Newspaper Page Text
Page 4
THE MAROON TIGER
j : Student
i
By L.
On the surface, poor grades indicate poor effort or
the inability of the student to solve to the satisfaction
of the individual teachers the various class room prob
lems and assignments. For his efforts to do these as
signments, the student is usually subjected to conditions
somewhat as follows:
A grade of “A” or “B” must be maintained
in the Graduate S hool. 1
Grade “D” indicates work merely passing and
yields one honor point. Grade “E” indicates
a condition. Grade “F” indicates failure. One
honor point per hour is deducted for each hour
of “F” 2
Practmally all the colleges follow a similar plan of
grading their students.
While f he grades C, (for graduate students) D, E,
and F, p‘amp the student as poor, such grades do not
seem fai" when the physical conditions which often
separate good student from the poor are analyzed.
According f o the outstanding points in the Pressey re
port the fe 1 ’owing is true 3
1. A d : -*iru:tly greater number of poor than
good "tudents report physical handicaps or
poor health.
2. More of the poor than of the good students
are earning their way, wholly or in part,
during the school year.
3. Poor students lack routine of work; they
do not plan their time or have any regular
work habits.
4. Poor students are frequently deficient in the
mechanics of English composition.
Consider the first point written above. Is it good
teaching or good psychology to give low grades to a
student handicapped by poor health when what the stu
dent needs is medical attention? But how many teachers
or school administrators are their students’ keepers to
the extent of knowing when an ambitious youth is try
ing to force a weak body to do tasks not in harmony with
his physical condition?
The second point brings to mind the fact that it is
more sane to show the “working” student that it re
quires much time to solve college problems and fulfill
assignments satisfactorily, that it is very difficult—ex
cept in the case of a brilliant student for him to do
well when he has to divide his time between studying
and working. But instead of a scholarship, or a sug
gestion to withdraw, such students are often given a
failing grade.
The third comparison of the factors which distinguish
the good student from the poor suggests the following:
If the poor student lacks study routines, methods or
proper orientation, what are the duties of those in au
thority? Surely, the good teacher should coach him
along these lines in order to insure mastery of the sub-
1 Atlanta University Bulletin, August, 1932, Series
II, p. 25.
2 Morehouse College, Annual Catalogue, 1931-1932,
p. 54.
3 S. L. Pressey and L. C. Pressey, Research Adventures
in University Teaching, p. 10.
failures : !
i
A~"\V?se
ject-matter of the course as well as to develop a sense
of organization and system in attacking problems of
sundry nature.
The “old English” difficulty comes up again; but why
devote all the time to Literature, Economics, etc., when
some of this time could be more profitably given to
correcting the many defects in English fundamentals;
defects so prevalent among our college and graduate
students. Felicitous and correct expression is an index
and an aid to impression.
C (for graduate students) D's, E’s and F’s are given,
according to the accepted collqge understanding, to
designate the following classes of students:
1. The incapable due to mentality or scholar
ship.
2. The lazy and indifferent student or those
who seem not to realize the value of col
lege and university education.
It seems clear that these two classes of students are
undesirable. Therefore, some method of early discov
ering this and of informing the student of his undesira
bility should be worked out so that the “undesirable”
may know before the semester ends that he is unsuited
for college work. Yet, it is to be admitted, there are
possible strong arguments to show that the giving of
poor grades is a good method of bringing about ft
separation of the sheep from the goats. But this meth
od is not often fair and humane.
Scientific studies have established the facts regard
ing the major causes of poor students. It would seem,
then that if poor scholarship is the result of poor men
tality, poor grades, of course cannot be expected to
remedy entirely poor educational background, absences,
physical defects and inefficient organization of work.
To remedy this condition in this manner resembles
passing a law to prohibit the drinking of alcoholic
beverages in order to cure the alcoholic addict.
Since all the factors that make students undesirable
are known or knowable, and, further, since these fac
tors are such that grades cannot wholly remedy, it would
seem that there should be more thought and intelligence
exercised in the grading of students—especially of those
who are not decidedly above the passing level. That
education is faulty that starves the “poor” student to
feed the “richly” endowed student.
To the student, grades mean much. They stand long
after subject-matter has vanished. They are his “con
tact men”, they are for what tuition and time are spent,
they are things for which parent and friend ask to see.
The teacher says get “subject-matter”, “the spirit of
learning”, “training”, “self-control”, but the student
knows that colleges or universities cannot accurately
measure the extent to which these gems of earth have
been mastered. The grade alone stands as the sign of
his efforts.
All li rst-class colleges and universities should see to
it, therefore, that there are:
1. More teacher-pupil conferences and frequent
examinations as a check-up on student prog
ress.
2. More sincere orientation and placement of
(Please turn to Page Fifteen)