Point deduction

Intro Thanks again to Cliff for the reply, it has been a good debate so far and has taught me much about how tests should be scored. Also, because of some issues with the debate.org editor, some of the spacing and formatting is not as should be, I ask readers to bear with this and follow things in a logical manner. Time for the final round. Student Complications Con here attacked 3 of my statements from where I had ‘student complications’ as a heading. I will address them in order. ‘6 times more complex’ Basically, I addressed this point last round – the number of calculations is equal, just regular systems times by 1 vs. 2.5. Also, as said before, assuming a simple change (if allowed) to say 2, multiplication problems become a non-issue because of simplicity (like times by 1). Also, the calculations we are talking about here are less likely to be attempted by students who are guessing (people who are likely to not be trying so hard at school; lower achievers) , so this issue is not key to some of the main targets of point deduction. 30%; no reward except for certainty I addressed this point in my guessing section, and which Con also talks about later. Basically, the system rewards people with higher percentage certainty. Ie. The test does not want to send a message that guessing at levels such as 30% is a good idea in real life. Instead, the person who is 30% sure in real life should improve their certainty through things such as research. Obviously, certainty as the only time for rewards would be absurd. I’ll address this a bit more later. Con’s contradiction, 20% and 85% Con doesn’t actually resolve his contradiction here, except states that the system can produce these results, given opposite student approaches. Well, that’s the entire reason for point deduction – differentiation between non-attempts and incorrect answers! If there was no mark differentiation, there’d be no reason to not guess, would there? It would be like the current system. Targets of point deduction I’d like to make a point here. Con gives an example of a lack of interest in learning at post secondary. However, I did not claim that such things did not occur at post secondary, but that they were less common. Obviously, since those at post secondary are typically more academically gifted and interested in learning, it makes sense that if they can show a lack of interest, it is likely to be more common among people with a lesser interest in learning. Marking Imbalance Negative marks Con – ‘and not generate someone getting negative marks if they attempt all questions...’ I already disproved this myth conception. Even the quote shows this. On the point of ‘the details could be worked out’, I see no serious difficulties for major institutions like government solving such problems. I would have attempted to show this myself, however, Con specifically stated that I could not change the details midway through, ie. ‘Pro has to defend the exact marking scheme...’. This would have been poor conduct to do so. If Con wishes to hold me to his own belief of what I should do, then he should not ask for information that he claims should not be allowed. Teacher Workload As with all other headings, I am basing this on what section of mine Con responded to (through my statements). Marking complications As addressed earlier this round, this is purely because of a 2.5* issue. If this became 2 (again, if allowed), then this is a non-issue. Also, since teachers typically add up scores and then do a multiplier (ie. Times 1) , this should be no problem – only times by 2.5 at the end. Other points Improving one’s chances This is a key issue, and con only attacks with ‘you can’t improve during a test’. This is true. However, the test is not just there to assess you. Tests can also teach the students through simply doing the tests. Ie. Make mistakes, improve; learn better how to write an extended response next time etc. In this case, the lesson to be learned is about guessing. The test can teach a person about the value of not guessing, and rather, being strongly backed by knowledge in life, where guessing can be hazardous and knowledge is rewarded. Con’s proposed system As stated before, I think Con’s system is a marked improvement on the current system. I also admire a good teacher, and student feedback, while not always perfect, is, especially at higher levels, a good indicator of teaching, so I commend Con here. Ideally, every teacher would not be stuck to a set curriculum and there would be an intellectual to and fro between teacher and students. Sadly, this is not a common occurrence. However, with all due respect, I must note that Con is not arguing for his personal system, he is arguing for the current system. While I believe that it is definitely a thing worth reading for readers, due to the improvements made in it, it is not what the issue at hand is, and so it can be dismissed. Conclusion While Con has attacked specifics of my scheme (ie. 2.5 etc.), I have defended the merits of my system and successfully argued many points, sometimes without response. Also to consider is whether the system should be considered based on it’s exact form, or the positives when able to be changed ever so slightly (ie. *2) for a superior system. Finally, I ask that voters do not solely vote on their personal opinions. Also, I thank Con again for a fine debate.