Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Grading Exams: 100, 99, 98,...or A, B, C?

Contents:

Author Info

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    We introduce grading into games of status. Each player chooses effort, pro­ducing a stochastic output or score. Utilities depend on the ranking of all the scores. By clustering scores into grades, the ranking is coarsened, and the incen­tives to work are changed. We apply games of status to grading exams. Our main conclusion is that if students care primarily about their status (relative rank) in class, they are often best motivated to work not by revealing their exact numerical exam scores (100, 99, ...,1), but instead by clumping them into coarse categories (A,B,C). When student abilities are disparate, the optimal absolute grading scheme is always coarse. Furthermore, it awards fewer A’s than there are alpha-quality students, creating small elites. When students are homogeneous, we characterize optimal absolute grading schemes in terms of the stochastic dominance between student performances (when they shirk or work) on subintervals of scores, show­ing again why coarse grading may be advantageous. In both the disparate case and the homogeneous case, we prove that ab­solute grading is better than grading on a curve, provided student scores are independent.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cd/d17a/d1710.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University in its series Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers with number 1710.

    as in new window
    Length: 37 pages
    Date of creation: Jun 2009
    Date of revision:
    Publication status: Published in Games and Economic Behavior (2010), 69(1): 72-94
    Handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:1710

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Yale University, Box 208281, New Haven, CT 06520-8281 USA
    Phone: (203) 432-3702
    Fax: (203) 432-6167
    Web page: http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/
    More information through EDIRC

    Order Information:
    Postal: Cowles Foundation, Yale University, Box 208281, New Haven, CT 06520-8281 USA

    Related research

    Keywords: Status; Grading; Incentives; Education; Exams;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Harold L. Cole & George J. Mailath & Andrew Postlewaite, . "Class Systems and the Enforcement of Social Norms," Penn CARESS Working Papers, Penn Economics Department bdb2c3969ad56e98068513c7c, Penn Economics Department.
    2. Moldovanu, Benny & Sela, Aner, 1999. "The Optimal Allocation of Prizes in Contests," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim 99-75, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    3. Englmaier, Florian & Wambach, Achim, 2005. "Optimal Incentive Contracts under Inequity Aversion," IZA Discussion Papers 1643, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    4. Green, Jerry & Stokey, Nancy, 1983. "A Comparison of Tournaments and Contracts," Scholarly Articles 3203644, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    5. Pradeep Dubey & John Geanakoplos, 2005. "Grading in Games of Status: Marking Exams and Setting Wages," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University 1544, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Dec 2005.
    6. Dominique Demougin & Claude Fluet & Carsten Helm, 2004. "Output and Wages with Inequality Averse Agents," CIRANO Working Papers 2004s-47, CIRANO.
    7. Corneo, Giacomo & Jeanne, Olivier, 1997. "On relative wealth effects and the optimality of growth," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 87-92, January.
    8. Harold L. Cole & George J. Mailath & Andrew Postlewaite, . ""Incorporating Concern for Relative Wealth into Economic Models''," CARESS Working Papres, University of Pennsylvania Center for Analytic Research and Economics in the Social Sciences 95-14, University of Pennsylvania Center for Analytic Research and Economics in the Social Sciences.
    9. Pollak, Robert A, 1976. "Interdependent Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(3), pages 309-20, June.
    10. Cole, Harold L & Mailath, George J & Postlewaite, Andrew, 1992. "Social Norms, Savings Behavior, and Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(6), pages 1092-1125, December.
    11. Robson, Arthur J, 1992. "Status, the Distribution of Wealth, Private and Social Attitudes to Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 837-57, July.
    12. Ed Hopkins & Tatiana Kornienko, 2004. "Ratio Orderings and Comparative Statics," ESE Discussion Papers 91, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    13. Pradeep Dubey & John Geanakoplos, 2005. "Grading in Games of Status: Marking Exams and Setting Wages," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University 1544, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    14. Hideshi Itoh, 2004. "Moral Hazard and Other-Regarding Preferences," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 55(1), pages 18-45.
    15. Alexis DIRER, 2001. "Interdependent Preferences and Aggregate Saving," Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, ENSAE, issue 63-64, pages 297-308.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:1710. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Glena Ames).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.