Today I ran into a personal/professional/moral dilemma...I was approached by a student wanting to know what his attendance record is. In this particular class, the syllabus says that if you miss more than 2 days, then you will be penalized 1% on your final grade for every day that you miss. This student had 3 absences...we're not sure if that's going to get him 1% or 3% off the final grade (syllabus wording is ambiguous).
Attendance is taken by a "sign-in sheet" that gets passed around student to student on randomly selected days. I found the sign in sheet for one of the days that he had missed, and there was a blank spot where students had just skipped writing their names...it was definately big enough to fit his name in there without looking suspicious. Then, there's the electronic record to worry about...I had already sent an electronic copy containing this absence to the other TA.
Now, I think I need to say that this student missed these classes because he does not think that the teacher does a particularly good job of explaining things in class. (I happen to agree, but that's beside the point). He told me that he spent the days he missed in his room reading the book, making flashcards, studying, etc. I believe him because he has scored the second highest grade on both of the tests in the class to date. He started going to every class after he realized how the attendance policy would affect his grade (should have read the syllabus in the fist place, I know). Now, he tells me about the way that the second test was curved (class average about 64). The curving system seems to favor those with lower grades without also boosting those students who scored in the top echelon.
At this point, I feel like helping the guy out. In fact, if it hadn't been for the electronic copy of the attendance sheet that I sent to the other TA, I very well may have fudged the records in this kid's favor. But I had to go ask the other TA what he thinks. He said that he thinks it's dishonest. He's right. BUT I feel that the change may have been justified in the name of fairness. I know that this student is one of the ones who puts in the most effort (it shows in his class participation, conduct, and most of all--test grades). Furthermore, there are days that don't have an attendance list/sign-in-sheet passed around. So, it is possible for students to have missed many days and not get penalized for those days. Kind of sucks if the only days that you did miss were on sign-in days. Then again, this student told me that he had missed 5 class periods.
Turns out that our solution is that he studies hard for the final and gets a great grade on it. He might come in for tutoring in the computer lab just to make sure that he's on pace to get that good final grade. He's also asking for clarification on whether it will be 1% or 3% off the final grade.
I think that it is possible to be dishonest, but fair. Unfair but dishonest. Which is valued more? "Life's not fair" seems to express a common sentiment on the subject, but I don't think that came about by comparing fairness with the honest aspects of life. I think that it is possible to make decisions for situations like these on an individual basis.
As it turns out, I was unsure about the Pareto-impact this decision would have on the class as a whole. If records were not fudged, then that is a Pareto-efficient outcome, as nobody is worse off than they were before. If records were fudged, then it is Pareto-efficient only if it would affect this student's grade in a way that didn't impact the curve, because if the curve got shifted up because of him, then other students would get lower grades and that would not be Pareto-efficient. That would all depend on how the curve works, and it's safe to say that nobody knows how the final curve will be derived.
Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm a little on the fence on this one. But the truth is I think attendance policies are kind of silly. If a professor does a good job students will want to come and if students do poorly because they don't come to class that's their fault. A student's performance in a class is their responsibility and after a certain point College being that point a student is responsible enough and knows enough about how they learn to be able to make the right decision when it comes to their education. I don't know if that was coherent cause I'm a little tired but that's what I think < 3 Shell
I agree with
HBF, I didn't mean to do that. I agree with Shell, except that I'm not on the fence. If someone is clearly demonstrating to you that they are dedicated to improving the quality of the education they are receiving, then to a certain extent the manner in which they do so is irrelevant. If you believe that this person's scores are gained legitimately, than that's all you need.
Attendance is silly. But that is beside the point. There is a policy set forth and (however silly) it is to be followed.
If the student comes to class (ear plugs) and works on reading and flash cards they will be fine.
They do not have to put YOU in a bad position because they lack creativity. And to be honest his complaints about the curve are juvenile.
The point of the examinations and papers is to show how much of the material that was grasped. If the student only got 87% of the material then it simply sucks for them. If more professors took this kind of stance in the classroom then students would be forced to either 1) drop the class or 2) rise up to meet expectations.
By the way, has anyone ever really cared what your undergraduate GPA was? My employers don't care about the GPA of my M.Ed and the Ph.D programs (for education) see GPA as something near the bottom of the list for a candidate. They were much more interested in my thesis.
I teach kids like this that try to flaunt the rules and believe they should get away with it because they are intelligent. If you miss work because you think you can be more productive at home you get fired. You're right, "life is not fair." But we deal with it until we are in a position to change it.
This is a Speluncean Explorer problem, do we follow the letter of the law/rule (attendance policy enforcement) or do we not enforce for unintended outcomes? Thought likely final grades are in and my analysis is untimely, it seems to me that your pareto optimality analysis fails to discount for an honest mistake. For instance let's assume that his mistake was honest (supported by his future attendance) and that had he gone to class every day he would be entitled to a higher grade relative to the curve. Assuming desert / fundamental fairness, to penalize him for an honest mistake (that had no effect on his class performance) would be pareto inefficient. That is to say he would be adversely impacted for an honest mistake. The solution going forward seems to be to make everyone aware of the attendance policy and not simply providing constructive notice via handout.
Of course this theory doesn't take into account the decrease in deterrence related to probability of enforcement (if word gets out that the attendance policy is malleable all bets are off)
Further, the point of an undergrad GPA is to get into a graduate program, a undergraduate education on its own is pretty much useless
~HJT
Post a Comment