I’ve been graded on a curve, and I’ve done it myself a couple of times. IMO, it’s usually a sign of a bad class (too much material being crammed in) or a bad teacher (didn’t get the concepts across to the majority of the students).
That said, it’s usually done when it’s needed to prevent a significant portion of the class from failing. I remember a chem exam I took where a 16/100 was a C.
The basic idea is that grades are normally distributed (ie a bell curve) which allows you to find the average grade range and shift the letter grade (eg a C or C+). There’s some professors who take the idea too far and rather than working off of an actual normal distribution try to fit the procedure to a simply skewed distribution or use it to pull down an 85/100 to a C, but in my experience that’s the exception to the rule, especially in math/science courses.
You’re right, but it depends on how you want to think about it. They’re not necessarily graded on a curve, but with standardized tests you usually have both a history and a design target. They’re intended to produce (for example) a normal curve with a specific mean (eg mean IQ = 100) and they’ll adjust the test year over year to keep within those bounds. In other words, the grades don’t change but the test does.
Curves exist because failing 90% of your class is a really bad look.
I agree. My calc I professor would just silently scribble equations on the board, then turn around, gesture wildly, and shout “You see”.
I remember right before the drop date, I had a 34 in the class, and he took time out of class to beg us to study because if too many people failed, he might have consequences.
The only grade left was the final. I did much worse on it than the rest of the course, but my course grade shot up to the low 70s. Sure enough, I had the like 4th highest grade in the class.
I’ve been graded on a curve, and I’ve done it myself a couple of times. IMO, it’s usually a sign of a bad class (too much material being crammed in) or a bad teacher (didn’t get the concepts across to the majority of the students).
That said, it’s usually done when it’s needed to prevent a significant portion of the class from failing. I remember a chem exam I took where a 16/100 was a C.
The basic idea is that grades are normally distributed (ie a bell curve) which allows you to find the average grade range and shift the letter grade (eg a C or C+). There’s some professors who take the idea too far and rather than working off of an actual normal distribution try to fit the procedure to a simply skewed distribution or use it to pull down an 85/100 to a C, but in my experience that’s the exception to the rule, especially in math/science courses.
Also, iirc this is a parody account.
I don’t believe that standardized tests are ever ghraded on a curve.
You’re right, but it depends on how you want to think about it. They’re not necessarily graded on a curve, but with standardized tests you usually have both a history and a design target. They’re intended to produce (for example) a normal curve with a specific mean (eg mean IQ = 100) and they’ll adjust the test year over year to keep within those bounds. In other words, the grades don’t change but the test does.
Curves exist because failing 90% of your class is a really bad look.
Oh I’m not saying standardized tests are perfect by any means. Plenty of flaws.
I agree. My calc I professor would just silently scribble equations on the board, then turn around, gesture wildly, and shout “You see”.
I remember right before the drop date, I had a 34 in the class, and he took time out of class to beg us to study because if too many people failed, he might have consequences.
The only grade left was the final. I did much worse on it than the rest of the course, but my course grade shot up to the low 70s. Sure enough, I had the like 4th highest grade in the class.