One of the following sporting events is fake – can you guess which one?
- Flugtag – a competition where contestants build flimsy flying machines and launch off a 30 foot ramp over water. The team that can travel the furthest distance while airborne wins. Most flying machines do not make it far, but it’s fun to watch.
- Cheese-Rolling and Wake – competitors run down a hill chasing a giant wheel of cheese. The cheese wheel gets a one second head start and can reach speeds of 70 miles per hour. The first person to the bottom of the hill gets a cash prize. And a wheel of cheese.
- Anstrengung – teams gather around a shipping container and push it down a football field as far as they can in 15 minutes. Points are commensurate with how far the shipping container is moved (though scoring only starts past the 60 yard line).
- Ice Cross: DOWNHILL – individual athletes strap on skates and race downhill – in urban environments – on tracks notorious for steep turns and huge drops. The first skater to cross the finish line wins – but expect a lot of tumbles along the way.
Lock in your vote.
It turns out that Anstrengung – that bizarre sporting event where teams push a shipping container down a field – is entirely fictional. The incredulity sparked by Anstrengung mirrors the dissonance between two grading systems prevalent in education: the 100% scale and the 4.0 scale. While these systems coexist, their incongruities often go unnoticed, much like the nonexistent Anstrengung.
In the realm of a 100% scale, an F typically starts at 60%, suggesting that only beyond this mark do we recognize measurable progress in understanding. Contrastingly, the 4.0 scale assigns an F at 0.6, equivalent to a mere 15% of the total possible points. Conversely, a 2.4 on the 4.0 scale translates to a C, but on the 100% scale, it’s a failing grade, revealing a fundamental misalignment.
Ben Schermerhorn, a professor at Monroe Community College, was a distinguished speaker in the CTL Spring 2023 series. During his enlightening talk on grade equity he proposed a shift in perspective—awarding 50% instead of 0% for non-submitted work. At first glance, this may seem like an attempt to inflate scores during desperate times, a notion that may trigger skepticism.
He contends that the current grading system is flawed, drawing a parallel to the fictitious Anstrengung. In this proposed model, starting at 50% rectifies the imbalance. It’s not about unwarranted generosity; it’s about addressing a system that disproportionately funnels more than half the points into a narrow 15% container.
Intrigued by Ben’s insights, I experimented with my grade book, substituting zeros with 49%. The outcome was unexpected—while only one student transitioned from failing to passing, a fascinating phenomenon emerged. Previously failing students suddenly found themselves within striking distance of passing, turning a seemingly hopeless situation into an opportunity for success.
Adopting this paradigm shift fully across all classes is a decision I am still contemplating. The more I reflect on it, the more convinced I become that achieving parity between the 100% scale and the 4.0 scale is not just a recommendation but a necessity. It’s about fostering an educational environment where students are evaluated consistently and fairly, akin to the principles we apply to diverse and unconventional sporting events like Flugtag, Cheese-Rolling, and Ice Cross.
