Negative multiple choice marking: Not safe for boys ...

[Cunt]

I know we have to assess what people know about a subject, but do we have to so fervently punish creativity errors across the board?

I think making people less willing to attempt an answer where they are less sure would make for good robots, but poorer creatively.

[klr]

Negative marking doesn't really make sense to me.

Think of it this way: With no negative marking, and four options per question ... anyone who answered all questions completely at random would on average score 25%. With a "traditional" exam format, you have to display a considerable amount of knowledge to get even 25%. Another (simple) scenario: If the pass mark is 40% (as it often is here), then someone would only need to know the answers to about 20% of the questions. Taking random guesses at the other 80% of questions might get them the other 20% they need to pass.

But then, sounds like I'm a boy when it comes to multiple choice tests-- or, well, any tests, when I was in school. I always guess if I don't know. It's fun to try to make a smart guess. And on essay tests, if I didn't know, I'd guess, then attempt skillful bullshitting. Which often worked.

But that's why I wouldn't be a good Jeopardy contestant, even though I get a lot of right answers, playing at home. But if I were losing money for every wrong guess I shout out, well...

To me, part of doing an examination should be understanding how best to approach it, in terms of managing time per question, etc. MCQ examinations should be no different. I used to be a lecturer, so I'm pretty unforgiving about these things.

Why is this a gender issue? Figure out what's fair, and apply it equally.

The argument is what's fair depends on gender - which to me is nonsense for something as straightforward as this. If boys on average take more "risks" answering questions, then that's their problem. A basic part of life is adapting to the requirements and constraints of a given situation. This one should be easy to comprehend for anyone, especially anyone who aspires to getting a university degree.

It's not the first time that claims have been made about boys being disadvantaged or discriminated against by the mechanics of the education system. Yet if someone were to claim that girls were being disadvantaged in some way - or less "capable" ... I have a feeling all hell would break loose.

[hadespussercats]

Negative marking doesn't really make sense to me.

Think of it this way: With no negative marking, and four options per question ... anyone who answered all questions completely at random would on average score 25%. With a "traditional" exam format, you have to display a considerable amount of knowledge to get even 25%. Another (simple) scenario: If the pass mark is 40% (as it often is here), then someone would only need to know the answers to about 20% of the questions. Taking random guesses at the other 80% of questions might get them the other 20% they need to pass.

But then, sounds like I'm a boy when it comes to multiple choice tests-- or, well, any tests, when I was in school. I always guess if I don't know. It's fun to try to make a smart guess. And on essay tests, if I didn't know, I'd guess, then attempt skillful bullshitting. Which often worked.

But that's why I wouldn't be a good Jeopardy contestant, even though I get a lot of right answers, playing at home. But if I were losing money for every wrong guess I shout out, well...

To me, part of doing an examination should be understanding how best to approach it, in terms of managing time per question, etc. MCQ examinations should be no different. I used to be a lecturer, so I'm pretty unforgiving about these things.

Why is this a gender issue? Figure out what's fair, and apply it equally.

The argument is what's fair depends on gender - which to me is nonsense for something as straightforward as this. If boys on average take more "risks" answering questions, then that's their problem. A basic part of life is adapting to the requirements and constraints of a given situation. This one should be easy to comprehend for anyone, especially anyone who aspires to getting a university degree.

It's not the first time that claims have been made about boys being disadvantaged or discriminated against by the mechanics of the education system. Yet if someone were to claim that girls were being disadvantaged in some way - or less "capable" ... I have a feeling all hell would break loose.

I didn't mean that I didn't understand how negative marking worked-- I meant that I didn't really understand why it would be a good policy. Then I explained my bias-- that I enjoy trying to make good guesses. I actually like multiple choice exams-- I think they're fun.

Besides which, having self-assurance and a willingness to take risks can be useful traits. It's been suggested that one of the reasons men earn more than women for the same work is that men are willing to take a risk by asking for a bigger paycheck, and they're willing to risk appearing knowledgeable, even when they're not.

Of course, prudence is also a useful life skill. But that's true for both men and women as well. It's just less fun.

[klr]

...
I didn't mean that I didn't understand how negative marking worked-- I meant that I didn't really understand why it would be a good policy. Then I explained my bias-- that I enjoy trying to make good guesses. I actually like multiple choice exams-- I think they're fun.

Examinations are not meant to be "fun".



Seriously: I think (properly weighted) negative marking is a good system, because having no negative marking at all is effectively handing out marks - lots of them - for free.

Besides which, having self-assurance and a willingness to take risks can be useful traits. It's been suggested that one of the reasons men earn more than women for the same work is that men are willing to take a risk by asking for a bigger paycheck, and they're willing to risk appearing knowledgeable, even when they're not.

Exactly! Why for example are most stock market traders still male? They have to be able to size up risks and rewards on an almost continuous basis. It's like having a stream of MC questions coming at you all day. You've got to be self-assured (and probably a bit self-centred TBH) to handle that sort of pressure and responsibility. Many traders thrive on it. Of course, there have been some very bad apples as well, but that's mainly a function of there being so much to risk in the first place - and poor controls.

Of course, prudence is also a useful life skill. But that's true for both men and women as well. It's just less fun.

I'm prudent ... most of the time. You live longer that way.

[hadespussercats]

...
I didn't mean that I didn't understand how negative marking worked-- I meant that I didn't really understand why it would be a good policy. Then I explained my bias-- that I enjoy trying to make good guesses. I actually like multiple choice exams-- I think they're fun.

Examinations are not meant to be "fun".



Seriously: I think (properly weighted) negative marking is a good system, because having no negative marking at all is effectively handing out marks - lots of them - for free.

Why not give negative marks to blanks, too? Isn't marking a bad guess more harshly rewarding timidity?

[Drewish]

Having taken enough tests where there was a blatantly wrong question where the author screwed up, or a really stupid trick question whether the author thought they were being 'clever' I am against negative marking.

[klr]

Having taken enough tests where there was a blatantly wrong question where the author screwed up, or a really stupid trick question whether the author thought they were being 'clever' I am against negative marking.

With me, it's more a case of no negative marking is a "way out" for poorly designed questions. Either produce a proper set of questions with no tricks or ambiguities, or else don't use MCQs. I may be hard on student's but I'm even harder on examiners.

...
I didn't mean that I didn't understand how negative marking worked-- I meant that I didn't really understand why it would be a good policy. Then I explained my bias-- that I enjoy trying to make good guesses. I actually like multiple choice exams-- I think they're fun.

Examinations are not meant to be "fun".



Seriously: I think (properly weighted) negative marking is a good system, because having no negative marking at all is effectively handing out marks - lots of them - for free.

Why not give negative marks to blanks, too? Isn't marking a bad guess more harshly rewarding timidity?

Some MCQ exams force you to answer every question, although with "neutral" negative marking, this is (quite literally) academic.

BTW, I had an exchange today which proved beyond any doubt (to me anyway) that MCQs are all about saving academics time and money, and nothing about devising better examinations.

[hadespussercats]

BTW, I had an exchange today which proved beyond any doubt (to me anyway) that MCQs are all about saving academics time and money, and nothing about devising better examinations.

I didn't realize it was subject to doubt. In the States anyway, standardized tests are designed to be marked by a machine. From the tests that determine if you get to go to the college of your dreams, to the tests that determine whether your elementary school will receive the same funding next year.

From there on in, any teacher could design a mcq test out of laziness and claim that students need to develop the mcq skills. And they wouldn't be entirely wrong.

[Schneibster]

Same number of academics, more students.

More degrees.

More efficient.

Hmmmm.

[klr]

Same number of academics, more students.

More degrees.

More efficient.

Hmmmm.

Another way of looking at it would be "more time to do research". If I were being charitable, which I'm not inclined to be. Part of the conversation I had this morning was about some academic departments saving minuscule amounts of money by sending some of their postgraduate students to scan in the answer sheets themselves, rather than continuing to pay a very reasonable internal fee to have it done centrally by the people who really know the details of what is quite a tricky process.

[Schneibster]

Wouldn't be the first time "efficiency" was used as an excuse. Still, it is more efficient.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Wouldn't be the first time "efficiency" was used as an excuse. Still, it is more efficient.

Using efficiency as an excuse is one of the most efficient excuses there is. It can save up to 35.72% in per capita, fiscal year, fixed term efficacy over "my dog ate my homework" and nearly 22.38% over "the bus was late." FACT

[Warren Dew]

Now here's the thing: Apparently, negative marking has fallen completely out of favour in some places because it "penalises" boys, who are less risk-averse than girls. I say "apparently" because all I've come across is some off-hand references in a discussion thread on an Irish forum, but no concrete leads - yet.

Yes, males are on average greater risk-takers than females, but would that justify warping the examination system to such a degree? And where on earth would it end?

Neutral negative marking does not penalize risk takers - that's why it's "neutral" - so the whole line of reasoning is wrong.

[JimC]

Now here's the thing: Apparently, negative marking has fallen completely out of favour in some places because it "penalises" boys, who are less risk-averse than girls. I say "apparently" because all I've come across is some off-hand references in a discussion thread on an Irish forum, but no concrete leads - yet.

Yes, males are on average greater risk-takers than females, but would that justify warping the examination system to such a degree? And where on earth would it end?

Neutral negative marking does not penalize risk takers - that's why it's "neutral" - so the whole line of reasoning is wrong.

It still penalises them in relative terms, compared to a test with no negative marking whatsoever...

Whether that is desirable or not is a decision for the educational professional in charge

[Warren Dew]

It still penalises them in relative terms, compared to a test with no negative marking whatsoever...

In that it doesn't reward them for pure risk taking, without any additional knowledge of the subject material, yes.

In that case, though, the posited argument isn't so much that it should be avoided to be fair to boys, but that it should be avoided in order to give the boys the advantage. I guess the advocates would think it's time to get women back in the kitchen where they belong, or something like that.