s_Commentary_The_Outstanding_Grade_Inflation_Papers
- 格式:pdf
- 大小:146.29 KB
- 文档页数:6
JudgeÕsCommentary323JudgeÕsCommentary:TheOutstandingGradeInßationPapers
DanielZwillingerWaltham,MA02453zwillinger@alum.mit.edu
Gradepointaverage(GPA)isthemostwidelyusedsummaryofunder-graduatestudentperformance.Unfortunately,combiningstudentgradesus-ingsimpleaveragingtoobtainaGPAscoreresultsinsystematicbiasesagainststudentsenrolledinmorerigorouscurriculaand/ortakingmorecourses.Hereisanexample[LarkeyandCaulkins1992]offourstudents(callthemIÐIV)inwhichStudentIalwaysobtainsthebestgradeineverycoursethatshetakesandStudentIValwaysobtainstheworsegradeineverycoursethathetakes,yetStudentIhasalowerGPAthanStudentIVdoes:
StudentIStudentIIStudentIIIStudentIVCourseGPACourse1B+B−3.00Course2C+C2.15
Course3AB+3.65
Course4C−D1.35
Course5AA−3.85Course6B+B3.15
Course7B+B3.15
Course8B+BB−C+2.83Course9BB−2.85
StudentGPA2.782.862.883.0
TheMCMproblemwastodetermineaÒbetterÓrankingthanoneusingpureGPAs;thisproblemhasnosimpleÒsolution.ÓJohnson[1997]referstomanystudiesofthistopicandsuggestsatechniquethatwasconsideredÑbutnotacceptedÑbythefacultyatDukeUniversity.Eachparticipatingteamistobecommendedforitseffortsintacklingthisproblem.Asinanyopen-endedmathematicalmodelingproblem,thereisnotonlygreatlatitudeforinnovativesolutiontechniquesbutalsotheriskofÞnding
TheUMAPJournal19(3)(1998)323Ð327.cCopyright1998byCOMAP,Inc.Allrightsreserved.PermissiontomakedigitalorhardcopiesofpartorallofthisworkforpersonalorclassroomuseisgrantedwithoutfeeprovidedthatcopiesarenotmadeordistributedforproÞtorcommercialadvantageandthatcopiesbearthisnotice.Abstractingwithcreditispermitted,butcopyrightsforcomponentsofthisworkownedbyothersthanCOMAPmustbehonored.Tocopyotherwise,torepublish,topostonservers,ortoredistributetolistsrequirespriorpermissionfromCOMAP.324TheUMAPJournal19.3noresultsvaluableinsupportingoneÕsthesis.Solutionssubmittedcontainedawidevarietyofapproaches,includinggraphtheoryandfuzzylogic.Unfortunately,severalteamswereconfusedastotheexactproblemthatthedeanwantedsolved.Assigningstudentstodeciles,byitself,wasnottheproblem;forexample,decilescouldbeassignedfromanylistofstudentnamesbychoosingtheÞrst10%ofthestudentstobeintheÞrstdecile,etc.Thedeanwantedmeaningfuldeciles,basedonstudentsÕrelativecourseperformance.Simplyre-scalingGPAssothattheaveragebecamelower(andthetop10%becamemorespreadout)wouldnotchangetheinherentproblem.Theproblemstatementsuggestedthatrelativerankingsofstudentswithincoursesshouldbeusedtoevaluatestudentperformance.Withthisassumption,possibleapproachesinclude:
•usingrelativerankingwithgradeinformation(Ausefuladditionalassumptionmightbethatfacultywouldgivegradesbasedonanabsoluteconceptofwhatconstitutesmasteryofacourse.)
•usingrelativerankingwithoutgradeinformation
Inthelatterapproach(chosenbymostteams),aninstructorwhoassignsAstoallstudentsinacourseprovidesexactlythesameinformationasaninstructorwhoassignsallCstothesamestudentsinanothercourse.SpeciÞcitemsthatthejudgeslookedforinthepapersincluded:
•ReferencetorankingproblemsinotherÞeldsthatuserelativeperformanceresults,suchaschessandgolf.
•Adetailedworked-outexample,illustratingthemethod(s)proposed,eveniftherewereonly4studentsintheexample.
•Computationalresults(whenappropriate)andproperconsiderationoflargedatasets.Teamsthatusedonlyasmallsampleintheircomputationalanal-ysis(say20students)didnotappreciatemanyofthedifÞcultieswithimple-mentingagradeadjustmenttechnique.
•Mention(ifnotuse)ofthefactthateventhoughtheGPAmaynotbeasÒgoodÓadiscriminatorasthevarioussolutionsobtainedbytheteams,itseemsreasonablethattherebesomecorrelationbetweenthetwo.
•AresponseindicatingunderstandingofthequestionaboutthechangingofanindividualstudentÕsgrade.SuchagradechangecouldaffectthatstudentÕsranking,butifitaffectedmanyotherstudentsÕranksthenthemodelisprobablyunstable.
•Aclear,concise,complete,andmeaningfullistofassumptions.Neededassumptionsincluded:JudgeÕsCommentary325ÐTheaveragegradewasA−.(Thismustbeassumed,asitwasstatedintheproblemstatementÑamazingly,severalteamsassumedotherstartingaverages!)
Ðinan{A+,A,A−,...}system,notallgradeswereA−.(Otherwise,thereisnohopefordistinguishingstudentperformance.)
Manyteamsconfusedassumptionswiththeresultsthattheyweretryingtoobtain.Teamsalsomadeassumptionsthatwerenotusedintheirsolution,werenaive,orneededfurtherjustiÞcation.Forexample,
ÐManyteamsassumedacontinuousdistributionofgrades.Asanapprox-imationofadiscretedistribution,thisisÞne.However,severalteamsallowedgradeshigherthanA+,andotherteamsneglectedtoconverttoadiscreteonewhenactuallysimulatinggrades.