Yesterday was 'A' level results day in England. 'A' levels (the 'A' is short for 'Advanced') are national exams taken at age 17 or 18, the results of which being those which universities look at when deciding whether to offer prospective students places. 'A' level results day is traditionally a big event each year - the opportunity for newspaper editors to publish lots of photographs of attractive young women jumping about excitedly at their results, and for newspaper columnists to complain about how the exams are getting easier and grades are becoming inflated.
The grade inflation narrative has been put on steroids this year, because owing to the lockdowns and school closures, there were no actual exams this year - instead, teachers awarded their students' results based on their 'predicted grades'. It turns out that asking teachers what grades their students should get is a bit like asking Nike whether its trainers are any good, or asking a Haagen Dazs spokesman if he thinks his company makes nice ice cream. Teachers - who would have thought it? - are of the opinion that they do a grand job and their students are all set to perform fabulously well. This year, over half of all 'A' level grades were either A or A*, the two highest grade boundaries.
It is a scandal, of course - and one that should be much bigger than it actually is. But it tells us a lot about human beings. When you don't have some kind of neutral mechanism devised to keep people honest, they generally end up behaving dishonestly.
In the case of 'A' levels, that neutral mechanism is the paper exam, externally marked (i.e., anonymously, by markers completely unconnected to the school at which the pupil is studying). An external marker has no skin in the game - it doesn't matter to him or her whether a particular student does well. So his mark is broadly trustworthy. Essentially the opposite is true of teachers marking their own students' work. If students get excellent grades it makes the teacher look good. It's not rocket science to see in which direction the incentives point.
In RPGs, the neutral mechanism in question is generally the dice. The dice, rolled openly so everyone can see the results, keeps everybody - particularly the DM - honest. If they go away, the DM follows his or her own predilections. Being nice to his best friend/girlfriend/person he secretly fancies. Making life awkward for the player he dislikes. Pursuing his own view on what the campaign's 'story' should be. Trying to expedite a scene so he can get the session finished and go to the pub. We're all familiar with those pushes and pulls. To guard against them influencing affairs at the table, we look to the dice - again, rolled openly - which are always unfailingly truthful. And thus we trust what is happening at the table.
Some people reading this will now, I predict, be thinking to themselves: "That's what he says. Whenever I play my games with my wonderful friends, we are all unfailingly honest and work in each other's interests so that we all enjoy the game equally, because we are such fabulous people." To which I can only respond: if it makes you feel better to think of things that way, go ahead and maintain the fantasy.
Totally on board with you in this issue.
ReplyDeleteHere in Colorado I have a friend and fellow D&Der who used to be a public school math teacher for grades 6-8. He told me that at least two-thirds of his students deserved a grade of F. When I asked him why he didn't give them the F that they deserved, he replied, "Oh, I'd be fired."
ReplyDeleteHe couldn't stand the phoniness and ended up working at a bank instead.
That makes me sad.
DeleteBelieve me, that is also true at university level. It’s even true, I think, at PhD level.
DeleteNot sure a bank would be the first place I'd look for fewer phonies. Maybe some kind of mason's association, or a miner's guild. Good solid rocks.
DeleteRe: A levels, funny Mitchell and Webb sketch about same issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnJyLWtYU8c which shares your point of nepotism or halo effect or whatever else filling in the gaps where bureaucratic evaluation withdraws.
Re: dice & the fudging thereof, personally against it. The unexpected and risk (even the risk of boredom) are a big part of my enjoyment of rpgs. Fudging rolls, especially in the dramatic moments when one might be most tempted to do it, would diminish that.
There's a part of me that wants to argue about standardized testing flaws, content validity, and how A levels, SATs, Korean Suneung, etc. just serve to prolong Jordan Peterson's lobster fetish... but it's almost midnight here and this is a gaming blog.
ReplyDeleteAbout the dice, I have no quibbles. Well said.
Yeah, I don’t agree. I’m familiar with all the critiques of exams. They’re valid. But they’re better than the alternative, which is people getting good jobs and good university places purely because they are nice/pretty/connected. At least where exams exist, people who are not nice/pretty/connected get a way to prove their worth.
DeleteI like the ancient Chinese practice of assigning places in the bureaucracy on the basis of exams. Government not by kings, or warriors, or priests, or merchants, or orators...but by scholars.
DeleteSomedays, I think we should put all the bureaucrats, experts, and scholars on the "B" ship... so they can prepare Earth 2 for the rest of us.
DeleteThe Examination system of Old China was famously obtuse, bizarre, and was so strict in its rituals that it practically encouraged cheating.
DeleteAs a father who plays games with his children, it is IMPERATIVE that we have strict practices on how we roll dice and how they are read because otherwise I would surely "fudge" on their behalf (those little crestfallen faces when they fail...).
ReplyDeleteThe trick may be: PLAY A LOT. It takes the sting out, knowing (or assuming/hoping) that success is just around the corner.
; )
Can't help with the grade inflation thing, I'm afraid.
Completely agree.
DeleteSounds like pandemic year kids rolled a 12 out of 2d6 on their testing roll! I guess the main people hurt would have been the kids who finally got it together after not being very impressive earlier.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the dice too though.
In the long term it’s in nobody’s interest. Those kids you mentioned are hurt too, but the ones I really feel sorry for are the students who really deserved A*s but now have no way to really differentiate themselves from mediocre peers.
DeleteLife... that's how you differentiate yourself from your mediocre peers.
Delete"Some people reading this will now, I predict, be thinking to themselves: "That's what he says. Whenever I play my games with my wonderful friends, we are all unfailingly honest and work in each other's interests so that we all enjoy the game equally, because we are such fabulous people."
ReplyDeletePart of me feels a little sorry for you that this is your world view in this regard.
Another part thinks you may simply be looking at it in a strange way (at least a way that seems strange to me).
I guess the approach and objectives of my groups and I are just different from you and yours. It is not that we are 'fabulous people' (Although we are. Love you guys, don't ever change.) but rather people trying to insure a fun time for everyone involved that leaves us with lasting memories of the good times we had.
We are largely honest but more than that, we want our story to be interesting, our characters to experience growth, and the campaign to work. I have more players that will say, "It makes more sense that my character would fail here as this is outside their wheelhouse" then I do ones who would cheat on a roll to do what? Cause more damage? Hit instead of miss? How trivial. How uninteresting and uninspired. What would be the point?
I agree. What would be the point in rolling dice at all if you already have an outcome in mind?
DeleteAh but that's the kicker you see. We don't always have an outcome in mind. Sometimes an outcome only occurs to you in the moment.
DeleteAlso, do those rolling dice in a RAW game Not have an outcome in mind? Are they not intending to succeed? The die provides a chance that they won't but I'm sure it isn't their goal, right?
Generally speaking I as much as anyone advocate for rolling dice and abiding by the outcome. Generally isn't always however and there are times when there is a better outcome to be had by being creative with results.
That's called arbitrating the results, and it's perfectly fine for the GM to interpret dice rolls as he sees fit.
DeleteOne thing that happens a lot especially in skill-heavy games like Call of Cthulhu of course is the “DM asks the players to make an easy roll to kill time but has no plan for what to do when the players fail”. That’s a pretty common fudging/backtracking failure point in my experience.
ReplyDeleteSuch a great point. This is one of the reasons why you should only roll when it matters.
DeleteIMO both exams and teacher-based assessments are more-or-less equally flawed. Success in exams proves mainly that you are good in exams. In my former career, many companies assessed potential candidates using exams, with highly questionable results.
ReplyDeleteAbove all, exams highlight the unsuitability of the education system. They are the culmination of a process that values individual work, competition and self-aggrandisement above all else. This is completely out of step with the real world, and results in psychopaths like my former boss Alan Sugar (the biggest cunt I've ever met, whose only real skill aside from being a cunt is negotiating pennies off electrical components) being held up as some kind of paragon. In the real world (as in most RPGs) cooperation and collaboration are the most important skills.
Another former employer of mine Gwyn ap Hari (not a cunt) set up XP School in Doncaster and, while I'm not on the whole a fan of free schools (most of them seem to be vanity projects), visiting and talking to the kids there was an utter revelation. All of their work is team-based: they succeed or fail as one. Of course they have to abide by the national curriculum (although their approach to doing so is again radical - for example in Y7 physics, chemistry, maths and home economics are taught together as "molecular gastronomy", resulting in an "open evening" where pupils cook for their parents and explain the processes behind their cooking). And while they must also take part in national exams, most of their ongoing assessment is judged by the pupils themselves - judging both their own progress and that of their peers. While this sounds like another recipe for exaggeration and lies, it's actually very effective; as with the examples here of players who argue against successful dice rolls, children raised in a collaborative fashion actually seem to care about the truth.
What does any of this have to do with dice? TBH I'm not quite sure. I think it parallels the difference between diceless story-based RPGs and those which rely on a random element. Nothing wrong with dice-based RPGs of course - if you're playing by those rules then those are the rules that you play by - but in the real world it's surprising how much of what we take to be "random" is actually a case of making your own luck.
(Of course, you work in law, where I imagine being a narcissistic psychopath may be something of a career advantage - my ex-step-uncle-in-law being a prime example of the former - so YMMV)
ReplyDeleteHaha, did you edit this comment for potentially libellous content? đŸ˜‚ Don't blame you. Glad you left the host of the BBC's most dysfunctional X "entertainment" programme in the previous comment though.
DeleteNo, look up - you posted two comments, grandpa!!
DeleteI know *that*... if you didn't edit the second comment, then my senior moment was thinking that I'd included the name of the not-really-uncle (you'll know him from cases such as the Birmingham Six and Mohammed Al Fayed). Come to think of it, I have another highly-placed legalistic relative, who shares my surname, but I've never met him so can't speak for his levels of narcissism (though I have my suspicions)
DeleteI’ll not hear a word said against Johnny Sumption.
DeleteHa! I'm not a big fan of his work with Keith Joseph, or with Alastair Campbell, but he does seem to be mellowing with age.
ReplyDeleteRolling the dice is like a contract. "The undersigned agree that this outcome is to be determined randomly pursuant to the relevant factors. Grognar, you need a 12 to hit it." If the DM (or whomever) already knows how it must and will turn out, then it's disingenuous to roll. Nor should I need my attorney to facilitate ordering chicken nuggets. If it's trivial and the outcome is obvious, why are we rolling the dice? Like many things, these difficulties can be solved with a little clarity.
ReplyDeleteAs for academia, well there are at least a thousand of Protagoras for every one Socrates.
Nice way of thinking about it!
DeleteI live in Belgium. We don't have "central exams" at the end of secondary education, so every grading is teacher-based. This works because we have a very open access tertiary education. Anyone with a high-school diploma can enroll in any course at university (there are some exceptions). The drawback is that many students might fail their first year, but at least everyone has the chance to push the "reset button" if for whatever reason you might have experienced a less-than-stellar education at high school.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying either system is right or wrong - just saying there are more options than putting people in ranking systems starting at a young age.
From what I hear from mainland European colleagues, that kind of system (common across Europe) is even worse than the British system in many ways, because you end up with hordes of young people turning up at university being totally incapable of doing well. This is bad for everyone, but especially universities. In my view the best way is something like what I believe Switzerland does - the people in the top 25% (or whatever) of school grades get the option to go to uni and that is that. This maintains the purpose of universities and avoids the disappointment of legions of young people going to uni and performing terribly, dropping out or getting shit degrees.
Delete