Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
If 50% get 98% or better, the test is too easy. The bar needs to be raised.
|
Why? If a class is supposed to teach a certain body of material, and everybody learns it, why is the test bad if 50% get 98% or better? THe test is supposed to demonstrate what people know. Why would it be bad for half the students in the class to have learned everything the teacher taught?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
Basic statistics tell you that it is extremely unlikely to have that many people clustered at the top. Performance in nearly every field follows the basic bell curve....a few truly great/horrible ones, a few more extremely good/bad ones, a few more pretty good/bad ones, and a lot of average ones. If we're getting down to #45-50 or so in the varsity official list, we're well into the range of average varsity offiicals. Perhaps a few selections should come from the "average" range but most should come from only the better than average range.
|
It appears to me that you're mixing your lists. If you are applying the bell curve, I think you need to apply it to the entire 225 R officials in our association, not just the 100 that either made the ballot, or were within a hair's breadth of it. I'd say the 100 top officials are probably not from the top of the curve down to the very best officials, but rather from the middle of the downward slope down.
What I'm saying is that instead of giving tournament berths based on votes and popularity, I'd rather see them given on the basis of true earning, meaning that all people who are capable of doing a really good job at the tournament will get to work at the tournament. Votes simply don't represent that in a reasonable way. And it definitely shouldn't be done on the curve, which right now it is.