Yesterday I received an email from the University of Guelph informing me that I was approved for graduation. It also said that I would be graduating with distinction. Not really knowing what precisely that meant, I repeatedly reminded my husband that I was going to graduate with distinction. I'm sure it was just as amusing the 22nd time as the first.
This morning, before blurting it out to the Facebook world and Twittersphere, I decided to look up what it meant. At some schools, it means that you never failed a single class. Which...I suppose might be difficult for those who like to party a lot. I was a little let down. But then I discovered that the University of Guelph has a slightly different viewpoint. It has to do with cumulative average. A degree with standing is basically, anyone who actually got their degree. A degree with honours is an average between 70-79%. However, a degree with distinction means that your overall cumulative average is above an 80%. That's me. I did BETTER than those people who graduated with honours. Heck yeah!
But now, here is where I get confused. I also have an honours degree. I understood that to mean it was four years as opposed to three. So, does that mean that some people from my program are going to have an honours degree with honours? That'll sound awfully redundant to those watching. I however, will have no such redundancies. I will have an honours degree with distinction. That sounds infinitely better, doesn't it?
Yes...this post was all about bragging. But, come one, I worked my ass off for four years. I'm owed a little bit of bragging rights.
Showing posts with label grades. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grades. Show all posts
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Rant About Grading Schemes
Ok, I admit, the rant you're about to read will sound ridiculous. It was triggered by something insignificant, however it has larger implications which concern me.
Today I received the break down of my grade in my fourth year psychology seminar class. Ten percent is participation marks, of which I received 9. Yes, 90% is a great mark (see previous blog post) BUT I was the student in the class who participated in all discussions and attended every class. I participated more than ANY other student in the class. Others agreed with me.
So, I thought that even though it was one silly percentage point, I should still argue for 10/10 since I was the most deserving of that mark. I presented my case and was met with the most ridiculous resistance I'd ever come across. The professor argued that he must uphold university standards and that a 7 meant I was good, an 8 meant I was great and a 9 was an A+.
I counter argued with the idea that it should not be impossible to achieve a perfect grade, espeically within a participation grade. Participation marks, in every other class, are completion marks. If you do what's asked of you, you get full marks. Furthermore, any other professor would have given me the extra point simply because a) I actually cared enough and bothered to argue it b) I had good reason and c) it's not a radical enough change in marks to care.
And yet he refused.
I don't care if I get that one percentage point, however I do care about the principals underlying that judgement and about how poorly I was treated in this situation. It should never be impossible to obtain perfect marks. If no one can achieve above 9 out of 10, it should be out of 9. Holding students back simply because you feel uneasy with perfect marks is no excuse. Set aside your personal issues and award the marks that the student(s) deserve(s).
Today I received the break down of my grade in my fourth year psychology seminar class. Ten percent is participation marks, of which I received 9. Yes, 90% is a great mark (see previous blog post) BUT I was the student in the class who participated in all discussions and attended every class. I participated more than ANY other student in the class. Others agreed with me.
So, I thought that even though it was one silly percentage point, I should still argue for 10/10 since I was the most deserving of that mark. I presented my case and was met with the most ridiculous resistance I'd ever come across. The professor argued that he must uphold university standards and that a 7 meant I was good, an 8 meant I was great and a 9 was an A+.
I counter argued with the idea that it should not be impossible to achieve a perfect grade, espeically within a participation grade. Participation marks, in every other class, are completion marks. If you do what's asked of you, you get full marks. Furthermore, any other professor would have given me the extra point simply because a) I actually cared enough and bothered to argue it b) I had good reason and c) it's not a radical enough change in marks to care.
And yet he refused.
I don't care if I get that one percentage point, however I do care about the principals underlying that judgement and about how poorly I was treated in this situation. It should never be impossible to obtain perfect marks. If no one can achieve above 9 out of 10, it should be out of 9. Holding students back simply because you feel uneasy with perfect marks is no excuse. Set aside your personal issues and award the marks that the student(s) deserve(s).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)