8.01 Final Course Average Results, Fall 2002

Posted December 25, 2002

The final course average for each student was found by computing a weighted average according to the following percentages, as were announced in the original grading policy statement:

Contribution

Percentage

3 50-minute Exams

36%

Recitation Quizzes

(Renormalized)

16%

Problem Sets

10%

Final Exam

38%

The average of the final course average grades for all 8.01 students was 66.6%.

The passing grade for the final course average has been set at 60.0%, and other numerical grades can be translated into letter grades according to the following chart:

NUMERICAL GRADE	LETTER GRADE
81.0 - 100	A
70.0 - 80.9	B
60.0 - 69.9	C
47.0 - 59.9	D
0.0 - 46.9	F

After the grades were computed numerically, those students who were just a point or two below the borderlines were discussed at a meeting of all the 8.01 staff. On the basis of this discussion, a small number of students were pushed above the borderline and given a grade higher than their numerical average would indicate. The most common reason for such a grade increase was the case of a student who had shown very significant improvement during the term.

For the three hour exams, the combined score for a student who took the make-up is the average of the make-up score and the original exam score, or the original exam score itself, whichever is higher. However, the make-up exam cannot raise the combined score above the target score for that exam. The target scores for Exams 1 and 3 were 65, and the target score for Exam 2 was 70.

The allocation of credit for tutoring depended on when the tutoring took place:

Period 1: September 9 - September 29: after all other additions to the score of Exam 1 are processed, these points are added without limit.
Period 2: September 30 - October 25: added to the score for Exam 1, subject to a cap at the target score.
Period 3: October 27 - November 22: added to the score for Exam 2, subject to a cap at the target score.
Period 4: November 24 - December 11: added to the score for Exam 3, subject to a cap at the target score.

For the problem sets, your lowest score was dropped and the remaining scores were averaged.

For the recitation quizzes the calculation is more complicated, because each instructor both composed and graded the recitation quizzes for his/her students. We try to do the best we can to compensate for the fact that recitation instructors have different styles, in terms of the difficulty of their quizzes and the manner in which they are graded. The recitatation quiz grades were therefore adjusted by a process that we call "renormalization." Each instructor is calibrated by comparing the recitation quiz grades of his/her students with their 50-minute exam and final exam grades (which are team-graded), and the recitation quiz grades are corrected accordingly. The correction formula guarantees that the average of the recitation quiz grades for all 8.01 students will either not be changed, or will perhaps go up a little. This year the average recitation quiz grade went up 2.9 points.

HOW TO COMPUTE YOUR RENORMALIZED RECITATION QUIZ GRADE:

In our effort to be as fair as possible, we are using a somewhat complicated method to compute the renormalized Recitation Quiz average.

STEP 1: Computation of Raw Grade

Drop your lowest grade and average the others. If you had more than one excused absence, then you should consult your recitation instructor to find out how your grade was processed. The grade should be scaled so that the maximum possible grade is 100. (In R05 and R15 extra credit was available on the quizzes; in those sections, scale the grade so that the maximum possible grade without extra credit is 100.)

STEP 2: Computation of Renormalized Grade

We have experimented with three different methods of renormalization, but found that none of them seemed to be fair in all cases. We have therefore decided to use all three, and for each student the maximum of the three calculations is used for the renormalized grade. For each instructor, four parameters were determined by comparing the Recitation Quiz grades with the average of the grades on the team-graded exams for the instructor's students. A table of these parameters is as follows:

TABLE OF RENORMALIZATION PARAMETERS:

Sections	Instructor	R	Q	M	B
R02	Wit Busza	0.950	1.162	1.095	-12.0
R09 & R11	Maria Chan	1.112	0.755	1.002	7.4
R21 & R25	Nathan Collins	0.997	0.977	1.656	-49.7
R16 & R17	Qudsia Ejaz	1.043	0.876	1.135	-7.0
R03 & R04	Ian Ellwood	1.010	0.946	1.030	-2.4
R05 & R15	Tanim Islam	See below
R06, R07, & R08	Paul Joss	0.837	2.960	1.722	-81.9
R10 & R22	Pavlos Kazakopoulos	0.926	1.393	1.397	-38.9
R23 & R24	Vishesh Khemani	1.062	0.857	1.616	-40.2
R18, R19, & R20	Walter Lewin	1.185	0.665	0.939	16.1
R26	James McBride	0.893	1.876	0.926	-1.9
R13 & R14	Brad Plaster	0.892	1.460	1.212	-27.5
R01 & R12	Brian Ross	0.912	1.325	1.425	-42.5

Use the parameters in the above table to compute your renormalized Recitation Quiz grades by each of the following three methods, and then take the maximum of the three:

Method 1:: Renormalized Grade = R * (Raw Grade)
Method 2:: Renormalized Grade = 100 - Q*(100 - Raw Grade)
Method 3:: Renormalized Grade = M * (Raw Grade) + B

For R05 and R15 (Tanim Islam's sections), slightly different formulas are used to adjust for the extra credit:

Method 1:: Renormalized Grade = 1.000 * (Raw Grade) - 15.0
Method 2:: Renormalized Grade = 84.0 - 1.064*(100 - Raw Grade)
Method 3:: Renormalized Grade = 1.354 * (Raw Grade) - 47.1

Renormalized grades that are above 100 are reduced to 100, and renormalized grades that are below 0 are increased to 0.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED:

How were the renormalization parameters computed?

Return to 8.01 home page.
For questions, contact Alan Guth (guth@ctp.mit.edu).
Last update Wednesday 25 December 2002