(no subject)
just for everyone's sake, when you look up the word bullshit in the dictionary, this is what you'll see:
a) a math professor who does not believe in partial credit, but still issues tests where 70% of the points stem from one question, which involves multiple comprehensive calculations.
b) a student who knows psychological stats like it's his job, but ends up with a D- instead of an A- on his exam because of said professor's policy, despite showing all of his virtually correct work.
[7 steps + writing down 401.87 instead of his actual calculation 410.87 in step 5 (1 step = 10 points) ]= 40/70
(40/70) + one other really stupid fucking error = 60/100
c) said professor refuses any alternative said student suggests, claiming that "30 points in the end won't make much of a difference."
i was so irate that i literally could not figure out a way to channel it, so i just sat quietly in my car and stewed in my furiousness.
then i regained my senses (after compiling multiple ulcers) and wrote this email:
"Thirty points in your class translates into a touch over 4%.
According to your grading scale, once you get outside of the A
range, that 4% is equivalent to a third of a grade, which is
then roughly equivalent to a .33 points on my gpa. To claim
it won't make much of a difference does not seem correct.
I've never had a math professor who didn't believe in partial
credit, and although I understand your reasons for doing so,
test formats then become an issue. To have a 10 question test
worth 100 points is not really a problem, it's the fact that 7
of those questions built off each other. Had I made an error
in calculating the total degrees of freedom (as opposed to a
simple miscue in reading off the calculation from my
calculator) I theoretically would have scored a 30, not a very
accurate depiction of my knowledge in the subject, which is
what test examinations are supposed to represent. Since I
scored a 22 on the pre-test, I could guarantee you that I
would score at least a 90 on any similar test of ANOVAs right now.
I know time constraints are the reason for your test format,
but it appears that a credit/no credit ideology coupled with
multiple comprehensive calculation questions does not
accurately reflect what I've learned as a student.
And if this is how it has to be, then it would make sense to
increase the extra credit possibility. My developmental
psychology teacher gave us 2 points per credit with a maximum
of 20 points. I've already garnered the maximum 10 points for
your class, as well as 18 points for her class.
As it stands right now, I cannot come out of this class with
anything higher than a 87%. Those 30 points pushes that
possibility up to a 91%. That seems like a pretty significant
difference to me. I mean no disrespect whatsoever and I do
not doubt your teaching capabilities (in fact you are my best
professor this semester) but I have an extremely solid grasp
for these concepts, and it seems mightily unfair for it to be
portrayed differently."
-Jeremy
by the way, the 22 on the pre-test was in points, out of a possible 20.
yay? nay?
a) a math professor who does not believe in partial credit, but still issues tests where 70% of the points stem from one question, which involves multiple comprehensive calculations.
b) a student who knows psychological stats like it's his job, but ends up with a D- instead of an A- on his exam because of said professor's policy, despite showing all of his virtually correct work.
[7 steps + writing down 401.87 instead of his actual calculation 410.87 in step 5 (1 step = 10 points) ]= 40/70
(40/70) + one other really stupid fucking error = 60/100
c) said professor refuses any alternative said student suggests, claiming that "30 points in the end won't make much of a difference."
i was so irate that i literally could not figure out a way to channel it, so i just sat quietly in my car and stewed in my furiousness.
then i regained my senses (after compiling multiple ulcers) and wrote this email:
"Thirty points in your class translates into a touch over 4%.
According to your grading scale, once you get outside of the A
range, that 4% is equivalent to a third of a grade, which is
then roughly equivalent to a .33 points on my gpa. To claim
it won't make much of a difference does not seem correct.
I've never had a math professor who didn't believe in partial
credit, and although I understand your reasons for doing so,
test formats then become an issue. To have a 10 question test
worth 100 points is not really a problem, it's the fact that 7
of those questions built off each other. Had I made an error
in calculating the total degrees of freedom (as opposed to a
simple miscue in reading off the calculation from my
calculator) I theoretically would have scored a 30, not a very
accurate depiction of my knowledge in the subject, which is
what test examinations are supposed to represent. Since I
scored a 22 on the pre-test, I could guarantee you that I
would score at least a 90 on any similar test of ANOVAs right now.
I know time constraints are the reason for your test format,
but it appears that a credit/no credit ideology coupled with
multiple comprehensive calculation questions does not
accurately reflect what I've learned as a student.
And if this is how it has to be, then it would make sense to
increase the extra credit possibility. My developmental
psychology teacher gave us 2 points per credit with a maximum
of 20 points. I've already garnered the maximum 10 points for
your class, as well as 18 points for her class.
As it stands right now, I cannot come out of this class with
anything higher than a 87%. Those 30 points pushes that
possibility up to a 91%. That seems like a pretty significant
difference to me. I mean no disrespect whatsoever and I do
not doubt your teaching capabilities (in fact you are my best
professor this semester) but I have an extremely solid grasp
for these concepts, and it seems mightily unfair for it to be
portrayed differently."
-Jeremy
by the way, the 22 on the pre-test was in points, out of a possible 20.
yay? nay?