Re: Adjusting Grades (Was: Exams)

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> The short answer is that I don't know for sure, and the reasons
> probably vary from school to school. The longer answer is that it
> is likely some combination of 1) deterrring the kind of haggling
> over points that goes on in medical schools, 2) deterrring profs from
> grade adjustments after anonymity is breached, and 3) a sort of
> "quiet title" for the benefit of the adminsitration and registrar.

While I can appreciate those interests, they seem rather secondary to giving an accurate grade when the professor is objectively incorrect, and the student is objectively correct.  

> > That seems awfully unfair, particular in a case like the original
> > anecdote, where the professor's grading criterion had been based on
> > unambiguously incorrect information.
>
> Agreed. OTOH, we have various legal rules regarding repose (like
> statutes of limitations, adverse posession, and the like) that also
> sacrifice fairness for administrative convenience.

Yes, but generally those limitations have some rather lengthy periods of time, like seven years. I don't have any problem with requiring a student to accept a grade even based on an objectively erroneous grading criterion, after a long enough time has passed -- say halfway into the following semester. But it's got to be somewhat longer than the instant the student turns in the test, before being notified that the professor was in error.

-- 
Terry Carroll       | "Report of the Committee On Governmental Affairs,
Santa Clara, CA     | United States Senate, To Accompany S. 1364, An Act To
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     | Eliminate Unnecessary and Wasteful Federal Reports."
Modell delendus est |  - Title of U.S. Senate Report 105-187, May 11, 1998