Do You Remember Grading on a Curve?

As an Army brat, I traveled the country in the 50s and 60s and everywhere I went they graded on the curve.  What that mean essentially is that the top 5% got an A and bottom 5% got an F.

In the 70s this became a no no.  Was it because it was politically correct or did it serve a real purpose?

I have been thinking about this because of Jeff Fieldman's diary about us picking each other to pieces rather than the repubs.  Does this have anything to do with the ways we percieve education and ranking?

Did the 5% create such resentment, that the US population is willing to cut its nose to spite its face in seeking canidates in leadership with very little competency other than rhetoric?

I was teaching HS at 20 and did a lot of things to appear really older.  But I was into what made kids tick.  I used to do polls in my classes on the grading process.  The debate about doing just pass or fail was in current vogue.

What I noticed was that inevitably the really good students were in favor of pass/fail and the really average students were into earning every little point.

It is my personal observation that what were once fears of education were myths.  For centuries the highly educated felt that given a chance everyone would sit around and read books.  Thus, it was a very restricted privilege.  My observations is that in all societies of all kinds, this is projection.  Only a very few really get off reading books.  It is not something the masses would ever choose to do.

It is also a personal observation that one trait you can never teach is drive.  It is not something emulated or passed down from father to son.

Why am asking these questions of Kossacks?  Because they are relative to why we rip each other up and why cats can't be herded.  However, I once owned as many as 12 cats at one time.  While they could not be herded, they all got along very well.

It is also a pretty good observation that most posters on the internet on the left are usually both introverted and visual rather than verbal, as well as, highly educated.

When I was one of the battling for the 5% as a group we were highly competive, driven, and using our intelligence to differentiate ourselves.  My memories were knocking on each other but we never picked on the average thinker for the fun of it.  I also remember the desire to keep a low profile about being smart unlike the profile of sports geniuses.

In 68 nationally a 4.0 GPA was achieved by only 4% of the population, by 78 it was 15%, by 88 it was 28%, and by 98 in California it was 45%.  This has meant that all universities in California require testing on all freshmen.  Many "A" students turn out to be practically illiterate and were unaware and really furious to have to take "remedial" English etc. as wewe their parents.

Bush is said to hate educated elite and in his day, his lack of application and basic ignorance would make him a target of contempt for the 5% that were both visible and honored then.  Did the 5% ever have that much power?

I know this is late and not well thought out.  I am offering it as a beginning that needs to be built on by the thinking of this community.  Others better than I will eventually write a better defined diary.