Hacker News Reader

Comment by digitaltrees | Hacker News Reader

Students perform better than in the past. One could argue that grades aren’t about comparing the peers in a class but individual performance.

Put another way, if I am hiring a student for writing, physics or engineering I don’t necessarily care if they are better than their peers as much as I care if they can write well, solve the math or engineering problems to get the write answer.

Finally, take law school as an example. LSAT scores, which are considered a reasonable proxy for IQ testing, are significantly hiring now for top schools than they were 30-40 years ago. That supports the thesis that law students today have a higher aptitude than previously so if grading is an objective measure of performance rather than a comparative measure of class rank it’s expected for average grades to increase.

View on HN

No; there’s just been grade inflation combined with greater awareness on what will be on the tests. Objectively, our students are coming out of high school and college with the lowest preparedness for jobs than almost anytime prior, as ranked by employer surveys.

Also, the LSAT is not static. It has changed over the years as instruction methods have also changed and as demographics have changed; so it is not a reliable measure of aptitude in any way.

How would changing the mechanics of grading affect graduate readiness for jobs? I think two separate ideas are being conflated.

Whether or not someone gets an A or a C in a course for Physics likely will not have any bearing on the needs of an employer who needs someone who is a Python wiz for data science.

Maybe the bigger problem is colleges offering undergraduate majors which lack demand, coupled with in-demand majors not having enough relevant course content for the job market, or maybe employers have just gotten more unreasonable in terms of expectations for graduates over time?

It's hard to make the argument these students are less qualified.. look at the acceptance rate of top schools over time, its essentially at or near all-time low percentages for the majority.

Admission competition has risen across the board and the emphasis on grades and tests doesn't translate to work performance. In fact I'd call it a detriment but you can't be well rounded if you need to devote so much time keeping up. My dad and went to the same school, 30 years apart, and he straight up would not have a chance in hell getting in when I did, and he's got no problem admitting it.

Likewise, when I got into the CS major the entry requirement was a 2.5 GPA, by the time I graduated the next crop needed a 3.4 or 3.5 - and I’d be screwed if were just a couple semesters behind. That's a microcosm but that's the general trend. Look at the shit show ‘23-25 graduates are heading into now.

How do we know that employer attitudes and expectations have remained the same?

They surely haven't. The 2000s and 2010s spoiled employers because every other kid joining the labor pool spent hours a day on their computer, developing an aptitude for technology in general. For them it was a short leap from their home computer to running a retail or fast food POS.

That party is now over but most businesses still depend on desktop and laptop computing for much of their business operations and expectations haven't caught up.

Considering 1 in 3 companies have reached the point where they are dropping the need for college altogether for most roles offered; despite the percentage of college graduates having never been higher, should be enough of a sign that college is slowly becoming a training charade.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/03/22/1-in-3-companies-are-dit...

Meanwhile, we’re also at the point where 52% of graduates are underemployed within a year of graduation, and 45% still are after a decade. Employers don’t care nearly as much anymore. Tell your children their odds of it working out are literally flip a coin, and it changes the conversation.

I’m encouraging my kids to be entrepreneurs or go into the trades. College is a joke to extract fiat from unsophisticated consumers via non dischargeable government backed debt. If they end up unemployed or underemployed, cheaper to do it without the paper credential.

I don’t agree with this. Frankly every generation complains about the rising generation forgetting that a new employee needs to be trained over years. No one ever starts their career fully formed.

If it were the case that employees are worse why has Productivity has increased steadily? I’d instead posit that Employers expect way more than they did before. Technology and skill level expectations are drastically higher and employees are delivering.

> Put another way, if I am hiring a student for writing, physics or engineering I don’t necessarily care if they are better than their peers as much as I care if they can write well, solve the math or engineering problems to get the write answer.

I think the article's suggested solution of making all classes pass-fail would give you the information you're asking for.

I don’t just want pass fail, I do want to see at what level of performance they measure.

>> if I am hiring a student for writing, physics or engineering I don’t necessarily care if they are better than their peers

Your competitors hope that what you are saying is true.

Seems like you’re missing the implication of my argument.

If you take an exam with 100 questions that have right answers and score a 98 and I score a 98, we are equivalent. Why would anyone care which student they hire?

Further, if you score a 88 to my 98 there is still a comparison between two students but just on an absolute score of performance rather than a cohort analysis. My point is why do we need to lower that to a 2.5 gpa instead of a 3.75 and 4.0?

Finally, my point is that at a certain level of performance minute differences don’t matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com