Reply #33: It Would Be The Wrong Bell Curve Anyway

[ProfessorGAC]

First, let me say that standard curve grading is a bad idea. I completely agree with you and reject it out of hand.

Why?

Well, people don't fit the bell curve in academics. A more appropriate curve fit would be the beta distribution. It is more flattened and provides more area under the curve for a higher population of extremes. Since people tend to fit that profile in terms of intelligence, physical prowess, (speed, stength, balance), tactile talents (music, dance, painting), then it's easy to assume that academic achievment fits into that curve shape as well.

Also, it is patently ridiculous to use the curve to define the floor, or the point of failure. Failure is not a fully randomized event. Some kids, whether through poor environment, or just adolescent rage, fail despite their talents. Others will fail at some things, even if they try really hard. So, the floor needs to be set, based upon some objective criteria of what level of learning and reasoning is expected by course's end.

Now, once those who have not fallen below the threshold are redacted from the dataset, a simple A, B, C (no D's) fit would apply using the beta distribution. That would allow the top 15% or so to be A's, the bottom 15% to be C's, and the middle 70% B's. Since the floor was set to determine the minimum achievement, that's fair, since everyone above that has succeeded.

So, curve grading can be made to work, but not the way it's normally applied. Like i said, i agree completely with you. 2% A's! That's preposterous.
The Professsor