<p>Yes, braintrauma, that’s what I did: I scored “strictly according to the criteria” the one who I am competing with (actually almost what the teacher gave), but that means that I have to adjust my scores to everyone in order for my grades to make sense. </p>
<p>If I only score “fairly” the one who I am competing with and I rate highly the others, would that be fishy or something?</p>
<p>Yeah, but if you do it braintrauma’s way, you don’t look like a jerk. I don’t agree with some of the things he said, like about the “light bullying” (teasing’s okay, but there’s a fine line), but some of the things he said does have some merit, even if he is just trolling.</p>
<p>I support following the criteria she gives you. Your classmates are being petty, and I definitely think you are entitled to complain.</p>
<p>@Braintrauma: That sounds pompous and kinda cheesy, not to mention somewhat corrupt. Rules exist for a reason, and just appeasing people by breaking them will only teach them to act in such a way more often. It’s basic behavioral psychology.</p>
<p>She’s “entitled to complain”??? Now that’s “being petty.” Just suck it up. They’re your peers. OP may have a better gpa than most of them, but that doesn’t make them beneath her. Everyone has value. You can and should learn from everybody that you meet.</p>
<p>@Braintrauma, the teacher tries to make it anonymous but her method fails whatsoever. When I got back my grades for my first presentation, I could accurately identify who gave me about half of the score based solely on the position in the stack and the handwriting. Note that the teacher known EVERYONE’s rating, it’s just anonymous to the class. </p>
<p>I really don’t want to get into trouble with my teacher, because she said that if I see that you graded really low a group of people (could be 1 also), and highly the others, that would mean something…</p>
<p>I really don’t know why would the teacher want to do such a rating system, because she kinda complained at class that she takes 1 hour every time to sort out the ratings.</p>
<p>@Braintrauma: No, I take psychology courses. I don’t make assumptions without any evidence. I never said anything about saving humanity, either. I have very little patience for petty trolls like you.</p>
<p>@Mathgeek: Sounds like an ineffective system for her and for you. Maybe suggest that she modifies this process and removes the peer grading?</p>
<p>Why don’t you just round every category up?</p>
<p>If you think someone deserves a 3/5 on a certain category, round it up to 4/5. If they deserve 8/10 in the next, give them 9/10. If you think they deserve a 22/35? Round it up to 25/35. And so on and so forth. </p>
<p>It won’t be an unrealistically high score that way, but it won’t be so low that it upsets people.</p>
<p>What do you mean by rounding? How does 22/35 bring 25/35?</p>
<p>I think that a more fair thing is to make the students’ rating only 10% or 25%, not 50%</p>
<p>
The existence of people so immature and retaliatory is the reason why many high schools are terrible places to be.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you do exist, and so do mathgeek2013’s classmates. Fortunately, there are ways to avoid being affected by them.</p>
<p>mathgeek2013, it sounds like you have to work within two constraints:
<p>The 7-part criterion is an asset to you. If you could only give each presentation a single 1-10 rating, it would look fishy if you give everyone the same rating (even you do not give perfect ratings). But with 7 categories, you can deduct up to 7 points while keeping the score above 80% – technically, you can give someone 0 in one category and 5 in most others. You can use this to make it appear that you think the presentation is flawed in one area (or two) but good in other areas. Give high/low marks in different areas to different presentations.</p>
<p>But still try not to give everyone the same score. Try to give scores between 28/35 and 34/35 – make it appear that you think some presentations are clearly better than others and make it appear that you have very high standards for a perfect presentation, but also that you like your classmates. 31/35 or 32/35 would probably make a good median of the scores you give.</p>
<p>What do you mean by rounding every category up?</p>
<p>He meant instead of giving a 3/5 in a category, give them a 4/5. He might not have used the right words, but he did explain himself.</p>
<p>Braintrauma, I can’t put the paper in the middle of the stack as everyone has to handout all of his/her ratings to the teacher in ALPHABETICAL ORDER. Then the teacher puts everything (about 500 sheets) into big box that has dividers. It is by seating arrangement, so she knows who gave who what.</p>
<p>
Learn the difference between competition and fighting. If you do that, then you might be able to say something not entirely idiotic about “social evolution”.</p>
<p>Halogen, I’ll try to do that in other presentations! I believe that that would work!</p>
<p>Sorry, I couldn’t think of the right word (and still can’t, lol) so I used “round” and hoped you would get what I was to say. </p>
<p>I just mean to give every person slightly more than you think they deserve. For example, if the category “eye contact” on the rubric is worth 5 points, and you honestly think they deserve 3 - just bump it up to a 4. That way you aren’t just handing out free 100’s to appease people, but they don’t end up with a failing grade either (and therefore don’t give you a low grade to retaliate). An extra point on each category adds up, and your classmates won’t be mad at you for giving them a low grade.</p>
<p>
Eh, what? I suppose I can’t say what your school is like, but I’ve never met anyone with experiences like those.</p>
<p>Our chairs are near each other, and there are many people watching me what I write. </p>
<p>@Braintrauma, I think that is a cut-throat competition iff you are vying for the top honours or for a high position in the student government. </p>
<p>What is the relationship with a cut-throat competition and analyzation skills?</p>
<p>
You repeat yourself in different words, then insult my intelligence because you do not understand why your previous post is wrong.</p>
<p>I have a teacher that does the exact same thing, but with just a slight twist. She Acknowledges the usefullness and the didactic nature of having students evaluate presentations but also understands that if they are just left to that then they give eachother 100s and call it a day. </p>
<p>What she does then is that she deducts half the difference between the student evaluation and the teacher evaluation from the grade of the student that evaluated, that is if the evaluations differ by more than 5 points. Students are forced to follow the rubric and grade appropriately. </p>
<p>For example Student Adam is presenting, and Student Brian gives him an evaluation of 70, the teacher gives Adam an evaluation of 95. Brians grade on his presentation would go down by 25/2 points unless he can appropriately justify, using the rubric, why he gave that grade. </p>
<p>Usually students pick up on the rubric quickly and the grades only end up differing by very few points, meaning the evaluations are good. </p>
<p>You should suggest then to your teacher to incorporate this system, or at least highlight the flaws that the old system has, whilst explaining that your classmates evaluated you poorly out of a personal grudge.</p>
<p>"unless he can appropriately justify, using the rubric, why he gave that grade. "</p>
<p>That’s mighty important-especially with something as subjective as this. That’s a pretty good idea, but is there a purpose of doing this beyond the actual grading? Is it supposed to be teaching how to follow a rubric? Because if not, then the teacher shouldn’t even bother with having the student’s grade. Unless the goal is to make sure the students are paying attention…Hrmm…I guess there are a lot of “what if’s”</p>