in your experience, were grades at st. john's determined more by a student's technical prowess in a given subject, or by the amount of work and effort put in by the student? do you think, generally, the grades you got were an accurate reflection of your class performance? did you feel like the grades given were lower, or higher, than those you'd receive for a comparable performance at another school?
posted by anne @ 6:56 AM
15 Comments:
They certainly aren't tied to technical prowess. They have something to do with effort, and rather a lot to do with participation, your attitude and your relationship with your tutor.
I'm not sure I could have survived in another school, so I can't really say.
I didn't see my grades until long enough after that I'm not sure I can make the connection really well. Generally, I did worst gradewise in Seminar and I think that reflected that my participation was lowest there. I generally was most active in tutorials and I enjoyed the variety of interactions--presenting, papers, and more technical discussion rather than just general discussion of readings--and I think my greater enjoyment of class and readings lead to better grades.
On the other hand, I showed an obvious lack of technical prowess in Seminar and I can still knock the socks off a Euclid presentation, so maybe that was more important than I realized.
My experiences at other schools lead me to think that doing the bare minimum of keeping up with reading, cramming the night before the test, and "class participation" (appearing to be conscious and occasionally raising your hand) will usually bring B's there, whereas my impression at SJC is that bare minimum is more likely to earn C's and concern from your tutors in your Don Rags.
I was only enrolled for a year; I received high marks in all my classes except for Greek, in which I received a B - I think the tutor recognized that I hated the subject, hadn't mastered it, and was not trying very hard. In all, perhaps I was lucky to get a B (I did participate in class).
I found that the classes I enjoyed the most I generally got the best grades in. Freshman language I hated but I worked really hard in, and didn't do well; but I didn't really work that hard in Sophomore language and my grades were good. Relationship with the tutor counted for a lot in terms of how much I enjoyed a class, but then that relationship also depended on how interesting the material was to me.
I didn't really understand the relationship between my grades and anything else in graduate school, which is probably connected to the reason that I didn't continue past one year. Different professors seemed to have very different ideas of what a good paper was, what a good discussion was, how important each were, and what the whole student-teacher relationship should look like. If I had picked up on that earlier, it might have been different.
My grades seemed very accurately related to the quality of my involvement in class. I had a very difficult time participating at all if I hadn't done the work or couldn't keep up with the technical difficulty, so mine is an easy case. (I'm also arrogantly supposing that when I participated, I always participated well.)
I think my grades were slightly better than they would have been if I'd taken 3/4s of my classes outside of my major, but much worse than they'd been if I had focused on one subject area.
I've been told by one tutor that they try to figure out grades by ranking all the students in a class from highest to lowest. It's helpful because it might be clear that two students are doing the best job, but they're each doing it in a different way. Similarly, two students might be doing the worst job, but one because he hasn't said a thing and the other because he can't discuss anything with a modicum of courtesy. I'm not sure how universal this practice is.
I haven't looked at my transcript in years, and so this is going off of memory, but I think in general I agreed that my grades pretty well reflected my success in a class, as defined by participation as well as understanding. In general, I got on well with my tutors and enjoyed all of my classes, but I was never very good with languages, and I struggled mightily with math junior year. I think I should probably have a transcript sent, since people who might hire me will be perusing it.
i'm frustrated, because overall i feel as though that's how my grades worked, with the exception of language class. that's the class in which i've worked the hardest -- although it might be tied with math -- and i actually thought i had done really well. i can't keep up technically with the kids who had latin in highschool or who have studied greek previously, but i'm active in every class, and i actually enjoy the work, even though i'm not very good. i'm probably one of the people most engaged during class, and although a lot of that is question-asking, i do contribute an answer occasionally, and i'm not talking over people. i've always come to class prepared.
but i still got a C. and the tutor doesn't seem inclined to re-evaluate. and i'm sad, and because i'm quite sure i'll never have natural skill in language, and because i lack the background others have, i don't see myself managing a better grade next semester. i'm already trying as hard as i know how.
Talk to your tutor. Ask him/her what improved performance looks like, and what kind of plan you can make for an A next semester. At least the tutor will have to lay out some very specific descriptions of what the person thinks an A involves.
I'm really not sure about this "no grades" bullshit they push to prospies - I mean, I rejoiced at the concept of No Grading, and then was pretty upset to find out there actually was grading. It made me less likely to discuss my grade with the tutors, and less likely to inquire as to how to raise my grade. I thought we "weren't supposed" to talk about it. So, meh. What Nate says - talking about it might be the thing to do.
i have talked to him about it, but, unfortunately, they keep pushing that "no grades" line even after they start grading you. the tutor insisted that a C at st. john's "doesn't mean what a C means at other colleges", and that "other colleges know that our grades are different, not inflated". which is bullshit. a C at st. john's means exactly the same thing as a C at any other school: you showed up, and you did what was required, but you didn't do much else.
and that's insulting, because i've worked harder than that. and it's troubling because he told me that technical prowess was outweighing participation in his grading. and it's troubling because he determined our individual grasps on the language by using the weekly quizzes he gave us, quizzes he insisted would only be "a trivial factor in grading".
so it's disappointing. and he told me that he was known for grading more harshly than other tutors, but again, when people are looking at my transcript in four years, there will not be a little note attached explaining mr levine's philosophy of grading, you know? there will just be a C.
(also, i'm not sure he even gives As. you see, it's a matter of principle: A means perfection, and perfection cannot be attained by the merely human. so, no As. he said this the first day of class. i thought he was joking.)
On the other hand, unless you want or plan to go to grad school, I wonder how much grades actually matter? (And even then, maybe not much) Which is not at all to downplay the frustration you're having. Everyone had professors (whatever they were called) who had weird, idiotic, and downright stupid grading policies, and for the most part, after graduation, no one looks at your grades ever again.
For all that, I agree that SJC's grading policy is deeply schizophrenic. Either do grades, or don't. They should probably do everything along the lines of "pass/fail" and include a letter with transcripts to that effect. I don't know how much that would screw up people transferring out, though, which is the main (only?) reason I can think of to have grades at all, and the only one I have heard cited.
you do need a transcript for grad school, though, and a lot of programs (not all, but lots) do care about the grades you get. because i know where i want to go after SJC, i know the sorts of grades i need, and i need grades that are better than Cs. i'm told they send copies of don rags, or that they can, but i don't know how helpful those would be. and, having looked at my own don rag, i don't know how admissions at Grad School X would even begin to decipher what's there. the transcription errors render the thing nearly incomprehensible.
grades are useful for other things, too, like scholarships. i had my eye on one for next year, but with a C in language, i don't have the 3.5 i need to qualify. i would if i'd had a B, because i did really well in everything else.
and there's the larger issue, really: if grades are only necessary for people outside the College community, why not assign grades that people outside the community will understand in context?
What Antioch does is allow retroactive grading - I asked for all written evals, no grades. Now, I need grades to get into grad school (hypothetically) so I can go back and ask that my evals be translated into grades. Not sure how it will work out, but I like it better than never getting the opportunity to read my written (and therefore more descriptive and comprehensive) evaluations. SJC should adopt, I feel, Antioch's method, in which a student can opt for "either grades or written evals" right off the bat. In any case - I know people who have gotten into grad schools that "demanded" a certain GPA from places like Antioch on the grounds that they don't believe in Grading and "look, here are my written evals, wouldn't you love to have me in your program anyway" type of stuff. Which is to say, unless the program you want screens a super lot of applicants and you have no chance at face-time, you'll probably get into the program you're after even with a C in one class. I have faith that such would be the case. -tanya
I had a pretty good GPA, but not stellar, and I had high GREs--the combination of the two led to merit fellowships for grad school. I don't know that either mattered at all for actual grad school admission, though. Yes, the situation sucks, but unless you're planning on studying classics, I doubt this grade is going to matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home