed since early November about 50 applicants, signed on (and have released) 15 on trial. They interview very well (they can pass a test with flying colors), they show up to work on time, do the required movements of the job description. BUT, the end product sucks. Then they are shocked, SHOCKED, that they are not being hired on. I've heard more than once that because they tried so hard they therefore feel they have earned the position. I ususally restate my position that showing up and trying is the bare minimum, but at the end of the trial period if they're not able to do the actual job well I'm moving on. Were they not paying attention? Did they not beleive me because that has never been the case before?

I just want someone who can do a particular job well, because my business and any other for that matter requires that jobs be done well - my customers don't give a rat's behind how hard I tried to do it right, they want it done right.

JSmith speaks the truth.

acria, yes, I conceded your point about the quote in a previous post, and, yes, there is a standards problem.  I tried to make a point of saying up above that that's not the students' fault.  Where I disagree is with the idea that it's to the student's credit (!) that he or she has figured out the minimum work necessary to achieve the grade he or she wants.  Yes, that's to the student's credit if the student doesn't care in the slightest about anything the student is doing related to class and is only interested in a grade and a piece of paper.  That attitude may be common, but it's obnoxious.  I suppose getting a lot harder is the answer, but, as JSmith points out, the school's cusomters would have a problem with that.  So the crass, stupid game continues.

Further to my last comment: When I say "course evaluations," for those who don't know, I'm talking about surveys given to students at the ends of courses. Typically the students are asked to rate the instructor (as well as the course) on a scale of 4 or 5 or 10 or whatever. It's not unusual for instructors to be compared using these ratings for purposes of rehiring, promotion and/or salary increases. That is, it will simply and crudely be assumed that Instructor X is better than Instructor Z because X's average rating was a 4.42 and Z's was a 4.38. The ratings forms have rarely if ever been vetted for statistical validity or anything like that, so it often happens that these comparisons are mere mirages, not even real measures of differences in the instructors' popularity -- let alone of differences in their quality as teachers.

As I said, this is all getting worse as fewer instructors have tenure and as more of them are in "adjunct" or other categories where their only job is to teach, so they're not evaluated on the basis of research or other output. Obviously, if your job or salary depends on little more than the average of ratings that reflect how much students like you, then your aim will be to get students to like you. I mean, duh.

If grades (which are a crude proxy for intellectual standards, but that's another discussion) were really important, a very simple reform -- even without challenging the system's many questionable premises -- would be this: Subtract the average of the grades the instructor gives from 4.0, then add or multiply that number times the average instructor rating from the course evaluations. Then compare instructors based on the results. Thus, the new rating for Instructor X, who gives mostly A's, might be 4.42 + (4.0-3.5) = 4.92, while Instructor Z, who gives few A's and some C's and D's, would now rate (say) a 4.38 + (4.0-2.5) = 5.88. If you did this, there would be a stampede among instructors to give tougher grades. Simple..... but no deans will be the first to do it because they'd get an earful about it from students, parents, alumni, and their own bosses or trustees. And the people who become deans, in my experience, are generally not what you'd call profiles in courage.

ChillyOne, no, they didn't believe you. When people have been socialized into a certain value system (like, effort = reward), they simply cannot understand statements based on a different system (like, reward = performance). I've seen this many, many times. When I and my colleagues were required to grade on a curve -- a policy which, naturally, was dropped, because it meant A's were "too hard" to get -- even students who had already taken other "curved" courses were sometimes just baffled regardless of how you explained it to them. They simply couldn't grasp the notion that grades were based on performance relative to others, and they would still come to me insisting, "But I worked REALLY HARD on this" or "But I thought I did really well." I would generally answer: "Yes! You did really well! But other people did better" -- but as far as I could tell, all they were hearing when I said that was the waah-waah horn that used to play the voice of Charlie Brown's teacher.

JSmith - I agree with your assertion that teacher evaluations are next to useless (having been subjected to them firsthand, on both the giving and receiving sides), but I don't understand what purpose grading on a scale serves, or what purpose there is in giving poor marks to students who do the work but aren't "excellent" in the subject.  Grading on a true curve is especially obnoxious, because it guarantees failure for some students.  If every single student put in an excellent performance, well above what any previous class of yours ever did, you'd still fail at least one or two, and give at least half the class below average grades.  

What is the point in that?  It's particularly unfair since your students' grade ends up being based on chance.  If a student is lucky enough to be the one bright student in a class of underachievers, he or she will get an automatic A.  If that same student is in a class full over over-achievers, but merely bright and hard working, he or she could easily fail.  How is that sensible?  How does that prove whether or not the student is capable or producing quality work, or understood the material?  In the hard sciences, I know it's reasonably common for a high score on an exam to be a C, and to have the professor curve the class grade up based on that.  If the brightest student in your class could only score a C on your exam, you're doing it wrong.  To put it bluntly, you're a lousy instructor.  

I blame the adversarial relationship that seems to have developed between faculty and undergraduates, particularly at large research oriented schools.  Tenured faculty have no desire to be bothered teaching classes or interacting with the undergrad population - all they want to do is research and pull in grant money to supplement their salaries.  They have no motivation to learn proper teaching methods, or to understand how to interact with their students.  Instead, they teach in the same tried and tired ways they learned from watching their profs when they were undergrads, and then wonder why their students can't seem to learn what they're teaching.  Universities need to make a decision - are they about teaching, or are they about research?  The two are intertwined in some ways, but mutually exclusive in others.  Good researchers don't necessarily make good teachers, and vice-versa.  Perhaps if professors who wanted to teach were allowed to do that exclusively, without worrying so much about the "publish or perish" mantra, and professors who wanted to research were allowed to do so in peace (as long as they kept bringing in the grant money, anyway), then perhaps the expectation gaps between students and faculty wouldn't be quite so large.

I think most of what I want to say has been said, especially by jhildner.  But I'd like to just add a tweak and say that the problem is in some ways two conflicting world-views.  The student sees the grade vertically, as it were, as a functional element in a personal GPA track leading to up his or her future career, and therefore when the instructor awards a B- instead of an A- the student sees this not as an indication that they just aren't as good in that area of academic learning as in others, but as a targetet sabotage of their future.  The professor, however, sees a lateral map of the class extending horizontally in all directions, with a number of differently performing students delivering different elements of the class exam procedure more or less adeptly.

This is of course nothing new:  a class is always an important event in the world for the instructor, who devotes attention to preparing and grading it, and is conscious of the unique self-contained opportunities of a large group of young people who are looking for information, guidance, and expertise.  In contrast, a class is a routine event in the world of the student, who may be taking English, Geography, Biology, and Accounting Systems classes that day, and who therefore is a lot more conscious of the wildly different requirements and styles of each professor than the specific dynamcis of one particular class.

The divergence of vision has been exacerbated by the morbid sense among students that their GPA and future career hopes are being rolled like dice every new day.  I have come down to telling students that the more convincing transcripts are those with a few Bs on them at least.

I also think that certain types of class like mainstream English or History courses have an extra problem in that the students don't see them as requiring special preparation or knowledge.  They tend sometimes to assume that, as English is their language, they should be able to just read the books and max out on any exam, and I don't believe they make that kind of assumption when signing up for science or economics.  They have little sense of the kind of interpretive structures and languages that are needed to do a half-way decent job in these areas.  We should do more to help student acquire these, but that can often be difficult when classes are Gen Ed requirement-fillers and only a scattering of students are majors in that particular subject.

jhildner,

Ok, you're right, I shouldn't have said that.  Students should take classes in good faith because they are interested in the subject, etc.

Actually I think JSmith has it right, undergrad typically works in bad faith, and then in graduate school you are "socialized" into learning for learning's sake.  In fact, I would say in a lot of ways that's exactly what happened, in undergrad I focused on getting the A, and then when I got to medical school, it was pass/fail, so suddenly I was learning for myself and my future career.  Everyone learned what we thought we needed to be good doctors, not shooting for a particular grade.

Bcw is also right, part of the reason for the bad attitude among students, especially at research schools is the professor is usually only teaching the class to fufill their teaching requirement.  So if he/she doesn't care about teaching, why are the students going to care about learning?  And with faculty tenure, even bad teaching evaluations are useless.

Bewssv - I don't think it's true at all that you're doing something wrong as an instructor if almost nobody can make a B on your tests.  The high school grading system (where getting 90% of it right is an A, 80% is a B, etc) is really, really bad at actually measuring the ability of students.  The A students only performed about 10% better than the B students.  If the difficulty of assignments and tests is adjusted so as to bring the average down to ~50-60%, you can get a much better handle on students' relative abilities.

I'd also like to say that I believe the student "evaluations" of classes and professors to be so much utter BS.  Students have little to no basis to do any evaluating.  Many of the college classes I've found myself remembering with interest in middle age are the classes where I didn't like the professor, thought the material was too difficult, didn't do so well in, or wasn't entertained enough.

bcwssv: great post. I teach language, It is very obvious to me outside of the whole exam structure how well the students get the material. And my number one focus is teaching the material and I modulate my teaching methods based on how well the students are learning the material. Learning a foreign language is hard but every person has the aptitude, it is hard wired in our nature, what is not is the desire or the speed in which the students learn it. All of my students are required to pass 5 levels of language to get their degree, it is common for students to fail levels multiple times before they pass it, but as it is a language repeating classes helps greatly. I sure as hell am never going to fail an x amount of students because a select number excel.

I suppose the problem with this posting here is viewing all of learning as the same. I teach my students a foreign language, it is a radically different type of environment than learning statistics or history. Because of its nature, it is impossible for a student to expect high grades without knowing what is needed to be known. I remember when I lived in China auditing a Mandarin class the teacher said, if you can tell me in Mandarin why your grade should be higher, I will make it higher. I don't know of any other class where that standard applies.

I recall seeing an investment banker justifying his federally subsidized bonus by asserting that he worked very hard.

Wow, I started reading Michelle's post all nodding emphatically, then as she became more outraged, I felt my own outrage slipping ... and then I read tnmats's comment.

He wrote that he had two elementary school kids, one in 3rd grade and one in first grade - and that his wife and he "won't accept anything less than excellence" from them. Yikes.

And that his children better realise they "have to WORK to get a good grade." Well, of course, you have to work hard to get a good grade, but this is a value that is intensively imbued in kids who are still in first and third grade or elementary school? That "nothing short of perfection is good enough"?

Those kids are, what, six and eight? Please tell me this is dark satire... these are just *kids*! They should be out playing and having fun! Building snow men, making up imaginary sports games!

OK, I'll just assume it was satire. Because if that was for real, it would freak me out a whole lot more than some students thinking they should pass a test just cause they worked hard. It would also seem to me to point to a social trend much more pernicious than many students being lazy (what else is new). Cause I bet kids being raised from age 6 with the notion that nothing short of perfection will do end up a lot more psychologically damaged than kids who are a tad lazy and are upset when they don't pass a test even if they worked hard for it.

Also:

- What's up with the weird spelling errors ("Unvierty of Vermont") in a post that ridicules students for lacking the discipline to impose basic standards on themselves? Tad ironic, isn't it? (Maybe you guys should install spellcheck?)

- Comment of the day for FWright :-D

(Make that 2x "physician, heal thyself", in short ;)

jhildner and ironyroad:

The curve I mentioned was the school's policy, j, not mine. It also wasn't a "classic" curve; it was a requirement that the grades in any given class average in the low B range. Actually the required average was B-minus, then it gradually crept up (via policy changes) to B before finally being abolished altogether. Which is to say, the policy both "worked" and didn't in terms of what I think it was trying to achieve, which was to hold down grade inflation. Yes, it compelled most instructors to give lower grades than they would have if left to their own devices (although not D's or F's, because the target average was B rather than C). However, it was still subject to inflation, and ultimately was just done away with because of -- I assume -- pressure from students and alumni. So now we're back to the free-for-all.

But I agree with your criticisms, and if it were up to me, the whole grading system would be radically different in many ways. The curve was a blunt instrument for offsetting a few of its myriad problems, but not the instrument I would choose if I were king and had a truly free hand in the matter.

irony, the vertical / horizontal distinction you draw is a very good one, but I think the relevant "horizontality" isn't so much the instructor's view of the whole class as the system's view of the whole student population. And by "system" I don't just mean the university, but the clients for whom it produces grades: basically, other schools and future employers. The grading system is an intrusion INTO the learning environment from outside; its purpose is is to sort and rank people for the convenience of those outside agencies. There are better ways of doing that than we currently do -- but there's also a more radical question (last raised in the late '60s, then forgotten) about whether we should really be doing it at all. Nobody every asks this, though, because In today's university, while you're welcome to POSE as a radical, but you can't ask truly radical questions, especially about the institution's own workings: absolutely no one will listen.

Funny post, Ms. Cottle. As a PhD student I graded tons of biochemistry and genetics exams and, time and again, was surprised to see these college students coming to me thinking they had the RIGHT to high grades.

We would go over exams and we would see together: "Well, you didn't solve this problem, and this one and this one. Wherefrom do you want more points?" They wouldn't say, just sit there with a stubborn expression and saying they had been to class and did their homework... And they really expected me to yield, and were upset when I would not (except for a few -very few- times when I realized I had overlooked correct answers - and then of course I gave back everything). I just don't believe in things for free.

Often they even told me how much they were paying to attend the university (a top US research university). The best was a chap who tried to berate me for not "having gone to an Ivy college", implying I was not qualified to grade His Majesty's exam. I explained to him that I came from Israel to do my PhD in the US, so I couldn't have "gone" to an Ivy college. I also told him that one attends or graduates from a university, doesn't "go" to it. That seemed to infuriate him even more.

It's quite amusing how much they lose their temper when they don't get their way - which they have been taught since the earliest age to expect.

Funny post, Ms. Cottle. As a PhD student I graded tons of biochemistry and genetics exams and, time and again, was surprised to see these college students coming to me thinking they had the RIGHT to high grades.

We would go over exams and we would see together: "Well, you didn't solve this problem, and this one and this one. Wherefrom do you want more points?" They wouldn't say, just sit there with a stubborn expression and saying they had been to class and did their homework... And they really expected me to yield, and were upset when I would not (except for a few -very few- times when I realized I had overlooked correct answers - and then of course I gave back everything). I just don't believe in things for free.

Often they even told me how much they were paying to attend the university (a top US research university). The best was a chap who tried to berate me for not "having gone to an Ivy college", implying I was not qualified to grade His Majesty's exam. I explained to him that I came from Israel to do my PhD in the US, so I couldn't have "gone" to an Ivy college. I also told him that one attends or graduates from a university, doesn't "go" to it. That seemed to infuriate him even more.

It's quite amusing how much they lose their temper when they don't get their way - which they have been taught since the earliest age to expect.

I guess the Michelle does want to Cottle the youngsters.  (Sorry, someone had to say it.)

Don't you realize that discouraging competition has become ingrained in the educational philosophy that migrates from Columbia's Teacher's College for at least twenty years?

Just try being a NYC school teacher who thinks that teaching basic skills (literacy, critical thinking, clear writing) and grading according to BOTH effort and accomplishment is what teaching is supposed to do...and THIS is the philosphy of education that will be even more dominant now that the elitists are in charge.  

I used to judge NYC History Day until I was told that official NYC school policy under Bloomberg/Klein is to DISCOURAGE participation because it is a competititon.  That was the same year I gave up on my quest to teach history.  My student teaching was judged by how little I spoke and how much time my students were engaged in any form of group activity.    I was shunned when it was discovered that I was marking student essays with grammar and spelling corrections (the students were hungry for the feedback and suggestions).

The Bill Ayers School of Education as tool for social justice somehow won more than twenty years ago.

I taught at various universities for 25 years and received tenure and retired a professor of East Asian history.  I used different grading structures for the different level courses I taught.  I never held the students in an introductory course to the same standards to which I held students in advanced courses.  Yes, grammar and presentation were judged equally in all courses, but I expected a higher level of sophistication from students in upper level courses.  Different standards for different levels but all students held to them rigorously.  I always explained to students on every level that excellence was expected--that was the standard (which was the way my Chinese instructors treated me and my peers).  Anything that fell short of that received an appropriate evaluation.  BTW, an evaluation/grade/test score is not a measure of one's individual worth--it is the instructor's PROFESSIONAL judgment of the quality of the work submitted.  I never taught at an Ivy League university.  If the standards are laid out and the teacher adheres to them the students will live up to the expectations.  At least that was my experience.

Oops, the comments on grading curves were bcwssv's, not jhildner's. Sorry, guess I need new reading glasses.

We tried this routine once on one of our professors in engineering school. He seemed torn between laughing and hitting us over the head with a stick.

He was pretty clear on something that we found to be very, very true in life - all that matters is that you get the right answer. When you are building something, it doesn't matter if you set the problem up properly, or work really hard on it, or do your best. All that matters is that you do it right, because if you don't it won't work. Or, if you're making a building or a bridge, it will fall down and kill people. True fact.

Of course, we were dealing with mother nature, who is rather unsympathetic.

On the other hand, has anyone read Outliers? Gladwell talks about the successful kids who are trained to advocate for themselves. I wonder if we're just seeing kids pushing the system to get what they can. Let's face it, it's a good skill in the real world. Unfortunately, you do have to deliver on occasion...