Med students take on Wits

[porchrat]

It is NOT an average across your modules. It takes the marks of the top perfomer and says if you don't reach a certain percentage of that, then you have failed.

The issue is what do other medical schools in SA use (UCT, Stellenbosch etc)? European medical schools do not use that method, as it is taken to be arbitrary and of questionable validity.

OK that method seems stupid then. Thanks for informing me.

Surely just use a similar system to other university courses. Pass requirements for modules. You don't pass the module you repeat it in the next year/semester. If it takes you X number of years beyond the standard time for the degree to complete it then you get the boot.

 

[RaptorSA]

Good day Mr. "Actually went to university".

BSc. Honors. too... please don't forget that, mmkay.
My friends call me "Mr", but you can call me "Oom".

 

[lumeer]

There's a curious argument that entrance requirements ought actually to be higher for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds, to compensate for the substandard education that they received at school. So often, entrance requirements are lowered for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds, and then - surprise - they struggle to cope with the degree, and drop out. One is not doing them a favour by lowering their entrance requirements, you are simply setting them up for failure down the line.

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

Would the cut off time change if that year's race is won in a record time?

Fair point. I don't think it changes my message in that why should they continue supporting you when chances are you won't make it all the way.

 

[AdrianH]

Again an entitled person complaining AFTERWARDS that it is unfair. Then why enroll in the first place!

WITS must be taken on for hiding how they calculate pass/fail marks for medical students for all these years.

 

[lumeer]

I often think of passing an academic course, as running a four-minute mile. It is not enough to say "well, I ran the mile in 4 minutes and 20 seconds, but I come from a poor background, so it should be counted as though I had run the mile in four minutes, for had I had better opportunities when growing up, I would have run the mile in four minutes".

 

[Knyro]

There's a curious argument that entrance requirements ought actually to be higher for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds, to compensate for the substandard education that they received at school. So often, entrance requirements are lowered for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds, and then - surprise - they struggle to cope with the degree, and drop out. One is not doing them a favour by lowering their entrance requirements, you are simply setting them up for failure down the line.

A lot of unis now have extended programs for degrees with lower requirements but a longer timeline in order to get them up to standard. What do you think of that approach?

 

[RaptorSA]

There's a curious argument that entrance requirements ought actually to be higher for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds, to compensate for the substandard education that they received at school. So often, entrance requirements are lowered for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds, and then - surprise - they struggle to cope with the degree, and drop out. One is not doing them a favour by lowering their entrance requirements, you are simply setting them up for failure down the line.

Very true.
Many degrees are extremely easy within the first year and gets almost exponentially harder after that. You're literally screwing someone if you let them in easy so they can rack up all that debt only to drop out later.

 

[lumeer]

A lot of unis now have extended programs for degrees with lower requirements but a longer timeline in order to get them up to standard. What do you think of that approach?

I have no objection to this. It's a good approach and an academically honest way to give students from bad schools a fighting chance.

 

[Nom Chompsky]

OK that method seems stupid then. Thanks for informing me.

Surely just use a similar system to other university courses. Pass requirements for modules. You don't pass the module you repeat it in the next year/semester. If it takes you X number of years beyond the standard time for the degree to complete it then you get the boot.

Actually it is not that stupid. Although the Cohen system is not exactly like grading on a curve, it is somewhat similar and widely used in American universities.

Basically grading on a curve or the Cohen system looks at relative performance (rather than absolute performance) and which accounts for the difficulty (or not) of the exam as well as the quality of the lecturers (bad quality lecturers *do* affect people's marks). When I was at UCT, I can tell you marks in courses fluctuated wildly based on who lectured the course -- it should not be like that, but lecturers can make difficult exams and they can make easy exams. All depends... the grading on a curve attempts to disentangle such effects. One course I distinctly remember everyone and their dog got over 75+...in our year, only like 10 people achieved that (out of a class of 300 say).

 

[Neuk_]

The issue is the Cohen method takes 60% of the mark achieved by the top candidate, as the pass mark. It's not taking your average mark and comparing it to a cut-off mark (e.g. 50%). If your class has enough outliers (top-performers) then there is a potential the rest of the class will be prejudiced.

I don't see the issue? At the very most, based on what you have said above, the pass mark is 60% which I find perfectly reasonable for a medical student.

 

[porchrat]

Actually it is not that stupid. Although the Cohen system is not exactly like grading on a curve, it is somewhat similar and widely used in American universities.

Basically grading on a curve or the Cohen system looks at relative performance (rather than absolute performance) and which accounts for the difficulty (or not) of the exam as well as the quality of the lecturers (bad quality lecturers *do* affect people's marks). When I was at UCT, I can tell you marks in courses fluctuated wildly based on who lectured the course -- it should not be like that, but lecturers can make difficult exams and they can make easy exams. All depends... the grading on a curve attempts to disentangle such effects. One course I distinctly remember everyone and their dog got over 75+...in our year, only like 10 people achieved that (out of a class of 300 say).

You have a point.

 

[Neuk_]

Actually it is not that stupid. Although the Cohen system is not exactly like grading on a curve, it is somewhat similar and widely used in American universities.

Basically grading on a curve or the Cohen system looks at relative performance (rather than absolute performance) and which accounts for the difficulty (or not) of the exam as well as the quality of the lecturers (bad quality lecturers *do* affect people's marks). When I was at UCT, I can tell you marks in courses fluctuated wildly based on who lectured the course -- it should not be like that, but lecturers can make difficult exams and they can make easy exams. All depends... the grading on a curve attempts to disentangle such effects. One course I distinctly remember everyone and their dog got over 75+...in our year, only like 10 people achieved that (out of a class of 300 say).

The grading curve method produces some weird results especially if marks get adjusted to fit in with some or other norm. My boss is studying through UNISA and wrote one exam where his final mark was higher than the amount of the exam he answered/completed.

 

[Knyro]

I don't see the issue? At the very most, based on what you have said above, the pass mark is 60% which I find perfectly reasonable for a medical student.

Basing it on the single top performing candidate is what makes it nonsense IMO. All it takes is an unusually difficult exam which the vast majority of the year fail. With normal curving you could account for this.

But what if there is a super genius in the class? That one that person REKTS the exam, and screws over everybody else? In the worst case they could end up being the only one that passes because of this system. They should take the marks of more people into account IMO if they insist on making passing relative.

 

[P924]

Basing it on the single top performing candidate is what makes it nonsense IMO. All it takes is an unusually difficult exam which the vast majority of the year fail. With normal curving you could account for this.

But what if there is a super genius in the class? That one that person REKTS the exam, and screws over everybody else? In the worst case they could end up being the only one that passes because of this system. They should take the marks of more people into account IMO if they insist on making passing relative.

If one person gets 100%, the pass mark gets set at 60%. Not really unfair considering they are studying to become doctors...

 

[Knyro]

If one person gets 100%, the pass mark gets set at 60%. Not really unfair considering they are studying to become doctors...

On an unusually difficult exam I said. Those have been known to slip though the cracks and marks adjusted accordingly, only they won't be in this case. It'll be even worse as the pass mark is now 60% instead of the usual 50%.

 

[Johnatan56]

A lot of unis now have extended programs for degrees with lower requirements but a longer timeline in order to get them up to standard. What do you think of that approach?

Very good, but very bad in implementation.

Had a chat with a friend who is now teaching while doing his Btech part time, the "higher certificate" is a glorified piece of paper where candidates are basically passed through, he even had cases with people plagiarizing their stuff, and he was only allowed to give 0, no repercussion, with those assignments being a max of 20% of mark. It does not prepare you for higher learning at the moment.

Fun fact of that higher certificate degree, quite a few white people got in through that as they didn't have the average for diploma, since they needed ~10% more than the equivalent, with female in that specific degree just requiring pass. You can guess what the final year looked like, only 2 of those who had to get a higher mark to get in "failed" because they basically flunked it after deciding to move to a different degree.

That lengthening of the degree is good in theory, doesn't seem to be working in practice in most places as they have quotas to meet.

On an unusually difficult exam I said. Those have been known to slip though the cracks and marks adjusted accordingly, only they won't be in this case. It'll be even worse as the pass mark is now 60% instead of the usual 50%.

If people can score 100% on an exam, then it means the exam should have been pretty easy and I'd be worried about those people who score below 60%, especially considering they'll be directly responsible for people's lives.

 

[Neuk_]

Basing it on the single top performing candidate is what makes it nonsense IMO. All it takes is an unusually difficult exam which the vast majority of the year fail. With normal curving you could account for this.

But what if there is a super genius in the class? That one that person REKTS the exam, and screws over everybody else? In the worst case they could end up being the only one that passes because of this system. They should take the marks of more people into account IMO if they insist on making passing relative.

I understand your point and some might say that the scenario you describe is highly unlikely but we had a genius in my year at varsity who for at least the first few years got 100% for Maths, Physics and Chemistry subjects. I am not entirely convinced that passing should be relative though...

 

[Knyro]

If people can score 100% on an exam, then it means the exam should have been pretty easy and I'd be worried about those people who score below 60%, especially considering they'll be directly responsible for people's lives.

/facepalm

I give up. Apparently "genius" and "unusually difficult exam" are terms that are easily missed.

 

[Knyro]

I understand your point and some might say that the scenario you describe is highly unlikely but we had a genius in my year at varsity who for at least the first few years got 100% for Maths, Physics and Chemistry subjects. I am not entirely convinced that passing should be relative though...

I'd say universities are precisely the places where one would expect to find an unusually high concentration of geniuses.