The definition of unfair
So like I am sitting in my Chicano Sociology class and towards the end, the professor mentions something about the quiz being extra credit will only applied to those who are not doing well in the class. Here is what he said
I wanted to set the ground rules for the Pop Quiz. First, it will not be next Monday. Seond, it will cover the Law and Eduation chapters from my book and anything else that we cover in class.
It is something desinged to help those who are not doing well. Yet, I find that no matter what I propose to help those that are not doing well, those who are doing well, ask whether they can earn "extra" points. I am taking this under consideration, but I fear that we are playing a zero sum game. It reminds me of the Foundation Program discussed by Kozol, where the states help not only poor districts but rich districts as well, with the result that the inequities between districts either remain the same or increase.
Remember that I have already given Bonus Points on several quizzes, and that I am dropping the lowest
quizzes. It seems unreasonable for people who are doing well to ask for "extra points" on the final. If you have 100 percent of the points on the quizzes, you should be happy that you are doing well. You can't beat 100 percent of somehting, so with all due respect to those of you who may think this is unfair, I am inclined not to count it as extra points.
Aside from the fact that it is probably against school policy, that has got to be the most retarded reason to boost people's grades. I mean who the hell in their right mind would give extra credit only to those who are not doing well in the class. This just sounds flat out ridiculous.
Here is what I wrote to him
The fact that they are extra credit supposes inherently that there exist the possibility of having over 100%. The nature of "extra credit" itself is suggestive that one can go beyond the original means allowed in order to gain additional points through the course aside from midterms and finals.
More importantly, I believe that it would drive down the competition within class, or at least those who are doing well. For someone who recieved a good grade on the midterm, they deserve it I'm sure. However, if someone achieved the same grade through the use of extra credit while the former person stayed exactly where he is at, I believe this sort of egalitarianism, especially when applied to classroom grades will ultimately drive down the will of good students to compete. If one can get away with lower grades and end up with a higher one because of extra credit and be on par with those who are already doing well, what would be the use of studying?
If person A's score was 40 points and Person B's score was 50 points on the midterm. Person B can no longer get the extra credit. However, if Person A gets 5 or even 10 points on the extra credit quiz, they will recieve the same score as Person B.
It is unfair because
1) The education system is based on a system of competition. If it was not, there wouldn't be a grading basis at all. Everyone would pass the class and move on to whatever else it is the next stage would be. The point of the classroom is not to pass students but to pass students who are deserving.
2) Helping everyone as much as possible is not the same as equalizing everyone's score as much as possible. The Foundation Program is strikingly different situation than one seen here. As Gerardo said, we all started in the same place and had the same opportunity. The fact that we all sat in class the first day, saw the requirements, and decided to not drop signifies that they are willing to get a good grade (or at least a satisfactory one if they need it JUST to pass). Like Gerardo said, the extra credit should be given to all or not at all.
Another student from the class responded with this
If we are speaking of starting from the same place and opportunity, then it does not make sense to say that work and other classes are out of context in terms of this argument. This is not the only class that offers extra credit opportunities to those in need of it. It is my understanding that this is the main reason professors offer this opportunity. I feel I am doing fairly well in this class, though work and my other classes have definitely made it a challenge to perform at a high level. I do not believe extra credit somehow punishes those who are doing well because it cannot hurt your grade. In the end, I may not need the points but it gives me peace of mind to know I have the opportunity to get extra points in case I need them. If in the end someone has the opportunity to improve their grade through the bonus quiz, more power to them. For those that already have good grades, then you have less to worry about because we have taken 6 quizes already. You already have the 5 highest scores needed for the quizzes. People depending on the Bonus Quiz have the added pressure of performing well on that quiz. In the end, I wish everyone well, even those who do not agree with me. But to be honest with you, I am more concerned with my grade than anyone elses.
and my Professor's followup argument
I agree with Micahel. I think you should worry about your own scores, not someone else's score. My goal is to get as many people to do well in the class as possible. if everyone scores above a certain level, the grades will reflect this. I don't come in with the idea that I have to have a certain percentage of A's, B's, c's, etc. The arguments posed by Gerardo and Johnnie are interesting, and I find it interesting with how concerned they are with how others do in the class.
alfredo
At this point, I am freaking pissed off. How dare he "find it interesting with how concerned..." Here is my argument and response to both of them, respectively.
Response to Michael
If we are not being graded against one another, then what would be the harm in giving those who are already doing well extra credit. If we are to be focused on our own grades then what harm would it do anyone for someone to get higher than 100%. The only reason that this idea would be implemented is because WE ARE being graded against one another. And the fact that we are being graded against another, and thus creating competition, ought to inherently allow for the addition of extra credit to even those who are already doing well.
It's the principle of the situation Michael. There is no good reason as to why one should not get the extra credit even if they are doing well. The way I see it is like this.
If there is a curve, then we are being graded against one another. The nature of a curved grading system supposes that there are those who are doing well and those who are not doing well. But this system also presupposes a competitive system by which all students will attempt to be near or above the curve. This means that one should get the opportunity to get as close to the curve as possible. This also means that one should be able to set the curve as high as possible. If that does not happen, then there should not be a curve at all.
In the case that there is no curve, there would not be a single good reason why another person cannot get above 100% as said before. Either way, with or without a curve, the principle is that everyone should get that extra credit.
This is different from the Foundation program but I cannot write much more for now (I will later if necessary) as Ive already stated some of my reasons and that I have class in about 15 minutes. I hope that you and all those who read this will understand that I am not trying to deny those who are not doing as well the extra credit, I am simply arguing that in both a curved and non curved grading system, the nature of both insist that extra credit ought to be uniformly applied. I just want a fair chance at achieving what I am deserving of.
Response to Professor
If we are not being graded against one another, then what would be the harm in giving those who are already doing well extra credit. If we are to be focused on our own grades then what harm would it do anyone for someone to get higher than 100%. The only reason that this idea would be implemented is because WE ARE being graded against one another. And the fact that we are being graded against another, and thus creating competition, ought to inherently allow for the addition of extra credit to even those who are already doing well.
Thats the summary, here is the argument.
It isnt so much that I am focused on other people's grades, it is more so I am concerned about my own grades in relation to how the rest of the class is doing. The fact that I am worried about my own scores is indeed why I am making the argument. I am surprised as to why no one has made the distinction between the Foundation program and the extra credit situation.
I am not saying that there should be a certain percentage of A's, B's or C's, I am simply asking that each person gets his or her due. In terms of justice, as defined by many scholars including Rawls and Kant as giving what one is due, I believe that those who are doing well and are able to get additional points are certainly derserving and are due those points that they worked for. This does not mean that those who are not doing well should not recieve the scores, they deserve what they have recieved on the quizzes as well as on the midterms. They are more than entitled to the extra points. Among students, there will always exist a disparity in scores but when the increase of scores is focused on a particular group, then the classroom setting is no longer fair.
This is not about whether or not someone is doing better in the class or someone who is not doing so well, it is about taking an objective stance in how extra credit ought to be applied.
With all due respect Professor Mirande, getting people to do well in the class is not the same as giving extra credit non-uniformly.
If no one wants to read through all of that here is the crux of the argument. It is contradictory to argue that I am focusing on other people's grades because the nature of this non-uniform application of extra credit itself forces everyone to focus on their own grades. What I mean is that if what Professor Mirande and Michael argued is true, then I do not see a problem in giving those who already have good grades the extra credit.
The zero sum theory does not function here. It assumes that all students will score the same number (possibly all 10 or possibly all 0 or any number in between). However, since it is a quiz, the possibility of everyone having the same score is near impossibility.
Also, if the original idea was to take zero sum into account, it would be safe to assume that we are working within a curved grading system. And as such, follow my previous argument.
This is so retarded
I wanted to set the ground rules for the Pop Quiz. First, it will not be next Monday. Seond, it will cover the Law and Eduation chapters from my book and anything else that we cover in class.
It is something desinged to help those who are not doing well. Yet, I find that no matter what I propose to help those that are not doing well, those who are doing well, ask whether they can earn "extra" points. I am taking this under consideration, but I fear that we are playing a zero sum game. It reminds me of the Foundation Program discussed by Kozol, where the states help not only poor districts but rich districts as well, with the result that the inequities between districts either remain the same or increase.
Remember that I have already given Bonus Points on several quizzes, and that I am dropping the lowest
quizzes. It seems unreasonable for people who are doing well to ask for "extra points" on the final. If you have 100 percent of the points on the quizzes, you should be happy that you are doing well. You can't beat 100 percent of somehting, so with all due respect to those of you who may think this is unfair, I am inclined not to count it as extra points.
Aside from the fact that it is probably against school policy, that has got to be the most retarded reason to boost people's grades. I mean who the hell in their right mind would give extra credit only to those who are not doing well in the class. This just sounds flat out ridiculous.
Here is what I wrote to him
The fact that they are extra credit supposes inherently that there exist the possibility of having over 100%. The nature of "extra credit" itself is suggestive that one can go beyond the original means allowed in order to gain additional points through the course aside from midterms and finals.
More importantly, I believe that it would drive down the competition within class, or at least those who are doing well. For someone who recieved a good grade on the midterm, they deserve it I'm sure. However, if someone achieved the same grade through the use of extra credit while the former person stayed exactly where he is at, I believe this sort of egalitarianism, especially when applied to classroom grades will ultimately drive down the will of good students to compete. If one can get away with lower grades and end up with a higher one because of extra credit and be on par with those who are already doing well, what would be the use of studying?
If person A's score was 40 points and Person B's score was 50 points on the midterm. Person B can no longer get the extra credit. However, if Person A gets 5 or even 10 points on the extra credit quiz, they will recieve the same score as Person B.
It is unfair because
1) The education system is based on a system of competition. If it was not, there wouldn't be a grading basis at all. Everyone would pass the class and move on to whatever else it is the next stage would be. The point of the classroom is not to pass students but to pass students who are deserving.
2) Helping everyone as much as possible is not the same as equalizing everyone's score as much as possible. The Foundation Program is strikingly different situation than one seen here. As Gerardo said, we all started in the same place and had the same opportunity. The fact that we all sat in class the first day, saw the requirements, and decided to not drop signifies that they are willing to get a good grade (or at least a satisfactory one if they need it JUST to pass). Like Gerardo said, the extra credit should be given to all or not at all.
Another student from the class responded with this
If we are speaking of starting from the same place and opportunity, then it does not make sense to say that work and other classes are out of context in terms of this argument. This is not the only class that offers extra credit opportunities to those in need of it. It is my understanding that this is the main reason professors offer this opportunity. I feel I am doing fairly well in this class, though work and my other classes have definitely made it a challenge to perform at a high level. I do not believe extra credit somehow punishes those who are doing well because it cannot hurt your grade. In the end, I may not need the points but it gives me peace of mind to know I have the opportunity to get extra points in case I need them. If in the end someone has the opportunity to improve their grade through the bonus quiz, more power to them. For those that already have good grades, then you have less to worry about because we have taken 6 quizes already. You already have the 5 highest scores needed for the quizzes. People depending on the Bonus Quiz have the added pressure of performing well on that quiz. In the end, I wish everyone well, even those who do not agree with me. But to be honest with you, I am more concerned with my grade than anyone elses.
and my Professor's followup argument
I agree with Micahel. I think you should worry about your own scores, not someone else's score. My goal is to get as many people to do well in the class as possible. if everyone scores above a certain level, the grades will reflect this. I don't come in with the idea that I have to have a certain percentage of A's, B's, c's, etc. The arguments posed by Gerardo and Johnnie are interesting, and I find it interesting with how concerned they are with how others do in the class.
alfredo
At this point, I am freaking pissed off. How dare he "find it interesting with how concerned..." Here is my argument and response to both of them, respectively.
Response to Michael
If we are not being graded against one another, then what would be the harm in giving those who are already doing well extra credit. If we are to be focused on our own grades then what harm would it do anyone for someone to get higher than 100%. The only reason that this idea would be implemented is because WE ARE being graded against one another. And the fact that we are being graded against another, and thus creating competition, ought to inherently allow for the addition of extra credit to even those who are already doing well.
It's the principle of the situation Michael. There is no good reason as to why one should not get the extra credit even if they are doing well. The way I see it is like this.
If there is a curve, then we are being graded against one another. The nature of a curved grading system supposes that there are those who are doing well and those who are not doing well. But this system also presupposes a competitive system by which all students will attempt to be near or above the curve. This means that one should get the opportunity to get as close to the curve as possible. This also means that one should be able to set the curve as high as possible. If that does not happen, then there should not be a curve at all.
In the case that there is no curve, there would not be a single good reason why another person cannot get above 100% as said before. Either way, with or without a curve, the principle is that everyone should get that extra credit.
This is different from the Foundation program but I cannot write much more for now (I will later if necessary) as Ive already stated some of my reasons and that I have class in about 15 minutes. I hope that you and all those who read this will understand that I am not trying to deny those who are not doing as well the extra credit, I am simply arguing that in both a curved and non curved grading system, the nature of both insist that extra credit ought to be uniformly applied. I just want a fair chance at achieving what I am deserving of.
Response to Professor
If we are not being graded against one another, then what would be the harm in giving those who are already doing well extra credit. If we are to be focused on our own grades then what harm would it do anyone for someone to get higher than 100%. The only reason that this idea would be implemented is because WE ARE being graded against one another. And the fact that we are being graded against another, and thus creating competition, ought to inherently allow for the addition of extra credit to even those who are already doing well.
Thats the summary, here is the argument.
It isnt so much that I am focused on other people's grades, it is more so I am concerned about my own grades in relation to how the rest of the class is doing. The fact that I am worried about my own scores is indeed why I am making the argument. I am surprised as to why no one has made the distinction between the Foundation program and the extra credit situation.
I am not saying that there should be a certain percentage of A's, B's or C's, I am simply asking that each person gets his or her due. In terms of justice, as defined by many scholars including Rawls and Kant as giving what one is due, I believe that those who are doing well and are able to get additional points are certainly derserving and are due those points that they worked for. This does not mean that those who are not doing well should not recieve the scores, they deserve what they have recieved on the quizzes as well as on the midterms. They are more than entitled to the extra points. Among students, there will always exist a disparity in scores but when the increase of scores is focused on a particular group, then the classroom setting is no longer fair.
This is not about whether or not someone is doing better in the class or someone who is not doing so well, it is about taking an objective stance in how extra credit ought to be applied.
With all due respect Professor Mirande, getting people to do well in the class is not the same as giving extra credit non-uniformly.
If no one wants to read through all of that here is the crux of the argument. It is contradictory to argue that I am focusing on other people's grades because the nature of this non-uniform application of extra credit itself forces everyone to focus on their own grades. What I mean is that if what Professor Mirande and Michael argued is true, then I do not see a problem in giving those who already have good grades the extra credit.
The zero sum theory does not function here. It assumes that all students will score the same number (possibly all 10 or possibly all 0 or any number in between). However, since it is a quiz, the possibility of everyone having the same score is near impossibility.
Also, if the original idea was to take zero sum into account, it would be safe to assume that we are working within a curved grading system. And as such, follow my previous argument.
This is so retarded