Point deduction

I apologize for the format of the last round, it was written as a closing as I had for some reason assumed this debate was over at that round. "Basically, I addressed this point last round – the number of calculations is equal, just regular systems times by 1 vs. 2.5." This is not the case, as a direct requote : "Example, you look at a question which has a mark of 10, you estimate you have a 60% shot at being correct and thus it is worth 10*60% or 6 marks to attempt. You then think how much time it will take and decide if you want to try for those 6 marks. Now under the proposed scheme by Pro the student has to do the following calculation; 2.5*rank*certainty-2.5*rank*(certainty-1) and they have to see if this expected value is greater than -rank which is what happens if they just leave it out. Thus instead of one simple multiplication they are doing six operations and then a comparison." To spell this out in detail : Scenario 1 - the student asks himself one question, it will take me five minutes and my expected value is 10*0.6 or six marks, is this worth it. Scenario 2 - the students asks himself, it will take me five minutes and my expected value is 2.5*10*0.6-2.5*10*(1-0.6), is this worth it compared to just leaving it out which has the expected value of -10. If there are multiple questions and the student has to see which ones to attempt in the time, i.e., which questions produce the most marks per time then the second scenario becomes even more of a tangle. "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." Again, ironically as noted see the result, students will not do it, that is the point, they will instead move from making a determined calculation to just guessing how to proceed - it has the exact opposite result as to what is intended. "Instead, the person who is 30% sure in real life should improve their certainty through things such as research." Yes, just like you should study before you attempt a test - the problem is that few students get 100% consistently and thus do you want to reward students who attempt problems when they are uncertain - or instead punish them? "Con doesn't actually resolve his contradiction here, except states that the system can produce these results, given opposite student approaches." There is no contradiction, if you attempt all questions you need to know 85% to pass, if you just attempt the minimum amount you only need to know 20% to pass. The point here is clear, this system encourages students to take a very small part of the course material and learn it very well and ignore the rest because the penalty for leaving something out is minute compared to a wrong attempt. "I already disproved this myth conception." This was never disproven, it was simply stated to be false. It would have been nice to see the transformation function g(f(x) which would have done so because it is impossible under standard normative transforms (bell curve, etc.). "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." Again, this is just stated. Note that I have constantly showed very specific equations and math to support claims, at most Pro has just stated there is no issue without actually showing the math to support them. The position may very well be true, but details would be appreciated. "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." Yes, but the point what that does not help you *during* the test. "However, with all due respect, I must note that Con is not arguing for his personal system, he is arguing for the current system." Care needs to be taken here, let us return to the OP : "These reasons are enough to provide strong grounds for a change of test scoring system." The point in presenting an alternate is to show that if a change is to be made to the system there are far better methods than point deduction and an alternate method was so exhibited, that is all. In short, the resolution stands refuted for the reasons noted. Which are : -The system is imbalanced, a student can leave out all questions and be 5% short of passing, or answer two questions and pass, or know 80% of the material and fail. That is an obvious and gross problem which produces literally insane results. -If a student is unsure of a question, they have to do a nontrivial calculation to see if they should attempt it. If the student has to try to figure out between multiple questions as they are pressed for time (which are the exact students who are likely to be guessing) they will not be able to decide intelligently due to the calculations required. In short they will be forced to guess more not less. -It increases the workloads of teachers, especially in creating tests. -It sends the message that attempting a problem if you are unsure is a bad thing. It this stops all creativity during a test and encourages simply regurgitate. -It limits the ability of a teacher to learn about the students as there will be more blank answers which tell nothing, vs incorrect answers which can provide insight into where the lack of understanding is situated. I do appreciate the effort of Pro to consider an alternative marking scheme and encourage them to review the most well known one which is simply; one mark is right, -one mark if wrong, zero if blank. This is well used in various fields and has well documented strengths and weaknesses. I would also encourage them to do the math required to see what happens to the pass and fail percentages and the effects on the grading curve for various systems as this is critical to the results. It is very easy to check all of this out in Excel with a few simple formulas.