Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8646783" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem with the notion that qualitative elements cannot be objectively gauged is that it ignores some pretty large areas where it's done all the time.Take teaching.&nbsp; Teachers evaluate qualitative elements all the time.&nbsp; A significant portion of your grade is the result of qualitative assessements&nbsp; Now, if qualitative assessments were subjective, then the assessments you received should vary widely depending on the assessor.&nbsp; So, you might get a great grade in one year, but a failing grade in the next year despite producing the same quality of work simply because these assessments are subjective.Since that doesn't actually happen (barring other issues of course - it does happen but it is usually indicative of some sort of problem) and people's grades, by and large remain fairly stable throughout their academic career and even across different instructors and schools.&nbsp; So, how does this happen?&nbsp; Well, based on the experience of the teachers and the massive body of experience collectively over the years, objective standards are created judging benchmarks for students.&nbsp; A student in Year X should be able to perform Task Y with a reasonable level of competency.&nbsp; Sure, it's vague and wibbly wobbly, but, it works.&nbsp; And it works very, very well.&nbsp; The idea that only numerical, quantitative elements can be assessed leads to standardized, multiple choice testing and absolutely horrible academic results.&nbsp; All because people insist that only numbers can be objective.&nbsp; It's simply not true.&nbsp; We can create all sorts of very objective standards - common person standards are prevalent in law for example - that, while certainly not as precise as a quantitative assessment - are still objective in their application.The world is full of qualitative assessments that are objective.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8646783, member: 22779"] The problem with the notion that qualitative elements cannot be objectively gauged is that it ignores some pretty large areas where it's done all the time. Take teaching. Teachers evaluate qualitative elements all the time. A significant portion of your grade is the result of qualitative assessements Now, if qualitative assessments were subjective, then the assessments you received should vary widely depending on the assessor. So, you might get a great grade in one year, but a failing grade in the next year despite producing the same quality of work simply because these assessments are subjective. Since that doesn't actually happen (barring other issues of course - it does happen but it is usually indicative of some sort of problem) and people's grades, by and large remain fairly stable throughout their academic career and even across different instructors and schools. So, how does this happen? Well, based on the experience of the teachers and the massive body of experience collectively over the years, objective standards are created judging benchmarks for students. A student in Year X should be able to perform Task Y with a reasonable level of competency. Sure, it's vague and wibbly wobbly, but, it works. And it works very, very well. The idea that only numerical, quantitative elements can be assessed leads to standardized, multiple choice testing and absolutely horrible academic results. All because people insist that only numbers can be objective. It's simply not true. We can create all sorts of very objective standards - common person standards are prevalent in law for example - that, while certainly not as precise as a quantitative assessment - are still objective in their application. The world is full of qualitative assessments that are objective. [/QUOTE]

Verification