Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a hypocrite you are! You call me an "ivory tower academic", while knowing nothing about me, where I have worked, or where I teach. Then you complain about being called names you weren't even called.
Anyway, just for clarities sake, I have worked as a teacher for a little over 10 years, I worked in my industry for twice that.
Like I said in my previous post, you became a teacher because you couldn't hack it in industry.
Quote:
Are you sure you are an engineer? One would think engineers know how little anecdotal experience compares to actual peer reviewed lit. Why do you think your experience as a student means you know more about teaching than the people who do it for a living? Do you think people who make drones as a hobby know more than aeronautical engineers?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach write "peer reviewed lit" about it.
Just because you have 10 years of experience as a high school teacher doesn't mean that you are any good at it. In fact, you are probably just like IvoryTickler, who became a teacher because she couldn't hack it as an engineer, even though she obviously hates teaching.
Aww, now you are really reaching.
Shall I trust 10+ years worth of data (as a researcher I track the value added during my courses) or the opinion of someone who is upset because they have been caught fibbing, again? But in reality, it doesn't matter if I am a good teacher or a bad one to the point that even a bad teacher has more experience in a high school classroom than you do.
Show where I labeled you a grade grubber, a positive claim or retract.
Anything else is intellectually dishonest.
In Post #117. You quoted me saying:
Quote:
I think part of the problem is that teachers tend to relate to the struggling students, but they tend to find the high achieving students (such as myself, when I was in school) to be annoying.
And you responded:
Quote:
As someone who has exclusively taught high achieving students (like yourself) for years, the bolded is so not true as to be laughable. The reality is kids don't fall into two simple groups, high achieving and the not. Two common groups, those who work hard, earn high marks the first time, or if not they realize where they went wrong and improve for the next time. And the ones who think of themselves as high achieving, but often have less than stellar marks and place the blame every where but where it really lies. Those kids are frequently "grade grubbers" and will do everything from try to negotiate grades, complain about someone breathing to hard so they couldn't concentrate, to begging for multiple retakes on every assessment. Luckily those kids are few and far between, but yes, they are annoying.
The most common system in US secondary school is percent based.
Because it is the exception not the norm.
For someone claiming to be an engineer you seem to know very little about the credibility, or lack there of, of anecdotal evidence when compared to actual sources.
Add to that the vast majority of common core classes have grading policies dictated by board policy rather than teacher whim, and your endless burning of the strawmen becomes even more obvious. Shall we follow to this to its illogical and inevitable conclusion? I once heard a rumor that some teacher just throw darts at a dartboard to assign grades. Or how about the classic urban myth of weighing papers? Or if that doesn't strike your fancy, how about teachers making up grades based on zodiac sign?
Some of us prefer to deal with reality instead of endless made up scenarios.
Once again, you made an assertion and I provided an example that didn't support your assertion. No where did I say all or most schools. I merely provided a real world example that you seem to have a real problem with.
So, to your other assertion about the sources, such as above. Did you actually read what it says? I won't quote the whole thing since it's too long, just the relevant part:
Since credit and grade information reported on transcripts vary considerably among schools, districts and states, it is necessary to standardize this information so that valid student– and school–level comparisons can be made. In HSTS studies, standardized credit information is based on the Carnegie unit, which is defined as a course with 120 hours of instruction. The factor for converting credits reported on a transcript to the standard Carnegie unit is verified by the curriculum specialist and then entered for each school by data entry personnel. Grade information on transcripts varies even more widely than credit information. Grades are reported as letters, numbers, or other symbols on a variety of scales. Trained HSTS coders provide standardized information for each school, which is then entered by data entry personnel. Numeric grades are converted to standardized grades as shown in the following table unless the school documents specify other letter grade equivalents for numeric grades.
So no, this does NOT say all, or even most schools use a standardized method. It says exactly the opposite -- that it varies so much between schools that the authors of the HSTS studies had to standardize the data so they could do the study. What all comes down to is what has been said; that schools use a variety of different methods to calculate GPA and test grades can impact GPA. Maybe not at your school, but certainly at others.
Once again, you made an assertion and I provided an example that didn't support your assertion. No where did I say all or most schools. I merely provided a real world example that you seem to have a real problem with.
So, to your other assertion about the sources, such as above. Did you actually read what it says? I won't quote the whole thing since it's too long, just the relevant part:
Since credit and grade information reported on transcripts vary considerably among schools, districts and states, it is necessary to standardize this information so that valid student– and school–level comparisons can be made. In HSTS studies, standardized credit information is based on the Carnegie unit, which is defined as a course with 120 hours of instruction. The factor for converting credits reported on a transcript to the standard Carnegie unit is verified by the curriculum specialist and then entered for each school by data entry personnel. Grade information on transcripts varies even more widely than credit information. Grades are reported as letters, numbers, or other symbols on a variety of scales. Trained HSTS coders provide standardized information for each school, which is then entered by data entry personnel. Numeric grades are converted to standardized grades as shown in the following table unless the school documents specify other letter grade equivalents for numeric grades.
So no, this does NOT say all, or even most schools use a standardized method. It says exactly the opposite -- that it varies so much between schools that the authors of the HSTS studies had to standardize the data so they could do the study. What all comes down to is what has been said; that schools use a variety of different methods to calculate GPA and test grades can impact GPA. Maybe not at your school, but certainly at others.
Ok so we have established that you cannot post it because I never said it.
Thanks for playing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
