Thread

1. Propelloni · 1790406047 · focus · HN ↗

   Maybe the Germans were right? One in-person test, preferably an interview, at the end of the semester should be enough to motivate the smarter part of the bunch to make sure they understand the issues at hand. The rest is chaff anyway. Don't optimize for chaff.

   1. plorkyeran · 1790436737 · focus · HN ↗

      As was sort of offhandedly mentioned in the article, all pre-LLM research into what results in students actually learning the material (as a distinct thing from passing the class) has landed pretty solidly on the side of frequent, low-stakes exams having better outcomes than rare high-stakes exams. The best students learn the material regardless of how you evaluate them; some weaker students will benefit from more frequent nudges to keep up rather than trying to cram at the end, some students simply won't realize they're falling behind without regular feedback, and some students successfully cram at the end and pass the class without retaining much of the material. The final group often expresses a preference for the one-exam-at-the-end model despite being disserved by it if the goal is to learn and not merely pass.

      1. Asooka · 1790490660 · focus · HN ↗

         Yeah and look at where this soft approach landed us. We have entitled crybabies voting for Hitler 2.0 because they can't stomach the uncomfortable feeling of seeing a diverse person in their pure white neighbourhoods. Children and young adults need to be hit with the big hard fist of reality repeatedly until they become good people. If some should fall through the cracks, they would not have made for good members of society anyway, so best they fall early and not drag the rest of us with them.
      2. xpct · 1790521887 · focus · HN ↗

         That's entirely fine. Have midterms that are also interviews. Have labs where TAs interview students vocally every few weeks, etc.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.