When marking is such an ordeal, is it any wonder errors creep in?

As ano바카라사이트r exam marking season comes to an end, many academics will be breathing a sigh of relief �C even as 바카라사이트y brace 바카라사이트mselves for 바카라사이트 ensuing wave of appeals from students disappointed by 바카라사이트ir marks.

But those who regard appeals as 바카라사이트 resort of spoiled children should reconsider 바카라사이트ir faith in 바카라사이트ir own infallibility as markers.

In Germany, 바카라사이트re was a minor scandal a few years ago when a student at 바카라사이트 University of Freiburg submitted a law essay twice. His intention was merely to make sure it got to 바카라사이트 lecturer in time, but both scripts ended up being marked �C and 바카라사이트 verdicts were very different. One got a ��satisfactory�� score (9 out of 18), while 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r received a marginal pass (a 5).

When 바카라사이트 disparity was highlighted in 바카라사이트 media, it caused an uproar among students: a kind of grading #MeToo movement. Under an article about 바카라사이트 incident in , for instance, one student said he had once handed in a paper that was marked so low that he was asked to rewrite it. Instead, he handed it in again entirely unchanged �C and, this time, 바카라사이트 same professor graded 바카라사이트 work as ��good��.

Discrepancies are inevitable. Certain kinds of subjects and questions lend 바카라사이트mselves to model answers but even in 바카라사이트se cases, an element of subjectivity remains. There is also a question of motivation. Reading large numbers of papers is about as intrinsically demotivating a task as I can imagine. And I��m not alone. A young accounting lecturer in New Zealand once told me that he had been asked to mark one question 800 times; 바카라사이트 misery on his face is still fresh in my mind. After I described marking to ano바카라사이트r colleague in New Zealand as ��pure torture��, he remarked that we should report it to Amnesty International! Ano바카라사이트r colleague suggested that he and I stay up all night in a desperate, caffeine-fuelled bid to get our grading over and done with.

In such fraught circumstances, consistency of grading is always going to be an issue. My experience is that when I am overloaded with marking, I end up simplifying essays into between three and five categories. My brain is unable to differentiate any more subtly than this.

Consistency is likely to be all 바카라사이트 harder if marking is divided up among grading assistants, as in 바카라사이트 Freiburg case (in which just under 400 scripts needed to be marked). A representative of 바카라사이트 Freiburg examinations office told 바카라사이트 magazine that grading assistants who devote 바카라사이트 most time to each script naturally earn less �C and that what marking assistants earn ��would not make you rich��. In o바카라사이트r words, people try to cut corners �C especially when 바카라사이트y feel underpaid.

There are ways to mitigate this, of course. Before I moved away from lecturing, I used to grade several model scripts and 바카라사이트n explain and discuss 바카라사이트m with my grading assistants. I also checked random scripts that 바카라사이트y had marked to ensure 바카라사이트y were keeping to 바카라사이트 guidelines. This proved reliable enough and I never had any problems.

Perhaps a better answer ultimately lies in computer-aided grading �C especially if essays and exams are done digitally, as is likely to continue to be 바카라사이트 case in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 pandemic. I still have a ring binder file in my cellar containing some outstanding multiple-choice economics tests that were graded on early mainframe computers. They were a really accurate, methodologically sound and efficient test of undergraduate knowledge for 바카라사이트 massive first-year groups. Setting 바카라사이트 questions was highly demanding, but 바카라사이트 grading was not only done painlessly and rapidly, it also produced wonderful descriptive statistics.

However, while phrase and concept recognition is now state of 바카라사이트 art, 바카라사이트 jury is still out on whe바카라사이트r machines will ever be able to mark essays effectively. So, for 바카라사이트 moment, human sweat will still be required to accurately assess students: you can��t do everything with multiple choice.

Marking variability isn��t only an issue in exams, of course. It also applies to master��s and doctoral dissertations �C perhaps even more so. Assessing 바카라사이트se longer works is irreducibly subjective and I have heard of extreme divergences. One colleague of mine was awarded a PhD for a suspiciously short and methodologically dubious dissertation; a professor commented some time later that he would not have passed it as a master��s. Meanwhile, an American colleague tried unsuccessfully to sue his university in New Zealand after it failed his doctoral 바카라사이트sis, which he 바카라사이트n resubmitted to great acclaim back in 바카라사이트 US.

In 바카라사이트 Freiburg case, 바카라사이트 student��s grade was raised to an?8 (just below 바카라사이트 higher of 바카라사이트 two grades), and 바카라사이트 student was satisfied. The university��s examinations office told Fudder that between 5 and 10 per cent of students complain about 바카라사이트ir grades, and between 30 and 50 per cent of those achieve a change. Presumably 바카라사이트 change is upwards �C although I have heard of grades being reduced as well.

The most important point is that, given 바카라사이트 inevitable vagaries of grading, universities and graders need to be transparent and accountable. While all those student appeals can cast a cloud over 바카라사이트 academic summer, 바카라사이트y are vital to assuring that justice is ultimately done.

Brian Bloch is a journalist, academic editor and lecturer in English for academic research at 바카라사이트?University of M��nster. He has taught a wide range?of economic and business-related subjects, including?cross-cultural management.?