When you were a kid was 93% an A grade, A-, or a B grade? (punctuation, textbooks)

[tnff]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I still see that as a soft skill, but no use in arguing semantics. I don't think that we are disagreeing about whether or not that's a useful skill, but we are disagreeing over whether or not a grade in, for example, chemistry, should be based on any factors other than your ability in chemistry.

My question for you is, since you don't like standardized tests, why don't you just tell people who underperform on standardized tests that they need to learn to adapt to the tests?


But why is the same thing not said to students who underperform on standardized tests?

For the first part, I think we actually agree that the test should test the material and the grade should not be based on other factors. But regardless of how good or bad the grading system, it's how we respond that makes the difference.

Going to the question on standardized tests, I think you've conflated two different things here. The same thing is said to students regarding standardized tests. In general students are told they have to adapt to the standardized tests. There is a whole industry that has sprung up specifically to coach students how to adapt to them. The argument against standardized tests isn't because students can't adapt to them, but falls more in two different areas:
a. Whether the tests measure what they purport to measure. The fact that students can adapt test taking techniques to improve their score does create some doubt as to the validity of the measurement beyond general tendencies.
and
b. How much schools adapt their courses and teaching to match the test. IE teaching to the test. If it's not on the test, it doesn't get taught. This leaves gaps in the education that are unmeasured because they aren't tested.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

That completely defeats the argument so many people make, that they claim to learn better from the teachers who won't give A's. But your method of adaptation is the opposite. If, for example, you know you can't get an A in chemistry no matter what you do, you (you in general, not you in particular) are going to spend less time on chemistry, and more time on, for example, calculus, to try to pull that 89 up to a 90.

Again, I think you are conflating two different things. There is a difference between a professor who has high expectations and grades accordingly and a professor who is simply a poor teacher and fails to grade properly. An example of each from my own college time. Professor G was a very tough professor. Had very high standards and graded accordingly. Gave lots of homework. But he was also a very good professor. His homework was directly related to what he taught. His tests measured what he taught. You worked your tail off in his class and EARNED that grade. But when done, you really knew the material. Professor B on the other hand was a poor professor. His lectures were disjoint and rambling. His homework was almost random and disconnected from the lesson. His tests were a mess and the grades worse. He was as you've noted the type who didn't give A's. You were just glad to get out of his class passing and never take him again. Two very different types of professors who you've lumped together.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But the problem is, if you get an A for knowing just the 1 to 5 times tables, the extra credit for knowing the 6 and 7 times tables is meaningless, since whether you have a final average of 100 or 125, it goes in the books as an A either way.

Remember the scale I provided earlier. In this example, knowing the 5 times table is "meets standard" which is a C, not an A. The A would be for knowing the 6 and 7 tables too - outstanding; well above standard.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

How are they not grading problems? My solution (which won't be popular): have a specific standard as to how to handle such situations (whether absences from exams, mis-spelled but correct answers, etc) that every teacher in every high school must follow. Teachers who don't follow the rule should be fired on the spot, tenure or not, and they should lose their pension and health insurance, and never be allowed to teach ever again. Following a consistent policy is more important than the policy itself being fair.

It's not a grading problem because it's not driven by how the work was graded, properly or improperly, but by external policy type factors. Those fall within the role of management to fix to ensure all teachers are following policy and not going off on their own.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

And, as I keep saying, no, that is not the case, since my high school had only one such teacher. Only 25% of the STEM-oriented students would get him. But as I keep saying, the teachers who gave everybody A's are equally at fault. What people forget is that grade inflation doesn't make things easier. It just causes life-changing decisions to be made based on the "noise" rather than the "signal".

We've all had those kinds of teachers. Just different subjects. For me, freshman English. Nearly cost me my scholarship and academic probation. This clown was "woke" well before anyone had even coined the term. He had a particular loathing for what he called sexists words when writing. Pronouns like "he" and "she." Or words like "man" or "human" or well, you get the idea. Using one of those words dropped you a letter grade. A second time was another letter grade. I was just so confused because I couldn't figure out how to please him. He used to call on me often to read in class. It was only late in the semester that some others in the class took pity on me and told me it was because he was making fun of me and my country accept. He basically thought I was a hillbilly and didn't belong in college. He wanted me to lose my scholarship because he didn't think I belonged there. Made a D in that class. Took me two years to dig out of that hole and get my GPA back up.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But in this case, they didn't call the penalty, since it was more advantageous not to call it. It wasn't because the ref was being unfair and/or not good at his/her job. A better analogy would be if a teacher gave the option of taking an automatic B on any exam that is given when you are sick. But if a student takes the exam sick and earns an A, obviously no student is going to argue that he/she should be given a B rather than an A.

What I was trying to get at was that by focusing on and arguing over the foul call, they lost the advantage and lost a probably goal, but turned around and also lost on the counterattack. If we get too focused on one grade in one class, we can miss the opportunity.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

For the first part, I think we actually agree that the test should test the material and the grade should not be based on other factors. But regardless of how good or bad the grading system, it's how we respond that makes the difference.

Going to the question on standardized tests, I think you've conflated two different things here. The same thing is said to students regarding standardized tests. In general students are told they have to adapt to the standardized tests. There is a whole industry that has sprung up specifically to coach students how to adapt to them. The argument against standardized tests isn't because students can't adapt to them, but falls more in two different areas:
a. Whether the tests measure what they purport to measure. The fact that students can adapt test taking techniques to improve their score does create some doubt as to the validity of the measurement beyond general tendencies.

But the same can be said about teacher-written exams. It’s interesting that you seem to think adapting to unfair teachers is an important skill, but adapting to standardized tests is somehow wrong.

and
b. How much schools adapt their courses and teaching to match the test. IE teaching to the test. If it's not on the test, it doesn't get taught. This leaves gaps in the education that are unmeasured because they aren't tested.

Then the test needs to a be updated to properly cover what should be taught.

Again, I think you are conflating two different things. There is a difference between a professor who has high expectations and grades accordingly and a professor who is simply a poor teacher and fails to grade properly. An example of each from my own college time. Professor G was a very tough professor. Had very high standards and graded accordingly. Gave lots of homework. But he was also a very good professor. His homework was directly related to what he taught. His tests measured what he taught. You worked your tail off in his class and EARNED that grade. But when done, you really knew the material. Professor B on the other hand was a poor professor. His lectures were disjoint and rambling. His homework was almost random and disconnected from the lesson. His tests were a mess and the grades worse. He was as you've noted the type who didn't give A's. You were just glad to get out of his class passing and never take him again. Two very different types of professors who you've lumped together.

I understand the difference. I never had anybody like Prof G. But many people claim that they learn a lot from people like Prof B. But, as you know, I don’t agree.

Remember the scale I provided earlier. In this example, knowing the 5 times table is "meets standard" which is a C, not an A. The A would be for knowing the 6 and 7 tables too - outstanding; well above standard.

But if you only get a C for knowing what was taught, then you are being penalized.

It's not a grading problem because it's not driven by how the work was graded, properly or improperly, but by external policy type factors. Those fall within the role of management to fix to ensure all teachers are following policy and not going off on their own.

But most schools have no such policies, and it’s up to the teacher.

We've all had those kinds of teachers. Just different subjects. For me, freshman English. Nearly cost me my scholarship and academic probation. This clown was "woke" well before anyone had even coined the term. He had a particular loathing for what he called sexists words when writing. Pronouns like "he" and "she." Or words like "man" or "human" or well, you get the idea. Using one of those words dropped you a letter grade. A second time was another letter grade. I was just so confused because I couldn't figure out how to please him. He used to call on me often to read in class. It was only late in the semester that some others in the class took pity on me and told me it was because he was making fun of me and my country accept. He basically thought I was a hillbilly and didn't belong in college. He wanted me to lose my scholarship because he didn't think I belonged there. Made a D in that class. Took me two years to dig out of that hole and get my GPA back up.

I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. How should somebody who loses a scholarship because of an unfair grade adapt?

What I was trying to get at was that by focusing on and arguing over the foul call, they lost the advantage and lost a probably goal, but turned around and also lost on the counterattack. If we get too focused on one grade in one class, we can miss the opportunity.

Did they maybe not understand how advantage worked?

[tnff]

We could have some very interesting conversations on several of these topics by themselves they are so interesting. Hopefully I will do them justice in a short paragraph or two.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But the same can be said about teacher-written exams. It’s interesting that you seem to think adapting to unfair teachers is an important skill, but adapting to standardized tests is somehow wrong.

Then the test needs to a be updated to properly cover what should be taught.

I didn't say adapting to standardized tests is wrong. Rather that's part of the issue with them -- the outcomes are so easily gamed by various adaptations. You're concerned about the individual on the test. I'm concerned with how the tests are used to set policy. School systems across the country make many decisions based on standardized test scores. Money is spent or not spent. Curriculum's are changed. Student's are grouped or ungrouped. What is and is not taught. All gets decided by standardized test scores. Take our local school system for example. From the time kids start kindergarten, they are taught how to take standardized tests. The curriculum spends almost as much time on teaching the test as on actually teaching the material.

The issue isn't updating the test to cover what is taught. The problem that is happening is what is taught gets updated to match what is tested. Why? Teachers, principals, administrators, all practically live and die by those test grades. The emphasis is not on student learning but on making themselves look good. All these can lead to poor decisions based on misuse of information that is only generally accurate.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I understand the difference. I never had anybody like Prof G. But many people claim that they learn a lot from people like Prof B. But, as you know, I don’t agree.

That's sad that you never had anyone like him. Toughest but best prof I ever had. But I've never met anyone who claimed they learn a lot from a Prof B type.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But if you only get a C for knowing what was taught, then you are being penalized.

That's not being penalized; it's being properly measured against a standard. That's how you take the grade inflation and subjectivity out of it. Have a standard and measure against it. Doing the minimum required by the standard is not outstanding; it's still the minimum.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But most schools have no such policies, and it’s up to the teacher.

Failure to have a policy is still a management problem. Sounds like the school you went to had both poor teachers and poor management. Not really that uncommon.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. How should somebody who loses a scholarship because of an unfair grade adapt?
?

Dig in. Work hard to improve other grades to counteract that grade.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Did they maybe not understand how advantage worked?

This is actually something that gets discussed a lot around soccer games, esp the higher level they go. It's an interesting topic in psychology between how people in the US view calls vs people in other countries. That's not to say all are the same. In some countries the cry "kill the ref" becomes literal. But in general it seem people in the US want to see punishment paid out. They perceive the whistle and call as being "punishment" and don't grasp that the best punishment is points on the board. American's want to see rules for everything and want to see the rules enforced. Flexibility and adaptability come hard to Americans. And where is the first place that Americans are loaded down with trivial rules: school.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

I didn't say adapting to standardized tests is wrong. Rather that's part of the issue with them -- the outcomes are so easily gamed by various adaptations. You're concerned about the individual on the test. I'm concerned with how the tests are used to set policy. School systems across the country make many decisions based on standardized test scores. Money is spent or not spent. Curriculum's are changed. Student's are grouped or ungrouped. What is and is not taught. All gets decided by standardized test scores. Take our local school system for example. From the time kids start kindergarten, they are taught how to take standardized tests. The curriculum spends almost as much time on teaching the test as on actually teaching the material.

Students “adapt” to the teachers who won’t give A’s by gaming the system so they don’t get stuck with such teachers. For example, in my high school, it was common to sign up for a random elective that conflicted with Mr. E’s class so that you would have to be switched into Mr. G’s class and get your easy A. Do you want employees working for you who were the best at gaming the system? Or do you want your doctor to be whoever was best at gaming the system? I know other posters will say they want their employees and doctor to be whoever has the best soft skills. But I see no evidence that people who are best at gaming the system have better soft skills. People like myself who “adapted” by accepting that life isn’t fair and just deciding to tough it out with Mr. E are the ones who were penalized.

The issue isn't updating the test to cover what is taught. The problem that is happening is what is taught gets updated to match what is tested. Why? Teachers, principals, administrators, all practically live and die by those test grades. The emphasis is not on student learning but on making themselves look good. All these can lead to poor decisions based on misuse of information that is only generally accurate.

But basing those decisions on teacher-written exams is even worse, since it adds another variable.

That's sad that you never had anyone like him. Toughest but best prof I ever had. But I've never met anyone who claimed they learn a lot from a Prof B type.

I posted before about my 6th grade social studies teacher, ironically. Ms. B. Everybody but me said that they learned a lot from her, and everybody but me said that she was firm but fair. You agreed that you would not have learned a lot from her, and you agreed that she was not firm but fair.

That's not being penalized; it's being properly measured against a standard. That's how you take the grade inflation and subjectivity out of it. Have a standard and measure against it. Doing the minimum required by the standard is not outstanding; it's still the minimum.

But if students who know 100% of what was taught but nothing more get a C, then those students are at a serious disadvantage compared to students who had other teachers who gave an A for that.

Failure to have a policy is still a management problem. Sounds like the school you went to had both poor teachers and poor management. Not really that uncommon.

Even if policies are consistently enforced within a school, if different schools have different policies, that still puts some students at a huge advantage compared to others. If one school gives a 0 for any missed exam, and another school allows makeup exams, the students from the school that gives makeup exams will be at a huge advantage.

Dig in. Work hard to improve other grades to counteract that grade.

I think that point you are missing is that most academic scholarships required you to be in the top 5% of your high school class, and my high school had so many students with a perfect 4.0 that you effectively needed a perfect 4.0 to be in the top 5%. Same with getting into Ivy League schools. If you effectively need a perfect 4.0, and you get one teacher who won’t give A’s, no amount of working hard in other classes will counteract that one grade.

And then there was a poster who had a scholarship requiring a perfect 4.0. She lost the scholarship due to a professor error. But no amount of studying hard in other classes will give her back that 4.0.

This is actually something that gets discussed a lot around soccer games, esp the higher level they go. It's an interesting topic in psychology between how people in the US view calls vs people in other countries. That's not to say all are the same. In some countries the cry "kill the ref" becomes literal. But in general it seem people in the US want to see punishment paid out. They perceive the whistle and call as being "punishment" and don't grasp that the best punishment is points on the board. American's want to see rules for everything and want to see the rules enforced. Flexibility and adaptability come hard to Americans. And where is the first place that Americans are loaded down with trivial rules: school.

Interesting. Are foreign schools less focused on enforcing arbitrary rules?

[tnff]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Students “adapt” to the teachers who won’t give A’s by gaming the system so they don’t get stuck with such teachers. For example, in my high school, it was common to sign up for a random elective that conflicted with Mr. E’s class so that you would have to be switched into Mr. G’s class and get your easy A. Do you want employees working for you who were the best at gaming the system? Or do you want your doctor to be whoever was best at gaming the system? I know other posters will say they want their employees and doctor to be whoever has the best soft skills. But I see no evidence that people who are best at gaming the system have better soft skills. People like myself who “adapted” by accepting that life isn’t fair and just deciding to tough it out with Mr. E are the ones who were penalized.

Of course there are folks who game the system. But in general I haven't seen gamers do all that well post high school compared to those who didn't. Someone who games their way into a college they can't handle is going to get slapped in the teeth by it.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But basing those decisions on teacher-written exams is even worse, since it adds another variable.

Those decisions aren't based on individual teacher designed tests. All of those things I mention are related to the misuse of standardized testing.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But if students who know 100% of what was taught but nothing more get a C, then those students are at a serious disadvantage compared to students who had other teachers who gave an A for that.

That's the whole point of having standards. If the standard says "C" then all students would get a C for that work. It's up to management to ensure all the teachers are following the standard. That's the difference between measuring to standards and having standardized tests. You start with a standard, teach to the standard and above; measure against the standard.

If they know only the standard and get a C, then they should be at a serious disadvantage against those students who know more and got higher grades.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Even if policies are consistently enforced within a school, if different schools have different policies, that still puts some students at a huge advantage compared to others. If one school gives a 0 for any missed exam, and another school allows makeup exams, the students from the school that gives makeup exams will be at a huge advantage.

How so? One exam out of one class over an entire academic career is in the noise. If you get to college, I can see an impact since so many classes had only midterm and final, so one test can make or break your grade in a class. But high school? No one is looking that closely at your high school record. Even some of the toughest schools to get into -- the Service Academies -- are looking at more than just grades. When I'm hiring brand new college graduates, I barely look at courses and grades; they're so similar they don't tell me anything.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I think that point you are missing is that most academic scholarships required you to be in the top 5% of your high school class, and my high school had so many students with a perfect 4.0 that you effectively needed a perfect 4.0 to be in the top 5%. Same with getting into Ivy League schools. If you effectively need a perfect 4.0, and you get one teacher who won’t give A’s, no amount of working hard in other classes will counteract that one grade.

And then there was a poster who had a scholarship requiring a perfect 4.0. She lost the scholarship due to a professor error. But no amount of studying hard in other classes will give her back that 4.0.

None of the scholarships I'm familiar with had a top 5% requirement. SAT/ACT carried most of the weight because the colleges know that individual high schools have such varied grading policies to be meaningless.

I'm familiar with some scholarship grading policies once you're in college. I mentioned my own experience elsewhere. But I don't know any that have a 4.0 requirement. That would be more like they are looking for reasons to take it away to start with since maintaining a 4.0 in a major college, esp in a hard subject is dang near impossible. Most scholarships have a GPA requirement, but not that silly. And they offer a grace period to make it up. If we assume that story is correct as presented, then I'd say the college in question had no intention of funding that scholarship or has very, very low academic standards.

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Interesting. Are foreign schools less focused on enforcing arbitrary rules?

Don't know about schools in foreign countries, but it does seem most US schools are more interested in creating and enforcing arbitrary rules than in actually educating kids.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

Of course there are folks who game the system. But in general I haven't seen gamers do all that well post high school compared to those who didn't. Someone who games their way into a college they can't handle is going to get slapped in the teeth by it.

I’ve seen the opposite.

Those decisions aren't based on individual teacher designed tests. All of those things I mention are related to the misuse of standardized testing.

Then maybe instead of eliminating standardized tests, they should just stop misusing them.

]That's the whole point of having standards. If the standard says "C" then all students would get a C for that work. It's up to management to ensure all the teachers are following the standard. That's the difference between measuring to standards and having standardized tests. You start with a standard, teach to the standard and above; measure against the standard.

If they know only the standard and get a C, then they should be at a serious disadvantage against those students who know more and got higher grades.

So you want a national (or world?) standard where everybody who knows everything that was taught gets a C? And you would find a way to force tenured teachers to follow that standard?

How so? One exam out of one class over an entire academic career is in the noise. If you get to college, I can see an impact since so many classes had only midterm and final, so one test can make or break your grade in a class. But high school? No one is looking that closely at your high school record. Even some of the toughest schools to get into -- the Service Academies -- are looking at more than just grades. When I'm hiring brand new college graduates, I barely look at courses and grades; they're so similar they don't tell me anything.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. We clearly had very different experiences.

None of the scholarships I'm familiar with had a top 5% requirement. SAT/ACT carried most of the weight because the colleges know that individual high schools have such varied grading policies to be meaningless.

Most of the scholarships I’m familiar with had a top 5% requirement, and none even looked at the SAT or ACT. I remember being told in high school that the SAT and ACT are nothing more than tie-breakers.

I'm familiar with some scholarship grading policies once you're in college. I mentioned my own experience elsewhere. But I don't know any that have a 4.0 requirement.

That nursing student’s school had a 4.0 requirement. Not saying it’s common.

That would be more like they are looking for reasons to take it away to start with since maintaining a 4.0 in a major college, esp in a hard subject is dang near impossible. Most scholarships have a GPA requirement, but not that silly. And they offer a grace period to make it up.

I think she fell victim to a bait and switch tactic. Realistically, even the best students are going to have that one professor who won’t give anybody an A, or that one class that they struggle with for whatever reason, or a judgment call that is not decided in their favor, or a poorly timed illness or family emergency, or 5 exams and 5 projects all due the same day.

Although, the scholarship that I had was widely considered to be a bait and switch tactic, but I was able to keep it. I guess my college gambled and lost on me.

If we assume that story is correct as presented, then I'd say the college in question had no intention of funding that scholarship or has very, very low academic standards.

Why do you doubt what she said?

Don't know about schools in foreign countries, but it does seem most US schools are more interested in creating and enforcing arbitrary rules than in actually educating kids.

I think you were the one who said that’s because they wanted to generate compliant workers for the factory or the military, and not independent thinkers. But we never moved away from that mentality.

[springfieldva]

93 is an A.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Why do you doubt what she said?
.

For the reason you state here:

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

I think she fell victim to a bait and switch tactic. Realistically, even the best students are going to have that one professor who won’t give anybody an A, or that one class that they struggle with for whatever reason, or a judgment call that is not decided in their favor, or a poorly timed illness or family emergency, or 5 exams and 5 projects all due the same day.
.

Perfection, with steady improvement from there.

For an academically rigorous college, it's essentially a near impossible standard, esp in a field such as nursing. If the standard really is that high, it seems almost like a setup to me. Come to our college for the full scholarship. Oh, darn, you didn't maintain the standard. Guess you'll have to pay for the remaining three years yourself. Not too far different from the for-profit schools who set students up for ruinous student loans where the "advisors" were really salesmen.

Either that or the academic rigor is so low they need to keep students. This played into our oldest going out of state. Could have gone instate for nearly free given the scholarships she had. But after looking at the academics and job results for the school that was offering so much, we decided that the "free" education was going to cost too much in the long term. Much like there's no such thing as a free puppy.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

For the reason you state here:


Perfection, with steady improvement from there.

For an academically rigorous college, it's essentially a near impossible standard, esp in a field such as nursing. If the standard really is that high, it seems almost like a setup to me. Come to our college for the full scholarship. Oh, darn, you didn't maintain the standard. Guess you'll have to pay for the remaining three years yourself. Not too far different from the for-profit schools who set students up for ruinous student loans where the "advisors" were really salesmen.

Either that or the academic rigor is so low they need to keep students. This played into our oldest going out of state. Could have gone instate for nearly free given the scholarships she had. But after looking at the academics and job results for the school that was offering so much, we decided that the "free" education was going to cost too much in the long term. Much like there's no such thing as a free puppy.

I'm sure she was telling the truth, but was naïve to fall for a bait and switch tactic. Although, as I said, the scholarship that I had was widely considered to be a bait and switch tactic, although I was able to keep it.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

This is actually something that gets discussed a lot around soccer games, esp the higher level they go. It's an interesting topic in psychology between how people in the US view calls vs people in other countries. That's not to say all are the same. In some countries the cry "kill the ref" becomes literal. But in general it seem people in the US want to see punishment paid out. They perceive the whistle and call as being "punishment" and don't grasp that the best punishment is points on the board. American's want to see rules for everything and want to see the rules enforced. Flexibility and adaptability come hard to Americans. And where is the first place that Americans are loaded down with trivial rules: school.

I was thinking, and this actually fits with another thing: why so many people claim that that they "learn a lot" from teachers and professors with arbitrary grading, and that such teachers and professors are "firm but fair", even though you and I both disagree, and both feel that we didn't learn as much from such teachers and professors.

Since you say people like to see soccer refs penalizing the other team, even more than scoring against the opposing team, perhaps students like seeing such teachers give bad grades and/or unfair punishments to classmates that they don't like.

Take my 6th grade social studies teacher. She was one that many student said was "tough but you learn a lot", and that she was "firm but fair". The reality was that her class was a disorganized mess. We had 2 textbooks and she would often assign homework from the wrong textbook, so we'd waste time on homework that had nothing to do with what we were learning. The lessons would jump around randomly: one week we'd be learning about the Middle East in the 20th century, the next week we'd be learning about Ancient Greece. She would frequently and randomly give behavior grades to the entire class, where everybody in the class would get the same grade. They would always be a C or a D, and they would count as 2 test grades, and there would be enough of such grades to make it mathematically impossible to get an A in her class, even if you were superhuman and got an A on every exam. Most students said her behavior grades were "firm but fair" since everybody got the same grade and there were no picking favorites. But you and I agreed that giving everybody the same grade is not fair. She would frequently falsely accuse students of cheating. But she didn't pick favorites. Even those who were normally the teachers pets would be falsely accused of cheating. So many students said she was "firm but fair" about cheating, since she didn't pick any favorites. But, you and I both agreed that falsely accusing students of cheating is never fair.

There was a girl, Cori, in that class, who was the typical annoying teacher's pet girl. But in this class, she would get the same behavior grades as everybody else. And even she was falsely accused of cheating at least once. I hate to admit it, but I did get some perverse pleasure in seeing her perfect 4.0 ruined (even though middle school GPA is mostly meaningless), and there being nothing she could do about it, knowing she didn't deserve the A's she got in other classes anyway. I got some perverse pleasure in knowing that her parents likely yelled at her for getting a B in the class, and likely yelled at her about her behavior grades, and likely yelled at her for cheating, even though there was absolutely nothing she could have done. And I got some perverse pleasure in knowing that she at least got a glimpse of what school life was like for the rest of us, who weren't teacher's pets. But I would never say I learned much from that teacher, nor would I ever say she was a fair teacher.