1. The scores were, as a whole, very good. The mean score (after the "curve" was 87.6 and the post-"curve" median score was 88.7. The highest raw score was 96.6% which is the highest that any non-special forces student has achieved on any of my exams! Post "curve", 10 of you scored a 90% or higher which tells me that either y'all have worked very hard this term or I managed to make the exam too easy. Probably a little bit of both...
2. I chose to remove two questions provided by the Blue Covenant Group. A good exam question will have 1. a normal distribution that is weighted to one way for a more difficult question and weighted the other way for an easier question and 2. a performance that correlates positively with the overall exam scores. Scores from BCS 8 and BCS 12 showed neither and virtually everyone's exam scores were improved by their removal.
3. I analyzed the test scores taking into consideration group membership and question authorship. In doing so, I looked at group membership and compared the scores of each individual under three scenarios. 1. with all of the questions, 2. with communal questions (1-25) and questions from their group, and 3. with communal questions (1-25) and questions from the other group. With the exception of two outliers, their was shockingly little difference between your individual performances when the test was broken down as such. Question authors did not appear to have a significant advantage and, in fact, two of the question writers (one from each groups) would have actually scored higher if only tested on the other group's material! The two outliers are benefited from leaving the exam in tact and everyone else is not affected more than 1% either way (certainly not enough to affect their final grade(s)). While I really liked the rest of the Bottlemania/Blue Covenant project, I will probably not ever have students write final exam questions in the future...
4. On the final question, the majority of you (51.5%) chose to write about the water footprint of beef- specifically, the difference between corn-fed, and grass-fed beef. I am not sure if this is because I spoke most extensively about this in class or because, yes, the water footprint of corn-fed beef is really quite shocking!
5. On the second to last exam question, 62.5% of you chose to give Boston their reservoir and 37.5% chose to allow the inhabitant of the Swift River Valley to remain in place. Personally, I think that the Boston side is easier to defend from many practical angles. My favorite response typified the difficulty of resolving this issue by making an interesting turn partway through. Their response is below:
Filling the Quabbin Reservoir did allow millions of Bostonians to enjoy relatively clean, pure, and safe water. Normally, I would defend this decision because more people were allowed better drinking water but the constriction of the 3 Gorges Dam in China changes my argument. To defend Boston almost seems to defend the Chinese government for displacing millions of inhabitants with the construction of the 3 Gorges Dam. While more people may enjoy better water, the displacement of people in small villages only encourages mass urbanization and industrialization-two phenomena which have led to further damage to water sources. By filling the Quabbin Reservoir and constructing the 3 Gorges Dam, it seems that governments are steeping over the bounds of nature to solve problems with technological progress. Although technology gives us the power to divert water, it doesn't mean we always should. The original inhabitants of the Swift River Valley built a community around the reservoir and to destroy this seems to assert the idea that big cities, technology, and progress are more important than small communities. Technology and industrialization have benefited society but have also created huge problems which we are now dealing with today...
This was one of many good responses...
...a few comments on the semester:
1. Many of you performed exceptionally this term and the grades that I have submitted reflect that. The mean for the class is a 88.46% and in terms of grades comes out to a 3.33 which is slightly higher than the W&L university-wide mean GPA of 3.27. There were 14 "A's" and 8 "A-'s"; well done.
2. I had a great time this term teaching Water Resources, I wish that we had the time to cover everything that I wanted to get through but I think that we made a pretty good start...
3. Everyone have a great break and I welcome you to come by during the Spring term to pick up your final exams (and other assorted graded things.)
