By Professor Doom
College sure has
changed since I started, decades ago, and a recent satirical article cut just a
little close to home, becoming almost “truth” instead of satire. I recall one
of my early experiments in giving a multiple choice test. A sample question:
If P(A) = 0.2 and P(B)
= 0.6, and P(A and B) = 0.1 what is P(A or B)?
a) 0.4
b) 1.0
c) 0.7
d) My head hurts
The university, a
restricted admissions university, had changed the rules so that it was both
restricted admission, and open admission—anyone who was willing to pay the
tuition could take the course, but, due a quirk in the regulations, it could
still classify itself as not an open admissions university.
The results were
predictable: a flood of students whose only qualification was the ability to
check a box qualifying for student loans poured onto campus. Literally from one
semester to the next, I could no longer cover the same material in the same
courses…but nobody had given me the memo about the change, so I was blindsided.
Yes, I got the admin notice that they needed to “temporarily” expand class size
from 20 to 35, but I was still pretty naïve and didn’t connect the dots.
The first test,
instead of having a class average of around 75%, was around 30%, a huge drop,
mostly due to about a dozen students who scored fairly close to 0%. Such a variation was pretty big, as this was
a 2000 level course, I shouldn’t have “zero” students here, as every student,
theoretically, had already taken at least a year of college courses and knew
about studying.
The class was
large (stop laughing, honest there was a time when a class with 35 students in
it was considered large), so I decided to try a multiple choice test. Feeling
kind, I gave the students a small break with one of the possible answers, above.
The grades,
once again, were disastrous. Oh, the average was around 30%, but this means
nothing on a multiple choice test—a student picking randomly would score 25%
based on pure luck (although I had a few students score worse than 25% all the
same). One girl actually selected “d) My head hurts”, and I marked it wrong—I
would have given her a break if she’d written the correct answer somewhere.
I pass back the
tests, and go over the questions. The girl interrupts me angrily, to ask why I
marked her answer wrong. “Because the answer to the question needs to be a
probability,” I answered.
“But my head did
hurt!” she hostilely replied. I responded calmly, doing what I thought was a
good job in not laughing (although no students were laughing), explaining that
if the question was how her head felt, she’d have a point. We went back and
forth a bit, before finally she stormed out of class to complain to the dean.
I got a warning
from the dean not to be so disrespectful to the students. The dean didn’t even
bother to get my side before warning me in writing. We really, really, need to
get rid of administrators with no respect for education or educators. That was
quite a few years ago.
Educationist: “What we’re doing now is
giving partial credit for ‘nearly correct’ answers on multiple choice tests.
So, students get full credit for correct answers, then 66% credit for the next best answer, than 33% for the next best, and nothing for the worst,
for example.”
Me: “But in a multiple choice test, a
student can get the problem right just for guessing…isn’t that already a form
of partial credit?”
Educationist: “Yes, but this method is
far more fair. It’s also been shown to greatly increase passing and retention
rates, especially if we go to a more generous grading scale.”
A more diligent math faculty: “The new
scale puts failing at below 50%, how did you get that number?”
Educationist: “Because we honestly feel
that a student who is getting more than half right on the test is clearly
trying, and should get credit for that.”
Diligent: “Do you even know how expected
value works? A chimpanzee taking this test with your credit system is going to
score 50%!”
Educationist: “You should not refer to
our students as chimpanzees. I don’t feel you’re giving this system a fair
chance.”
--I’m serious, the
Educationist proposed a system where, guessing randomly, a student would score
50%, so even someone completely ignorant of the course would be mathematically
unlikely to fail, and, incredibly, proposed it as an “improvement.”
Things sure have changed. Now, the
material in my courses is materially influenced by administrators that have no
knowledge of the course material, and I have courses where the grading system
is completely out of my control (and, yes, it is set up so that it is very,
very, hard for even a pure random guesser to fail).
Admin tells me my
material, tells me my grading. How long until they tell me what the correct
answers are? How long until correct answers, even in mathematics, are
determined strictly by administrative fiat?
The article is, I
presume, satire but…having seen so much degradation of higher education, I
can’t remove it from the realm of possibility for an administrator to stumble
upon the article, read the lines:
An update issued
Monday to the 2016–2017 Common Core educational standards now allows
students to answer mathematics problems by responding with whatever their
feelings are telling them at the time, sources confirmed.
And think to
himself (or more likely, herself): “Hmm, emotions aren’t wrong, so answering
questions this way will improve retention!” This sounds like pure lunacy and
outright fraud, but I’ve already seen similar thinking from higher ed
administration more times than I can count.
Me: “There’s no way
this person is a degree seeking student. Nobody is commuting 500 miles one way
to get a degree from here. It’s wrong to give funnel loan money through this
school when it’s clear fraud.”
Admin, angrily: “As
long as they believe they’re seeking a degree when they check the box, we are
in no position to argue.”
The kind of
demented thinking above has a reflection in the linked article:
“Who are we to tell anyone that their own mathematical truth is wrong?” the rep added.
So much of what I
see in higher education today, from unhinged
syllabi, ridiculously
low graduation rates from a bogus school, laughably
poor scholarship, to intergenerational
open racketeering frauds, would classify as satire or fiction if I wrote of
it twenty years ago. It simply isn’t
hard for me to believe that, someday, on college campus, “2 + 2 = I’m
triggered” will be considered a valid calculation.
No comments:
Post a Comment