Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hibner
Not at all (at least not necessarily). If the test is to cover something you just learned and the test is only on material you just learned, then perhaps 90% should be a typical score for a good student. If the test is to determine your absolute knowledge of the entire subject, then the average should be closer to 50% for a good student. Let's face it - subjects are very broad and you only get a glimpse of it in your studies.
Here's an example:
Let's say I'm hiring for an advanced development position in signal processing. In order to determine knowledge, we will use a written test.
Let's say everyone that applies gets 90%+ on the test and there are a lot of 100% scores. Do I really believe that there are that many people that know 90% of all signal processing knowledge. There's no way that is true. Time to write a new test.
If you're trying to determine absolute knowledge of a subject, then ideally on that test only the elite PhD's who are at the top of the field should get 100% (if they're really, really good). PhD's who are marginal should probably score 85%, showing they know maybe 85% of the field of knowledge. People with master's degrees you would expect to score in the 65 - 85% range. Good bachelor's degree candidates would be expected to get maybe 50%.
The point is, just because the bachelor's candidate scores 50%, that doesn't make him an idiot or a bad candidate for a lot of jobs. It just means he doesn't have PhD level knowledge, but that's okay - we expect that. But if the bachelor's candidate came in and scored 85%, then you know he may be brilliant. You would have never found that with the test where everyone scores 95% or better.
If the goal is to determine if your knowledge is "good enough", then the test where many candidates score 90% is appropriate. If your goal is to determine the absolute level of knowledge of a subject, then the having everyone score 90% isn't realistic because very few people know 90% about any subject (unless the subject is very small and limited).
|
So maybe I AM just too dumb to understand the college board!
I totally understand the logic of everyone getting a near 100 makes it difficult to understand who knows the material. The guy who taught my combustion class gave fairly easy tests -- you had to think hard, but if you understood the core concepts you could usually tease out the answer. On the flip side though, if you made a dumb math mistake (and I'm pretty good at those) you might lose 10 points and be near the median score even if you knew all the material. I actually liked really hard tests because even if I got a 50 I usually beat the class average and rode the curve to victory.
I still think though in the particular case of the Chemistry AP if I can get 50% of the test correct and be in the top 15% of the country, they are setting the bar too low or the test is too hard. I think you are absolutely right in the broader sense of giving tests though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EricH
... not to let academics get in the way of a good education ...
|
What does this mean? I know I've seen it used on CD before, but I'm just not sure what the lesson is.