Last week we a lengthy discussion in class about the pros and cons of online grades. There were strong opinions on either side. Personally, I am for online access to grades. I would appreciate having such a system, simply because it would give me a better idea of what subjects I need to focus on improving in. There is nothing wrong with the idea of online access in principle; at heart the system is intended to provide a more convenient way to see one's grades, a goal I think all can agree with. Most of the objections that were raised in class can be answered by proper design of the actual system. I think that there is a way to create online grades that will satisfy all.
One of the most common objections to an online grading system raised by students was the possibility that parents would use the system to constantly track every grade fluctuation, and criticize them over every sub-par test, every missed homework. This problem is easily solved; instead of posting grades for every assignment, an online system could instead show only the overall average. This would be easier on teachers, and remove the threat of helicopter parenting.
The second major issue with the concept of online grades was raised by Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos, who argued that such a system would reduce the interaction between students and teachers; instead of having a conversation about their progress, students could check a webpage instead. That point is valid for some subject areas. Doing well in English and Social Studies is a complicated goal, and requires a great deal of teacher-student dialogue to understand how to improve one's ability to use ideas and arguments. For other subjects, however, performance in the class is based almost entirely on understanding of a certain amount of material; the names of the phylums of animals, for instance, or how to use set builder notation. For math and science especially, talking to a teacher about grades inevitably involves them only looking up and telling you your current grade. The problem is that performing well in math or science, while difficult, is not complicated. The only help, other than answering specific questions, that your teacher can give you is to tell you to study harder, and learn the material better. I'm not trying to say that I am against teacher-student interactions; I'm just saying that the negative effects of online grades can be significantly less for some subjects.
To solve this problem, I think it should be possible to allow teachers to opt out of any potential future system. This would satisfy those teachers who believe their classes would not benefit or be harmed by online grades, and give those teachers who wished to participate a more convenient alternative to frequently handing out grade reports. This would also help teachers with grading structures not compatible with frequently updating averages.
Most issues with online grading can, I believe, be solved with proper design of the eventual system. If anyone has thoughts on this issue or agrees or disagrees with my points, feel free to comment below.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
King Cotton and King Corn
"No power on earth dares make war upon it. Cotton is king." (James Henry Hammond)
"For decades, nearly every candidate who hoped to win the presidency has visited this state to pledge their allegiance to King Corn." -LA Times
Last year in geography, we watched a movie called "King Corn," about the huge role corn plays in American life, both as a food and a fuel. When I read the above line from the slavery chapter in Foner, I immediately made a connection. The ability to make money leads to political power, and valuable crops make money. This fundamental principle applies no matter when or where the situation is, equally applicable in the 18th century and the 21st century. The plantation owners controlled the economy of the south; the livelihood of an entire region depended on their crops and their exports. Because they had the money, they were the most powerful men of the south, and as a result their crop was untouchable. These conditions are the setting of Douglass's narrative. The furious opposition of white plantation owners to the abolition of slavery is because it would severely hamper their ability to make money. The entire issue of slavery is, in a sense, a result of cotton, and the money and power it gives to those who farm it.
Corn has a similar power in modern America. The government provides subsidies to corn farmers and ethanol producers, and for a long time few Republicans or Democrats dared to challenge those subsidies, for fear of political repercussions. The issue is especially important because the first state to have a caucus for presidential nominations, Iowa, is a major producer of corn, and benefits enormously from the subsidies. Corn today wields a similar power to cotton in the 19th century. The ability to make money can have a huge effect on politics and government, no matter when or where the situation is.
Source:http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/11/nation/la-na-ethanol-20110812
Image: http://www.worldcommunitycookbook.org/season/guide/corn.html
Last year in geography, we watched a movie called "King Corn," about the huge role corn plays in American life, both as a food and a fuel. When I read the above line from the slavery chapter in Foner, I immediately made a connection. The ability to make money leads to political power, and valuable crops make money. This fundamental principle applies no matter when or where the situation is, equally applicable in the 18th century and the 21st century. The plantation owners controlled the economy of the south; the livelihood of an entire region depended on their crops and their exports. Because they had the money, they were the most powerful men of the south, and as a result their crop was untouchable. These conditions are the setting of Douglass's narrative. The furious opposition of white plantation owners to the abolition of slavery is because it would severely hamper their ability to make money. The entire issue of slavery is, in a sense, a result of cotton, and the money and power it gives to those who farm it.
Corn has a similar power in modern America. The government provides subsidies to corn farmers and ethanol producers, and for a long time few Republicans or Democrats dared to challenge those subsidies, for fear of political repercussions. The issue is especially important because the first state to have a caucus for presidential nominations, Iowa, is a major producer of corn, and benefits enormously from the subsidies. Corn today wields a similar power to cotton in the 19th century. The ability to make money can have a huge effect on politics and government, no matter when or where the situation is.
Source:http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/11/nation/la-na-ethanol-20110812
Image: http://www.worldcommunitycookbook.org/season/guide/corn.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)