Timeline for Is it valid to modify a student's exam grade if you feel they did not earn it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2020 at 23:17 | comment | added | tbrookside | It's per se bad faith to proffer a grading system containing a minimum passing grade and then to renege on that system because you don't like that it resulted in a particular individual exceeding that minimum and passing. And the "noiseyness" of the subjective element in grading was already imposed during every individual act of grading a particular assignment during the semester; to retroactively go back, after the fact, and deliberately lower a grade you already gave is no longer subjectivity but deliberate, motivated malice. | |
| May 19, 2020 at 19:06 | comment | added | Kostya_I | @tbrookside, sorry, there is nothing in the post that indicates that noisyness has been accounted for (and it's intrinsically impossible to "account for" it - what would it even mean?), nor any indication of bad faith or conflict of interests. | |
| May 19, 2020 at 16:52 | comment | added | tbrookside | Grading is a noisy process, but that was already accounted for by the process that led to the student's existing final average before revision. Deliberately and specifically setting out to change it after the fact means that the entire exercise was conducted in bad faith. | |
| May 19, 2020 at 13:53 | comment | added | Owen Reynolds | The last two bullets are about discretion. There can be a small range ("bump zone"?) of scores where we look closer -- maybe one student with a 69% did poorly at first, but got stronger (pass them); another did the opposite (fail that one). The rest is optics: if we said 70% was passing, it's a bump-up zone. If we said 69% was passing, it's a bump-down. If 68% or less is a D and 70% is a C, it's a bump-either-way zone (which I've never heard of, but don't hate). | |
| May 19, 2020 at 12:14 | comment | added | ZeroTheHero | there is a important distinction: students are who passed “on their own” are not made to fail, i.e. students always get the benefit of the doubt. But there is (presumably) a published passing grade: the minimum grade is not decided “on the spot”. | |
| May 19, 2020 at 6:53 | comment | added | Kostya_I | @ZeroTheHero, having a "bump zone" is no different from just lowering the threshold to the lower boundary of that zone, so that does literally nothing meaningful. Also, you seem to miss the point: there's no "required pass grade" to invalidate. A pass grade of 73% means nothing unless we specify in advance how difficult will the test be and how strict the grading, which is never done to the degree of detail sufficient to distinguish 72% from 73%. | |
| May 18, 2020 at 19:27 | comment | added | ZeroTheHero | It is true that marking is noisy but that’s why most instructors will have a “bump zone” that will allow students just under threshold to pass if they are in this zone. But you’re suggesting that, even if a student passes prima fasciae on merit, one should use the noise argument to fail this student. This simply invalidates the required passing grade. | |
| May 18, 2020 at 19:01 | history | edited | Kostya_I | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| May 18, 2020 at 16:37 | comment | added | Ray | I disagree with the conclusion that the decision made was the ethical choice (largely because the intent was to make the student fail), but you raise some very important points here that should absolutely be considered when making the decision. +1 | |
| May 18, 2020 at 16:30 | history | answered | Kostya_I | CC BY-SA 4.0 |