Let's open with a fact.

Over the past decades, number of straight A students increased dramatically.

Does this mean...

1. The education system is improving? Whereby it means the average quality of students are getting higher?

OR

2. Stupid act to make the education system LOOK good? Whereby it means, it has become easier to excel?




Also.

The bell curve. Personal opinion. I don't see the need for a bell curve.

Why?

Because it means it is a "relative" measure of quality for the batch of students. We should go for a standardized no frills, 90==A+,80==A, and etc. NO adjustments on the curve. Be it there are thousands and thousands that fail, it just means they did not cut it!




Following a bell curve with the grades adjustable is just plain stupid. If this is used in manufacturing, it will be a disaster.

It's like buying Omega A+ Eggs, and one day u found out 9 out of 10 is A grade, while the remaining 1 is B grade. Another day u bought the same thing and u found out 9 out of 10 is B grade, while another one is C grade. You complain to the company and the company says

"Sorry, we are following the bell curve, relatively, the 9 B grade is better than the C grade, it's the same as the 9 A grade is better than the B grade, so nothing is wrong."



This in my opinion results in declining quality batch after batch.

Opinions?

I dunno about SPM guys, but for STPM scorers did really well in my university..most of them got 3.7-3.9 cpga..i dun see bell curve helps them in unversity..

for the first question: 2
for the 2nd auestion:
when u r at one of the years where the questions are extremely hard/marking scheme was very strict and u scored badly, then u failed to obtain a scholarship after that due to ur bad results, lets see if u still think the bell curve distribution is plain stupid
ps: ur example was totally irrelevant and stupid

This post has been edited by sywz.forp: Feb 27 2013, 06:27 PM

U missed a major point. We can opt to not use the bell curve if the difficulty of the exam questions, the students learning abilities and the teachers teaching abilities are constant.

However, it is not. Bell curves are in place to compensate for the variables.

well said...
and iirc last year PMR percentage of straight A's student drop, no?

Exams got easier.

What I think is that the capability of our students is more qualitative whereas exam result is quantitative. We cannot judge something that is qualitative. However, something qualitative can be judged easily. This is where the bell curve comes in. It serves as a measuring tool that most can easily understand and agree to. Yet like many of the things in this world, the bell curve has its own pros and cons. The real problem lies with the person who "adjust" the curve.

all standardized exams in the world use bell curve. most of the uni oso use bell curve. so that we can see how good is one relative from another. that's the purpose of exam, isn't it?

for ur opinion that spm standard is falling, blame the qualities of the teaching staffs and students and the frickin MOE.

and ur omega egg scenario just fail. irrelevant.

This is why MRSM,SBP using cgpa as their result . This should applied to SPM as well.

A+ must stick to 90+ , A 80~89 and so on. So students will aim higher range between 90~100 not having faith that the graph turun .

IPTA , matrikulasi also using this curve , so for me even if they got 4 flat , it like uselss if the graph curve the one that helping them .

This post has been edited by PainHacker: Feb 28 2013, 05:13 PM

The bell curve or any other means of measurement merely serves a purpose.

It does not equate quality. If the sample is "weak", its more ridiculous though you still get the "best of the best".

That is why nowadays, many people subscribe to the fact that any degree is good enough to secure a job opening and the rest depends on how good you are at your work. This assumption is NOT correct.

In the earlier days, if you are an engineering graduate from UM, your employer can be assured that you are a performer and can deliver. Can we say the same thing today.

Compare with MIT then and now, any liberal arts graduate will perform whether you train them to be a lawyer, accountant, investment banker etc.

ts missed the difficuty of the exam questions?
since the questions is varies from year to year

in any big cohort of students, it is safe to say that the bell shape curve will apply.....

and in comparison with different cohorts separated by years of birth, the cohort ability and the curve will be about the same.....

the use of marks for grades suffer from the fact that questions are not equivalents, and hence of different difficulty, hence giving rise to different absolute marks in different exams/years....

but if you plot the grassian curve, it will almost exactly overlap each other, for different years....

which method of expressing results to use thus depend on the reasons for such stratification.....

if it is the determine the amount of knowledge, then absolute marks is needed....eg, how many right answers you need to pass a driving test.....

but if it is purely to select the best students for a particular course, then relative grading (ie results expressed as relative rather than absolute performance) gives better differentiation.....eg selecting student for a medical course.....

there are lots of combinations of the two extremes in reality, depending on other priorities that may exist.....

hmmm.... many points I've missed.... especially bout difference in difficulty between different batches...


Point taken. Understood.