Do Grades And Degrees Mean As Much As We Think?

[sonak]

Recent experiences have made me think of this. Papers and assignments which I put less effort into and thought were subpar get good grades. Papers I put a lot into and which I felt confident about get grades that aren't as good. Then you hear things about the "easier" professors and the "harder" ones.

It's probably not a big secret that grades are inherently subjective, but is there a way to change this or is it something we should recognize and embrace? Now you're probably thinking "this may hold true for "softer subjects"(English, History, ethnic studies, etc.) but not for the hard sciences or math, right? Wrong. What about whether the math teacher grades on a curve or not? What if he/she accepts late assignments or not? Extra credit? Does he/she give points for participation? Are the tests multiple choice or just "do the problem?"

All of those are valid choices either way, and would have a significant impact on one's final grade. A science class would have even more wiggle room and room for flexibility I would think.

Are grading papers more like a movie critic giving a rating? Sure there are things to look for, like mechanics, organization, etc., but how do you point to a paper and "prove" that it's a "B" paper rather than an "A" paper? And students do this of course-they go to professors and seek to get grades changed. And why not? It's an art, not a science. And a rubric doesn't change things, it just puts the subjective standards into a more readable format. I've had papers that had no rubric attached-you turn them in, you get a grade, that's that.


So what do degrees or diplomas show? Well, they show you meet certain standards or have jumped through the right hoops. They probably mean that you can tell what a certain professor is looking for in an assignment. Most of the time they mean you can at least write and express yourself competently, although not always. But is there a difference between someone with a 3.8 GPA and someone with a 3.2 GPA? Has a history major shown something different in ability than a Psychology major?

We use grades and qualifications like these as significant measures in society and I'm not certain that they say the things that people think they do. I think they are meaningful but not in the same sense that I used to think so.

 

[JoeZhang]

Different where I am (UK academic):

What about whether the math teacher grades on a curve or not?

We don't use the curve

What if he/she accepts late assignments or not?

All done by the administrative function - I don't accept assignments in any form.

Extra credit?

Doesn't exist

Does he/she give points for participation?

No

Are the tests multiple choice or just "do the problem?"

Multiple choice is something I'd expect to see at a school rather than a university. If I saw multiple choice questions, I'd be concerned that I was at a barber's college or something.

We use grades and qualifications like these as significant measures in society and I'm not certain that they say the things that people think they do.

I think you have misunderstood what the degree is for in modern capitalism society - outside of certain specialisms, they are simply a way to filter job applications and also to filter people attempting to enter post-graduate study. The relative merits of a degree in one subject as opposed to another or how grade was doing at one University is another is largely irrelevant.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Speaking as someone who has taught both adult ed and, briefly, high school (God help me!)... yes, grading is generally as subjective as you suggest.

Is there a significant difference between a 3.8 GPA and a 3.2? No. Between a 3.8 and a 1.8, definitely. But once you graduate, nobody really cares what your grades were, anyway, just the fact that you graduated. Unless you're trying to go to graduate school. Then the details of grades matter. A lot.

Personally, I was happiest in positions where I didn't have to give formal grades, just lots of feedback.

 

[MacLeod]

Grades and degrees are an indicator only. Really if I were looking at say a CV the fact that they got a degree 15 years ago, isn't as important as what their experaince is.

Any Grade only shows what you were capable of when you did it.

Some people perform poorly in a written test whilst they excel in a practical test and vice versa. So yes they might have a high grade in a theory test but perform poorly when asked to it practically.

 

[auntiehill]

Degrees matter, but extensive experience can be just as, if not more so, valuable .

 

[iguana_tonante]

I pretty much agree with JoeZhang: nowadays, except for very specific positions (i.e. grad school or some other kind of ulterior education), degrees are mostly a way to filter job applications.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time and resources, and I'm not even talking about menial jobs like scrubbing tiles or flipping burgers: the idea that a store manager needs a MBA or something like that is ludicrous: common sense and some experience both in sales and administration should be more than sufficient.

Working in academia myself, I get the feeling that universities in the US work quite differently from their European counterparts (I also get there is much more variability among American universities than among European institutions). Stuff like grading on a curve, giving points for participation, extra credits for extracurricular activities, and the likes are pretty much unheard of (and in fact it's something I would associate with high school, not university).

And don't get me started on multiple choices exams: in my university engineering courses use them, and they are held as proof that engineers are the intellectual missing link between scientists and apes.

 

[Spot's Meow]

They probably mean that you can tell what a certain professor is looking for in an assignment.

I think that this is the answer here. I feel that this is the true valuable skill that you learn in your education. You actually learn real things in elementary and middle school, tangible facts and basic proficiencies that provide a foundation for understanding the world. Any education thereafter is about learning one thing: how to figure out what people want and BS enough to give it to them. That's really what I've learned from all of those assignments in high school, college, and grad school. Your actual skill level does make somewhat of a difference (a shitty writer isn't likely to get awesome grades on writing assignments), but you should have learned those basic skills in elementary school. Your real lesson is not how to write a 10 page research paper on the Salem witch trials. Your real lesson is figuring out how to gauge what the professor is looking for (whether you feel it's reasonable or not) and meeting (and hopefully exceeding) those expectations, in a way that fits your own personal style.

So, I do feel that my education was valuable, not because I can describe the social and cultural ramifications of the California gold rush on native Indian populations, but because I now realize that it really IS all subjective, reality is perception, you have to adapt to fit the specific situation. Figuring out what people really want and how to give it to them will make you successful.

 

[kolibri]

I'm always told grades don't mean that much, and experience is everything. Which is why I'm sitting here with fabulous transcripts and no job because I have zero experience.

 

[B.J.]

It's definitely the worst kind of Catch-22. No job without experience, no experience without a job. Which is why I'm very grateful that I had a co-op position (very similar to an internship) when I was in school. Probably wouldn't have been offered the job I have now without it.

 

[Hugh Mann]

A degree demonstrates that you are capable of committing to a relatively rigorous task for an extended period of time. For many university graduates, when they receive their bachelor's degrees, they've spent more time in undergraduate education than they have at any one job. I don't think grading is as subjective as you claim; for many assignments in many subjects, students are graded on the strength of their arguments. Remember, there's a difference between quantitative and qualitative performance, and just because an assignment's strengths and weaknesses may not be quantifiable does not mean that they are being evaluated on a strictly subjective basis.

 

[Kirkman1987]

Colleges and degrees are one of the biggest scams I've ever encountered. I graduated with a degree in political science earlier this year. What do I do? I sell electronics at Target. If and when I actually land a government job (Currently still under consideration with the IRS), I'm sure my degree will be partially responsible, but in terms of actual skills those four years were a waste. A very expensive waste that will no doubt leave me in debt for years.

 

[JoeZhang]

I think that this is the answer here. I feel that this is the true valuable skill that you learn in your education. You actually learn real things in elementary and middle school, tangible facts and basic proficiencies that provide a foundation for understanding the world. Any education thereafter is about learning one thing: how to figure out what people want and BS enough to give it to them.

You two guys make US education sounds a lot like it is in China or India where the students spend all of their times repeating back what their profs have said to them.

Well you'd be lost on one of my courses because I'm looking at your ability to critically assess sources and develop an argument supported by those sources, it's largely irrelevant if I agree with that argument or not - if you are just reciting back to me the material I've provided in lectures and seminars, you might be able to get a passing grade but nothing more.

 

[iguana_tonante]

A few addendums, to make points clearer:

Now you're probably thinking "this may hold true for "softer subjects"(English, History, ethnic studies, etc.) but not for the hard sciences or math, right? Wrong.

In my experience, it's right. I am known to be sometimes disparaging of social science and liberal arts (even if it's mostly played for laughs), but this time is not the case: it's just a beast of a different nature. Most math and science exams I've sat, there was very little "wiggle room": you either gave the correct answer, or you didn't. In addition, there was always a strong consistency between professors: of course there were outliners, but few and far in between (a couple of "soft" professors and a couple of "harsh" ones in 10 years of higher education).

Has a history major shown something different in ability than a Psychology major?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Of course they had. If you don't believe it, have a psychologist explain you the shift in trade routes during the Renaissance, or get therapy for anxiety attacks from an historian, and see how it works.

Colleges and degrees are one of the biggest scams I've ever encountered. I graduated with a degree in political science earlier this year. What do I do? I sell electronics at Target. If and when I actually land a government job (Currently still under consideration with the IRS), I'm sure my degree will be partially responsible, but in terms of actual skills those four years were a waste.

University should not provide "skills", that's what job training is for. University should provide understanding. You can have skills without understanding: that's a machine job. A university education should teach you the insides and outs of your field to give you a general vision of what's going on in your job, and to devise new solutions to problems that may present themselves during your activity, not to "press A for results".

Beside, if you manage to get a sweet state job within one year of graduating and working one menial job in between, I'd say you got a great bargain on your education.

A very expensive waste that will no doubt leave me in debt for years.

That's a different matter, and it has more to do with a capitalistic model of education. In a state university in Italy, a master's degree costs less than €10,000 (for comparison, the price of a small car).

I think that this is the answer here. I feel that this is the true valuable skill that you learn in your education. You actually learn real things in elementary and middle school, tangible facts and basic proficiencies that provide a foundation for understanding the world. Any education thereafter is about learning one thing: how to figure out what people want and BS enough to give it to them.

You two guys make US education sounds a lot like it is in China or India where the students spend all of their times repeating back what their profs have said to them.

Yeah, it seems more a matter of terrible school policies and environment than a real problem with "education" in general.

 

[sonak]

A few addendums, to make points clearer:

Now you're probably thinking "this may hold true for "softer subjects"(English, History, ethnic studies, etc.) but not for the hard sciences or math, right? Wrong.

In my experience, it's right. I am known to be sometimes disparaging of social science and liberal arts (even if it's mostly played for laughs), but this time is not the case: it's just a beast of a different nature. Most math and science exams I've sat, there was very little "wiggle room": you either gave the correct answer, or you didn't. In addition, there was always a strong consistency between professors: of course there were outliners, but few and far in between (a couple of "soft" professors and a couple of "harsh" ones in 10 years of higher education).

Has a history major shown something different in ability than a Psychology major?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Of course they had. If you don't believe it, have a psychologist explain you the shift in trade routes during the Renaissance, or get therapy for anxiety attacks from an historian, and see how it works.

University should not provide "skills", that's what job training is for. University should provide understanding. You can have skills without understanding: that's a machine job. A university education should teach you the insides and outs of your field to give you a general vision of what's going on in your job, and to devise new solutions to problems that may present themselves during your activity, not to "press A for results".

Beside, if you manage to get a sweet state job within one year of graduating and working one menial job in between, I'd say you got a great bargain on your education.

That's a different matter, and it has more to do with a capitalistic model of education. In a state university in Italy, a master's degree costs less than €10,000 (for comparison, the price of a small car).

I think that this is the answer here. I feel that this is the true valuable skill that you learn in your education. You actually learn real things in elementary and middle school, tangible facts and basic proficiencies that provide a foundation for understanding the world. Any education thereafter is about learning one thing: how to figure out what people want and BS enough to give it to them.

You two guys make US education sounds a lot like it is in China or India where the students spend all of their times repeating back what their profs have said to them.

Yeah, it seems more a matter of terrible school policies and environment than a real problem with "education" in general.

sorry, I was unclear on a few things that I want to clear up:

1. With the "history-psychology" comparison, I wasn't saying that there's no difference in what they've learned, that'd be silly. That's the point of a major, after all. I was trying(awkwardly I guess) to ask if it says anything different about what you accomplished? Would you be more impressed with someone with a degree in one area as opposed to another if you were an employer?

2. As for the extra credit, grading on a curve, etc-I was just using those as an example. It doesn't have to be those exact things, just that even math and science professors have flexibility in how they grade, what assignments they choose, what they choose to test on, how easy they make the tests, etc. Sure, the difference between a math test and a history essay is that you can point to an answer on a math test and say "this answer is correct or incorrect," but that doesn't mean the grade overall in the class is objective just because you can mark certain answers right or wrong.

3. On the "figuring out what a professor wanted" thing-I wasn't suggesting that we're just spitting back what they were teaching in essay form(although there are professors I've had who, despite claiming they don't care what position you take WILL get annoyed if you disagree with them, but this is actually rare in my experience), but rather asking how do you prove that a paper is an "A" paper? Again, two people looking at a math problem will agree 2+2=4, but two people looking at a paper can disagree about the grade it deserves. And in that case, apart from obvious things like spelling or grammar, how would you decide who is right? Is it like two people arguing over how many stars "Empire Strikes Back" should get?

 

[Balrog]

My experience has been that it is more important WHERE you studied than THAT you studied. No one gives a shit about your GPA after you graduate, but a degree from Yale is worth more than one from Podunk Community College.

 

[JoeZhang]

but two people looking at a paper can disagree about the grade it deserves. And in that case, apart from obvious things like spelling or grammar, how would you decide who is right?

That's what the moderation process is for.

 

[SmoothieX]

And don't get me started on multiple choices exams: in my university engineering courses use them, and they are held as proof that engineers are the intellectual missing link between scientists and apes.

You mean we're not?

Some of the most difficult exams in engineering school were multiple choice. Yeah, it came down to picking A, B, C, or D - after 45 minutes of diagrams and calculations.

In some ways, non-multiple choice exams were better. At least you could get some partial credit for showing your methodology was correct, but the answer is off because time was running out and you got careless with the decimal point.

I'll give you a yes and no answer to your question. Your grades and education get you the opportunity. I'd never get an interview or be eligible to get licensed if I didn't graduate from grad school. But some of the stupidest people I've worked with have had a master's and a PE, and some of the smartest were people that went to work in construction after high school, learned how things are actually built, and then went to work at an engineering firm since they didn't want to ruin their body doing manual labor into their 60s.

 

[JoeZhang]

Degrees by and large aren't a test of intelligence so I'm never sure why people raise that point. Hell even a PhD (Pain Hardship Despair) is largely about your ability to grind out content rather than being the biggest brain on the planet*.


* That's not to say people don't turn out fiendishly complex PhDs but it's not actually a requirement.

 

[sonak]

Degrees by and large aren't a test of intelligence so I'm never sure why people raise that point. Hell even a PhD (Pain Hardship Despair) is largely about your ability to grind out content rather than being the biggest brain on the planet*.


* That's not to say people don't turn out fiendishly complex PhDs but it's not actually a requirement.

this is kind of what I was getting at. It's a measure of "what did you go through to get it," and in that sense it's meaningful if you went to a more rigorous institution, but it's not necessarily a sign of intelligence or knowledge. Someone can be a lot more knowledgeable while being self-educated.

 

[RevdKathy]

It all comes down to what you think matters most about people. Some of the finest, most compassionate, most emotionally mature people I have ever met had not a single academic qualification to their name. And some of the biggest dicks had PhDs.

Academic letters after your name may say something useful about someone's ability to commit and a certain sort of intellectual ability, though their absence proves very little - what about the person who was sick or travelling during education years?

A qualification is a starting point for an employer, but I sure as hell wouldn't judge person's worth by them.