[deleted]
Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
11–20 of 143 posts
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's controversial in the sense that a bunch of people are protesting about it. Whether it's actually unfair or bad is unknown. Fairness is a complicated thing. A lot of it is based on feeling and relative status, rather than some objective measure of well-being. One person might find it deeply unfair that another person has a lot of money, relatively speaking. But take that money away and redistribute it equally bet…
If what is written here is true then it's way beyond 'unfair' and on towards mathemtically nonsensicle: https://twitter.com/alexhern/status/1294200553661227008 It is claimed that in any class where the chance of someone failing is judged to be > 0%, even if it is a tiny fraction of a percentage point, then the algorithm requires that someone in the class MUST be given a failing grade, even if it the weakest student i…
>If what is written here is true ...
So is it? The guy is mining theoretical examples, but I wonder if in practice anyone has been hurt by this. And if they have (let's say a non-failing student was given a failing grade), why not handle those cases within a manual appeals process? After all, the exams weren't written, so no matter what mechanism you choose their will be students that get higher markers than they otherwise would have received and lower marker than they otherwise deserved - but I suspect, even in those cases, the marks will be in the same ballpark.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#13So is "controversial" the same as unfair or bad? Journalists often use "controversial" to discredit something that is not in accordance to their ideology. Controversial politicians (which politician isn't controversial?), controversial university professors, controversial speeches, controversial thoughts...
It's controversial in the sense that a bunch of people are protesting about it. Whether it's actually unfair or bad is unknown. Fairness is a complicated thing. A lot of it is based on feeling and relative status, rather than some objective measure of well-being. One person might find it deeply unfair that another person has a lot of money, relatively speaking. But take that money away and redistribute it equally bet…
It's very clearly unfair, I'm not sure what your example has to do with anything.
No students performance should be a sum based on how previous students have done at their school. That's literally reinforcing the postcode divide in education quality that were supposed to turn a blind eye to.
My home town school has historically refused to even put children in for exams if they didn't get at least a C grade in their mocks because they valued league table position so highly (helps with investment and alumni donations etc). That cynical and should-be-illegal approach clearly benefits their students in this situation more than schools in the area that do right by their children.
And more than any of that, this is the real world effects of the bullshit algorithm peddlers have been pushing for the last few years. Algorithms can solve any real world problem given the data. Well they can't. They can give the proposition of an answer to the problem, but at costs to some that are too high to bear.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
If what is written here is true then it's way beyond 'unfair' and on towards mathemtically nonsensicle: https://twitter.com/alexhern/status/1294200553661227008 It is claimed that in any class where the chance of someone failing is judged to be > 0%, even if it is a tiny fraction of a percentage point, then the algorithm requires that someone in the class MUST be given a failing grade, even if it the weakest student i…
>If what is written here is true ... So is it? The guy is mining theoretical examples, but I wonder if in practice anyone has been hurt by this. And if they have (let's say a non-failing student was given a failing grade), why not handle those cases within a manual appeals process? After all, the exams weren't written, so no matter what mechanism you choose their will be students that get higher markers than they oth…
Of course children have been hurt by this is practice, there are numerous cases of children getting down graded from their predicted results so badly they're having University offer places withdrawn, and it's not by a point or two, we're talking straight A students getting demotd to Ds across the board because their school has a history of bad results, which are irrelevant to any given student right now.
Oxford have decided to ignore results and honor previously given offers because the process is so untrustworthy.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#15A big pile of 'meh'. They are trying to make a statistical guess based on priors because the pandemic prevented the exams from being written. They are going to get things wrong. If they have an appeals process for things that are completely out line (e.g. a passing student getting a failing grade), then that's the best you can hope for given the circumstances.
In the big picture, the good students are going to get good markers, average students are going to get average markets, and bad students will get bad markets. Again, it is what it is.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#16[deleted]
Who is to say your method is any more fair? There's nothing they can do to please everyone. Someone is going to benefit. Someone is going to lose. In the big picture, good students will end up with good marks, and bad students will end up with bad markets.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#17[deleted]
The A level is a two year course with assessment at the end. There are no previously examined grades, only estimated and mock ones. https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/science/as-and-a-level/chemi...
(Modular and coursework based A levels were popular under labour but reverted by the Tories)
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's controversial in the sense that a bunch of people are protesting about it. Whether it's actually unfair or bad is unknown. Fairness is a complicated thing. A lot of it is based on feeling and relative status, rather than some objective measure of well-being. One person might find it deeply unfair that another person has a lot of money, relatively speaking. But take that money away and redistribute it equally bet…
It's very clearly unfair, I'm not sure what your example has to do with anything. No students performance should be a sum based on how previous students have done at their school. That's literally reinforcing the postcode divide in education quality that were supposed to turn a blind eye to. My home town school has historically refused to even put children in for exams if they didn't get at least a C grade in their m…
[deleted]
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#19A big pile of 'meh'. They are trying to make a statistical guess based on priors because the pandemic prevented the exams from being written. They are going to get things wrong. If they have an appeals process for things that are completely out line (e.g. a passing student getting a failing grade), then that's the best you can hope for given the circumstances. In the big picture, the good students are going to get go…
The problem is that the prior appears to be placed over the school, rather than the individual -- ie if your school had a low proportion of high achievers in previous years, students are finding their grades marked down, almost regardless of their performance. This results in particularly high grade disparity between independent and state schools. So it is not so much the case that good students get good marks, bad students get bad marks, but rather good schools get good marks, "bad" schools get bad marks.
Re: Why did the A-level algorithm say no?
#20A big pile of 'meh'. They are trying to make a statistical guess based on priors because the pandemic prevented the exams from being written. They are going to get things wrong. If they have an appeals process for things that are completely out line (e.g. a passing student getting a failing grade), then that's the best you can hope for given the circumstances. In the big picture, the good students are going to get go…
Nope, they excluded small schools (expensive private schools) from the algorithm.