Question of the day: Is extra credit fair?

We have a course - government training, mostly military students - where passing is based on a cumulative grade. If a student comes in weak and fails the first several tests, but is improving, and by the end of the course has pulled himself up to the level of the rest of the students, we offer a chance to get enough extra credit to achieve an 85%. But I acknowledge that this is not a university course, and it wouldn't be necessary if we had only one, end-of-course exam (hard to do in a half-year course.

If the option to do work for extra credit is open to all students then no problem. If it's an opportunity given to some students but not others, then no, that's not OK.

Perspective of a current undergrad student: I think extra credit is fair if the criteria are laid out at the beginning of the course, included in the syllabus. I don't see a problem with encouraging students to go a little bit further with the work, and some additional points seem like an appropriate reward. Some people have terrible test anxiety and may not perform well on exams, but are still willing to work hard, extra credit for additional tasks can balance the playing field slightly for some people.

I do think extra credit should be graded like any other assignment (depending on the type of task required to earn it), the point value should reflect the quality of the work. Some students will go all out with whatever the project is, others will do enough to just have something to turn in, and just getting the same amount of participatory points for simply completing it doesn't seem fair.

I don't agree with offering extra credit randomly, giving it out as sort of compensatory points if someone does poorly on a test and comes begging for a way to make up for it. I would imagine this is rare in a university setting, but I saw it happen in a class last semester, all the students weren't made aware of the opportunity at the same time, it wasn't planned for and wasn't clear how it would be figured into the final grade, etc etc, became a stressful mess for students and professor alike.

So, in a nutshell, I think extra credit is fine as long as it is planned/presented appropriately.

I can see where it can be unfair - the student who's working and doesn't have any more time to devote to the course vs. the student who is being supported and doesn't have to work having the time for extra credit work.

Compassion would indicate that students who flail about at some point in the term, for whatever reason, should be cut a bit of slack. As an undergraduate, I had several classes where it really took me awhile to catch on. Fortunately, I had mostly understanding professors who gave more exams and assignments than necessary, and dropped the lowest scores. To my mind, that is the absolute fairest thing an instructor can do, though it does make more work for the instructor.

I have a problem with the concept of "extra credit" as a means of recovering from badly done exams/assignments, because such assignments tend to be _different_ than what's assigned in class. As such, they're somewhat unfair. If the instructor had assigned the "extra credit" task instead of Assignment X, it would've helped Student A's grade and hurt Student B's, though both A and B did all of the assignments and didn't ask for extra credit; A and B are just better at different kinds of tasks.

So, I'm firmly in the camp of drop-the-lowest-score/no-extra-credit. It addresses both the issues of differential skills and student flailing. If the student flails all term, that is a whole different class of problem. :-)

A colleague suggested that extra credit is a handy way for the better students to explore the material further with some guidance and structure. By giving the "advanced" problems as extra credit, the bright and motivated are given an educational opportunity more suited to their abilities(and credit for their effort). At the same time those students who are struggling, busy, or disinterested aren't held accountable for that material; that is, their grades will not be harmed.

As for "giving students a break", I would be more inclined to let any student resubmit an assignment or retake an exam rather than give extra credit. In order to pass a class a student should demonstrate an understanding of certain skills. Giving a second chance to master the necessary skills is more valuable than giving an opportunity to master "extra" skills.

Fair, shmair. Kid puts out extra effort, he gets extra credit. Others want extra credit, they can put out extra effort. Somebody wants to put out whining and bitching, there's always stock boy or mailroom clerk.

I agree with a lot of the other commenters: it depends.

But my response was really long, so I put it in my blog instead of making a really long comment here.

No. I would think that extra credit is decidedly unfair.
The function of assessment in a university course is two fold. Firstly it tests the knowledge and understanding of the material that has been taught. Secondly it tests tha ability to EXPRESS that knowledge and understanding in the suitable manner as determined by the lecturer. If you arent very good at exams but the lecturer has determined that an exam is the suitable method of expressing your knowledge, then you have failed the second prong of the function of the course. Providing an alternative way to express the knowledge would be equivalent to providing an alternative set of knowledge that the students should learn.

As a professor, I go with the "not fair" department. It's extra work work for me, and invariably, it's the students who didn't do the work the first time around that want extra credit. For me at least, more often it's the students who missed assignments/quizzes and not someone who just did poorly the first time around that want the extra credit. I'm sorry - you need to do the work the first time, not get to the end of the term and suddenly realize you didn't do enough to get the grade you want and beg for extra credit.

That being said, if I do have a student who did poorly at first and is making improvements, I always reserve the right to improve your grade beyond what the numbers say based on things like participation and attendance.

I think extra credit is overrated, since it requires extra work, which I never really had time to do when I was in college. The most flexible and "fair" system, at least when professors wanted to be flexible and not just count everything towards your grade as would be the default, always seemed to me to be when you would have multiple graded assignments and tests throughout a semester/class, one or some of which could be dropped at the end of the class. This helped reduced the damage from mistakes that occurred from misunderstanding material or going blank on a test question, while rewarding those who consistently performed well by removing pressure from the end of the semester/class when most people were under considerably more stress compared to the bulk of the semester, since those people could just skip the comprehensive final/assignment at the end. I know I personally appreciated being able to skip the final exam in a class using this system when I had at least 4 or 5 others to study for.

I can't say I have a problem with extra credit in and of itself, only with the methods by which extra credit was usually awarded. The "give all/give none" method of awarding it, the most typical means I've encountered, usually rewarded minimal effort with a disproportionate amount of credit, which as someone who didn't ever need the extra credit, really annoyed me. If extra credit could be assigned in a more properly proportionate manner, with effort scaled reasonably with reward, I'd have no problem with the idea of extra credit. However, the execution of the policy is usually lacking, which is the real rub here.

Extra credit encourages the students with poor grades, who most need additional exposure to the material in the curriculum, to do more work. I think it's a wonderful idea.

I've never heard of this concept at any of the universities I'm familiar with (mostly Canadian). What is "extra credit"? How does it work?

I agree that extra credit is fair when all students are given the chance to do it. More importantly, the extra credit should come from assignments that do indeed require a significant amount of extra time and demonstrate mastery of the material. In this way the extra credit compensates for the bad performance on previous graded assignments.

I can't stand it when students get extra credit for completely irrelevant acts. For instance, in one of the classes for which I was a TA, the professor awarded extra credit for students who wore Hawaiian shirts on the day of the exam. When I was in middle school, my North Carolina history teacher once based all of his extra credit questions on trivia from "The Andy Griffith Show". Okay, that's "cooky" and "hip", but come on...

Seriously Harry? That happened? And the prof was booted out of any teaching role to wander the Halls of Shame? That is disgusting.
Further to my comment, I should say that when I was at uni, there was no such thing as extra credit. Having spoken to colleagues, it seems nobody else encountered any extra credit either. Perhaps it is a USAian thing.

Donald, I would agree that it is probably a more American thing. In many American universities, students get to submit evaluations of a professor's classroom performance at the end of the semester. Those ratings are sometimes considered when a professor comes up for tenure. So some new professors try to inflate their student evaluations by being easier or likable by giving students plenty of opportunities for extra credit.

I've heard that in other countries that the professor-student relationship is more adversarial, in that the professor knows he or she is an expert and doesn't care what the student thinks. This was true during my brief experience with the National University of Benin in West Africa, where I helped organize a class in agricultural English while I was in the Peace Corps.

Ahem! Donalbain. NOT Donald.
However, my experience isn't that my professors had an adverserial relationship with students. Indeed, I was and continue to be, friends with some of my professors and lecturers from my uni days. However, they were pretty straight when it came to the actual course.

"Oh? You failed a test? Then you didnt study enough or you simply didnt know the required knowledge. Thats a shame, and we will help you as much as we can before the next test, but we cant change your grade."

There were no opportunities to "make up" once you had got a grade on an assignment.

I have seen both fair and unfair extra-credit. Unfair extra-credit occurs when not all students are allowed to participate, when the subject matter is not closely related to the subject of the course, and when the extra-credit relies on attendance at events which occur at times other than the time scheduled for the regular class.

One place I really don't like extra credit is where the course grades are curved. In the course grade calculation the extra credit ends up being just like any other assignment, except some responsible students don't realize this and it hurts their grade.

Extra credit encourages the students with poor grades, who most need additional exposure to the material in the curriculum, to do more work.