Whoa. Even some of my students are capable of figuring out that trick. I suppose the weasel word is "can." You can give the student that grade but you don't have to.
Since the exam is only worth a certain percentage of the total grade, the student's earned grade is that percentage or less. For instance, if the exam is worth 20%, the student earned 20% or less. That's how I read it.
I realize that the policy may need to be rephrased or illustrated by examples. However, that's what I think it says. It may even make sense when a student stops attending after having earned a passing grade, if barely.
So I award the grade the student had earned before (s)he started attending? Wouldn't that be a zero (notwithstanding some students' belief that they start with the presumption of a 100/A and "lose points" by doing things wrong, which, come to think of it, might explain everything from poor attendance to resistance to answering questions in class; if you don't do anything, you can't lose points)?
Methinks "until" should be "during." Or maybe there needs to be a "ceased" somewhere in there? In any case, methinks whoever wrote that policy needs a remedial writing class. At the very least, (s)he should read Williams' Style (an older, cheaper edition will do just fine). Part of the problem with that sentence is the nominalization ("attendance") at the end, probably introduced to avoid the he/she/they problem. ". . .the grade the student had earned at the time (s)he stopped attending your class" would be clearer; as would "students who stop attending your class. . .may be awarded the grades they had earned at the time they stopped attending your class."
You're right, CC. If I were to give a well-deserved F to a disappearing student and was subsequently hauled in front of the VP of academic affairs, I'd explain that this was exactly what this verbiage is ordering. My 9th-grade English teacher pointed out that one can get away with a lot by following the logic of a double negative: "I ain't stealing cookies from no cookie jar" is the logical equivalent of "I am stealing cookies from the cookie jar." Chances are the VP of academic affairs would then sodomize me with a cattle prod anyway, but university administrators will do that anyway, just on general principles.
I think if you put a "points" scheme on your syllabus it would be an F, and if you used a "percent" scheme, it would be an A. If they succeeded at 94% of what you asked them "until the time of attendance", that would be an A. If they earned 282 points with 700 to go, that would be an F.
And yes - we all know that's what it was supposed to mean. But what it was "supposed to" mean means nothing when they concoct a bull**** law suit over it.
Whoa. Even some of my students are capable of figuring out that trick. I suppose the weasel word is "can." You can give the student that grade but you don't have to.
ReplyDeleteSince the exam is only worth a certain percentage of the total grade, the student's earned grade is that percentage or less. For instance, if the exam is worth 20%, the student earned 20% or less. That's how I read it.
ReplyDeleteI realize that the policy may need to be rephrased or illustrated by examples. However, that's what I think it says. It may even make sense when a student stops attending after having earned a passing grade, if barely.
So I award the grade the student had earned before (s)he started attending? Wouldn't that be a zero (notwithstanding some students' belief that they start with the presumption of a 100/A and "lose points" by doing things wrong, which, come to think of it, might explain everything from poor attendance to resistance to answering questions in class; if you don't do anything, you can't lose points)?
ReplyDeleteMethinks "until" should be "during." Or maybe there needs to be a "ceased" somewhere in there? In any case, methinks whoever wrote that policy needs a remedial writing class. At the very least, (s)he should read Williams' Style (an older, cheaper edition will do just fine). Part of the problem with that sentence is the nominalization ("attendance") at the end, probably introduced to avoid the he/she/they problem. ". . .the grade the student had earned at the time (s)he stopped attending your class" would be clearer; as would "students who stop attending your class. . .may be awarded the grades they had earned at the time they stopped attending your class."
You're right, CC. If I were to give a well-deserved F to a disappearing student and was subsequently hauled in front of the VP of academic affairs, I'd explain that this was exactly what this verbiage is ordering. My 9th-grade English teacher pointed out that one can get away with a lot by following the logic of a double negative: "I ain't stealing cookies from no cookie jar" is the logical equivalent of "I am stealing cookies from the cookie jar." Chances are the VP of academic affairs would then sodomize me with a cattle prod anyway, but university administrators will do that anyway, just on general principles.
DeleteJeeze, you Fresno guys have a very gunshy view of administrative discipline. And, really, I would have though it would have been a sheep prod.
DeleteFunnily enough, all of those were checked out, although by whom and what for wasn't said.
DeleteI think if you put a "points" scheme on your syllabus it would be an F, and if you used a "percent" scheme, it would be an A. If they succeeded at 94% of what you asked them "until the time of attendance", that would be an A. If they earned 282 points with 700 to go, that would be an F.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes - we all know that's what it was supposed to mean. But what it was "supposed to" mean means nothing when they concoct a bull**** law suit over it.