​Memo to students

Distribution of students by profile (within the framework of bachelor's training at the faculty),

Practical placements with the possibility of subsequent employment,

Internship directions,

Providing hostel accommodation for nonresident students,

Advantages when participating in competitive selection for a master's degree program in a similar educational program.

1. Academic rating – max 100 points (by discipline)

   Attendance at training sessions (max 20 points)

   Results of mastering each module of the academic discipline (current and midterm control) (max 20 points)

   Interim certification (exam, test with assessment, test) (max 40 points)

   Attendance at training sessions is assessed cumulatively as follows: the maximum number of points allocated for attendance (20 points) is divided by the number of classes in the discipline. The resulting value determines the number of points scored by the student for attending one lesson.

   Interim certification is carried out either at the last practical lesson (test with a grade or test), or in accordance with the schedule during the examination session (exam). To be admitted to the intermediate certification, you must score a total of at least 30 points and successfully pass the midterm test in each discipline (not have any outstanding academic performance arrears).

   ¤ a student may be exempt from taking an intermediate assessment (test, test with assessment or exam) if, based on the results of attendance, the results of current and midterm control and creative rating, he scored at least 50 points. In this case, he is given a grade “passed” (in case of a test) or a grade corresponding to the number of points scored (in case of a test with a grade or exam) with the consent of the student.

   ¤ the teacher of the department who directly conducts classes with the student group is obliged to inform the group about the distribution of rating points for all types of work in the first lesson of the educational module (semester), the number of modules in the academic discipline, the timing and forms of monitoring their mastery, the opportunity to receive incentive points, the form intermediate certification.

   ¤ Students have the right during the educational module (semester) to receive information about the current number of points scored in the discipline. The teacher is obliged to provide the group leader with this information for students to familiarize themselves with.

   In the traditional four-point

Participation in student scientific work competitions;

Speaking at conferences;

Participation in olympiads and competitions;

Participation in scientific work on the topics of the department and work in scientific circles;

determined by the dean's office together with the student council of the faculty and the group supervisor 2 times a year based on the results of the semester (cannot exceed 200 points). Characterizes the student’s active participation in the public life of the university and faculty.

The total educational rating is calculated as the sum of the products of the points received in each discipline (according to a 100-point system) by the complexity of the corresponding discipline (i.e., the volume of hours in the discipline in credit units), with the exception of the discipline “physical education”.

The introduction of a point-rating system is part of the “Bolonization” of Russian education - the artificial imposition of Western standards under the auspices of the Bologna process, a manifestation of bureaucratization and commercialization of higher education, a clear example of the destruction of the Soviet model of education, which has proven its high efficiency

This very common belief is vulnerable for at least three reasons.

Firstly, the strict opposition between the traditions of Soviet pedagogy and the educational model emerging in recent years is completely incorrect. The essence of the competency-based approach is to give the learning process a pronounced activity-based character with a personality-oriented and practice-oriented orientation. In this capacity, the competency-based model represents the most consistent embodiment of the idea of ​​developmental education, which was also significant for Soviet pedagogy (suffice it to recall the famous school of D.B. Elkonin - V.V. Davydov, which began to take shape precisely during the period when in the USA research by N. Chomsky and the concept of competency-based training was first introduced). Another thing is that within the framework of the Soviet school, such developments remained at the level of “experimental work,” and in modern conditions the transition to developmental education requires breaking the professional stereotypes of many teachers.

Secondly, one should take into account the fact that the Soviet model of education experienced the peak of its development in the 1960s and 1970s. and was absolutely adequate to the social, intellectual and psychological state of the society of that time, the technological conditions and tasks of economic development of that time. Is it correct to compare it with the problems of the education system that emerged half a century later in a society that is experiencing complex social metamorphoses and deep psychological stress, has a vague idea of ​​the ways and prospects of its development, but at the same time is faced with the need for a new breakthrough in “catch-up modernization” under the slogan of innovation? Nostalgia for conceptual harmony, methodological orderliness, substantive consistency, and psychological comfort of Soviet education is easily explainable from the point of view of the mood of the teaching community, but it is unproductive in dialogue with the generation born in the conditions of the information revolution and globalization. It is important to understand that modern pedagogical innovations, including the transition to a point-rating system, do not destroy the Soviet model of education - it has become a thing of the past along with Soviet society, although it has still retained many external attributes. Russian higher education will have to create a new educational model, open to the demands of not even today, but tomorrow, capable of mobilizing to the maximum extent the creative potential of students and teachers, ensuring their successful integration into the rapidly changing social reality.

The third aspect of this problem is related to the fact that despite Russia’s participation in the Bologna process, the introduction of a point-rating system in Russian and European universities has completely different priorities. In Europe, the Bologna process is aimed, first of all, at ensuring the openness of the educational space and academic mobility of all its participants. It does not change the fundamentals of the European educational model and is therefore carried out primarily through administrative measures. Of key importance is the implementation of ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) and ECVET (The European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training) - systems for transferring and accumulating credits (credit units), thanks to which the student’s learning results are formalized and can be taken into account when transferring from one university to another, when changing educational programs. Student performance is determined by the national grading scale, but in addition to it, the “ECTS grading scale” is recommended: students studying a particular discipline are statistically divided into seven rating categories (categories from A to E in the proportion of 10%, 25%, 30 %, 25%, 10% are received by students who passed the exam, and categories FX and F are received by students who failed it), so that in the end the student accumulates not only credits, but also rating categories. In Russian universities, such a model is meaningless due to their completely insignificant integration into the European educational space, as well as the absence of any noticeable academic mobility within the country. Therefore, the introduction of a point-rating system in Russia can be expedient and effective only if it is associated not with purely administrative reforms, but with a change in the teaching model itself, and the introduction of competency-based pedagogy technologies.

The use of a point-rating system violates the integrity and logic of the educational process, absurdly changes the ratio of the importance of lectures and practical classes (from the point of view of gaining rating points, lectures turn out to be the most “useless” form of educational work), piles up the procedures for “current” and “terminal” control, although at the same time it destroys the classical model of the examination session - a high rating may allow the student not to appear for the exam at all, and his preparation is deprived of systemic control.

Such fears have some basis, but only if we are talking about incorrectly designed rating models, or the inability of the teacher to work under the conditions of the point-rating system. So, for example, if a university, for reasons of “preserving the contingent,” sets a generally mandatory minimum threshold for a satisfactory grade of 30 points out of 100 and the same insignificant point level for “passing,” then losses in the quality of education will be inevitable. But the same negative role can be played by overestimation of rating requirements, when, for example, for an “excellent” grade, at least 90-95 points are required (which means a disproportionate gap with the “good” grade) or mandatory confirmation of an “excellent” grade in the exam, regardless of the number of points accumulated (which is generally absurd from the point of view of the very logic of rating control). Such problems arise, first of all, in cases where the teacher does not see the connection between the design of the rating system and the actual organization of students’ educational activities, or at the department or university level attempts are made to overly formalize the point-rating system, to impose a certain model on it, regardless of the specifics discipline and original teaching methods. If a teacher gets the opportunity to creatively design a rating system within the framework of a university-wide model, but taking into account the characteristics of his discipline, then he is able to maintain the “integrity and logic” of the educational process, and ensure the significance of lecture classes, and achieve a reasonable balance between all forms of control. Moreover, as will be shown below, within the framework of the point-rating system, it is possible to preserve the main parameters of the classical training model, if it does not clearly conflict with the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard.

The point-rating system formalizes the work of the teacher, including his relationship with students, replaces live communication with essays and tests, forces not only to record every step of the student, but to abandon the ongoing improvement of the teaching system during the semester, involves filling out a huge amount of reporting documentation and permanent mathematical calculations.

Indeed, significant formalization of the educational process and control system is an integral feature of the point-rating system. However, two circumstances must be taken into account. Firstly, formalization should not be an end in itself, but only a tool to ensure the quality of education. Therefore, both the volume of written work and the intensity of control must be correlated with the didactic and content specifics of the discipline. In addition, the teacher has a very wide choice of forms of control, and correctly used technology for designing a point-rating system may well ensure the priority of oral forms over written ones, creative ones over routine ones, and complex ones over local ones. For example, many teachers express dissatisfaction with the use of written tests, essays, and testing, which do not allow the student to be “heard.” However, this position only indicates that the teacher’s professional tools are very poor or overly traditional - that, for example, students are offered assignments to write essays, rather than creative essays or complex problem-analytic tasks, that “in the old fashioned way” the teacher uses simplified forms of testing instead of multi-level tests with “open-ended” questions and assignments aimed at various forms of intellectual action, that the teacher is not ready to use interactive educational technologies (cases, project presentations, debates, role-playing and business games). In the same way, the situation when some students do not manage to accumulate a sufficient number of points during seminars during the semester does not indicate the “risks” of the rating system, but that the teacher himself does not sufficiently use technologies of group educational and research work in the classroom (allowing them to control the entire composition of students present).

The second circumstance that must be taken into account when discussing the “formalism of the point-rating system” is related to modern requirements for educational and methodological support. The format of the Work Programs of Academic Disciplines (RPUD), unlike the previous Educational Methodological Complexes (EMC), is not limited to setting the general objectives of the course and a detailed description of the content of the discipline with an attached list of references. The development of the Federal State Educational Standard is a comprehensive design of the educational process, as close as possible to teaching practice. Within the framework of the RPUD, the objectives of the discipline must be linked to the competencies being formed, the competencies are disclosed in the requirements for the level of training of students “at the entrance” and “at the exit” of studying the discipline, knowledge, skills and methods of activity included in the requirements for the level of training must be verifiable with the help of the proposed educational technologies and forms of control, and the fund of assessment tools attached to the program must provide all these planned forms of control. If such a system of educational and methodological support is developed with high quality, then integrating a rating plan into it will not be difficult.
As for the inability to promptly make changes to the curriculum of a discipline under the conditions of a point-rating system, this requirement, of course, creates obvious inconvenience for teachers. But it is significant from the point of view of guaranteeing the quality of education. The work program of the academic discipline, the fund of assessment tools and the rating plan must be approved by the department for each academic year before the start of the academic year or at least the semester. All necessary changes must be made based on the results of the implementation of this educational model in the previous year. And during the current academic year, neither the work program nor the rating plan can be changed - students must receive information about all educational requirements at the beginning of the semester and the teacher does not have the right to change the “rules of the game” until the end of the course. However, within the framework of an already approved rating plan, a teacher can provide himself with a certain “freedom of maneuver” - by introducing options such as “rating bonus” and “rating penalty”, as well as assigning duplicate forms of control (when the rating plan provides for the possibility of transfer certain topics of seminar classes into the format of assignments for independent work, or a certain control event from those planned for the semester is duplicated by a compensating control task from the additional part of the rating plan - this approach is useful when planning forms of educational work that complete the semester and may remain in the event of force majeure not implemented during classroom training).

The point-rating system can provoke conflict situations, create an unhealthy atmosphere in the student group, do not stimulate the individualization of learning, but encourage individualism, the desire to “put a spoke in the wheels” of one’s colleagues.

Such pedagogical situations are possible, but they usually arise due to erroneous actions on the part of the teacher. The competitiveness of the educational process itself is a powerful stimulating factor, especially if it is reinforced through game forms, implemented openly and stimulated not only by ratings, but also by an emotional background and moral incentives. Excesses of “individualism” can be easily prevented by making personal rating achievements dependent on the results of team actions. The main condition for students’ adaptation to the point-rating system is its consistency, balance and information openness. All information about the structure of the rating system, the number and timing of control events must be communicated to students during the first week of the semester. In the future, the rating plan of the discipline and the methodological and control-measuring materials necessary for its implementation should be available to students in a convenient form, and information about the current rating should be communicated to students at least once a month or at their request. In addition, it is important that students know the procedure for resolving controversial situations that arise during the rating assessment: if a student does not agree with the assigned score for a discipline, he can submit an application to the dean to review the results with subsequent consideration of this issue by an appeal commission. If the implementation of the point-rating system is organized in this way, then the possibility of conflict situations will be minimal.

The point-rating system improves the quality of education through the integrated use of all forms of classroom and independent work of students and, as a result, ensures a noticeable increase in the level of academic performance, strengthens the reputation of the faculty and the status of specific teachers.

Full-scale and correct implementation of the point-rating system in combination with the use of modern educational technologies and forms of control can really significantly improve the quality of the educational process. However, as it is implemented, a paradoxical trend is observed: with an increase in the quality of education, there is a decrease in the level of student achievement.

There are many reasons for this. The cumulative grade reflects not only the student’s level of learning, but also the total amount of educational work done. Therefore, many students, faced with the need to complete additional tasks to improve their rating, tend to choose a lower final grade. The psychological unpreparedness of many students for the implementation of the point-rating system also has an effect. First of all, this applies to the categories of “excellent” and “C” students. Students who are accustomed to receiving “machines” through regular attendance and active behavior at seminars, in a point-rating system, are faced with the need to confirm the high level of their preparation at each midterm control procedure, and often to complete additional rating tasks to obtain a final grade “ Great". “C” students are deprived of the opportunity to receive an exam grade by convincing the teacher of the “complexity of life circumstances” and promising to “learn everything later.” Students with academic debt find themselves in a particularly difficult situation. Having an “open session”, they are forced to spend a lot of time preparing additional rating tasks (in contrast to the previous practice of “retaking” the exam), which means that they initially find themselves in the role of outsiders in the ranking of disciplines of the new semester that has already begun. Another reason for a decrease in the level of academic performance when introducing a point-rating system may be the teacher’s errors in its design. Typical examples are inflated point values ​​for “excellent” and “good” grades, excessive saturation of control forms (when the labor intensity of students’ independent work established by the curriculum is not taken into account), and the lack of methodological explanations regarding the rating tasks performed and the requirements for their quality. The inconsistency of rating plans of various disciplines can also have a negative impact. For example, if during the session classical exams were planned with a distance of at least three days, then this rule does not apply to midterm rating control events, and the end of each month may turn out to be a time of peak load for students. All such risks are virtually inevitable during the transition phase. Their minimization depends on systematic actions aimed at introducing a new assessment model, conducting regular monitoring of the educational process, and improving the qualifications of teaching staff.

The point-rating system ensures increased motivation of students to master fundamental and professional knowledge, stimulates daily systematic educational work, improves academic discipline, including class attendance, and allows students to move on to building individual educational trajectories.

Such theses are quite fair in their essence and can often be seen as part of university regulations on the point-rating system. However, practical results, as a rule, turn out to be much more modest than expected. And here it is not only the specifics of the transition stage that are affected. The rating system has a deep contradiction. On the one hand, it is one of the elements of the competency-based training model, the implementation of which is associated not only with the conditions of innovative social development and the requirements of the modern labor market, but also with the sociocultural consequences of the information revolution - the formation of a generation with developed lateral (“clip”) thinking. Lateral thinking is based on a positive attitude towards fragmentation and inconsistency of the surrounding reality, situational logic of decision-making, flexible perception of new information with an unwillingness and inability to organize it into “big texts” and a “hierarchy of meanings”, an increased level of infantilism combined with a readiness for spontaneous creative activity . A clear example of a “clip” sign culture is the interface of any Internet portal with its fragmentation, plurality, incompleteness, openness to manifestations of spontaneous interest, followed by non-linear movement through a system of hyperlinks. Such virtual “architecture” reflects the characteristics of behavioral reactions, thinking systems, and communicative culture of the generation that grew up in the conditions of the information revolution. It is no coincidence that school textbooks have long lost the aesthetics of “long texts,” and the requirement for a “high level of interactivity” has become key for any educational publications. Meanwhile, the pedagogical rating concept is based on the idea of ​​a student who, thanks to the cumulative assessment system, is focused on long-term planning of his actions, rational construction of an “individual educational trajectory,” and timely and conscientious completion of educational assignments. A small category of students (“excellent students” of the classical type) can quite comfortably adapt to such requirements. But from the point of view of the interests of a “typical” modern student, what comes first is the opportunity to “get involved” in the educational process at “different speeds”, to intensify one’s efforts at one time or another, to go through periods of decline in educational activity relatively painlessly, to choose the most interesting and comfortable learning situations. Consequently, the most important qualities of the point-rating system are its flexibility and variability, modular structure rather than academic integrity, maximizing students' learning activity and increasing the formal level of academic performance. The teacher must build a system of information support for the discipline in such a way that each student has the opportunity to begin work with a detailed study of the rating plan, familiarization with the full scope of accompanying methodological recommendations, advanced planning of their actions and the construction of “individual educational trajectories.” But the teacher must understand that most students will not actually build any “individual educational trajectories” and will only become seriously interested in the rating system towards the end of the semester. Therefore, when designing a rating plan, focusing on the algorithm of actions of the “ideal student” (and this is how the maximum 100-point scale is constructed), the teacher must initially include “non-ideal” models of educational behavior in the rating model, including isolating those few units of content and educational situations, which, by increasing their ratings, will become basic and strictly mandatory for all students to master, duplicate them with the help of compensating rating tasks. The complex of compensatory rating tasks itself should be excessively broad - it is intended not only to ensure that successful students “gain” a small number of points before the start of the session, but also to organize the individual work of students who have completely “fell out” of the rhythm of the educational process.

The point-rating system will help ensure a more comfortable state for students during the learning process, relieve stress from formalized control procedures, and create a more flexible and convenient schedule for the educational process.

Relieving “examination stress” and providing comfortable conditions for students’ academic work are important tasks of the point-rating system. However, in an effort to ensure flexibility and variability in the educational process, one should not neglect the requirements of the academic discipline. The rating assessment model should not be positioned as a “automatic” system, when “even a C can be obtained without an exam.” And the fact that the teacher is obliged to provide lagging students with the opportunity to compensate for the lack of points with additional assignments cannot be perceived as a reason not to attend classes for two or three months, and then “quickly” catch up during the session. An effective balance between variability and flexibility of rating requirements, on the one hand, and academic discipline, on the other, can be achieved by several tools: firstly, it is important to use a stimulating distribution of points between different types of academic workload (those that the teacher considers the most important are be it lectures or control procedures, creative tasks or seminars, must be attractive in terms of the number of points; additional rating tasks must either be inferior in the number of points to the tasks of the basic part, or exceed them in labor intensity); secondly, in the basic part of the rating plan, the teacher can record those forms of educational work and control that are mandatory regardless of the number of points scored; thirdly, when checking rating tasks, the teacher must be consistent, including avoiding situations when during the semester assignments are checked with a high degree of exactingness, and during the session and especially after its end - in a “simplified manner”; fourthly, students must be comprehensively informed about the structure of the rating plan and the requirements, and it must be taken into account that it is not enough to convey the relevant information during the first week of the semester - many students are included in the educational process very imposingly and late, and some at this time are still busy with their academic debts for the previous semester, so it is important for the teacher to keep students’ awareness under control and “stimulate” potential outsiders in advance, without waiting for the end of the semester; fifthly, midterm control procedures and regular calculation of the accumulated number of points have a disciplinary effect - it is advisable to structure the work in such a way that the end of each month is perceived by students as a “mini-session” (this is also facilitated by the format of intra-semester reports with four “slices” of accumulated points) .

The point-rating system significantly increases the objectivity of assessment and ensures impartiality on the part of the teacher; the rating does not depend on the nature of the interpersonal relationship between the teacher and the student, which reduces the “corruption risks” of the educational process.

Such settings play an important role in the normal functioning of the point-rating system, but in practice a completely different development of events is possible. The most obvious example is the comparison of the classic exam and the testing of rating tasks. The exam has a strong reputation as a highly subjective testing procedure. Student folklore is full of examples of how a teacher is capable of sophisticatedly “failing” an exam, and recommendations on how to overcome the vigilance of the examiner, with the help of what tricks to bypass the strictness of examination control. But, in reality, the exam format includes a number of mechanisms that increase its objectivity - from the direct relationship between the content of the course and the exam (the exam comprehensively tests knowledge of the main content of the program) to the public nature of the examination procedure (the dialogue between the examiner and the student, as a rule, becomes “ public domain"). The rating system, on the contrary, increases the number of situations when the assessment process is “closed” and highly subjective. The definition of a rating in a wide range of rating points in itself is more subjective than the usual “threes”, “fours” and “fives”. During a classic exam, a student may well find out the criteria for the grade received, but when assigning rating points for a specific task or participation in a specific seminar, teachers in most cases do not explain the reasons for their decision. Thus, the subjectivity of the point-rating system is initially very high. The main way to minimize it is to increase the requirements for educational and methodological support. The teacher must prepare a fund of assessment tools, including a complete set of educational and test tasks that exactly correspond to the rating plan with an indication of their score. It is necessary that the approval of these materials at a department meeting should not be formal, but preceded by an examination - this procedure will help ensure the proper level of requirements. In addition, it is very important that rating tasks are accompanied by methodological comments for students, and in the case of creative and training tasks - examples of their successful implementation. Another effective tool for increasing the objectivity of rating assessment is the development of level scoring criteria for each task. The most effective and comfortable for the teacher is a three-level detailing of the requirements for each task (a kind of analogue of “three”, “four” and “five” with “pros” and “cons”). For example, if an assignment is graded in the range from 1 to 8 points, then the methodological recommendations for students may contain three sets of evaluation criteria, according to which the student can receive for this assignment either from 1 to 2, or from 3 to 5, or from 6 to 8 points. This approach formalizes the assessment procedure, but at the same time sufficiently preserves its flexibility.

The point-rating system simplifies the teacher’s work, since he gets the opportunity not to conduct “full-fledged exams and tests,” and rating tasks can be used from year to year.

Such a judgment cannot be heard from teachers who have at least minimal experience in implementing a point-rating system. It is quite obvious that with the introduction of such a model for organizing the educational process, the load on the teacher increases sharply. Moreover, we are talking not only about the intensity of control procedures. First of all, it is necessary to carry out a huge amount of educational and methodological work related to the design of a rating system, the development of appropriate didactic materials and assessment tools. And this work is not one-time in nature - a full-fledged and effective rating system is developed at least three to four years in advance, and adjustments have to be made to it annually. When implementing a point-rating system, the teacher is also assigned additional functions for its organizational and information support. Moreover, the need for regular scoring, which is especially confusing for “newbies,” is in fact perhaps the simplest element of this work. As for the lack of “full-fledged exams and tests,” the labor intensity of these forms of control is clearly inferior to the verification of rating tasks. So, for example, if, within the framework of the classical model of the educational process, the teacher met with the student during the exam a maximum of three times (including the examination committee), then when implementing the point-rating system, he is forced to check additional compensatory tasks until the student accumulates points for the final "satisfactory" ratings. Thus, the myth about a decrease in the volume of teaching work with the introduction of a point-rating system does not have the slightest basis. However, unfortunately, it often manifests itself in the formation of requirements for labor standards of teaching staff, when, for example, it is believed that the previous total workload of a teacher associated with monitoring students’ independent work and conducting an exam is comparable to providing a point-rating system. The illogicality of this approach is confirmed by even the simplest mathematical calculations: if, for example, taking an exam in a discipline is estimated at 0.25 hours per student, and checking test assignments provided for in the curriculum (essays, tests, abstracts, projects) is 0.2 –0.3 hours per task, then a rating system with three to four midterm control procedures during the semester and additional rating tasks that students can complete on their own initiative in any quantity (including passing the same exam) more than covers the complexity of the classical model assessment.

It is also worth noting that after the introduction of a point-rating assessment system, the practice of “attendance days” or “contact hours” (when a teacher, in addition to classroom lessons, is required to be present “at the workplace” according to a certain schedule) looks completely illogical. Students submit rating assignments not according to the teacher’s work schedule, but as they are prepared by the students themselves, just as the need for consultations regarding rating assignments arises for students clearly not according to the schedule. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and implement an effective format for advising students and checking their assignments on a remote basis. Unfortunately, the implementation of such a remote form of control is not yet taken into account when calculating the teaching load.

Taking into account all the difficulties that arise during the preparation and implementation of a point-rating system, it is advisable to develop universal models of rating plans and standard forms for describing rating tasks. The use of unified rating schemes will not only ensure the necessary quality of the educational process, but will also solve the problem of adaptation of students and teaching staff to the new assessment system.

At first glance, the development of a “universal” rating plan model could indeed solve a number of problems associated with the implementation of this new assessment system. In particular, this will avoid obvious mistakes when designing rating plans, simplify the information and organizational support of the point-rating system, unify the requirements for the main forms of control, and ensure a higher level of controllability of the educational process during the transition period. However, there are also obvious disadvantages of this approach. First of all, we are talking about the loss of the main advantages of the point-rating system - its flexibility and variability, the ability to take into account the specifics of specific academic disciplines and the peculiarities of the author’s teaching methodology. There is no doubt that those teachers who, due to difficulties in designing rating plans, actively advocate their universalization, will quickly change their position when faced with a “rigid” rating system developed for a completely different didactic model. And the current criticism of the point-rating assessment system is largely due to the fact that teachers do not see the possibility of adapting it to the usual patterns of the educational process. The main reason why the unification of rating plans is inappropriate is that the introduction of this assessment system is not an end in itself. The rating model is designed to consolidate the transition to competency-based learning, expand the scope of application of interactive educational technologies, consolidate the activity-based nature of the educational process, and enhance its personal perception by students and teachers. From this point of view, the independent participation of each teacher in the design of rating plans and the development of their educational and methodological support is the most important form of professional development.

I am finishing my 4th year at the Faculty of Humanities. I consider our university to be one of the best in St. Petersburg, but I can say that since the university is a union of three, now everything is quite ambiguous. I can say with 100% confidence that it is worth enrolling in economics and, possibly, management - these areas receive the greatest attention. It is clear from the children who study in these areas that they really work and gain knowledge. Moreover, it is the students of these areas who take the most active part in the life of the university, as most events take place in their academic buildings. Students from other majors may not even know about all the activities and opportunities. And there are a lot of opportunities, both for study and for leisure. St. Petersburg State Economic University has a dance studio of a very good level, its own language learning center, and a Sports Club. Students can also try themselves and be selected for an international internship, since the university has a huge number of connections with universities in Europe and Asia. The conditions for internships are different, but all students can familiarize themselves with them on the website and choose an internship to their liking. A controversial point is the point-rating system introduced at the university. It is good in the sense that students who work throughout the semester, regularly pass checkpoints, have some advantages during the session. We do not have traditional tests - the test is based on the results of work in the semester. Thus, we do not have the principle “from session to session...” - rather from test to test. The bad thing about the university is that due to the unification, the level of awareness of students of faculties studying in other than the “main” buildings suffers, since even the dean’s office receives some information much later than it should, or even does not reach it at all. Over the past year, however, it has become clear that the university is working on this problem, so maybe in another year or two all faculties will be truly equal. Another plus: St. Petersburg State Economic University is one of the few universities that provides dormitories to EVERYONE. We have really good dormitories, both at the university itself, where mainly contract workers are accommodated, and also at MSG, which has already become famous throughout the country, where state employees live. No matter what they say, you can really live in our hostels - everything is in good repair, it’s clean and there is all the necessary furniture. At least I have never heard of students doing renovations in their rooms themselves. We also have an excellent website that reflects all aspects of the university’s activities. You can find absolutely all the information on the website; another question is that most students are simply too lazy to find something on their own. We also have one of the best admissions committees, I can say with confidence. The admissions committee consists of students of different directions and ages, attentive and friendly, ready to answer all questions from parents and applicants. The procedure for accepting documents is very fast; rarely anyone is delayed when accepting documents for more than 15 minutes. In general, I can say that St. Petersburg State Economic University is an excellent university, with good teachers and a rich student life. However, a lot depends on the student himself: if you want to study well, it’s not enough to go to classes, you need to try to learn something yourself. If you want leisure time, go and find out everything yourself; running after students and imposing something on us is not customary. The university needs to work on the quality of education, I think this is due to the unification: teachers, curricula, etc. are changing. I think that in a couple of years everything will settle down and all the problems will be solved.

SPbSUE has a long history (since 1897), a palace building opposite the Kazan Cathedral and a classical architectural style. As part of traditions, students of many directions study the history and architecture of St. Petersburg. But the university does not lag behind progress. For example, it uses a point-rating system, which replaced the outdated five-point scale.

The essence of the system: the student collects points throughout the semester, their sum determines the final grade. They are posted in the electronic office of St. Petersburg State University with open access. The scores can be viewed by students, teachers, parents, potential employers or simply curious people.

How does the point-rating system work?

Points can be earned on tests or quizzes 2-4 times per semester. The results of the work are displayed in the group’s electronic rating; at the end of the semester, each student’s scores are summed up and the final grade is determined in accordance with the teacher’s scale, announced to the students and indicated on the website.

What’s new: transparency of the system, objectivity of the assessment and competition for first places in the ranking.

Objectivity- the main advantage of the system. It takes into account many factors:

• how the material was learned in general, for the entire course, and on individual topics;
• attendance;
• transparency of the system eliminates surprises in assessments;
• points can be earned several times;
• The rating arranges students into an honest hierarchy of knowledge.
• As a result, they provide an objective picture of knowledge. In the point-rating system, the exam ceases to be the “final verdict”, because the work for the semester is taken into account.

What does the scoring system look like in practice?

If there are really a lot of points, the student may be exempted from the exam or, on the contrary, receive inadmissibility if he does not get enough points. If a student answers poorly on an exam, but gains enough points during the semester, the grade will be given in his favor; conversely, if someone does not appear during the semester but performs well in the exam, they may receive a lower grade or an additional question.

Students of St. Petersburg State Economic University said a friendly goodbye to study methods that should not exist at all: grades for note-taking (which can be written in one night), machines for attendance (after all, a student can easily play all pairs quietly on the back desk), grades for participation in competitions , KVN or student spring and other things that do not benefit education.

Competition and open assessments encourage constant active work throughout the semester (although for some this is probably a minus).

• it takes time to develop a draft rating model;
• The ability of teachers to work with scores and ratings is not available everywhere;
• conflict situations in the group due to competition (arise due to mistakes on the part of the teacher).
• The distribution of points between works is not well thought out - for example, the answer to a seminar and an essay are assessed with the same number of points.

The system of accumulating points and rating students, although not ideal, is good because it offers an alternative to the five-point system. Assessments become more objective, more transparent and place emphasis on the quality of knowledge, rather than on meeting the teacher’s requirements. In order to see what the rating will look like, you can go to the official website of St. Petersburg State Economic University, select a group and subject from the list and see how its students are doing. And at the same time imagine yourself among their ranks.

Today, the main task facing the country's universities is to improve the quality of education. One of the key areas in solving this problem is the need to switch to new standards. In accordance with them, a clear ratio of the number of hours for independent and classroom work is established. This, in turn, required the revision and creation of new forms of control. One of the innovations was a point-rating system for assessing students' knowledge. Let's take a closer look at it.

Purpose

The essence of the point-rating system is to determine the success and quality of mastering a discipline through certain indicators. The complexity of a specific subject and the entire program as a whole is measured in credit units. The rating is a certain numerical value, which is expressed in a multi-point system. It integrally characterizes students’ performance and their participation in research work within a particular discipline. The point-rating system is considered as the most important part of the activities to control the quality of the educational work of the institute.

Advantages

Implications for Educators

1. Plan the educational process in a specific discipline in detail and stimulate the constant activity of students.
2. Timely adjust the program in accordance with the results of control measures.
3. Objectively determine final grades in disciplines, taking into account systematic activities.
4. Provide gradation of indicators in comparison with traditional forms of control.

Implications for students

Selection of criteria

1. Implementation of the program in terms of practical, lecture, and laboratory classes.
2. Execution of extracurricular and classroom written and other works.

The timing and number of control events, as well as the number of points allocated for each of them, are established by the leading teacher. The teacher responsible for monitoring must inform students about the criteria for their certification at the first lesson.

Structure

The point-rating system involves calculating the results obtained by the student for all types of educational activities. In particular, attendance at lectures, writing tests, performing standard calculations, etc. are taken into account. For example, the overall result at the chemistry department can consist of the following indicators:

Additional items

The point-rating system provides for the introduction of fines and incentives for students. Teachers will inform you about these additional elements during the first lesson. Fines are provided for violations of the requirements for the preparation and execution of abstracts, untimely submission of standard calculations, laboratory work, etc. At the end of the course, the teacher can reward students by adding additional points to the number of points scored.

Conversion to academic grades

It is carried out according to a special scale. It may include the following limits:

Another variant

The total number of points also depends on the level of labor intensity of the discipline (on the size of the loan). The point-rating system can be presented as follows:

Point-rating system: pros and cons

The positive aspects of this form of control are obvious. First of all, active presence at seminars and participation in conferences will not go unnoticed. The student will be awarded points for this activity. In addition, a student who scores a certain number of points will be able to receive automatic credit in the discipline. Attendance at the lectures themselves will also count. The disadvantages of the point-rating system are as follows:

Conclusion

Control occupies a key place in the point-rating system. It provides for end-to-end certification in all disciplines within the curriculum. As a result, the student is assigned a rating score, which, in turn, depends on the degree of preparedness. The advantage of using this form of control is to ensure its information transparency and openness. This allows students to compare their results with those of their peers. Monitoring and assessment of educational achievements acts as the most important element of the educational process. They must be carried out systematically throughout the semester and throughout the year. For this purpose, ratings of students in the group and on the course in specific disciplines are formed, and intra-semester and final indicators for a certain period are displayed.