4
Page 2 THE BATTALION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1974
The economic reply
Grades are meaningless
By MIKE PERRIN
Grades are a constant source of
worry for students. Yet they are
such a meaningless item to worry
about; the standard grading system
now in use at this university means
nothing.
Or the only thing grades mean is
how well a student succeeds in
pleasing a professor, who may or
may not be some sort of misfit (profs
have problems, too) and who may or
may not know what he is doing. Ye^
a single letter grade is supposed to
sum up what you did in a given
course. As an empirical piece of evi
dence, a letter grade is sorely lack
ing.
It does not reveal how the grade
was arrived at — is it a relative
measure of sucess versus other
classmates? Does it indicate mas
tery of some pre-set amount of in
formation? Or is it a measure of how
brown a student can get his nose
during some physical act?
So not only is it not clear what
grades may mean, there is empirical
evidence that grades do not meas
ure academic progress. This evi
dence is cheating. Students only
cheat for grades; they never cheat
for knowledge. Cheating means that
grades measure something which
can be obtained by cheating — in
many cases, how well can the stu
dent do tricks which the prof likes?
One example which has come to
me is a prof who insists on a certain
length of term paper for grading
purposes. If a student turned in a
term paper short of the desired
length even by a half page, then that
student flunked. And this man will
continue at the university for many
years, unless he dies. But let’s skip
any more personal references — we
all know any number of abuses
which have occurred from time to
time.
It is clear that we have the pres
ent system for three reasons; it is
easy for lazy profs to use, it is easy
for misfits to abuse and it provides a
ready source of evaluation for future
employers. Unfortunately for those
employers, they cire unable to sort
out the misfit graders from the con
scientious ones, so they take grades
at face value.
As long as any convenient system
of evaluation is available to busi
ness, they will use it. Of course, to
the extent that they hire the wrong
people for jobs, it costs them in the
future, but these people can always
be fired. The tragedy is the capable
man who is not hired.
So we need an evaluation system
which gives no reward for cheating,
which is not prohibitively difficult to
apply and which is an accurate
measurement of a recognizable abil
ity.
I propose two evaluation systems.
Either one can meet these goals.
Both are superior to the present
grade system.
The first is the single grade sys
tem. Students would ALL be given
A s or B s or whatever on the first
day of classes. It wouldn’t matter, as
long as ALL students got the same
grade, regardless of class perfor
mance, attendance or other factors.
Students would receive the course
credit with that grade. (F’s are
primarily a way for universities to
keep enrollment up, anyway). (Re
peat courses.)
This method of grading would
make it obvious that the grades have
nothing to do with anything and that
they are utterly meaningless. So the
burden of evaluating of the indi
vidual would fall to the companies.
They could conduct their own types
of testing for jobs, or go for more
in-depth interviews, or otherwise
personalize and humanize their hir
ing processes to a greater extent
than is now the case.
Students would no longer cheat
for grades; they would get on with
the business of learning free from
fear of stepping out of established
bounds, free to try new ideas and
innovations. Those who didn’t want
to learn wouldn’t have to, but they
also wouldn’t get hired unless they
could pass the employer’s tests.
This system is easy to apply; profs
don’t need to worry about bell
curves or percentages or any of that
nonsense; profs would be judged by
the success of their pupils, which is
the true measure of success for
profs, anyway.
The system would be accurate —
each company would test for the
things in which they were in
terested and so the results would be
valid for them; this is the important
thing; they would no longer be con
fronted with some letters; they
would know what was tested for and
how and what the results mean for
them as a company. This is absent
now.
The second system puts the bur
den of evaluation back into the Uni
versity — professors woidd turn in
written evaluations of students, like
“Jim is here every day; the class
laughs a lot at his jokes’ or “Jim
seldom comes to class, yet when he
does, he takes over any group of his
choice. He turned in a 20 page
analysis of the American party sys
tem from 1776-1820 “ In this case,
the evaluations themselves explain
what is being examined and how it
was obtained.
Misfits could still turn in bad
evaluations, but there would be
other evaluations to compare. It is
easier to compare “Jim is a friendly
guy who breaks the class up once a
week’ with “Jim is a sullen boy who
does not take class direction well”
than it is to compare an A in History
105 with a C in History 106. The
misfit’s concerns are voiced in his
evaluation.
If those concerns match the
company’s, then it is valid for them;
otherwise, they ignore it. Over a
four year period, a fairly large stack
of information will build up and in
consistencies of profs will be easier
to spot.
Students can’t cheat. The prof
just writes up his evaluation on what
he sees. If he is wrong, there are
other bases of comparison. If he is
right, then that is important. So the
system is accurate in context in that
it reveals the basis for evaluation,
thereby making comparison easier
than the present letter system.
This system is more work for the
University than my first plan, but
any university evaluation will be
more work for the university than
employer evaluations. This system
is still not that difficult and it does
help show up the misfits and petty
martinets in the system.
So as we pass through finals this
week, it is obvious that all this sweat
is meaningless. The results will be
spotty and hard to check on. Stu
dents really deserve a more relaxed
atmosphere than a systematic In
quisition gives them. Perhaps some
day a more rational and more pleas
ant learning environment will be
possible.
W'lr™
M 'J?. . , , SLEER.
,Got t/n
;!, / S HAVE
/ f f. L. Sleep.
/NO ONE Knows the
CAUSE. THEY WALK AROUND
FOR DAYS WITH BLANK
STARES, TALKING TO
THEMSELVES. THEY DON'T
SEE IS TO REALLY SEE
Listen up
State reps should be informed
of ‘unreasonable’ fee increase
WATCH THIS!
HE WON’T
EVEN NOTICE
\ I US STANDING
W.V here...
Zhst
n
(© brad uj
t
this is one of the)
FEW TinES WHEN IT'51
SAFE FOR 6I6A6STo
COrAEL TO THE SUPfA
a
I S-'Jr
§4^
umiuuuMinro
SQUARE ROOT OF COLO* |
IS EQUAL TO THE PAST-
paaticiple of anyorsamicI
TEMPORARY STRUCTURE,...]
hey.
IFsfe? \t wmi
ONLY AFFECTS > WF; 1 !
IIIIIIIIIIIK,
hihihh»j>
'BUT WHAT^
IS IT THAT
CAN STRaKE
THEtA ALL
AT THE ,
£ TUAE v
/fDON'T KNOWf)
BUT THE
POOR DEVIL'S
HAVE A
NANNE FOR
IT. . ..
...FINALS).
kS
Editor:
A 200 per cent raise in the Build
ing Use Fee started me thinking.
What can I do to stop these un
foreseen and unreasonable raises
that seem to be a part of every
semester? My solution was to talk
with Larry' Vick, my state represen
tative from Houston.
He told me the increase seemed
very high, but this was something
Coasters and Co. By Rodney Hammack
. and the winner for the most obscene phone call is . .
that many state legislators had ex
pected. In the last state legislative
session Vick and other legislators
fought for a bill that would have
eliminated the Building Use Fee.
The bill did not pass, but with this
outrageous increase Vick has de
cided to investigate the situation
again.
During the Christinas holidays
everyone that feels the increase is
unfair should talk to their state rep
resentative. The students should
not be penalized for the
administration’s frivolous spending
and lack of planning. When the new
legislative session starts in January,
our state representatives will try to
correct this injustice.
David Cates
Game sad
Editor:
I read Steven Gilbert’s letter
about the disappointing perfor
mance of the football team against
T. U. and the letter criticizing him
for writing it. Before Thanksgiving,
I would have been upset by Steve’s
letter and agreed with Rusty Brown
and Dan Cheshier, but this year for
the first time in all the years I have
been attending Turkey-Day games
(some 26 years) 1 was truly embar
rassed.
Steve was very kind in his letter.
He did not mention specific players
or squads, yet voiced his rightful
opinion. It is sad that a team with so
much potential was beaten so badly.
It was a hitter thing to stand there
and watch the game given away.
There is no excuse for making the
same mistakes all year. To fail is one
thing, but to not even try is another.
The Twelfth Man deserved better.
Perhaps I sound hitter, and it’s
probably because I am, but I am still
an Ag. I’ll be there next year yelling
with the rest, but somehow I II
never forget that game and the sick
feeling I got.
Ron Ledbetter ’69
Poor design
Editor:
I m writing in regard to the way
the Memorial Student Center is de
signed. With the University grow
ing every year, the MSG cannot
provide the student body with ade
quate recreation. Even now it’s dif
ficult to find a lane to howl on or a
table to play pool.
The MSC was designed for the
former students and for the looks. I
sure don’t have anything against the
former students but the MSG
should be for the student body. This
student body shoidd be provided
adequate recreation facilities seeing
how the students will pay $465,000
yearly to the center until 2001. With
this amount of money we should
have some use.
The bowling lanes and pool tables
are good examples of poor planning.
When a University of 21,000 stu
dents only has eight lanes to howl on
and eight pool tables this shows me
poor designing for recreation. Also
when the rest of the MSC is com
pleted the new express hallway will
he open, and the ping pong tables
will be removed and placed in stor
age because of lack of room.
I don’t know who Is to thank for
the great designing job. This new
monstrosity of a student union com
plex has only a small portion ol its
basement for recreational activities.
This is ridiculous because of the
prices which are being paid for
these unused benches and tables. I
think the money should ofbeen
spent on providing the students]
wi th more recreational facilities. I
Something needs to be done S
about getting this problem taken
care of. A&M needs more of every
thing ;ls far as howling, pool tables
and just general open space fortlie
students. 1 hate to think what’s
going to happen in years tocomeil
this problem isn’t taken care of. 1
want to know who the MSC was
designed for?
Jim Horsl
Junior Fromm III
A&M gets Fromms’ first visit
Tliis is the first of a serial to he
printed weekly in the Battalion.
The column will depict the ups
and downs of life at Texas A&M as
seen through the eyes of Junior
Promm III and his family — Ed.
By ALAN KILLINGSWORTH
Henry and I sent Junior off to
A&M two years ago but we really
hadn’t seen much of the campus.
We had a free weekend so we de
cided that we would go and see all
the things that Junior had written
and told us about.
We first booked on a tour that had
been recommended by an interior
designer who had done a major job
for the university. On his list of
achievements were such things as
the interior of the Edsel and the
widely acclaimed eating atmos
phere of the Biff Burger chain. My
husband had met him while on a trip
to Argentina. He claims that he can
really tan a mean cowhide.
Anyway, I was really looking for
ward to this tour. I hardly slept the
night before. I guess the itinerary I
had read that night did it. We would
see the proposed site of a new wall
that was being built on the North
Side of the campus. They told us
that the purpose was to beautify it
self when it was built. I guess that’s
logical because how can anything
beautify itself when it’s not even
there. I think that was a good
enough reason to spend the money.
They also told us they had been hav
ing problems with sleep walkers and
I sure don’t want Junior getting hit
by a car late in the night.
The next place we visited was the
new pedestrian overpass by West
Gate parking lot. This was the sec
ond half of the morning tour and
lasted until lunch. They wanted us
to see someone using it. We waited
and we waited. Some of the people
in the rear of the bus started playing
Beaver. That’s the game where
when you see a station wagon you
yell “Beaver! The person with the
most Beavers wins. Henry played
for a while but finally got too far
behind and decided he’d never win
so he cpiit.
Then all at once the people at the
front of the bus started yelling that
there was someone walking across
the bridge. I never will forget it.
People started pushing and shoving
to get to the front of the bus. We
finally made it up there only after
ribbing a few people and stepping
on a few toes. Sure enough, there he
was. Henry commented on how he
was sure that a person could see the
entire campus from up there. He
asked the tour guide if we could go
up and look around but he said “no”
because we had to eat lunch after we
left.
We ate in the Tower dining room
high over the A&M campus. On the
way up there, they made us close
our eyes and not peek because it
would ruin the entire afternoon
tour. No one noticed what he ate for
lunch because he was too busy look
ing out windows. There was one
blind person on the tour who kept
complaining about lumps in the
French dressing.
We decided that it would be bet
ter if we left the afternoon tourunlil
next semester. It was a lot to absorb
in one day. As we went down tke
elevator we remembered to close
our eyes when we walked through
the University Center. We didn’l
even peek.
Junior was downstairs in the
howling alley. He’d been there
since 8 a. m. trying to get a lane.
Henry sat down in the sack lunch
area and I decided to watch Junior
wait.
I had a heck of a time getting
Henry out of the chairs when we
were ready to leave. They were so
comfortable he just drifted into!
deep sleep. It took me awhile to find
him because he was wearing bright
colors hut his brown socks gave him
away.
All in all, Henry and I had a most
enjoyable day and we agreed that
we would he more than happy to
spend $90 a semester for Junior to
he a part and he able to usesucln
beautiful structure — even though
we still hadn t seen it all.
Cbe Battalion
PEANUTS
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editor
or of the writer of the article and are not necessarily those of
the university administration or the Board of Directors. The
Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting enterprise operated
by students as a university and community newspaper.
Editorial policy is determined by the editor.
LETTERS POUCY
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words and are
subject to being cut to that length or less if longer. The editorial
staff reserves the right to edit such letters and does not guaran
tee to publish any letter. Each letter must he signed, shore the
address of the writer and list a telephone number for verifica
tion.
Address correspondence to Listen Up, The Battalion, Room
217, Services Building, College Station, Texas 77843.
Members of the Student Publications Board are: Jim Lindsey, chairman; Dr.
Pom Adair, Dr. H. A. Albanese, Dr. H. E. Hierth, W. C. Harrison, Steve
Eberhaid, Don llegi, and John Nash, Jr.
Represented nationally by National Educational Advertising Services, Inc.,
New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles.
, MEMBER
The Associated Press, Texas Press Association
The Battalion, a student newspaper at Texas A&M, is published in College
Station, Texas, daily except Saturday, Sunday. Monday, and holiday periods,
September through May, and once a week during summer school.
Mail subscriptions are $5.00 per semester; $9.50 per school vear; 510.50 per
tull year. All subscriptions subject to 5*2 sales tax. Advertising rate furnished
on requ’est. Address; The Battalion, Room 217, Services Building, College
Station, Texas 77843.
The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to the use for reproduction of all
news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in the paper and local
news of spontaneous origin published herein. Right of reproduction of all
other matter herein are also reserved.
Second-Class postage paid at College Station, Texas.
BEWARE
OF THE
Doe
\lCKLE
Editor Greg Moses
Assistant Editor Will Anderson
Managing Editor LaTonya Perrin
Sports Editor Mark Weaver
Photo Editor Alan Killingsworth
Copy Editors Cynthia Maciel,
Carson Campbell
News Editor Hoxie Hearn,
T. C. Gailucci
Campus editor Steve Bales
City Editor Rod Speer
Special Assignment Reporters Teresa Coslett,
Mary Russo, Jim Crawley, Paul McGrath, Tony
Gailucci,Gerald Olivier, Steve Cray, Jack Hodges, Judy
Baggett, Barbara West
General Assignment Reporters Dave Johnson,
Kanaya Mahendra, Jim Peters, David White, Cindy Taber,
Roxie Hearn, Debi Holliday, Rose Mary Traverso, Ron Ams-
ler, Robert Cessna, Richard Henderson, Daralyn Greene,
Scott Reynolds, Sandra Chandler, Jim Sullivan, Leroy Dettl-
ing
Photographers Douglas Winship,
David Kimmel, Jack Holm, Glen Johnson, Chris Svatek,
Gary Baldasari, Rodger Mallison, Steve Krauss
PEANUTS
^ I uJONPEK \
LJHAT lUOULP
HAPPEN IF I
TRIEP TO MAKE
FRlENPS UJITH
THAT STl/PlP
CAT NEXT
poor... y
IT'S TIME FOR Y0UANPME
TO F.0R6ET OtK PlffERENCESj
IT'S TIME TO FE FKlENPS...
I AM EXYeiNPlNO
the Right hanp
felloushif.