Comment by npongratz

Comment by npongratz 3 days ago

47 replies

> From grade school on, you are graded on whether or not the grading authority likes the results you got.

I took an exam in a high school science class where I answered a question with the textbook's definition exactly as presented in the textbook, complete with the page number the definition was found on. I knew a bit about the topic, so I then cited outside scientific sources that explained why the definition was incomplete. There wasn't enough room to complete my answer in the space provided, so I spiraled it out into the margins of the exam paper.

My teacher marked my answer wrong. Then crossed that out and marked it correct. Then crossed that out, and finally marked it wrong again. During parent-teacher conferences, the science teacher admitted that even though I answered the question with the exactly correct definition, my further exposition made him "mad" (his word), and because he was angry, he marked it wrong.

sio8ohPi 3 days ago

Having been on the other side of the table... there's a tactic students will sometimes use, where they don't understand the question but will simply attempt to regurgitate everything written on their notecard that is related in hopes that they'll accidentally say the right words. Sounds like you did understand it, but the volume perhaps made it look like you were just dumping. It is indeed annoying to grade.

Grading is boring, tedious, and quickly wears down one's enthusiasm. The words of M Bison come to mind: "For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday."

  • npongratz 2 days ago

    Sure, we could speculate about his true unstated reasons for marking wrong my answer.

    I highly doubt the science teacher marked me wrong for "dumping", though. He had every opportunity to explain that to me after I got my exam graded and I asked him about it. Then he had the opportunity to explain that face-to-face with my parents. He did not do so. He said that while I got the answer right, he was "mad", thus the mark against.

    Besides, notecards were not allowed for any part of the exam, and I wrote my answer from memory. I think it was clear that I knew my stuff pretty well and was not "dumping" a bunch of bullshit onto the science teacher.

    There was no indication before taking the exam that I would be punished for hurting his apparently-sensitive feelings while giving the correct answer (as he agreed I did). If there were, I certainly would have chosen a different medium for proving my command of the material.

    • ryandrake 2 days ago

      Good experience to prepare you for the rest of your academic and working life where your performance rating will often be strongly influenced the evaluator's current mood or biases. Or the police officer's mood when you get pulled over. Or most other authority figures' feelings when they're making decisions that affect you. It's unfairness all the way until we die.

      • npongratz 2 days ago

        Authoritarianism, everywhere and in all forms, seeks to shut down curiosity and critical thinking.

  • Ntrails 3 days ago

    I distinctly remember a student arguing with a teacher for a mark.

    "Look sir, here in the scrawl at the margins is the answer you just said was right"

    "Yes Dylan, but this was a 1 mark question. Part of getting the mark involves putting the answer inside the space provided."

  • a_shoeboy 2 days ago

    I used to write my undergrad history essays in rhymed couplets because I figured the grad assistant doing the grading would be grateful for a break in the monotony and it was faster and easier than writing an actual good essay. Probably wouldn't work in the LLM era, but it was very effective in the 90's.

ninetyninenine 3 days ago

> he was angry, he marked it wrong.

That’s grounds for termination to me. Seriously. I would put this man out of a job and endanger the livelihood of him and his family for this kind of shit.

  • tomrod 3 days ago

    And if you CAN'T terminate because of admitted emotional grading, the system is too tightly captured by outside interests to the detriment of the client: the student and society.

    A teacher is a professional entrusted with the most important responsibility society can offer: training and educating the next generation. It must adhere to the highest of professional standards and expectations.

    That we don't pay enough to require that without reserve is a statement on our societal priorities, and disconnected from the expectations that should hold.

    EDIT: clarification/word choice

    • ninetyninenine 3 days ago

      Agreed. Like this is fraud level bs that’s happening and people are voting me down.

      I think it’s because this kind of stuff is common. People have done fraudulent stuff and they don’t agree it’s a fireable offense. Understandable. I still would endanger someone’s livelihood for this. Poor performance I would think twice and go through all measures possible to improve performance including putting them in a position where they can excel. Poor performance does not justify endangering the livelihood of a person or their family but this fraudulent bs of being angry and marking something wrong. That’s just malice.

      • alwa 2 days ago

        It’s one question on a school exam, friend…

        And at least the guy had the honesty to admit his irrationality when called on it. That, to me, reads more like coming to terms with his error in an edge case than it does a systematic campaign of maliciously frauding on the student

      • wholinator2 3 days ago

        You seem very angry yourself, and willing to let that anger guide you to harming someone. Are you so different from that teacher? In fact, you might be worse, while he only gave a grade (one of many surely, likely to have no long term impact on life prospects or survival), you would have this man made homeless? Don't be so quick to assume a teacher (at least in the us) has been able to accrue sufficient savings to endure a ruined livelihood. Sounds very, very extreme to me. Might there be a more charitable interpretation of the words, might there be information that we don't have that would, say, humanize the human being you'd like to ruin? Maybe we could take the time to understand these impulses in ourselves and be the example we want rather than reflecting the pain we hate to ever increasing magnitudes.

  • sio8ohPi 3 days ago

    There's a certain irony in your outrage at his failure to control his emotions, even as your own rage leads you to dream of hurting his family.

    • ninetyninenine 2 days ago

      Is it rage?

      If he murdered someone I would put him in jail and that will harm his family too.

      There is a fine line between justice and compassion and if you never cross the line to enforce justice then you have corruption because nothing can be enforced because inevitably all enforcement leads to harm.

      • alterom 2 days ago

        I want to apologize on behalf of the person whom you're responding to, as they misunderstood your point to an extent that makes it seem very unlikely that they'll be able to contribute to the discussion of where to draw that line.

        To answer your question, let's note that holding a job in general — more so, a job which involves authority and power, and doubly so when it's over children — isn't a right, but a special privilege, which is given under certain assumptions, one of which is that the children entrusted into the instructors' power are to be treated fairly.

        Consider that children's livelihoods depend on this assumption when they grow up, as grades affect which college they get into, which scholarships they get, which career they get to follow, how much money they make.

        The teacher has violated this fundamental assumption; consequently, his teaching privileges must be revoked.

        The damage to his family is out of scope; employment isn't a right, so starting a family is a risk that people take willfully.

        Further, the teacher might be better off doing something that doesn't drive him mad. It's more healthy.

        There's no mercy or compassion in keeping someone where they are miserable.

        Side note: I changed my graduate advisor on my 5th year of graduate school, after trying for 3 years under someone who simply "didn't have the heart" to kick me out when it should've been clear we're not a fit for each other — something they had the experience to see, and I did not.

        All "giving me a chance" for 3 years did was take 3 years out of my life, drag me into deep depression, and push me to almost dropping out of the graduate program.

        After I started working with another advisor, I graduated in two years, writing a thesis we both were happy with (and getting a couple of publications out of it). I didn't stay in academia, but it was an option (I'm not tough enough for it, frankly, but that's a whole another conversation).

        My point is: tolerating, out of compassion, an instructor who gets mad because their student understands the material very well may be similar to the compassion my first advisor had for me — which did more harm than anything else.

        Being pushed out of a job one is miserable at, but can't quit on their own for whatever reason is, too, an act of compassion.

        And I posit that this is what this "teacher" needs (aside from therapy).

        I don't see this teacher ever being happy or excited to see a student that is so interested in the subject they teach that they understood something better than the teacher did.

        But that's a prerequisite for being a teacher. Merely tolerating your students' excellence isn't enough — it's something, hopefully, a teacher should strive for.

        We hope that a child taking a physics class at least has a chance of becoming a great physicist, i.e. a better physicist than their physics teacher.

        But the chances of that are diminishing greatly if their physics teacher doesn't wish the same — i.e. doesn't hope that their students would shine brighter than they did.

        And if that possibility drives them mad... to an extent where they'll willfully wrong the student in retribution...

        ...I can't imagine what it would take for them to do a 180 turn and end up being happy the next time they find themselves in this scenario.

        Firing them seems like a win-win for everyone.

    • alterom 2 days ago

      >There's a certain irony in your outrage at his failure to control his emotions, even as your own rage leads you to dream of hurting his family.

      Wow, what bad take.

      Are you willfully misinterpreting the parent commenter, or would you need some help understanding it?

      Assuming it's the latter, here it is.

      First, there's no outrage or rage. That's something you ascribe to the parent comment, and that's unwarranted.

      Second, there's no dreaming of hurting [the teacher's] family.

      The message was: it is important that this person should be relieved of teaching duties, with the full understanding of the gravity of such an action, as being fired from one's job in the US puts the livelihood of the person being fired at risk.

      See, the person you're responding to is empathetic, because they consider the impact of what they wish — the teacher being fired — on the teacher as well as others (the teacher's family), and don't take wishing something like that lightly.

      Most people would stop at "bad job, fire him", without contemplating what it means for that person.

      The parent commentor did, and is saying that, as grave as the consequences are for the teacher (and, potentially, his family, if the teacher is the sole breadwinner), it is still necessary to remove them from teaching because harm to children and violating the trust we put in instructors is unacceptable, and the damage they do in their position is far greater than the damage that would be done by firing them.

      This is a compassionate and composed consideration.

      Oh, and there'd be no irony about the parent's response even if they were raging, as they were not talking about the teacher's failure to control their emotions.

      The issue is hurting children, which isn't something the parent commentor is decidedly NOT doing.

      Hope this helps.

  • alterom 2 days ago

    >That’s grounds for termination to me. Seriously. I would put this man out of a job and endanger the livelihood of him and his family for this kind of shit.

    Agreeing with you as a former instructor (who left academia for greener fields after completing the PhD).

    I've had people cry on me in office hours because they come out with — quite literally — PTSD from instructors like the one we're discussing.

    It's nothing short of psychological abuse of children, and it leaves lifelong damage.

    It's worse than no instruction at all. I've had to have college kids unlearn things before I could teach them.

    We've got to draw a line somewhere. I draw the line at actively traumatizing children.

    That person should not be allowed to teach, period. We'd do both their students as well as themselves a huge favor by removing them from teaching.

    By all indications, they'd be a happier person doing something else, where they wouldn't be driven "mad" by seeing that they've done a good job — which, for a teacher, means their students being proficient in the subject they teach.

    -----

    TL;DR: this teacher was driven "mad" by seeing that he's done a good job, and one of his students was really good in the subject.

    Spare them from this pain.