Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
from the this-will-not-be-controversial-oh-no-sir dept.
GungnirSniper writes:
"Catherine Rampell at The Washington Post has 'A message to the nation's women: Stop trying to be straight-A students.'
In her analysis of others' findings, she writes of a discouragement gradient that pushes women out of harder college degrees, including economics and other STEM degrees. Men do not seem to have a similar discouragement gradient, so they stay in harder degree programs and ultimately earn more. Data suggests that women might also value high grades more than men do and sort themselves into fields where grading curves are more lenient.
'Maybe women just don't want to get things wrong,' Goldin hypothesized. 'They don't want to walk around being a B-minus student in something. They want to find something they can be an A student in. They want something where the professor will pat them on the back and say "You're doing so well!"'
'Guys,' she added, 'don't seem to give two damns.'
Why are women in college moving away from harder degrees?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 12 2014, @05:58PM
I don't think that's really a big difference at all. Engineering classes are notoriously hard, but even there they usually grade on a curve. I remember lots of classes where a score of 40 on an exam turned out to be a B+ or better. It doesn't matter if half of your answers are objectively wrong when all your classmates also got half the answers wrong. If the highest grade is a 50, then that's an A+.
If the humanities classes are still giving out higher average grades, that's because they're not curving correctly. In their case, they need to be curving grades down.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Wednesday March 12 2014, @06:05PM
I think grading on a curve is inherently wrong. If you design a bridge which collapses and kills people, is it made better by someone else designing an even worse bridge?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Daniel Dvorkin on Wednesday March 12 2014, @06:33PM
You're assuming taking a test is the same as designing a bridge. They're not really comparable tasks. Unfortunately, when moving a hundred or more students through a "___ 101" class, it's really hard to come up with ways to assess how well the students are learning that bear much resemblance to the tasks they'll be doing with their knowledge once they complete their degrees.
Pipedot [pipedot.org]:Soylent [dev.soylentnews.org]::BSD:Linux
(Score: 3, Insightful) by etherscythe on Wednesday March 12 2014, @08:06PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a test that does not determine skills and knowledge of procedure which go into the practical application of the degree field is simply a failure of the test. Seriously, if the test does not reflect what the graduate is expected to be able to do, what are we testing for? And if the people building our bridges haven't shown they are qualified to do so, what the hell good was the degree to begin with?
(Score: 1) by tibman on Wednesday March 12 2014, @09:56PM
You are assuming that college is for producing educated people and not just collecting money. There is a lot of business pressure to get people through and not see them fail mid-way (and stop paying).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:32AM
College is for educating people. The fact that most colleges simply do not care about providing education is a problem with colleges, not with everyone else.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Daniel Dvorkin on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:07AM
The pessimistic answer is that yes, the tests themselves are failures ... and that's why bridges fall down.
The somewhat more optimistic answer is that you can't practically test for the ability to carry out complex, long-term projects in a classroom setting, but you can test the basic skills that are prerequisites for those projects--and that grading on a curve is just an acknowledgement that those skills are a lot harder to demonstrate in an hour-long closed-book exam than they are on the job, when you (hopefully) have reference materials available and the time to use them. Which is somewhat supported by the fact that most bridges don't fall down, I suppose.
Pipedot [pipedot.org]:Soylent [dev.soylentnews.org]::BSD:Linux
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Kell on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:44AM
Hi - tertiary engineering educator here. Hoo boy, believe me it is very hard to build assessment that is fair, balanced, and well-targeted for difficulty. When it comes to teaching the questions that keeps me up at night are "Have I made the project too hard?" and "Have I made the project too easy?" Either scenario is a disaster for the course.
On the topic of bell-curves: they are a way of doing "automatic gain adjustment" on your marking scheme, and is usually a fairly robust technique given large, and fairly homogenous classes. Oddly, the major complaints about bell curves come from the good students who actually benefit from such a scheme - they know it's unfair, but generally if you're smart enough to recognise the issue, you're not the one on the bottom of the heap.
That said, I don't use them either - I use competency-based assessment, which I feel is fairer to everybody, but it always difficult to design good assessment that doesn't break too many eggs (or not enough).
Scientists point out problems. Engineers fix them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by velex on Wednesday March 12 2014, @07:51PM
I don't think GP was talking about grading on a curve, although you might have a point about humanities not curving correctly. otoh, I avoid those classes like the plague because I can't rightly comprehend why having long hair is like being raped. I've never been raped or oppressed by my long hair, but I suppose it's different for cis women.
That aside, I think what GP was getting at was that cis women abhor fields with objectively correct and incorrect answers. The idea that somebody else might come along and tell a cis woman that she's wrong and produce a reason that can't be argued is intimidating to her, especially if the person providing the correct answer/method/showing her where her process went wrong doesn't have a lot of sex appeal.
Mod me down (and after this happened to me I eventually did decide to become sexist--what else to do and why not?) but showing a cis woman where she's objectively wrong can get you called sexist to your face for no other reason than you weren't assigned the same gender at birth as say Ada Lovelace.
Now, over in humanities, there are really no right or wrong answers. It all comes down to how persuasive one can be and how open one is to toeing the prevalent biases and dogmas. I suppose, having realized that, I shouldn't be afraid of humanities, since I probably could these days write one heck of an argument about why it's absolutely correct that having long hair represents oppression by the patriarchy. The trouble is that it would be all bullshit, frankly. That's the point, though. Over in humanities, as long as you're a good bullshitter, you get a good grade. I've met very few cis women whose first refuge in a disagreement wasn't bullshit.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday March 12 2014, @11:34PM
Sad to say I agree with you... a viewpoint I arrived at from being subjected to a number of such arguments from the feminazi camp. And to think I used to be all for women's lib and such.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by FuckBeta on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:49AM
These women don't have objective standards. Think about this for a minute.
Right or wrong to them comes from whether their social group approves or disapproves. Now what sort of morality do you have with no objective measures of right and wrong?
And this is exactly why they are intimidated by hard sciences.
"especially if the person providing the correct answer/method/showing her where her process went wrong doesn't have a lot of sex appeal."
Too true.
Quit Slashdot...because Fuck Beta!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14 2014, @09:33AM
Which women? The ones in the study? Velex's hypothetical "cis women [who] abhor fields with objectively correct and incorrect answers"? All women?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14 2014, @09:27AM
Nor can I. Who is saying that?
Interesting hypothesis. My hypothesis is that men are on average even worse than women at dealing with situations where they are proved wrong.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday March 12 2014, @08:50PM
that's why they are in humanities...they are bad at math.
and they are too cheap to pay somebody who knows math to do it right.