system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that grading on a curve is stupid. CMV

I understand curving when the grade distribution doesn't reflect what it should, e.g. one test was more difficult than expected.  I'm talking about intentionally making a class difficult and assigning low grades under the assumption it will be curved to reach a normal distribution.

I understand that some do it emphasize that you don't know enough to be able to claim mastery of the subject, but the idea is that the grade should reflect mastery of the assignment at the level of the class.  

If the majority of the class scores a 60 percent average on an exam, and that is considered normal, then doesn't that indicate that the issue lies with the lecturer and not the student?

EDIT:  To make it more clear what I was trying to get at, why do professors choose to add curves in only at the end of the semester, as opposed to throughout?  Even if it lets your brightest students shine, it disadvantages the rest of the class in not knowing where their grade stands until the end of the semester when it is too late to do anything about it.
gpt
>If the majority of the class scores a 60 percent average on an exam, and that is considered normal, then doesn't that indicate that the issue lies with the lecturer and not the student?

Why need there be an issue?  What's wrong with a test where the average score is a 30%, so long as it appropriately distinguishes the good students from the bad?

In general, an easier test helps select for students who are careful and meticulous and don't make mistakes; a harder test helps select for students who really understand the material.  So making a hard test is not a bad thing - the professor simply needs to make sure she is giving out appropriate numbers of As and Bs despite hard tests.