The greatest shame in my long voting life - I have not missed a single election, anywhere I've lived, since I became eligible to vote - was my vote for Dan Proft in 2010. I'll *never* ever live down that shame.
Worse still: back then, I actually donated $100 to his campaign.
In response to Mary Ann K... When I was in school, granted that was a long time ago, all of my classes were graded by weighting different types of work. The final might be worth 40%, the mid term 25%, quizes 20% and homework 15%. So if I only turned in 1/2 my homework and got 0 on the other half, it would only cost me 7 1/2%. I always felt that was an easy 100 on 15%, just do the work. Of course I am one of those "many who are males". That was weird...
Eric zorn is always right, except when he’s wrong. Not here, fortunately.
As for cops in pride parades, one of my roommates in mid-70s dated a cop, and it was a great sense of pride among all when a few years later he marched in gay parade—in uniform. Now we’re stuck with bigots who are gay.
John L.: Maybe you could think of a better example? “It may even spur me to action (No Mow May?)” In the one you cited, it sounds like you were spurred to inaction! Which now makes me wonder, do spurs ever result in inaction? And do spurs that jingle jangle jingle do equal amounts of both or is it a two-to-one ratio of jingles to jangles? What’s the difference between a jingle and a jangle? I need more (or maybe less) coffee.
On editorials about elections ... I recently moved to Texas and had to vote. OK, I thought, I'll just go online and check out the candidates. Wow, easier said than done. In Chicago, the newspapers made it easy to find out who was running and often provided interviews to use to help assess candidates, as well as recommendations. And for many elections, like the numerous judicial elections on ballots, I found Chicago's news media indispensable. There was little comparable info here in TX (that wasn't behind paywalls). Despite their limitations, I appreciate what editorials add to my thinking. I would point out that editorial staff have better access to candidates than I ever will and often better perspective, so I hope they continue. At time, sure, they are hilarious committee projects. See the Denver Post's endorsement of George Bush over John Kerry, which spent 1,000 words outlining a compelling case for Kerry, then in a surprise ending, it endorsed Bush. I would love to have listened in on the in-house fight over that endorsement.
I fail to see how it's "unfair" to have a zero skew an average. Not turning in a major assignment at all should be a big deal, and students should not feel that they can skip large chunks of the class represented by such major "summative" assignments and still come out okay. It's like saying, well, you painted three sides of the house perfectly, so here's a B. Under a 100 point scale, that house painter would get a C, by the way, not even the F they would surely get on Yelp. Meanwhile, if you have enough little assignments, getting a zero on a few of them won't matter much while still allowing for a robust incentive to keep up with class work -- something, it can't be said enough, is very much in the student's interest. (And yes, you can and should give minor assignments a low overall weight, as some here suggested, a common practice now.)
I respectfully disagree with Mary Ann's fatalistic notion that incentives don't matter -- that responsible kids will do well under any grading system anyway, and that struggling students will just do worse and thus feel "punished" under a traditional approach. That's not what I see. What I see is that that's partially true -- true for some on both ends -- but that there are a great many students who require strong incentives to do work, and that includes gifted kids as well as students who struggle intellectually. Hell, there are a great many adults who need strong incentives to do work. As my ornery old aunt used to say, it's not fun, it's work; that's why they call it work -- and why you gotta pay me to do it!
I'm afraid there's no escaping it. Even if you are interested in the subject, love the teacher, have fun in class, and, yes, even want to do the project or assignment and are into it in the abstract, when it comes time to putting away the distractions to focus on really doing it, many (most? nearly all?) are just not going to feel like it right then. Even under those ideal conditions, it will probably feel like a chore. The grading scheme should not encourage and enable that student's procrastination.
There are people -- sick weirdos, as far as I'm concerned -- who don't ever struggle with procrastination. For those kids, Mary Ann is right, and the incentives don't matter. Many do, however, and they're well encouraged to break that habit as early as possible in their education, to get used to just doing that chore without excuses, with the hope that it eventually won't feel like as much of one. I defy any teacher to tell me that their experience is inconsistent with the following: students will generally do what they feel they have to and not do the rest, especially if it doesn't come super-easily.
I see the point about "practice" in theory -- you shouldn't be punished for not getting it yet, as you're still learning it. Three problems with that idea, however: (1) You can offer points for such practice but grade it generously and count it for little; (2) if it doesn't count at all, the student probably won't do the "practice," setting themselves up for later troubles; and (3) many small assignments are not in fact primarily in the nature of practicing a skill but rather acquiring necessary knowledge to do what's on the agenda. The practice paradigm best fits math class, where you're constantly learning a new, discreet skill. It fits less well in the context of history or English, where that homework will often consist of reading some material so that you can go on to do something with it, like write an essay or have a debate or do a mock trial or whatever. Yes, interpreting/understanding a text is surely a skill, but it's not a discreet one where you can plausibly draw a line between "learning" and "performance" phases -- it's something one develops over the entirety of one's education. One approach to *that* skill is to increase expectations over the course of the class. I had a community college professor of mine do this with half-page, written "reaction papers," assigned to respond to readings, doling out both points and feedback freely at first and then later announcing that he was tightening standards for them. Another approach is, yeah, oh my God, do regular reading quizzes that are easy if you read it and hard if you didn't (or satisfied yourself with a half-assed simulacrum of reading it).
The thorough-going dismissal of the concept of incentives and student accountability that one sees in the latest theory and practice, as exemplified in the LT policy, is Dewey-eyed idealism run amok and flies in the face of common sense and everyday experience. I agree that people fundamentally want to learn. I think it might be more accurate, however, to suggest that they want to have learned. It's the school's responsibility I think to encourage them to get from A to B by reinforcing a strong work ethic.
Conscientiousness -- showing up, turning the thing in on time, doing stuff even in the face of uncertainty and anxiety, attending to responsibilities, managing expectations, underpromising and overdelivering, maintaining good relationships with teachers/professors/bosses, persistence in the face of discomfort or adversity, and so on -- is a trait that carries people super far in life. It's, like, *the* thing -- and anyone can do it! It is I believe, broadly speaking, more highly correlated with any sort of success in any sort of endeavor than even traditional measures of "native" intelligence, talent, or skill. Even if an education does nothing but instill those habits, it's done a tremendous service!
The label "Soy Boy" might also offend a lot of men in China. Soy is a plant native to Asia, domesticated by the Chinese. A lot of Chinese people eat a lot of soy products. I'm sure no self-respecting Chinese male thinks he's less masculine for eating soy products. But I don't know how many are aware of Dan Proft or your column.
I missed your John Williams audio woes, but if you email me a description of your setup, and a clip of the errant result, happy to pass around my team and offer any theories/suggestions that emerge. (We’re game audio folks, not podcasters, but we deal with matching levels and interactive mixing” as routine parts of our jobs.) Happy to help!
I've got a lot of mixed feelings on the upcoming primetime Jan. 6 hearings - hopeful in so many ways, and in some other ways - mad at myself for feeling that way.
Anyway, is there any good twitter tag - or live annotations - out there?
On Jan. 6 itself, I was working at home, involved in usual work stuff, while reading the NY Times live feed. Terrifying and impossible to focus on the work topics. NYT may do the same tomorrow, not sure.
The greatest shame in my long voting life - I have not missed a single election, anywhere I've lived, since I became eligible to vote - was my vote for Dan Proft in 2010. I'll *never* ever live down that shame.
Worse still: back then, I actually donated $100 to his campaign.
In response to Mary Ann K... When I was in school, granted that was a long time ago, all of my classes were graded by weighting different types of work. The final might be worth 40%, the mid term 25%, quizes 20% and homework 15%. So if I only turned in 1/2 my homework and got 0 on the other half, it would only cost me 7 1/2%. I always felt that was an easy 100 on 15%, just do the work. Of course I am one of those "many who are males". That was weird...
Eric zorn is always right, except when he’s wrong. Not here, fortunately.
As for cops in pride parades, one of my roommates in mid-70s dated a cop, and it was a great sense of pride among all when a few years later he marched in gay parade—in uniform. Now we’re stuck with bigots who are gay.
John L.: Maybe you could think of a better example? “It may even spur me to action (No Mow May?)” In the one you cited, it sounds like you were spurred to inaction! Which now makes me wonder, do spurs ever result in inaction? And do spurs that jingle jangle jingle do equal amounts of both or is it a two-to-one ratio of jingles to jangles? What’s the difference between a jingle and a jangle? I need more (or maybe less) coffee.
On editorials about elections ... I recently moved to Texas and had to vote. OK, I thought, I'll just go online and check out the candidates. Wow, easier said than done. In Chicago, the newspapers made it easy to find out who was running and often provided interviews to use to help assess candidates, as well as recommendations. And for many elections, like the numerous judicial elections on ballots, I found Chicago's news media indispensable. There was little comparable info here in TX (that wasn't behind paywalls). Despite their limitations, I appreciate what editorials add to my thinking. I would point out that editorial staff have better access to candidates than I ever will and often better perspective, so I hope they continue. At time, sure, they are hilarious committee projects. See the Denver Post's endorsement of George Bush over John Kerry, which spent 1,000 words outlining a compelling case for Kerry, then in a surprise ending, it endorsed Bush. I would love to have listened in on the in-house fight over that endorsement.
I fail to see how it's "unfair" to have a zero skew an average. Not turning in a major assignment at all should be a big deal, and students should not feel that they can skip large chunks of the class represented by such major "summative" assignments and still come out okay. It's like saying, well, you painted three sides of the house perfectly, so here's a B. Under a 100 point scale, that house painter would get a C, by the way, not even the F they would surely get on Yelp. Meanwhile, if you have enough little assignments, getting a zero on a few of them won't matter much while still allowing for a robust incentive to keep up with class work -- something, it can't be said enough, is very much in the student's interest. (And yes, you can and should give minor assignments a low overall weight, as some here suggested, a common practice now.)
I respectfully disagree with Mary Ann's fatalistic notion that incentives don't matter -- that responsible kids will do well under any grading system anyway, and that struggling students will just do worse and thus feel "punished" under a traditional approach. That's not what I see. What I see is that that's partially true -- true for some on both ends -- but that there are a great many students who require strong incentives to do work, and that includes gifted kids as well as students who struggle intellectually. Hell, there are a great many adults who need strong incentives to do work. As my ornery old aunt used to say, it's not fun, it's work; that's why they call it work -- and why you gotta pay me to do it!
I'm afraid there's no escaping it. Even if you are interested in the subject, love the teacher, have fun in class, and, yes, even want to do the project or assignment and are into it in the abstract, when it comes time to putting away the distractions to focus on really doing it, many (most? nearly all?) are just not going to feel like it right then. Even under those ideal conditions, it will probably feel like a chore. The grading scheme should not encourage and enable that student's procrastination.
There are people -- sick weirdos, as far as I'm concerned -- who don't ever struggle with procrastination. For those kids, Mary Ann is right, and the incentives don't matter. Many do, however, and they're well encouraged to break that habit as early as possible in their education, to get used to just doing that chore without excuses, with the hope that it eventually won't feel like as much of one. I defy any teacher to tell me that their experience is inconsistent with the following: students will generally do what they feel they have to and not do the rest, especially if it doesn't come super-easily.
I see the point about "practice" in theory -- you shouldn't be punished for not getting it yet, as you're still learning it. Three problems with that idea, however: (1) You can offer points for such practice but grade it generously and count it for little; (2) if it doesn't count at all, the student probably won't do the "practice," setting themselves up for later troubles; and (3) many small assignments are not in fact primarily in the nature of practicing a skill but rather acquiring necessary knowledge to do what's on the agenda. The practice paradigm best fits math class, where you're constantly learning a new, discreet skill. It fits less well in the context of history or English, where that homework will often consist of reading some material so that you can go on to do something with it, like write an essay or have a debate or do a mock trial or whatever. Yes, interpreting/understanding a text is surely a skill, but it's not a discreet one where you can plausibly draw a line between "learning" and "performance" phases -- it's something one develops over the entirety of one's education. One approach to *that* skill is to increase expectations over the course of the class. I had a community college professor of mine do this with half-page, written "reaction papers," assigned to respond to readings, doling out both points and feedback freely at first and then later announcing that he was tightening standards for them. Another approach is, yeah, oh my God, do regular reading quizzes that are easy if you read it and hard if you didn't (or satisfied yourself with a half-assed simulacrum of reading it).
The thorough-going dismissal of the concept of incentives and student accountability that one sees in the latest theory and practice, as exemplified in the LT policy, is Dewey-eyed idealism run amok and flies in the face of common sense and everyday experience. I agree that people fundamentally want to learn. I think it might be more accurate, however, to suggest that they want to have learned. It's the school's responsibility I think to encourage them to get from A to B by reinforcing a strong work ethic.
Conscientiousness -- showing up, turning the thing in on time, doing stuff even in the face of uncertainty and anxiety, attending to responsibilities, managing expectations, underpromising and overdelivering, maintaining good relationships with teachers/professors/bosses, persistence in the face of discomfort or adversity, and so on -- is a trait that carries people super far in life. It's, like, *the* thing -- and anyone can do it! It is I believe, broadly speaking, more highly correlated with any sort of success in any sort of endeavor than even traditional measures of "native" intelligence, talent, or skill. Even if an education does nothing but instill those habits, it's done a tremendous service!
The label "Soy Boy" might also offend a lot of men in China. Soy is a plant native to Asia, domesticated by the Chinese. A lot of Chinese people eat a lot of soy products. I'm sure no self-respecting Chinese male thinks he's less masculine for eating soy products. But I don't know how many are aware of Dan Proft or your column.
I missed your John Williams audio woes, but if you email me a description of your setup, and a clip of the errant result, happy to pass around my team and offer any theories/suggestions that emerge. (We’re game audio folks, not podcasters, but we deal with matching levels and interactive mixing” as routine parts of our jobs.) Happy to help!
I've got a lot of mixed feelings on the upcoming primetime Jan. 6 hearings - hopeful in so many ways, and in some other ways - mad at myself for feeling that way.
Anyway, is there any good twitter tag - or live annotations - out there?
On Jan. 6 itself, I was working at home, involved in usual work stuff, while reading the NY Times live feed. Terrifying and impossible to focus on the work topics. NYT may do the same tomorrow, not sure.