I absolutely agree with the opinion that the university has to conduct the Norm-Referenced test which is a relative test. (A relative test is a test where by a student's performance is compared to those of all other students and displayed in percentile terms. I will provide three reasons to support my opinion.
First, we can insure objectivity when we evaluate students based on their test results. The grade indicates not only student ability, but also their honesty. If we adopt the Criterion-Referenced test which is an absolute evaluation, we can't correctly distinguish between students who are interested in just getting good scores without working hard. Under the absolute evaluation, most students will get good grades regardless of working hard or being lazy. As a result, that grading policy will reflect in students' honesty and enthusiasm.
Second, we expect that students will enhance their academic performance under the relative evaluation system. If we implement the absolute evaluation, some students will think that it is unfair. Lazy students are likely to get good grades, As a result, students will lose their academic enthusiasm and fervor. If we implement the relative evaluation system, students will study harder and more sincerely. Consequently, the overall level of students will he improved through competition in manifested and maintained good faith.
Third, under the relative evaluation system, students are more active. Students will have a preview before they come to class. Education is not about making students passive. What matters are curiosity and motivation, not cramming. I know that a fierce corn petition will undermine a spirit of cooperation. Given that, I want to see highly motivated students in class. Also, I want to see justice [fairness] Prevail. That is why I am in favor of the relative evaluation system.
Mechanical Engineering