Hacker News Reader

Comment by thomasahle | Hacker News Reader

The problem is when the grades given on assignments influence what goes on your final exam papers.

At a university, only the final exam should count. This way you can give honest feedback, and the student doesn't feel obligated to point out every little mistake to try to make you change your decision. It also allows them to misunderstand things at first, but then 'get' it later.

Of course universities don't like this, since they don't consider students mature enough that they do the homework if it doesn't "count".

View on HN

Really? Spreading grades out among various assignments and tests is how I managed to pass university (I coincidentally also attended the University of Calgary, hi rdlecler1!). I would have imploded if it all came down to a single giant exam. Why the heck would you want academic achievement to come down to a handful of hours of actual performance? What goal does that serve? University isn't the Olympics.

The true answer is: No grades should matter except the final exam and you should be able to take the final exam as many times as you want. (With a reasonable minimum period between retakes, possibly increasing each time.)

If you take AC motors, and fail, and study your ass off and six months later can pass it with 100%, shouldn't that really be... your actual grade? Isn't a grade supposed to represent your ability and understanding of a topic?

And then almost magically: health problems, study problems, (most) test anxiety, and other problems no longer actually matter.

A grade is supposed to represent your ability and understanding of a topic, but that's only half the equation. Are exams an adequate proxy for ability and understanding of a topic? They aren't for me. When I want to understand something, I create something which requires and demonstrates that understanding - this could be a Wikipedia article, a piece of software, or a lecture. Nothing of value is demonstrated by sitting down for a few hours under extreme pressure and regurgitating my "understanding".

I've never understood how someone could master a topic yet could not answer questions about it. I know from my own personal experience that when I bombed an exam, it's because I simply did not understand the material. When I did well on an exam, I had corresponding confidence that I understood it.

It is the difference between knowing "given a task in this knowledge area, I can accomplish it" and uselessly loading up on all that information to perform in a purely artificial situation the likes of which is never seen again.

So, good preparation for how interviews work, then?

Conversely, I was able to pass (with As) some physics exams without really understanding. That became painfully obvious in my solid-state physics lab class.

Memorizing a bunch of facts doesn’t demonstrate understanding of a topic.

That's a good point. Sometimes you need large, ambitious projects to both learn and demonstrate that learning. People learn to code well by working on big programs, and learn to write well by writing in depth on some subject.

I guess you could sum it up as: the best test of whether a person is capable of creating something of value is to ask them to create something of value and see what happens.

>Isn't a grade supposed to represent your ability and understanding of a topic?

University education largely isn't about certifying that certain students know certain things. It's about showing that people who possess the degree meet a minimum IQ + trait conscientiousness cutoff, so that employers can preferentially hire those people.

Grades have several purposes in this framework. First is to drop low-employee-quality students so that the signal for the remainder is stronger. Second is to allow honors and GPA to provide multiple cutoff-levels to fine-tune the signaling. Third is to force re-taking of classes to extract more money out of folks who want to substitute it for IQ + effort.

As it stands, your proposed change would simply increase the amount of work that is allowed to be used as a bid for class position. That's not particularly helpful, IMO.

Taking the exam as many times as you want is a bit unfair to the professor, who has to concoct a new exam each time. If it is the same exam taken multiple times, then it is what is known as an "infinite time" exam which has a deleterious effect on students, as they will be more or less forced to spend infinite time on them.

Besides, taking a month to solve a single calculus problem that should take 15 minutes is a pretty good demonstration that you have not mastered the material.

How about periodic testing, once every 6 months? Let previous classes retake a final. That's basically the same test load as before. (Another variation could be only giving partial credit. But it's going to be fairly clear who is trying to succeed and who is trying to game the system. Hence my suggestion of increasing lengths between subsequent testing.)

Also, students are rampantly cheating by leaking previous tests. I saw it every day on campus. TA's leak tests to students and they're printed out before every exam (as the risk is too high to NOT look at a test in advance because your grades = your future in college). I've literally been in classes where everyone had last semesters final printed out... in the room before we took the current final. So the impetus is already currently on you, as a teacher, to have tests with permutations to prevent cheating.

Additionally--while I'm sure many teachers would object--tests shouldn't necessarily be written by the teacher. The teacher isn't teaching their own class, but a class meeting the departments requirements. So if students are being prepared (and not learning very specific permutations of general topics) they should be able to solve problems written by other teachers / test makers. So (on the bright side), teachers shouldn't actually be burdened at all by the testing. That could be someone else's job.

Now, of course, all of this has plenty of practical considerations that would need addressed. How do you permutate a QUALITATIVE question? And how do you easily grade highly permuted (per-person) tests? But just because there are unsolved issues, doesn't mean the underlying (god forgive me for saying using this term:) "paradigm shift" is unsound. It's just different and requires some new solutions to new issues.

But as programmers, we of all people, should be able to figure out how to further automate testing. But I think we really should decouple the idea of "testing" from "occurs at the end of class." I mean, why do we test all finals at the same time during the super-stressful "finals week"? Simply because it's practical. Except it was designed as "practical" before computers and automation were within the hands of every living person. Surely, students would test higher if they could study for a single class's test at a time and without worrying about it occurring during a family or health episode.

And what's a test for except hopefully proving that a student understands the material--but we all know thanks to "teaching to the test" culture that many students can cram for a test and then forget it within a month. But now I'm getting way off the original topic.

My thesis statement is simply: Re-testing finals is practical in modern environments and beneficial and incurs (almost) no additional flaws that the current setup doesn't also exhibit--like cheating.

Professors do need to permute the tests so that people won't just look up last year's final. But permuting them once a year is a very different proposition than permuting them an endless number of times as students demand to retake the test.

There will always be cheaters. That's why companies, as part of the interview process, ask basic knowledge questions. It weeds out a lot of the cheaters and frauds. I hear people all the time desperately try to justify cheating. I don't care if people cheat, but I wouldn't hire any of them, and I doubt many employers would.

Sure, there'll always be bad tests and bad teachers. If one could be "taught to the test" then it's a bad test. It can certainly be true that one could pass the test and yet fail to understand the material, but I'm not convinced that people can master the material yet flunk the test.

But testing, in general, works. For me, I know that the pressure of final exams would motivate me to learn the material. No pressure, no learning.

40 years after I graduated, I'd surely flunk every final if I retook them cold today. I just finished taking the MIT 18.01 calculus class online. I was surprised at how easily the stuff came flooding back into my head. It's still there, I just had to chip the rust off :-)

That's a strong counterargument. But I strongly believe homework shouldn't be graded. Incentives are completely misaligned; you're penalized for getting things wrong, when that's a natural result during the learning process. No surprise, then, when cheating becomes a major problem.

I personally found doing problem sets and being able to check my answers immediately to be the best way to learn. There's no point to just copy the answers if homework is ungraded. If students feel no motivation to do homework to learn and practice, that's on them, especially at the college level.

Except when it comes to writing programs, the homework is the only thing that even remotely demonstrates your utility to an employer. I would go as far as to say that exams should not count, only homework should.

What? What employer has ever looked at a potential hire's homework?

If you don't grade exams but grade homework, then homework just becomes a take-home exam...

I'm teaching an intro Web Development course at the University level right now. No exams, only projects and homework. All submissions in github, so it's likely some will be looked at!

I didn't suggest that an employer looked at homework. But now that you mention it, I have personally done that when it was made available on github.

Why, preparing for an interview.

At Caltech, the only thing that counted for your grade was the midterm and the final. The homework only mattered if a grade was on the knife edge of passing or failing.

Students were free to do the homework or not, collaborate on it or not, as they saw fit. It was regarded as a learning tool that students could decide how best to make use of for themselves.

I thought it worked rather well, although the high stakes final exams were rather stressful :-)

(Attending lectures was also optional. Institute policy was that attendance would not be taken, and would not be a factor in the grade. You were free to attend lectures or not, do the homework or not, and if you got an A on the final, you got an A for the course. Some students could do that, such as the legendary Hal Finney, but I learned the hard way that I could not afford to miss any lectures and must diligently do and understand all the homework on time.)

Another point here that was true during my time: almost all exams were take home, open book. Some were even unlimited time, although that was much rarer. Generally though, time was not the constraint keeping you from completing the exam.

The problem is that some students are terrible at exams, and exams aren't necessarily a good test of knowledge or ability.

Engineering relies on group projects and assignments a lot for your grade, because engineering isn't just about remembering some facts and writing them on paper. Then there's the problem that people have good days and bad days.

Different people are more capable in different areas of assessment, so I think that the most fair way to assess students is to give them a range of different types of assessment, so that even if they struggle with one type, they can pull through the other.

For instance, I always did really well at large assignments and tasks, especially group assignments (not because I rode on coattails, but because being in a group motivates you to do well), I was mediocre at exams, and I was terrible at small, individual assignments (<5% of final grade). You can see a direct correlation in my transcript between papers with lots of graded homework and small tasks, and poor grades. I did 200-level Algorithms the semester before I took 100-level Algorithms, and managed to get a better grade in the 200 level paper, because it had less homework assignments, despite being the second year version of the same paper.

My experience was that the top students (now PhD students at MIT, Stanford, etc) were very diligent about homework. In the honors classes, you often needed to go far above and beyond the textbook for some questions. The average students (still smart kids, many working at Google, Amazon, etc) were much more lax about it, and wouldn't work that hard to solve the hardest problems in a set.

What worked for me (Caltech) was to make sure I understood 100% of all the homework problems front to back, before going in to the exam.

Living in the dorms helped enormously with this, because I could usually find someone to help me with particular problems, and I sorely needed that help.

Anything less meant I was in deep doodoo on the exam :-) because that's the wrong time to try to figure out how to apply what was learned in lecture.

This was good enough to reliably get a B. To get an A, I had to work much harder and go beyond the homework.

The school where I studied CS as an undergrad didn't even have grades. It was all about the narrative evaluation, which considered only things the student actually accomplished or learned. So a typical narrative evaluation in the sciences would have a sentence for each of the course topics that a student demonstrated some knowledge of somehow at any point in the course, like a discrete math course might have "He showed an excellent understanding of number theory proofs in the coursework and final exam."

If you really screwed it up, your evaluation wouldn't say anything bad, but it would be damned with faint praise and they could reduce your academic credits.

Overall it's a much higher resolution picture of a student's education. I transferred from a school with traditional grades and I prefer the narrative system. It really stressed out a lot of students who were too indoctrinated in the traditional game process of getting the right number of points for their target grade; some of them never quite figured out that they should just focus on actually learning the subject.

This is how it works in Germany. One exam at the end of the semester. Nothing else counts. Studying and finding motivation to study is the students responsibility.

It's not perfect either, a bad performance on exam day might mean a bad grade even if you're good, but whatever, nobody cares about grades, anyway.

Not universally. Midterm exams, graded (regular) homework, graded projects, graded written reports, take-home exams, ... all exist.

How does this solve the problem?

Do you honestly think students will not complain about the grade on a final exam and that the university will not continue to put pressure on students?

Not everyone performs the same way. Some students do badly under the pressure of testing, so having a variety of grades from a variety of types of assignments does help everyone do well.

That's strange, all my mathematics classes had ungraded homework. Anecdata of 1.

To add to that anecdata, most of my mathematics classes would at least have 1% homework assignments weekly. One of my papers had 25% as homework.

They weren't super hard, if you turned up to the tutorials, you could usually get the tutor to basically hand hold you through it, and if you had any friends doing the same paper, you could just copy theirs. In fact, in first year, we had a rota for homework, so only one person would do it each week.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com