How is the value of something determined? Historically I believe it stems from the supply and demand concept. Something that is in short supply but high demand will be assessed a higher value than something in high supply and that is of relatively no use. The key word here being relative. Usually I try to focus on only one concept at a time but I believe in this situation the concept of relativity and value both need to be understood.
rel⋅a⋅tive
–adjective:
1. considered in relation to something else; comparative: the relative merits of democracy and monarchy.
2. having reference or regard; relevant; pertinent
How do you determine value without creating an equal playing field? Value can not exist without defining it in a relative context. My specific issue has to do with academic assessment with grades. Do grades really measure the value of someone's knowledge? And I don't just mean worth, but actual amount of knowledge. When you are hiring someone and you look at their grades, are you not doing this to determine how well they know what they are doing? But grades have very little to do with actual topic knowledge.
Let me explain. Let's take three students. All of them are taking the same math class but with three different professors. Each student has the same knowledge and proficiency going into the class. However, the following is how it plays out:
Student 1, Class A: (Syllabus-Grade Distribution)
Exams = 90% of final grade
Homework = 10% of final grade
Student 2, Class B: (Syllabus-Grade Distribution)
Exams = 10%
Homework = 10%
Smiling = 60%
Attendance = 20%
Student 3, Class C (Syllabus- Grade Distribution)
Exams = 25%
Homework = 25%
Attendance = 25%
Quizes = 25%
The student in the first class has almost all his grade based on his exams. Student 2 only has to show up and smile and he gets an 80% (B-) and student 3 has to work equally on all the areas of the class if he wants to pass. All three get A's at the end of the semester. Without having the student's syllabus while evaluating their GPA how do you know who will be the best one hire to do math problems for your company? How can you be sure that you are getting the person with the most knowledge when there is no universal criteria for evaluating students? Yet we place so much emphasis on grades.
A grade can only hold value if the value can be compared or is truly relative to other grades. Another way to think about this is with money. Lets imagine that all of the sudden we are told that some of our $1 are now really worth $1000. They look exactly like $1 bills and each day they change. So if you happen to have a $1 bill that is worth $1000 today, it may no longer be worth that much tomorrow. Does that dollar really hold any value? If the worth is not consistent than it can not be relatively compared to assess value. Think about owning a store where you have to sell a lamp for $60 in order to make a profit. How do you price that lamp if someone can buy it today with a $1 bill worth $1000 but tomorrow the bill he used to pay it with changes back to a true $1 bill. Eventually $1 bills become avoided because they are not reliable, their worth and value mean nothing.
If some of my professors value attendance, some don't; some think it's important to have an assignment typed, but others don't care as long as you can make an argument. How are we as students supposed to know what to do? If I am told to write a paper and write it in blue ink instead of black should that be grounds to fail the assignment even though I have a better understanding of the information than the individual who uses the black ink but can barely put together sentences? Why are we getting so wrapped up in stuff that holds no significance with regards to what KNOWLEDGE we are trying to learn.
I think colleges have become factories producing (and rewarding) students for NOT thinking and instead focusing on the ability to do what you're told without asking questions. We are creating a country of lemmings where knowledge is not valued, complacency is. Should I be upset that I know more than any other student in my class but I didn't turn an assignment into the right place? I e-mailed it instead of turning it later when I was sick and got a zero for an assignment I actually did. An assignment my professor wouldn't even look at because I didn't jump through the right hoops? I am sure some of the best minds in America are being wasted because they aren't going to jump through arbitrary hoops in order to be considered worthwhile. Why jump through someone else's hoops trying to succeed when there is no guarantee you will or when any idiot off the street could do it?
People sometimes ask me what I'm complaining about, you get an easy A if you just jump through hoops. You don't even have to study. I think this comment emphasizes the mindset of the people we are labeling as our elite. People with real intellectual ability actually WANT to learn. They don't want to just get an A for showing up and receive a substandard education. They want to be challenged and pushed to think, and they want to be valued because of their brains and not how well they can follow directions.
I just never understand why we spend so much time promoting conformity and compliance while honoring individuals who have made change. We celebrate countless holidays for people who have achieved great things in their lives. Name one who agreed with conformity and compliance. Why are we not trying to produce our next generation of amazing people?
This post may seem like a lot of rambling and I apologize that it is not my best writing but I am afraid I may have let my emotions get the best of me on this piece. I speak as someone with a high IQ, above average academic abilities, and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge that is unable to succeed because of the lack of appreciation for any of these qualities. We kid ourselves and say we value education but we don't. It's the same reason that we can't compete on a global level. We are more concerned with 'passing' as many students as we can without actually evaluating their acquisition of information. Our country may have a higher GPA than any other country, but we are idiots. We don't know even the most fundamental academic information because our grading system is allowed to give passing grades for things like perfect attendance. So what if a student showed up to class everyday, can you prove to me that they learned anything? I see the students in our honors programs and laugh as I tutor them in their classes. I can't get into an honors program because of my GPA but I spend my week tutoring three honor students to help them pass their classes? Honor's students are usually just the students who had the luck of the draw in getting classes where 60% of the grade is just showing up to class.
It's not fair, and I don't mean that personally. I mean we are not doing anyone any favors. As a country we are so afraid to just accept that some people can't do things. Some people just will never be able to do Physics. So why not nurture the minds of those who can rather than passing everyone who can't just so that we can pretend everyone can do anything. I thought part of college curriculum was decided because in order to do a certain job one has to demonstrate proficiencies in certain areas. If we just pass anyone who tries are we doing any favors to that field?
I'm tired of the arbitrary value of our grading system and the fact that an A means nothing. How does someone with a 2.0 get a 34 on their ACT's? And don't tell me I just didn't try. I did, I tried to learn the information. I didn't draw pretty pictures and write love notes to my teachers. In the end that hurt me. When will we stop worrying about hurting people's feelings and start true competition on the intellectual playing field? Right now, we are in a valueless educational system, and that makes us all losers.
Posts
