Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (51313)	6/18/2002 1:20:59 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, we're just thinking about grades in a different way, then. When I was teaching, which I admit is years ago, before grade inflation hit, when a student did the level of work sufficient to learn the material and do all the homework satisfactorily, but nothing beyond that, the grade they received was a C. That was the assumed grade for success. If they fell short, they dropped to a D, or if they fell so far short that they couldn't receive credit for the class, they got an F. If they went above and beyond the standard of learning for the class, they would move up to a B or, if they did truly excellent work, and A. The definition of excellence was such that there was a clear expectation that not every student -- indeed not most students -- could achieve that level of work, either because they lacked the native ability, or because they weren't willing to put in time above and beyond the time necessary to master the basic material. Today, as I look at the gradiing in my childrens' schools, your approach seems much more prevalent. Whether that is good or bad for our society is a question it would be interesting to get into at some point. But first, I want to make sure we are in agreement on our basic differences of approach.