Question on this last part. Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, the holy grail for making it to College was that you were given the freedom to show up to class when/if you pleased, and would pass based on the merits of your assignments/exams. Obviously, by 1990, this was no longer the case . What happened? Back to griping. Damned incompletes still kicking my ass, keeping me up late... *grumble grumble*
Interesting question, but first, hope you're having good luck on the incompletes. As far as having the freedom to show up and passing based on the assignments, that still works in some lecture classes, even at the small college where I teach. But this particular course enrolls 18 and is run pretty much in a workshop format, so if you don't show up, you're not doing specific assignments. As far as attendance policies go, most professors have them just to have the option of using them. Again in my case, if a student misses more classes than the syllabus allows, but still gets all the work done on time and isn't a pain in the ass, I can let him or her slide. But if they miss these classes and expect me to take time tutoring them on stuff that was already covered, or if they assume they're entitled to the benefit of the doubt because they're somehow more special than the other students, then I'll invoke the attendance policy to lower their grade accordingly. It's a judgment call for me.
I'll add to what Dr. Wankler posted: in that far off time, simply lecturing at students was acceptable. I lecture to you roughly what is in assigned texts, you write it down or not as you wish. I assess you on the material. Now (thankfully in my mind) class sessions tend to be more interactive and dynamic, and many of us assign texts that complement or supplement lecture material rather than replicate it. Here's the funny thing: the new model is more work for us. The class needs your attendance, and you need to attend. You will not pass otherwise. Not "you" you, SObearCAL, "you" the student you.
Boy, that's true, especially if you do it well. There are a lot of students who think that it's actually less work (and it might be, if the teacher doesn't prepare or doesn't listen to students in order to direct the lines of questioning in productive ways), but it would be so much easier just to go in and talk for 50-75 minutes, then check to see how well the tests and papers reproduce the content of the lectures.
I have FOUR days left, just four left in my time in secondary (high) school. I have 7 exams that decide what college I get into coming up in June, but I'm pretty confident about them - this has been one long, hard, grinding year and it's all over come Thursday!!
Well hot damn. I got 5 As and 1 B (literature). And I got a 97% on that final, too. Guess it's not good enough for her. I hate our grading scale, also. Flippin 92% is a B. FnA.
Lots of schools have different grading scales. Our official grading scale has, I believe 94 as an A. My high school had that too. I have a hard time giving someone with an 85 a C though... I think that's what it is... so I don't really use the scale. Schools say that they want "academic rigor" and to be more challenging. I guess calling a 93 a B is the way they want to do it, but I prefer the regular scale. Next year, I want to try something new though. I want to do a typical grading scale with a twist. 100-90 = A 89- 80 = B 79 - 70 = C Below 70... F!!!!!! At my school, too many students only want that D. That's what they strive for. I want to eliminate the 60s completely... not have them be actual success. I think it's fair.
Here's ours: A 100-93 B 92-86 C 85-77 D 76-70 F 69-0 So I got a 98% on my term paper. A 94% on the final. But my busy work for the semester was only an 89%. I just hate it when teachers give a shitload of busywork because, well, I'm kind of lazy.
That's how some schools are grading. I see no problem in it. A "C" is bad enough, so why should there be a "D?"