Sunday, March 14, 2010

{Essay} Why Grades?

Cross posted from my personal blog. The {Essay} tag that I use denotes at least a week of research and thought; minimally, also one round of editing. Do note, too, that this was originally written for a Malaysian audience.

Do grades matter as much as our parents say they do?

One thing we know for sure is that grades are important. Our parents reward us when we ace exams, and so we have been conditioned to think that scoring As in school are important achievements worthy of our time. And for the most part, this is true: the approval of our peers and our parents and our teachers depend largely on our grades. So grades do matter. But there's an interesting assumption to examine here: why do grades matter so much? Are they still as important now as they were 50 years ago? And perhaps - more importantly - why do so many of us accept grades as the de facto indicator of ability, without ever questioning the underlying logic of our grading systems?

I've been thinking about these questions for some time now, and I think I've come to some reasonable conclusions about them. My contention is that grades are no longer as important as they once were, and the implications from this idea are rather exciting, and scary, both at once.

Where Exams Come From
Exams and grades are relatively new things to the human experience. It wasn't until the industrial age that schools - and by extension exams - became commonplace.

The first society to implement examinations were the Chinese. Beginning with the Sui dynasty, candidates from all over China would gather to take the Imperial examinations, held once a year, every year, in order to gain entrance to the state bureaucracy.

There are two important things about exams that we must recognize began with the Chinese Imperial examinations.

The first is that the Chinese examinations served as a filter for the Imperial government. They made no pretense to be anything otherwise. And to this day exams still do act as filters: there are only so many jobs in companies and governments, and so therefore there must be a way of separating the good from the bad, the capable from the uncapable. Exams are that 'way', and they serve exactly that purpose.

The second thing may surprise you, and it is this: what the Imperialist Examinations focused on were Confucian classics. You may wonder at that, and rightly so: what does a study of the classics have to do with state management? And the truthful answer is ... well, not much. Apparently the Chinese government thought very highly of it - they considered learning the classics to be a good sign of intelligence, and if you excelled at it then you must certainly be clever enough to manage a state on your own.

Was that a valid idea? I think there's something to it - the British colonialists had a remarkably similar mentality. Do well in Latin, they say, and we'll give you a colony to rule over for us. And that worked out pretty well for them.

Where Exams Go Wrong
Those base assumptions that the Chinese Imperialists had are things that we've carried with us, even to this day. Exams are supposed to be good filters, and they are supposed to be indicative of our ability - even if 80% of what we study would never be used in our actual jobs.

But is this true?

If exams are good filters of society - how, then, do we explain the many people who do well in school, but not as well in life? And how are we to explain away the weird outliers that defy what we know of examinations - Steve Jobs, for instance, or Bill Gates, or Richard Branson? If exams are good filters, these outliers shouldn't have had happened in the first place. And if they really are good filters, everyone who scored good grades would be just as successful outside of school as they were in it.

We know that some straight-A students make for terrible employees; why is that so?

Perhaps a better question to ask is this: what exactly is it that grades measure? If exams are a filter for weeding out the good from the poor, then surely there must be something that they measure that's so valuable to future employers. If you could figure that out, perhaps you'd be able to get more mileage from your examinations.

I suspect Paul Graham has the best answer to that question: grades measure future performance. Employers are interested in future performance. They can't test everyone themselves, by putting people in the job one by one until they find the best guy, and so they rely on the next best thing - grades.

But the problem with grades is that grades aren't always a good indicator of future performance. In fact, they can sometimes be particularly bad. Grades are the results of exams; exams are a filtering system for future performance, and so therefore exams - being a system, like all systems - can be hacked.

How can exams be hacked? By its very nature, exams are particularly susceptible to people who are good at ... well, exams. In Malaysia, scoring well in exams is usually a direct function of one's ability to absorb certain facts in order to vomit them out later onto a test paper. If a student gained the skill to do exactly that - he would do well for all his exams, regardless of whether the exam was history or chemistry or math. And, yes, you'd think this would be different for subjects like math or physics, where there's thinking involved, but you'd be surprised. I remember being shocked when I first came to NUS. My discrete math teacher was a Frenchman, and the math he taught required creativity - something I had never experienced before. It was amazing and beautiful to see that coming out from a high-level math textbook, and also rather scary; scary because it wasn't particularly hackable.

Is it really a problem that grades are not good indicators of future performance? The answer to that is yes, it is - because it is no longer universally true that grades are the 'next best thing' for measuring performance. Grades were never a good indicator of future performance to start off with, and they are beginning to seem obsolete. What has changed?

The Decreasing Importance Of Grades
It would be wrong to say that companies have wised up to the inaccuracy of grades. For the large part, this change has been due to a shift in economics as opposed to a conscious, calculated decision by market leaders.

The global economy today favours smaller companies over big ones. There are many reasons for this, but the basic ones are obvious: due to globalization and cheaper logistics, it now makes more sense for companies to outsource some tasks in order to stay focused on their core competencies. This has been a relatively new phenomenon. Never before has a smaller company been able to take on a bigger company - and win. If you don't believe me, consider: in the past, railways would purchase steel refineries to manufacture the steel required for their operations; today, it outsources such operations to external - often international - companies. And this is but one example, in what is a remarkably outdated industry. The effects are far stronger and more powerful in technological companies. But, bearing these differences, what does this mean for grades?

It turns out that it is easier to measure performance in a small company, as opposed to a big one. If you do well, the company does well; if you do badly, the company does badly. This is not so for large corporations. In a large corporation, individual performance cannot be easily measured, because the organization is so large that your individual contributions do not have a significant effect on the bottom line. Graham points out this is why grades have been so important to employers for the past few decades. The harder it is to measure individual performance, the more important it becomes to predict it. And because the economy has been dominated by large corporations for the past few decades, it used to mean everything to do well in exams.

But this is fast becoming history. Grades matter less when you can directly measure what they are made to predict - which is real performance. Why bother with an indicator when you can gauge the real thing? Larger corporations are adapting in order to enjoy the benefits of being small - Google, for instance, forms small teams of engineers to develop and test new products, and presumably gauges performance based on those smaller teams.

If this seems a little incredulous to you, consider: just 50 years ago it was enough to get good grades to get a good job to retire comfortably. This no longer holds true. Today, we are not only aware of people who have succeeded despite dropping out of college, but I have friends in NUS - in Singapore, even, a very exam-oriented country - who have either skipped college altogether, or who plan to drop out of school to do their own startups. And in big companies, there are now performance reviews, where before there were none. It used to be that seniority was all that mattered; young associates accepted a lower pay because they had to pay their dues, their times had yet to come.

It seems to be uncomfortably real that grades are beginning to decrease in importance. At the very least, they no longer hold the make-it-or-break-it quality they once had. And so, if this is true, the trend begs the question: what does this mean for our students?

An Exam-Oriented Paradox
One important thing we must remember is that for certain countries, the old model seems to hold true. In Japan and Korea, for instance, if you earned good grades, you are still able to score a stable, quality job in a salaried company. And to that end both countries have very competitive exam-oriented systems, and a high density of cram school to boot.

Would this state of affairs last forever? I doubt it. It turns out that smaller companies are also more efficient companies, and globalization cuts both ways. Sooner or later, the Korean and Japanese corporations would have to outsource their operations, and therefore split into smaller, independent units, if they are to keep up with more nimble competitors. And even if they refuse to do so, current economic forces make it feasible to start small companies, particularly those built around the Internet. While Asian countries currently enjoy the luxury of the sure grade and the stable job, it is something that may not last for much longer.

Unfortunately for us, however, the Asian model of education is still optimized for this old economic model. Malaysia isn't by far the only country with an exam-oriented society. There is nothing wrong with doing well in exams; it is when exams become the focus of a society's expectations that things begin to go wrong.

The problem with exams - particularly in Asian societies - is that the examination often becomes an ends onto itself. People say that the purpose of school is to learn new things that you may put to use good later in life, but this isn't true. What you're really going to school to learn - if you're in an Asian country - is to learn how to do well in exams.

There is a simple test for this: ask yourself if studying equals learning in high school. If it isn't, and you aren't doing much learning while you study, then there is a disconnect between the two. The truth is that schools spend a lot of time teaching us how to do well in exams. 50 years ago, this made a lot of sense, but today such time is better spent perfecting ideas that would come in handy in a performance-driven world.

In Malaysian high schools, for instance, we should stop pretending that the school is there to teach us good things. They are not. The Malaysian education system, from ages 6 - 19, is designed to teach you how to do well in exams. Learning math and science and all that jazz is secondary to that one core purpose. And this is - sadly - the truth of the matter; it is why we have tuition; it is also why we have shiny ads advertising 'exam-grade' pencils and erasers on television; all of it is what it means to live in an exam-oriented society.

Creativity
There is something that must be said here on creativity. For all the noise our education system makes about creative thinking, and critical thinking, their models of teaching such forms of thinking cannot be conceptually further away from the truth.

I began this essay by asking a series of interesting questions. I examined why grades mattered so much, why grades are so important to us, and why they may be irrelevant to a reasonable assessment of success in the real world. There is one question, however, that I have neglected to answer, and that is: why do so many of us accept grades as the de facto indicator of ability, without ever questioning the underlying logic of our grading systems? I believe this to be the most important question of them all.

One reason for this may be that we have been conditioned to think, since young, that grades are the be-all and end-all of our childhood existences. But there comes a point in time in which we are old enough and wise enough to challenge our own assumptions. So now the question: why do so few of us challenge this assumption in the first place?

I suspect the main reason for this is that we are taught, since young, not to think for ourselves. We don't hear that outright, of course. No teacher actually tells us not to think for ourselves. What they do tell us, however, that has the same net effect as telling us not to think, are things like "That's very good dear, but it's not what the examiners are looking for" or "That's not a proper exam answer". I suspect that each time our teachers tell our children that, they lose the ability to think laterally, to think critically, and so gradually they don't bother to think in terms of truth at all.

End
Grades are important as measures of cognitive ability. But do grades matter as much as our parents say they do? The truthful answer is that no, they don't, not anymore. Grades don't matter as much as real-world performance does, and as it becomes easier to measure performance directly, grades will matter less and less.

But is this an excuse, then, to score bad grades? The truthful answer is that I don't know. It probably depends. It is certainly a better use of your time to go out and build things, and learn things, as opposed to spending all that time learning to score well in exams - a skill with admittedly little real-world application. But on the flip side of that coin, grades - and by extension exams - are important elements in the learning processes of our education systems. It feels like a cop-out to take such a stance after 3000 words or so of argument, but this is the truth. Just be sure that you are studying for the sake of learning, and that exams are an indicator of that learning; and not the other way around.

45 comments:

benleong said...

Do grades matter as much as our parents say they do?

No. :-)

And for the most part, this is true: the approval of our peers and our parents and our teachers depend largely on our grades.

Sadly, the problem is that a lot of people derive their self-worth from the grades they get in school. Good for you if you're the dun-have-to-study-scholar-type, but if you're anything like average, it's a capricious thing (and you're in for a roller coaster). :-)

And to this day exams still do act as filters

Right on the dollar. Grades allow companies to shortlist candidates cheaply. Remember that companies don't necessary need to hire the "best" candidate, but just someone "good enough" to do the job. Giving everyone (basically late bloomers) a chance seldom adds to the bottomline.

If exams are good filters of society - how, then, do we explain the many people who do well in school, but not as well in life?

Not sure why you're making this statement. You may wish to know that academic performance does have a (positive and statistically significant) correlation with salaries.

We know that some straight-A students make for terrible employees;

Absolutely false. Some straight-A students are horrible. Most are actually pretty good. May not necessarily be stellar, but definitely better than AVERAGE. :-)

no longer universally true that grades are the 'next best thing' for measuring performance.

I don't think grades measure performance. They are what are known as signals in economic terms. If you do very well in exams, you're typically either smart or hardworking. Both are traits valued by employers. Obviously, if more information is available, better decisions can be made. It does not however mean that grades are irrelevant.

Notwithstanding that I say that grades aren't particularly important, I do however try my best to set up an grading scheme that actually means something. A student with a higher grade should in general be "better" in some way than some with a lower grade within the context of this class. :-)

It would be wrong to say that companies have wised up to the inaccuracy of grades.

Did I not tell you the story of shortlisting for interview before?

benleong said...

It turns out that it is easier to measure performance in a small company, as opposed to a big one.

Actually, this is false. Your performance in a company is measured by your boss, like it or not. Bosses know very well which employers are causing them pain and which employees are making their lives easier and helping them look good to their bosses. Wake up, that's how you will be assessed on your performance if you end up working for someone.

If you end up working for the owner, life's a little simpler 'cos he can figure out whether he thinks you're worth the money he's paying you.

In CS, what the prof thinks of you is probably more important than your grades. One of the problems with the NUS system is that only about half the CAP of a student comes from CS classes. The CAP can therefore be quite a lousy indicator of whether someone can program.

Companies come to me to ask for recommendations. I believe that my word is sufficiently credible for companies to take 2nd Lowers ahead of 1st Class students. :-) But of course I dun open my golden mouth often and I value my credibility. :-P

It is wrong to think that the exam system has failed. Look at the US which got rid of the exam system. It's a bloody mess. The point here is moderation, which Singapore has actually achieved.

their models of teaching such forms of thinking cannot be conceptually further away from the truth.

This is false. Has nothing to do with the model of teaching. Has everything to do with the capacity of the teachers. Teaching is a bit like voodoo. It actually requires a gift to do well. Folks can practice/learn to improve their teaching, but there are limits to how far training can go.

But is this an excuse, then, to score bad grades?

No and let me tell you why. You owe it to your parents, your teacher and most importantly to yourself to try your very best in everything you do. If you tried your best and your grades suck, you need no excuse; if you didn't try and got bad grades, we have a problem.

Life is complicated. Different people have different circumstances.

The key idea is to understand what the heck is going on, what are the rules of the game, what you want to achieve and execute the optimal strategy. Strategy might not always work, but you try your best. :-)

Eli James said...

Not sure why you're making this statement. You may wish to know that academic performance does have a (positive and statistically significant) correlation with salaries.

Indeed. My point is this, though: a good number of individuals bypassed the filter of grades entirely, and made it big in a way that most of us (straight-A student or otherwise) cannot. And so this suggests that exams, as a filter, aren't good indicators of economic productivity/future performance. It also suggests that there may be another indicator, which I examined in the essay.

That being said, though - I quite agree with you on the statistical evidence for grades and median salary. But there may be some noise to that. Evidence suggests that academic performance is correlated to home stability and household income. You are more likely to score good grades if you are from a stable, safe home. And since the majority of those homes are in the middle class, you are likely to score higher salaries than is the mean because you start off in an environment that allows for such academic performance.

Nevertheless, part of that may also be because salary has been so tightly integrated with academic performance in the past. I think that may change, but I'm not sure how that change would look like. Perhaps in a couple of years we'll know.

Absolutely false. Some straight-A students are horrible. Most are actually pretty good. May not necessarily be stellar, but definitely better than AVERAGE. :-)

Good catch. A better sentence should've been: "We know that some straight-A students make for terrible programmers" ;-) I kid, I kid, though the original idea was taken from your post. My point is that some straight-A students really don't perform exceptionally as their grades might suggest.

Did I not tell you the story of shortlisting for interview before?
Nope. I'd like to hear that sometime.

Actually, this is false. Your performance in a company is measured by your boss, like it or not. Bosses know very well which employers are causing them pain and which employees are making their lives easier and helping them look good to their bosses. Wake up, that's how you will be assessed on your performance if you end up working for someone.

Bosses have existed since the Industrial age. And yet, only recently has there been this idea of measuring performance and paying you according to your contributions. Before that, as a general rule of thumb, seniority was the order of the day. Or at least, the payscale.

My contention is that performance measuring only became feasible when companies became smaller. This is clearest when we compare a job in the civil service to a job in a startup (though this is an extreme case): in the civil service, it is enough to just 'not make mistakes', and you would still be guaranteed a stable job. In a startup, it is not enough to just 'not make mistakes' - your performance means everything because the company's survival literally depends on what you do.

You may not agree with this, but that would be good. I am interested in figuring out where this argument may not hold true.

Eli James said...

their models of teaching such forms of thinking cannot be conceptually further away from the truth.

What I meant by this is that, in Malaysia, we have something called KBKK that is applied to our exam questions, that is supposed to teach us to think creatively/critically. I am saying this is bullshit.

I used to teach debate, a year or so ago. And the thing about competitive debate is that it becomes very clear, very fast, who can think and who cannot. I was shocked by the quality of thinking in my juniors, and the level to which I had to teach them on certain fundamental topics like abortion or the death sentence.

This was one reason why I started thinking on some of the issues that ended up in this essay.

I am not arguing that the education system is screwed.

Oh wait. That's wrong.

It is screwed, very screwed, in Malayisa. I fight that in my own way by teaching debate to as many kids as possible, whenever I have free time. It feels really frustrating though, sometimes. But yes - if I get them to think - very worth it.

Eli James said...

PS: Interesting data I could not find a way to integrate into my essay:

Let's supposed that economic productivity is the real-world equivalent of grades. (This makes sense, if you are valuable, you are rewarded by the economy).

What, then is the correlation between academic performance (an indicator of your value) with your economic productivity?

Is the set of high scorers similar in both?

The answer is that it isn't, of course. I don't have the citations with me right now, but roughly a year ago when I began researching this topic, I chanced across this study that measured the correlation of exactly those two things.

They found that good academic performance in school has little or no correlation to economic productivity as an adult. Instead, what academic performance had the strongest correlation to was performance in other exams.

benleong said...

a good number of individuals bypassed the filter of grades entirely, and made it big in a way that most of us (straight-A student or otherwise) cannot.

Do you have facts to back this claim? I think if you check out the statistics, you will find an overwhelming correlation between grades and who does well in companies, because grades are quite useful as predictors of performance for workers. Now if you are talking about the straight-D students who made good money as entrepreneurs, then you have to be careful what you mean "made it big in a way" that straight-A students cannot.

Doesn't making a lot of money = make it in a big way? Is that that straight-A students cannot or that they don't bother? Basically if you are willing to take bigger bets, you have a possibility of winning more. Smart academically-inclined folks will of course try to compete in an arena they define and for which they have a natural advantage. Some of them will obviously succeed. What you don't know is how many straight-D students fail and become homeless.

Just because you have a couple of straight-D rich dudes who are richer than your straight-A worker types doesn't necessarily imply that straight-D types do better. In fact, I am reasonably sure that straight-D types will do worse on average.

I'd like to hear that sometime.

You see, I keep telling the same stories that now I cannot be sure who has heard what. Perhaps remind me next time, but lemme give you the moral of the story first:

The truth of the matter is that if you're the average joe who has nothing much to show, no portfolio, no nothing, then your grades matter A WHOLE LOT -- in getting your FIRST JOB.

After you nail your first job, performance takes over. If you're a high performer who somehow trashed your exams and you got a pathetic job in a small company, you will gradually rise to the top and begin your upward ascent; similarly, if you are a chow mugger with good grades and no EQ, a good first job is unlikely to go very far.

And yet, only recently has there been this idea of measuring performance and paying you according to your contributions. Before that, as a general rule of thumb, seniority was the order of the day. Or at least, the payscale.

Nope, you are being naive. Bosses have always been able to measure performance. What's different is how performance is being REWARDED not measured.

The bosses of good programmers often know how good their programmers are -- but they still have no incentive to pay more (if not forced to do so). The key change in the economy is talent is now much more important than loyalty and the pay structure ends up reflecting this reality.

it is enough to just 'not make mistakes', and you would still be guaranteed a stable job. In a startup, it is not enough to just 'not make mistakes' - your performance means everything because the company's survival literally depends on what you do.

Depends on what level in the civil service and which civil service you are talking about. Singapore Civil Service is quite different from Malaysian Civil Service. The difference between civil service is also often reflected in the pay structures.

What I meant by this is that, in Malaysia, we have something called KBKK that is applied to our exam questions, that is supposed to teach us to think creatively/critically. I am saying this is bullshit.

Not an authority on Malaysian education system. The point I'm trying to make however is that it is HARD to teach creativity and/or critical thinking by policy. These two are very high level skills. Many teachers probably don't even have them. Impossible to expect them to even begin to teach.

benleong said...

I chanced across this study that measured the correlation of exactly those two things....They found that good academic performance in school has little or no correlation to economic productivity as an adult. Instead, what academic performance had the strongest correlation to was performance in other exams.

What you say is not implausible.

I never claimed that grades are correlated to economic productivity. In fact, I think that grades are NOT correlated to economic productivity.

Example: me. I believe that the majority of profs are straight-A students in school. There's a large segment of the population who makes *much* more money than me. I suspect that 99% (?) of them have worse grades than me back in school. Grades OBVIOUSLY do not translate into economic productivity.

My claim: grades are highly correlated with how useful an individual is as A WORKER. :-)Now obviously, in an economy with more towkays and fewer workers, grades will therefore be less important.

Find me someone who won't give HIMSELF a job because his grades aren't good. :-)

Eli James said...

Do you have facts to back this claim?

Well I do have the study I mentioned above, but I don't have my folder of clippings with me in Singapore. So I'm not able to give you a proper citation, and therefore it wouldn't be good to include that in the essay.

Just because you have a couple of straight-D rich dudes who are richer than your straight-A worker types doesn't necessarily imply that straight-D types do better. In fact, I am reasonably sure that straight-D types will do worse on average.

I, too, am reasonably sure that the straight-D types will do worse. But the couple of straight-D rich dudes who are richer suggests that the set of top scorers in 'academic performance' and 'economic productivity' are not one and the same. And that is the basis for my argument that grades aren't a good filter.

I think we've gotten to the root on this, though: you were arguing from point of worker value, I was arguing from point of economic productivity. I see where you're coming from, and I quite agree.

Nope, you are being naive.

Arguments please, not flamebait.

Bosses have always been able to measure performance. What's different is how performance is being REWARDED not measured.

Not entirely true. You're right in that performance is now rewarded - in the past, industrial-age companies used to pay strictly according to seniority. Graham, for instance, writes that his father used to have people working for him that made more money than he did, because they were around for longer.

But it is on measurement where you're mistaken. It's far easier to measure performance today. I can think of two reasons for this, the second of which we'll deal in the next part. The first reason, however, is that when you're in a smaller organization, your actions affect the bottom line more than you would if it was a large organization. I think you would agree with that - it used to be that CEOs were the only ones with such accountability.

In effect, what's happening is the market evaluating your performance for you. Your boss can only measure so much - and he makes mistakes; for instance he may think you're being a fool when in fact you're advocating the right thing for the company. In a smaller organization, a good move is easier to spot, and being small means being nimble enough to implement it and test. But perhaps this isn't convincing enough. Let's move on:

The key change in the economy is talent is now much more important than loyalty and the pay structure ends up reflecting this reality.

Spot on. Now the question to ask would be: why is this reality so?

My contention is that when it's easier to measure performance, talent goes to places that rewards performance more. (Why work so hard for so little when you can work the same amount and get paid for more?) And those places are the ones that are closest to the market: meaning smaller organizations. You may be worth $5000 to the economy, but being in a large organization, with a boss that isn't as efficient a judge as the market, means you may be paid far less than if you're out there doing good work.

In the end, the same reasoning applies: the splintering of big companies into smaller ones is making performance easier to measure.

Depends on what level in the civil service and which civil service you are talking about.

Agreed. Perhaps a better example would be a 1950s steel refinery.

Not an authority on Malaysian education system. The point I'm trying to make however is that it is HARD to teach creativity and/or critical thinking by policy.

Again, agreed. But my point wasn't to teach by policy. My point is to not inhibit it. The exams-oriented system I have back in my home country forces you to think in terms of 'model answers', and I am saying this shouldn't be the way things should be.

benleong said...

Now the question to ask would be: why is this reality so?

Easy - this is caused by changes in the fundamental structures of the (mostly global) economy.

Last time, people sold pigs and vegetables (some still do).

Then they sold disk drives.

Now, you sell Internet ads and God forbid, DERIVATIVES!

The current mode of compensation isn't necessarily superior to the seniority-based one. Remember what happened last year?

When I call you naive, it's not a flamebait, I'm telling you in no uncertain terms you shouldn't be making claims you don't understand. You have not been in the working world and you dare claim that performance is easier to measure now? Who said it was hard to measure before?

I have had people work for me. It's easy to figure out which ones earned their pay. Of course bosses will make mistakes; but you think that the current performance-based system doesn't? Tell me: what do you think is going on in Wall Street?

benleong said...

Actually, I think it might be important to define the meaning of measure performance. I take measure to mean loosely deciding who is useful and who is not.

If you use measure to mean attributing a dollar value to the work done by someone, then I agree with you that it's hard to measure -- but it's not necessarily easier now than before as you claim.

Why would it be easier or harder? Suppose you work for a big organization, it is perfectly plausible that another organization will pay more money to poach you.

Mobility has little to do with closeness to market in my view. I think it has more to do with availability of information. Basically, even in the past, there might be someone willing to hire you, but you didn't know; now you have the internet.

Eli James said...

Now, you sell Internet ads and God forbid, DERIVATIVES!

Gotta love this line. =)

When I call you naive, it's not a flamebait, I'm telling you in no uncertain terms you shouldn't be making claims you don't understand. You have not been in the working world and you dare claim that performance is easier to measure now? Who said it was hard to measure before?

Maybe flamebait isn't the right word. But I would prefer it if you would challenge my logic, and not dismiss my argument because of my age. This is one reason why I write with the pseudonym Eli James, online - at Novelr, I sometimes spar with writers and academics on ideas in publishing. It would be hard to be taken seriously if they knew how old I was. Abstracting away my age helps focus the discussion on the strength of the ideas.

Easy - this is caused by changes in the fundamental structures of the (mostly global) economy.

I don't see the reasoning behind this, though. The fundamental structure of the mostly global economy favours the smaller, outsorurced company, which is my point. Would you mind elaborating further?

Mobility has little to do with closeness to market in my view. I think it has more to do with availability of information. Basically, even in the past, there might be someone willing to hire you, but you didn't know; now you have the internet.

Yes this is indeed a possibility.

Why would it be easier or harder?

Well, I've given my arguments. I can't think of any more at the moment. But there's an interesting notion you've brought up - measuring loosely who is useful and who is not. In that context, then yes, I think there is a good case to be made for grades.

benleong said...

But I would prefer it if you would challenge my logic, and not dismiss my argument because of my age.

Unfortunately, what I'm dismissing is not logic but your claim (of fact). Point is: from the way you talk, quite obvious you haven't worked a single day 'cos you're making things up. :-)

But there's an interesting notion you've brought up - measuring loosely who is useful and who is not. In that context, then yes, I think there is a good case to be made for grades.

Yeah, I'm telling you from experience that it's pretty easy to know what's useful and who is not; or who is more useful. In life, except for identical twins, men are not made equal.

What needs to be clarified also however is that what's important (useful/desirable) to a middle manager might not be consistent with what's performance from the perspective of the company at large. If your boss owns the company, then it's typically consistent. However, your boss's views is likely the thing that matters most.

Corollary: if you get a lousy boss, you're pretty screwed (and it's bad for the company).

Eli James said...

Unfortunately, what I'm dismissing is not logic but your claim (of fact).

Good, now we're getting somewhere. I see where you're coming from - your claim of fact is based on your experience, and so it would be plausible that my claim of fact (the underlying assumption in my argument - that performance is easier to measure today than before) is wrong.

That would be true except that my claim of fact isn't based on my personal experience. It's based on Graham's essay (or Graham's personal experience, per se). (And yes it would be perfectly alright here to call me out on that and tell me that I shouldn't believe Paul Graham. ;-P) But the reason I believe in his argument is because I cannot, as of now, think of a good enough counter-argument to that claim.

Maybe you can, and I am interested if you can (because that would bring more value into the conversation) - but thus far all you're saying is: 'based on experience, I can attest to the fact that the claim is wrong." Which doesn't do anything to further the conversation, because there's little reasoning we can dig into and analyze for truth.

Now, what arguments may there be that performance is not easier to measure then than it is now?

One argument might be that promotions were still largely due to performance assessments. But that doesn't prove anything, per se, because the promotions 50 years ago didn't have the any increase in pay to match.

What needs to be clarified also however is that what's important (useful/desirable) to a middle manager might not be consistent with what's performance from the perspective of the company at large. If your boss owns the company, then it's typically consistent. However, your boss's views is likely the thing that matters most.

Which is another argument as to why smaller companies are more efficient.

I'm still chewing on your point about usefulness. It's not directly related to my arguments (which, if you've realized has been based mostly around the economic value of an individual's work) ... but it's an interesting, semi-related idea to think about.

I'll get some shuteye now. Looking forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow.

Shannon said...

*cough* my mom NEVER rewards me for good grades, her reason being that I study for myself, and not her :P (although she is pissed when I underperform :p)

Regarding the imperial government, I don't think it is a fair comparison to today's companies, since you have to see it in context. The way I view it would be that in the past, those chosen to enter the government aren't merely "state managers" but also leaders. You can be simply good at governing, but it doesn't mean you have a virtuous character. And focusing on Confucian classics, ideal leaders in ideal societies are junzi are men of excellence, who want to learn and achieve self betterment (and therefore lead to people well). Would you think someone who does not want to learn be a good leader? Learning the classics was not simply to show that an individual was clever enough to manage their own state, but about achieving excellence. But that is kind of idealistic :P

Ofc Confucius always seemed to undermine developing "skills" to me, but I think it was due to the culture in the past... now we need people who are not only men of excellence, but with another set of focused skills as well.

And about grades, I think someone who can perform would be better than someone who simply does well in school and vomits out all the info memorized... but the truth is that there are people with good grades AND are able to perform. If anything, grades at least indicate your drive or that you're smart.

But it really depends on the kind of job, and whether you wanna be stuck doing that all your life

Shannon said...

What they do tell us, however, that has the same net effect as telling us not to think, are things like "That's very good dear, but it's not what the examiners are looking for" or "That's not a proper exam answer".

---

Your teachers suck! Did you really meet any like that? :P I am soo glad I've never met any of that kind. Mostly they tell us way more than what the exam answer is looking for so we can really understand, but interestingly, it is the students who are asking for the "proper exam answer". Don't blame the teachers, blame the system if you must.

Eli James said...

Hi Shannon, thank you for reading through the whole post. =) I am grateful for that.

Regarding the imperial government, I don't think it is a fair comparison to today's companies, since you have to see it in context.

I wasn't comparing the imperial government to today's companies at all. My section on the Imperial government says simply: exams started with the Chinese, and there are two ideas that they first implemented that we still subscribe to: a) exams are a way of filtering the good from the bad, and b) studying something not connected to your job is still a good indicator of your future performance.

I then used those two assumptions as the basis for the rest of my essay.

And about grades, I think someone who can perform would be better than someone who simply does well in school and vomits out all the info memorized... but the truth is that there are people with good grades AND are able to perform. If anything, grades at least indicate your drive or that you're smart.

I really hope they are. In Malaysia there's a HUGE disconnect between studying and learning. I actually really enjoy studying in NUS - it's one of the few places where I'm actually learning things even while I'm studying for exams. =)

But it really depends on the kind of job, and whether you wanna be stuck doing that all your life

Spot on. One thing I've neglected to say was that my argument doesn't apply to fields like dentistry, and pharmacy, and medicine. They have no choice but to use grades as good indicators.

Your teachers suck! Did you really meet any like that?

Yes. Loads. =( It is rare that you can meet a teacher that teaches you beyond the exam. I have only had three, in my high-school life.

When I was 17, I asked my add-math teacher what indices were used for. She stared at me blankly and said: "It's in your paper two, section C, question 2."

mr luo said...

*erhm erhm* Here's a social science perspective to things
1) Education performance (esp. grades) has been linked to social and economic class as well (see Pierre Boudieu). As Prof Ben mentioned, it's correlation with job performance is just a CORRELATION, not a CAUSATION. Not saying these additional factors are the causes, but some additional factors to take note of over what you all are arguing about.

2)@Cedric: Puzzled why you didn't talk about grades and morals, ethics and values?

On a personal note, I think what you said parallels a lot with what Ken Robinson is arguing for in his TED talk and his book "The Element".

Singapore has been trying to move away from grades, to include things like Community Involvement Project, CCA etc. But ultimately, there are also quite a number who manipulate these to get the mention without the learning, much like the case of grades.

Is grades an obstruction to learning? I will say, no. Like my point about CCA and CIP, it's how one relates to it that obstructs learning, not these factors itself. I always tell my kids, the grades are just to determine who gets their first choice for courses - it doesn't say about what you learn and the kind of person you are. That is also why Benjamin Zander attempts to destabilise this obstruction by giving all his students As in Day 1.

But does grade matter? It's a gatekeeping tool, of course it matters for gatekeepers. But for other things? Definitely not for learning in many cases.

mr luo said...

PS: Must say that this essay is very clear and well-written. From the mouth (or fingers) of a debater indeed!

Shannon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shannon said...

b) studying something not connected to your job is still a good indicator of your future performance. (I assume you have to do well in this)

Hmm, okay, only I do think reading the classics IS connected to the job of imperial officers. It isn't just the skill of managing a state, but also a leader who can positively influence the people. Consider the position offered in relation to what is being tested - it isn't random knowledge :P

You are assuming that what is tested is irrelevant to what an individual will be doing in the future. But just as in the above case, what is taught/learnt is usually (perhaps not always) relevant, whether immediately obvious or not.

So is what you are learning and being tested on now not going to be related to what you are doing in the future? Maybe you are in the wrong fac? :P

So, someone who reads the classics widely is not only suitable for office, but say, the best butcher in town, or the best tradesman perhaps. Maybe if I do really well in accounts, it means I'll make a great programmer? (ya, pulling it out of context a bit, but hey, they are unconnected, but can still be good indicators right :P)

---
On an unrelated note, I do wish NUS had admission essays also, rather than just using A level grades as a cut-off :P If can have interview, even better

Eli James said...

You are assuming that what is tested is irrelevant to what an individual will be doing in the future.

Well yes that's kind of true. But I didn't say that studying something not connected to your future job was a completely bad indicator. I was instead attacking assumption (a), that exams aren't a good filter. I said that I thought there may be something to studying classics/disconnected field - after all, the British placed a huge emphasis on Latin in order to gain a management position in the colonial system. And that turned out pretty well for them.

(Also, I think both of us will be studying things that we won't use in our actual jobs. But that doesn't mean they're not useful. I should stop here, though, this topic is worthy of an entirely different essay. But let's just say that I'm on your side on this).

I think NUS does have entrance essays. At least, it did for me. You mean it didn't for you? o.O

Eli James said...

@Yanjie: Agreed on your point about correlation vs causation, even though I've forgotten what does extra factors are.

I think I've made that point though, in one of the comments above to Prof. I was saying that there may be noise to the correlation between grades and above-average salary.

Puzzled why you didn't talk about grades and morals, ethics and values?

Err, what do you mean, Yan Jie? You mean the good grades does not equal morals/ethics/values argument?

On a personal note, I think what you said parallels a lot with what Ken Robinson is arguing for in his TED talk and his book "The Element".

Ooh that's a good one. I loved his TED talk, and do you have his book? What was he essentially arguing about?

Actually, from what I'm hearing from you and Shannon, I think Singapore's really on the right track, education wise. Not sure about why it's still so exam-oriented. Maybe a culture problem? The good news is, thought, that if my contention is correct and Singapore continues moving towards more startups, we might see a quick depreciation of the importance of grades.

A said...

Yet another article on the disagreement on the grading system.

Cedric, simple question: Graduate A aced all his exams. Graduate B was a straight-D in most. Who would you hire?

As Prof said, grades are what you call signals, and if you don't listen to them, you better know what the heck you're doing.

As for why SOME college failures make it big, simple answer - Life is complex and there is no one definitive yardstick. And that holds for grades also.

Think of this -- why are we even having this argument in the first place? Because grades have assumed undue importance. Why is that? Because they're still the best way we can filter the overwhelming population.

The core problem people seem to be talking about is how grades are an unsure reflection of your true ability. Leave aside non-science subjects (those really depend on the quality of teachers) and I will argue that if you really are good, you should be able to do fairly well and there's no reason for you to be denied your grade. Many students think they're really smart when they understand jack about the topic.

What we need is a better grading system. I have to agree that by giving a set of standard questions the answers to which you can vomit out, there really isn't much learning. But systems have flaws. Where we stand, we know that there is a problem, and to complain or brood over problems is easy. Can you provide a FEASIBLE solution?

benleong said...

I think Singapore's really on the right track, education wise. Not sure about why it's still so exam-oriented. Maybe a culture problem?

No lah, not a culture problem. There's a very simple reason why we need exams in Singapore. Singapore is a meritocratic society.

What does that really mean? Basically, it's a resource allocation problem. We have only so many places in Sec School, JCs, university and scholarships and we need a "fair" way to allocate those resources. Simple as that.

You come up with a better way, we'd do it.

Startups will not help in this resource allocation problem. You guys have to learn to think from a higher perspective. :-) You're doing well. Keep it up.

My earlier posts seem to have disappeared. >:-*(

Shannon said...

Ya, exactly what Adhiraj has said. If you are good, you should do *reasonably* well - you know, not "D"'s :P.

But I maintain that where there is an overwhelming population, you don't even want people who do *reasonably* well - you want people who are good AND do well (well, provided you have the ability to get them to join you). And there are people like that. Ofc, there are what they call diamonds in the rough :P Which they will hopefully discover, but grades do confer a significant advantage where competiton is so stiff.

Shannon said...

Mm and the solution to the problem, at least where jobs are concerned are interviews right? So you can remove people who are simply walking information regurgitators and nothing more, vs. those who can regurgitate into./process/understand and are true performers :P

benleong said...

Now, if you are sharp, you will catch me and say, if you are right, it therefore means that NUS doesn't need to have grades right? Since there are no longer public resources to be allocated after NUS?

Well, as it turns out, the employers EXPECT us to supply them with signals for them to do their hiring. The public service is also a huge employer than hires a large number of people and it would be useful for them.

BTW, MIT does not classify its graduating students. There are no first class, 2nd upper, etc. for MIT. :-) Employers will still hire. Why can MIT do that? Because of the stringent selection and harsh system. MIT's graduation rate was something like 91% during my time and the suicide rate was highest among all US schools or something.

Corollary: if instead of taking 20,000 students a year, we can take 1,000+ like MIT, I think we can do it too (i.e. get rid of classifications), but don't have the privilege of taking only 1,000+ students.

In any case, MIT does have grades still. Grades are actually useful for the profs. If the weightage of the grading structure is done correctly, students can be "inspired" (or maybe "forced") to exhibit the right behaviours. :-)

@Shannon, interviews? Yep, but how many do you think you can interview? You have like 50,000 students per cohort. Who's going to interview 50K people to determine who gets to go to which Sec School, JC, and university? You have to understand the problem of scale, which we will discuss in tomorrow's lecture. :-)

Eli James said...

Re: Adhi.

Cedric, simple question: Graduate A aced all his exams. Graduate B was a straight-D in most. Who would you hire?

I reject the base assumption for your question - because there is too little information to make a correct judgment. The correct answer is: whoever can perform best for the job. That implies that Graduate A may not be the right candidate, and also that Graduate B may not necessarily be the wrong one. There are, after all, self-taught programmers who specialized in painting or whatnot at undergraduate level.

Because they're still the best way we can filter the overwhelming population.

This is an assertion. My entire essay has been about why they may not be the best way to filter the overwhelming population anymore. Argue against that, please.

Life is complex and there is no one definitive yardstick. And that holds for grades also.

We seem to be going over covered ground - prof and I have already covered this in our discussion. The answer to this is that there is a definite yardstick - that yardstick is your economic value. Grades attempt to predict this, but don't get it right.

I will argue that if you really are good, you should be able to do fairly well and there's no reason for you to be denied your grade

Agreed. I never argued that grades are not an important measure of cognitive ability. I argued that they may be hacked. And this introduces noise into what is supposed to be a working filter.

Can you provide a FEASIBLE solution?

I have. Go read the essay again, and I have argued that if it is too hard to make the filtering system perfect, then the next best thing is to make grades decreasingly important. Which our economy is currently doing, as a better gauge of our performance.

Shannon said...

I meant interviews to further filter down after grades :P Since there are bound to be suitable people among the good scorers.

Eli James said...

So you can remove people who are simply walking information regurgitators and nothing more, vs. those who can regurgitate into./process/understand and are true performers :P

Actually you make a really good point here. Prof once mentioned this in one of his posts about why programmers in the job market. He said that he would not dare to touch certain straight-A students with a barge pole, and yet they would probably still be able to spoof their way through tests conducted by the interviewer. I'd like to know more about that actually. Prof - if you may?

Shannon said...

Haha, Cedric, the choice between the 2 candidates isn't meant to be read too deeply into imho :P But you are right, that it depends, but you do get what Adhiraj meant la.

I'd be more likely to pick the straight A student than the D student. Not definitely, because, yeah, I may not want them both actually. I may want the straight D student if he has valid reasons like that his grandma died on the day of the exams or whatever :P But as Adhiraj has pointed out, the grades give other signals as well. Your attitude, for one, may be in question if you get straight-D's.

benleong said...

We can do a little discussion on grades and hiring after the *real* lesson tomorrow and I'd tell you stories about the *evil* things I did while I was in the civil service and how I once hired a straight-D fellow who went on to do very well. :-)

Eli James said...

@Shannon: oh, it's a lot more complex than that. Adhi's question leaves out important information such as - what are in the two's portfolios?

For instance: if the straight-D student did a company in his spare time, sold computers to major retailers, and got his friend to create a personal computer that was the first of its kind ... would you want to hire that guy? Or would you want to hire the straight-A student?

Also - if the straight-A student has not done anything in his spare time, out of passion. Or got into computing, say, because his mother told him to.

And there's also the job-personality fit. It could be that you're looking for a drone programmer. In which case graduate A would be the best choice. Or you're a startup. In which graduate B would be the best choice.

Realize that I have just described Steve Jobs as straight-D student.

You see? This is not a simple question to answer. And so I reject it the base assumptions he makes.

Eli James said...

In any case, MIT does have grades still. Grades are actually useful for the profs. If the weightage of the grading structure is done correctly, students can be "inspired" (or maybe "forced") to exhibit the right behaviours. :-)

Yes! Indeed! I fully expect grades to tell me how well (or how badly) I've done in a test.

Right now - I find it interesting that the hiring process is beginning to rely on what you've done as much as what grades you've gotten in school. Chris Henry was hired on his performance as opposed to *just* his grades. 50 years ago, this would have been an unimagineable idea. Not to mention impossible.

I loved the information you provided about MIT, though. And I fully agree with you that grades as a signal will continue to exist in Singapore. Just - it appears other signals are now coming to the fore, that for some reason (and you know what I think are the reasons) were not there not too long ago.

benleong said...

A quick point to follow up on my earlier point about MIT having a graduation rate of 91%. Personally, I think it's not a bad system to do quality control to ensure that employers have some faith in the people they get.

However, anyone imagining NUS implementing a harsh system like that? :-) Someone in the Government would probably freak out and die.

Let's do another thought experiment: suppose someone crazy like me managed to get to a position of sufficient power to say that NUS should increase the intake by 10%, but that the school should now tighten standards and only 90% will pass, what's going to be the effect? Will Singaporeans want to enroll in NUS (where one in 10 get chopped) or in NTU where it's safer? :-)

My personal view: NUS is currently not sufficiently stringent. Perhaps a smaller number of students should be allowed to graduate. However, there's actually a camp who argues that it would be harsh to not graduate the poor students after they have spend so much time in school. We should just give them a Pass degree without honours or something and that's good enough a signal for the employers. And this argument is not without merit. This means however that NUS has NO CHANCE of ever becoming an elite school or a Harvard/MIT of the East (which some Minister or something said some time ago).

Life is full of hard questions. :-)

Eli James said...

PS: forgot to respond to this -

What does that really mean? Basically, it's a resource allocation problem. We have only so many places in Sec School, JCs, university and scholarships and we need a "fair" way to allocate those resources. Simple as that.

Good catch. Didn't consider that earlier. Thanks. =)

Corollary to the thought experiment: MIT can be the top school in the world because there is a long tail of other universities able to catch those that can't get in. You're absolutely right, I think - because there's so much concentration on NUS as a sole provider of quality graduates.

But that NUS has no chance of being an elite school of the East ... hrmm.

I propose another thought experiment: talent attracts talent. Professors are attracted by research grants. If the Singaporean government throws enough money at research, it should eventually attract a critical mass of professors and researchers to form a top-notch teaching staff (which it's currently doing, in part).

Now what if this teaching staff works to polish the top quartile of the student population? In effect, creating a controlled cohort like MIT, only with a long-tail of second class and third class honours students to provide the market with 'Pass degrees'.

Would the top quartile not be of the same calibre as MIT's graduating cohort?

Maybe not. But we don't have to beat MIT - we just have to be an elite school of the East.

There are many problems with this idea, though. The first of which is explaining that only the NUS certificate for First Class Honours is comparable to MIT. This would be confusing to employers.

So I don't know. Bears thinking about.

mr luo said...

@Cedric:
The Issue of morals, ethics etc. : Yup. Grades doesn't co-relate to it, even if you have done 10 000hrs of CIP or given a great grade for your behaviour. In the newer "holistic eduction", students are given graded in their report book for displaying certain values. I'm like???

The issue of other factors: like I mentioned, economic and social class lor.

The issue with Ken Robinson: Yeh I have the book, but have lent it to one of my kid. Will let you know when it gets back to me. Alternatively, the national library has it. His book is a elaboration of his talk with more stories and example, and a more complete argument.

@all
The issue about exam-orientated: I disagree with Boss that it is soley because we are a meritocratic society - we can be a meritocratic society STEEL, but measure it with other yardsticks that are more boomsz. I'm more inclined to say that it is because grades was the right yardstick then when our economy was simpler and more technically inclined. You wouldn't convince MNCs that our workers have the technical knowledge if your engineers got Ds, right? So grades can be a good measure for technical competency. It worked for those who did well in it, and hence it got reproduced to current generations where it is no longer so simple, and grades are an insufficient yardstick for what is required at the job (like creativity).

At least incrementally, our education ministry have removed exams for primary 1 and primary 2 students to encourage more learning and creativity, much to the protest by some of the parents. Even now, the move to more soft skills also kena complained by parents who wants focus on exams.

With regards to interviewing: I have to agree with boss. Companies are not stupid - they set academic criteria not just because they don't need to interview so many people, but because they know that they can still get someone who is excellent STEEL despite excluding possible great candidates who do not fit the criteria. For example, STB only accepts people with a 2nd upper and above - mainly to allocate resources, and knowing that they can still higher excellent people with that criteria.

I think we should stop the "but there are cases where...." arguments, as we are going towards more and more exceptions rather than the rule. Let's not forget, systems like grading is for everyone - it has to follow the rule, not the exceptions, to benefit as many people as possible. Unless the example you contribute is the rule, I don't think you have sufficiently argued for/against grading.

With regards to boss's crazy idea on stringent marking A certain dept in my faculty is known for their high standards, where the compulsory honours module cover things that is covered only in post-grad modules for other unis. Only a certain number of As can be given, and the lowest tier must have at least B-, even if the lowest mark is in the 70% range, regardless of class size and class standard. Visiting fellows to that dept has been chastised for giving more As than allowed, even though the standard of the A undergraduate student is higher than the standard of the masters student of his/her home university of comparable standard. Yet, the recognition of the standard is not common among employers.

So does more stringent standard raise recognition or vice-versa?

mr luo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mr luo said...

If a more stringent standard doesn't raise recognition, you're just penalising the students unnecessarily and under-evaluating their capabilities - much like what happened to the students in that department.

Eli James said...

@Yanjie: good comment overall, but one minor quaffle:

Unless the example you contribute is the rule, I don't think you have sufficiently argued for/against grading.

You are correct on this, but you are missing one nuance in my argument.

It is true that employers set a grade cut-off point to manage the number of people they have to interview. Only after the grade cut-off do they evaluate other indicators.

Today, however, if you cannot make the grade cutoff point, and you have high economic value (i.e.: you have a skill that the economy would dearly reward) you have another option: you start or join a smaller company, where you use those skills and are rewarded directly by the market. This is only possible today because the current economy favours small/er organizations.

It also becomes more attractive for other individuals with high economic value to join these small organizations, because they are now rewarded directly by the market.

So what do the large organizations do now that talent flows towards these smaller companies? They can do two things: 1) they increase the pay for performance (which they're already doing) and 2) they decrease the emphasis on grades and focus on alternative indicators (which more and more are currently doing).

That is my argument. That is why Adhi's question is the wrong one to ask. My exception isn't an exception in this case - it's merely part of a larger phenomenon.

I hope this makes sense to you.

A said...

@Cedric:

Cedric, simple question: Graduate A aced all his exams. Graduate B was a straight-D in most. Who would you hire?

I reject the base assumption for your question - because there is too little information to make a correct judgment. The correct answer is: whoever can perform best for the job. That implies that Graduate A may not be the right candidate, and also that Graduate B may not necessarily be the wrong one. There are, after all, self-taught programmers who specialized in painting or whatnot at undergraduate level.


i) What is the base assumption I made?
ii) I am speaking of 2 graduates, both holding the same degree you are looking for in an employee.

--

Because they're still the best way we can filter the overwhelming population.

This is an assertion. My entire essay has been about why they may not be the best way to filter the overwhelming population anymore. Argue against that, please.


Precisely. You have not proposed a feasible better way for this filtering, so the assertion holds.

--

Life is complex and there is no one definitive yardstick. And that holds for grades also.

We seem to be going over covered ground - prof and I have already covered this in our discussion. The answer to this is that there is a definite yardstick - that yardstick is your economic value. Grades attempt to predict this, but don't get it right.


Yeah that's covered, but I am not satisfied with the "economic value" tag as a yardstick. Why? This is a cycle -- your ability is what determines your economic value. And you say that a definitive yardstick to determine ability is economic value.

--

Can you provide a FEASIBLE solution?

I have. Go read the essay again, and I have argued that if it is too hard to make the filtering system perfect, then the next best thing is to make grades decreasingly important.


And then what? I still maintain that you do not provide a concrete solution.

We're asking for a feasible solution, not a simplistic one. Keep in mind that we're talking about far too many graduates to be assessed individually, or, at a level deep enough to provide efficient filtering. There are only so many members in the panel -- and they're humans.

Shannon said...

Cedric, ya it's true, like I said, you ma hire a straight D student depending on the reasons. More often than not, it's because they are slacking. I'm not going to say all, but I think I can say a majority.

Ryan Teo said...

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich:_Deschooling_Society

joshuatj said...

Now, if only these comments are done using Wave. Late-comer like me will have a better time following the whole discussion.

mr luo said...

@Cedric:

Though we have discussed this online, thought it would be a food for thought for everyone
The issue of the company size and survivability
what is not factored is that not every industry is as cost-free to start as start-ups. There are industries, like manufacturing, where big companies still survive better, because they have the capital to get the production going.

The issue about employers and grade cut-off
In industries that require a lot of technical knowledge, that is of greater priority than creativity, they need the grades and certification to gurantee that the potential employees have a level of technical competency. So grades do matter to them.

So perhaps, grades don't matter to only SOME industries?