De Minimis
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • ABOUT US
  • Comment Policy
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
  • Blog

Curve Grading

7/3/2017

 
RUBY BELL

Vol 11, Issue 2

​Melbourne Law School is the highest ranked law school in the country. One would think that the strict entry standards would be enough and that it could safely be assumed that all students here are highly capable in an academic environment.

However, the law school still uses a bell curve grading system for all compulsory subjects and many elective subjects. Grading on bell curves creates a hyper competitive, zero sum environment where one student’s success is another student’s failure. The main aim for students is to be the best in their class, rather than to have the most enriching learning experience possible.

It is well known that wellbeing is an issue at the law school. The vast majority, if not all, of students in the JD have come from being in the top of their class in their undergraduate studies. Except for a select few, most students are ranked far lower on the curve than they ever would have been in undergrad. This is sure to impact upon students’ self-esteem. However, self-esteem is not the only concern with bell curve grading. Economists Pradeep Dubey and John Geanakoplos conducted an analysis of different grading systems and concluded that forced grading curves create a disincentive to study.

Anecdotally, study at Melbourne Law School is often a very personal, private activity. It is common for students to be secretive about their sources and unwilling to share ideas for fear of putting themselves at a disadvantage. University is supposed to be a place where ideas are discussed, debated, and cultivated. In an environment where one’s success depends on another’s failure, this is not possible.


In 2016, the New York Times published an article titled Why We Should Stop Grading Students on a Curve. The author, a professor at The University of Pennsylvania, detailed how he had abolished curve grading and instead had taken steps to improve student cooperation. For the final exam, he allowed students to pick one question where, if they did not know the answer, they could nominate a classmate who they thought would know. If the classmate got the answer right, they both earned points. This created a learning environment where study groups were established and notes were shared. Average marks on the exam were 2 per cent higher than the previous cohort’s, and not because of the bonus marks. Class became collaborative instead of competitive. Melbourne Law School could perhaps benefit from such a system.

The main outcome of education should be personal and professional enrichment. In a system where we are graded on a curve, it is not possible for more than one person to be the best. Melbourne Law School is an environment of high achieving students, but it need not be a hothouse where survival of the fittest prevails. Perhaps it is time for Melbourne Law School to rethink its grading policy and endeavour to create an atmosphere where ideas and students alike can grow and flourish.

The rest of this issue
  • International Women's Day: Be Bold for Change
  • Homeless in the World's Most Liveable City
  • At the Movies - Hidden Figures
  • Knowledge as Empowerment 


Ruby Bell is a second-year JD student
Picture
Educated guess
6/3/2017 11:05:23 pm

My understanding of the curve is that a large reason for why it exists is actually for the benefit of students. It ensures some of us do end up in the higher band of grades, because law professors are often notoriously hard markers and without the curve there would be far fewer people achieving a H1 standard.

The bands also have upper and lower limits as to how many can fall within them (except, interestingly 85% which only has a lower limit) and are probably flexible enough to allow for fluctuations. If your work is genuinely of a H1 standard it is unlikely you will be bumped down to a 79, because it's uncommon that the upper limit of H1 students is ever hit for any given subject.

Concerned
7/3/2017 10:21:31 pm

After reading this article the feeling I'm left with is complete confusion. How did you get through writing such a piece without once mentioning your surname...?

Eugene Twomey
7/3/2017 10:43:59 pm

Interesting article and some worthwhile questions. I'd be interested to get some comment from faculty as to what effect they think marking on a curve has on student outcomes.

It's disappointing that you have generally found students unwilling to collaborate. My own anecdotal experience has been quite different. I've collaborated with other students in almost every subject, whether through discussing cases during the semester or working on past-exams during SWOTVAC. I've found the other students in the cohort to be generally happy to work together, notwithstanding a few who might have embraced the 'zero-sum game' mentality more than others.

I also think the seminar format, when used well, encourages collaboration through class discussion. I've really gotten useful insights from questions or comments made by other students, and I like to think I've helped others by speaking up in class myself. I'd encourage anyone feeling frustrated by the atmosphere at school to try participating in these discussions, if they don't already.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • ABOUT US
  • Comment Policy
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
  • Blog