This terrific cartoon appeared last week on a class questionnaire….

There are three blog periods during the semester; at the end of each, students get a grade and personalized feedback on their work. I take the best grade from the three periods. This algorithm encourages improvement, mostly lifts games and sometimes delivers brutal lessons in time management.

The final blog grades were: A, 9; A-, 29; B+, 27; B, 42; B-, 41; C+, 66; C, 45; and D, 35. Incredibly, 20 students failed to do enough work to pass. A further five students did nothing at all. Ever.

So about 10% of the class achieved some kind of A. That seems about right to me. I wonder why that feels about right. I said the same thing when 33% of the class got some type of A on the class test final grade. We professors are left to set the bar where we want (unless its a subject with a long history like math, where there seems to be agreement [how?] or where some professional body stipulates authoritative standards [derived from….?]). This means the height of the bar becomes a great source of tension, and one which is completely ignored by university authorities because it’s a really tough problem. I set the bar where I feel good about it. I think we want to stretch the students without discouraging them. I have untenured colleagues who low-ball it so students are attracted to their classes so they can keep their job. I wish I could wrap my head around an incentive structure that results in faculty job security as the primary determinant of student performance. Sadly for my disgruntled students, I have tenure and so am free to determine my expectations of students. Mine come from a very different source and a firm belief that because this stuff matters, it’s better if things are challenging. At least one student agrees: