Some teachers explicitly start students with a failing grade (0), and add points to it with each successive assignment, until you finish the semester with (ideally) a passing grade.
Under this model, do you think that “not grading it” and “assigning it a failing grade” are equivalent? If not, why not?
Under this model, do you think that “not grading it” and “assigning it a failing grade” are equivalent?
No. “Not grading it” would mean fewer points in the denominator of the student’s grade, where by “grade” I mean the quantity (points earned)/(points possible).
(Edit: “Yes” changed to “No”, which is what I meant.)
Why is a grade (points earned)/(points possible)?
Wouldn’t it make more sense for a grade to be just points earned? I realize that we mostly work inside a percentile system, but that’s for the purposes of normalization, not because we actually believe that 1 good work is better than N decent works.
Expecting assignments not turned in not to count either for or against the grade is sort of like expecting people who have done really poorly in Spanish class to speak worse Spanish than those who never learned the language at all.
Expecting assignments not turned in not to count either for or against the grade is sort of like expecting people who have done really poorly in Spanish class to speak worse Spanish than those who never learned the language at all.
What is socially reasonable to expect is beside the point. The point is that appealing to social knowledge to resolve ambiguities when it would have been easy enough to speak precisely constitutes sloppiness.
The point is that appealing to social knowledge to resolve ambiguities when it would have been easy enough to speak precisely constitutes sloppiness.
If we’re treating “sloppy” as a pejorative, then I don’t think this is true as generally as you’re stating it. By the same logic, we could say that measuring anything in units smaller than micrometers is “sloppy.” Yes, greater precison is always possible, but it’s not always necessary. This is actually a clearer way to describe what’s going on in the other fork of this thread—we’re disagreeing about where the necessary minimum of precision in language is, in that particular case. (At least, that’s what I thought we were disagreeing about; if you had a different idea, I suggest we either get on the same page or drop it entirely.)
It does bear on my original point; the teachers I’ve had that used such a system indicated that we had a score of 0; each assignment was worth a specified number of points (not a percentage score), and we would get up to that many points added to our score by completing it. It just seemed to me that you wouldn’t object under such a system, but I guess you don’t feel that way.
Some teachers explicitly start students with a failing grade (0), and add points to it with each successive assignment, until you finish the semester with (ideally) a passing grade.
Under this model, do you think that “not grading it” and “assigning it a failing grade” are equivalent? If not, why not?
No. “Not grading it” would mean fewer points in the denominator of the student’s grade, where by “grade” I mean the quantity (points earned)/(points possible).
(Edit: “Yes” changed to “No”, which is what I meant.)
Why is a grade (points earned)/(points possible)?
Wouldn’t it make more sense for a grade to be just points earned? I realize that we mostly work inside a percentile system, but that’s for the purposes of normalization, not because we actually believe that 1 good work is better than N decent works.
Expecting assignments not turned in not to count either for or against the grade is sort of like expecting people who have done really poorly in Spanish class to speak worse Spanish than those who never learned the language at all.
What is socially reasonable to expect is beside the point. The point is that appealing to social knowledge to resolve ambiguities when it would have been easy enough to speak precisely constitutes sloppiness.
If we’re treating “sloppy” as a pejorative, then I don’t think this is true as generally as you’re stating it. By the same logic, we could say that measuring anything in units smaller than micrometers is “sloppy.” Yes, greater precison is always possible, but it’s not always necessary. This is actually a clearer way to describe what’s going on in the other fork of this thread—we’re disagreeing about where the necessary minimum of precision in language is, in that particular case. (At least, that’s what I thought we were disagreeing about; if you had a different idea, I suggest we either get on the same page or drop it entirely.)
That’s an interesting question, of course, but it’s not one that directly bears on the issue here.
I don’t actually know the answer.
It does bear on my original point; the teachers I’ve had that used such a system indicated that we had a score of 0; each assignment was worth a specified number of points (not a percentage score), and we would get up to that many points added to our score by completing it. It just seemed to me that you wouldn’t object under such a system, but I guess you don’t feel that way.