We are entering a traditional couple weeks of discontent for many college students, where past neglect of some assignments, accumulated missed deadlines, and dubious choices about balancing their various interests and obligations produce panic and regret.
As an adjunct professor, I receive a selection of classic "I am pleading for a chance to complete some extra credit to help me earn a higher mark" emails each semester, this semester being no exception. It is also shocking... shocking, I say! to learn of sudden illnesses and sad deaths of family pets or worse, hurried visits to see dying relatives one last time.
To requests for extensions of due dates, I invariably say something like, "I am so sorry about your illness/your family stress. Of course you can have a couple extra days. I look forward to seeing your work soon."
I know. Weak. Why even post assignment deadlines when they are nearly always flexible? I even accept late work when no communication came my way, simply deducting some points from scores depending upon just how late the assignments are submitted. The record is about 60 days late, which basically meant the highest score possible for that student was 50 percent. Not good but not fatal.
I am sure I am adding to the sense among my fellow Americans that all rules are flexible and even pointless... and that deadlines like showing up to work on time and meeting important deadlines can always be subject to further conversation.
I really do prefer to see samples of student writing rather than simply assign failing grades (though I must admit that entering a zero for a missing assignment is quite easy and even satisfying in the moment).
For many college students taking my courses online, their course grade has only a vague relationship to their ability to write a clear argument, I'm afraid. So, I'm not sure precisely what the grades I assign really mean to anyone interested in hiring graduates or admitting them to graduate programs. I guess grades mostly reference student ability to meet deadlines and do adequate work. Most of my CSU students, in the end, earn either an A- or an A. This is despite the fact that most are mediocre writers, at best.
In a recent New York Times report on an analysis of grades at Yale, the researchers found that over 80 percent of Yale undergrads earned at least an A- last year. When everyone gets an A, I hope we can agree that grades are not much of a measuring stick.
On the other hand, if almost all students meet requirements and even produce solid work, is it fair to impose some sort of artificial limit on how many A's can be awarded in any one class?
I could go on for pages on the philosophy of grading and on what grades might actually mean, but what I spent more time thinking about as I read about those Yale grades was that I have lost my inclination to care much about what mark a student earns (as long as the student earns at least a C, the lowest grade the two colleges I teach for will accept as "passing").
What I really care about is evidence that a student can build a compelling argument in the form of an essay or report or memo or even email. Their showing this ability is what will carry over and eventually add to their future success in business or nursing or engineering or teaching.
Mostly, they all just need to graduate and get on with their lives. That degree is just a basic qualification, and the idea that I possess enough information and wisdom to sort all those college kids before the "real world" gets a chance is just silly. It is pointless for one lowly adjunct to hold the line against grade inflation or grade fictions.
How do I know this? Just check my pay stubs for my work.
No comments:
Post a Comment