Anonymous wrote:It is the bonus season with my employer with a bonus pool of 500K for a group of ten SWEs. They will NOT give out a 50K bonus per employee. There is a ranking system and some will get 100K and some will get 20K. I am being compared with others in my group and everyone can't have the same exceptional performance. It is like a tennis tournament where there is only one winner at the end, then a runner up, semi-finalist, and so on. That's how college should be grading students. Not everyone is a winner.

Why though? Should the process of being educated be more about competition than mastery? Because you have the kind of job that rewards competition?

If so, that suggests an interesting strategy for excellent students: Instead of seeking out equally excellent peers, novel experiences and difficult challenges, they should go where they will most surely win accolades and prizes. Why risk their gpa or class standing or whatever ranking and bonus system that people like PP value so highly. Learning and accomplishments are apparently only to be valued if you’re publicly ranked superior to your supposed peers and get to buy more toys. Is this what people like Felicity Huffman were thinking?

Values like this would have Brewster and Giamatti rolling in their graves. But possibly not Schmidt, so, there’s that.

It is the bonus season with my employer with a bonus pool of 500K for a group of ten SWEs. They will NOT give out a 50K bonus per employee. There is a ranking system and some will get 100K and some will get 20K. I am being compared with others in my group and everyone can't have the same exceptional performance. It is like a tennis tournament where there is only one winner at the end, then a runner up, semi-finalist, and so on. That's how college should be grading students. Not everyone is a winner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how good ivy students are.
Born leaders.
Natural academic talent.
This explains mostly As.

Oh Christ.

These kids are top 1%, nationally and internationally.

What's the point of refining their pecking order to top 1%, top 10% top 25%, top 50%, bottom 75%, bottom 10%, bottom 1%?

Why have grades at all?

I would argue differently. I'd say that if you take a group of kids who've been taught to chase for perfect brass rings all of their lives and give them all A's for "effort," you're not encouraging them to take risks, or do more than the minimum, or really anything but rest on their laurels.

I mean you kind of have to, because we've collectively decided they're all too delicate to fail.

Not all colleges follow this stupid, privileged grading policy, just like not all colleges have their students' work graded by adjunct graduate students making 3k a semester--

Your premise is not correct— or at least not universally correct. There really are students who are intellectually curious, highly motivated learners. Many of them get excellent grades. It’s incorrect to assume that they aren’t taking risks , that they’re not doing more than the minimum, or even that they have chasing “for perfect brass rings” as a goal.
While this might not be your particular experience, schools like Yale actively seek out these kinds of students. And parents like many who post here complain when their kids who match your description don’t get in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how good ivy students are.
Born leaders.
Natural academic talent.
This explains mostly As.

Oh Christ.

These kids are top 1%, nationally and internationally.

What's the point of refining their pecking order to top 1%, top 10% top 25%, top 50%, bottom 75%, bottom 10%, bottom 1%?

Why have grades at all?

I would argue differently. I'd say that if you take a group of kids who've been taught to chase for perfect brass rings all of their lives and give them all A's for "effort," you're not encouraging them to take risks, or do more than the minimum, or really anything but rest on their laurels.

I mean you kind of have to, because we've collectively decided they're all too delicate to fail.

Not all colleges follow this stupid, privileged grading policy, just like not all colleges have their students' work graded by adjunct graduate students making 3k a semester--

Anonymous wrote:The reason for the high gpa across these schools is because they permit students to easily drop classes at the end of the term - utilized when performing other than “A” work. The old survivorship bias.

You can’t “easily drop classes at the end of the term” — it’s much earlier on in the term than that. This type of plan was put in place, at least at Yale, to encourage students to take more academic risks and challenges, and to discourage being overly focused on grades. Also, students still have to maintain a minimum number of courses/ credits each term. So someone taking, say, 5 courses might be able to drop one, while someone taking 4 courses might not be able to drop any courses and still remain in good standing.

I’m not clear what your comment has to do with “survivorship bias”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have an Einstein and a Newton in a class of 2, why can't they both get As they deserve. Why must there always an F?

Because you are grading the class. If you have a class of two, only one can be #1.

So Einstein and Newton cannot both receive 100 out of 100 in physics final. They both can't score 5s in AP Physics.

Got it.

No, because (according to my sons' teacher, who constant defends his ridiculous curve) if everyone taking it gets 100% then the test was too easy.

Well, I guess that depends upon the goal. If the goal is mastery of a specific set of skills or a specific body of knowledge— and all of the students master that knowledge, many would say that they were good students with a good teacher. Perhaps your “sons’ teacher” has a different goal.

Anonymous wrote:The reason for the high gpa across these schools is because they permit students to easily drop classes at the end of the term - utilized when performing other than “A” work. The old survivorship bias.

There's a drop policy - but not at the end of the term.

Anonymous wrote:The reason for the high gpa across these schools is because they permit students to easily drop classes at the end of the term - utilized when performing other than “A” work. The old survivorship bias.

I can confirm that an ivy, not Yale, this is done. Not sure if this is unique with ivies. Its probably the same elsewhere.

The reason for the high gpa across these schools is because they permit students to easily drop classes at the end of the term - utilized when performing other than “A” work. The old survivorship bias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have an Einstein and a Newton in a class of 2, why can't they both get As they deserve. Why must there always an F?

Because you are grading the class. If you have a class of two, only one can be #1.

So Einstein and Newton cannot both receive 100 out of 100 in physics final. They both can't score 5s in AP Physics.

Got it.

No, because (according to my sons' teacher, who constant defends his ridiculous curve) if everyone taking it gets 100% then the test was too easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s try this again: Extremely bright, extremely motivated, extremely achievement-oriented students choose a top school.
They are given tasks and assignments. If all of them do what they are asked to do, then all of them get As — as they should.

It really doesn’t make sense to continually post threads questioning why students who were picked because they are excellent students earning top grades continue to be excellent students earning top grades while they are in college. Education doesn’t require artificially creating a zero sum game. Education requires mastery.

If everyone is getting a 3.7 GPA or higher, it will make the vetting process by employers much harder.

This is NOT how it works in the real world. In my software engineering group of twenty, two people will get a rating of 4 (exceptional), three people will get a rating of 3 (outstanding), ten people will get a rating of two (successful), and five people will get a rating of 1 (below average). Why can't they do the same in college? Where I work, they will pick a recent grad with a 2.5 GPA but with AWS certification(s) over a grad with 4.0 GPA but no AWS certification(s).

But what if a particular cohort of employees is truly exceptional? What if more than two people deserve a 4? What if no one deserves a 4 that year? What if you’ve managed to put together an amazing team, as every employer hopes to do, and you genuinely want to keep them all. You’ll still give five 1s? How would that be in the company’s interest?

It's the Jack Welch school of management. It works great if the goal is getting rid of dead weight. The downside is that it breeds a culture of fear and you end up losing the people that you wanted to retain.

It’s the Squid Game school of management. An extremely weird example to use when describing the “real world,” bc the rules are both arbitrary and human-designed, no less so than a hypothetical college with a documented policy that assigns everyone an A.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI admits often submit lousy work but profs have to give them decent grades. To stay reasonably objective, this means the better work of non-DEI admits has to be graded at least as well or higher. The end result is almost everyone gets high grades. NYT won't tell you this but it's the obvious explanation.

Oh horse shit, you racist piece of excrement.

It's not racism. They explicitly lower standards to achieve whatever diversity they want to achieve. This is mathematically inevitable.

That didn't actually happen, moron. What bizarre fantasy life you lead.

Unless, as others point out, you mean "athletes" when you say "DEI?"

Or, white kids?

Ok, so you think black/Hispanic/first gen kids are of equivalent academic caliber - even though we know based on hard statistical information they are not? It's not even some kind of secret the schools deny - they openly have lower standards to achieve diversity objectives.

Prove this. Shouldn’t be hard since it’s something you say they “openly.”

And define “standards” while you are at it.

I refer to the data discovered in the scotus case.

The entire premise of affirmative action is that it is okay to lower standards for certain groups to achieve diversity, which allegedly serves the greater good. So I don’t get why my statement is the least bit controversial. You actually think black kids and Asian kids are held to the same standards in any respect?

There was data that students at Harvard submitted lower quality work and there was pressure to give them better grades? That was your stupid claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI admits often submit lousy work but profs have to give them decent grades. To stay reasonably objective, this means the better work of non-DEI admits has to be graded at least as well or higher. The end result is almost everyone gets high grades. NYT won't tell you this but it's the obvious explanation.

Oh horse shit, you racist piece of excrement.

It's not racism. They explicitly lower standards to achieve whatever diversity they want to achieve. This is mathematically inevitable.

That didn't actually happen, moron. What bizarre fantasy life you lead.

Unless, as others point out, you mean "athletes" when you say "DEI?"

Or, white kids?

Ok, so you think black/Hispanic/first gen kids are of equivalent academic caliber - even though we know based on hard statistical information they are not? It's not even some kind of secret the schools deny - they openly have lower standards to achieve diversity objectives.

Prove this. Shouldn’t be hard since it’s something you say they “openly.”

And define “standards” while you are at it.

I refer to the data discovered in the scotus case.

The entire premise of affirmative action is that it is okay to lower standards for certain groups to achieve diversity, which allegedly serves the greater good. So I don’t get why my statement is the least bit controversial. You actually think black kids and Asian kids are held to the same standards in any respect?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI admits often submit lousy work but profs have to give them decent grades. To stay reasonably objective, this means the better work of non-DEI admits has to be graded at least as well or higher. The end result is almost everyone gets high grades. NYT won't tell you this but it's the obvious explanation.

Oh horse shit, you racist piece of excrement.

It's not racism. They explicitly lower standards to achieve whatever diversity they want to achieve. This is mathematically inevitable.

That didn't actually happen, moron. What bizarre fantasy life you lead.

Unless, as others point out, you mean "athletes" when you say "DEI?"

Or, white kids?

Ok, so you think black/Hispanic/first gen kids are of equivalent academic caliber - even though we know based on hard statistical information they are not? It's not even some kind of secret the schools deny - they openly have lower standards to achieve diversity objectives.

Prove this. Shouldn’t be hard since it’s something you say they “openly.”

And define “standards” while you are at it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI admits often submit lousy work but profs have to give them decent grades. To stay reasonably objective, this means the better work of non-DEI admits has to be graded at least as well or higher. The end result is almost everyone gets high grades. NYT won't tell you this but it's the obvious explanation.

Oh horse shit, you racist piece of excrement.

It's not racism. They explicitly lower standards to achieve whatever diversity they want to achieve. This is mathematically inevitable.

That didn't actually happen, moron. What bizarre fantasy life you lead.

Unless, as others point out, you mean "athletes" when you say "DEI?"

Or, white kids?

Ok, so you think black/Hispanic/first gen kids are of equivalent academic caliber - even though we know based on hard statistical information they are not? It's not even some kind of secret the schools deny - they openly have lower standards to achieve diversity objectives.

DP: Actually, in many cases, the First Gen kids are often better.

- Some admits have had all of the advantages that money and educated parents can pour at them since before birth — from private schools with small class sizes, to tutoring, enrichment activities of all kinds, and parents who know how the system works. Compare them with kids who lacked most or even all of those advantages— and still manage to do well enough to get accepted to top colleges — and do well once they get there.

- Doesn’t that make you wonder what those more privileged admits might look like as a cohort — if they hadn’t had lifetimes supported by all of those privileges?