On Abandoning Grading and Reconsidering Standards
Grade-grubbing in chemistry courses has become an increasingly annoying problem. Clearly, the causes of i t lie much deeper than the fleeting anxieties of some neurotic re-medical students. Recent campus developments, including the present highly unfavorable ratio of applicants to available places in medical and other professional schools, have rekindled once more the always smoldering controversy over grading and academic standards in general. This time the traditional issues, such as whether it is pmsihle to measure ahility by academic instruments, or even to develop it by existing academic practice are further confused by two factors of some substance. The first is the thesis, apparently generally accepted in some areas of higher education, that to insist on time-honored academic standards and criteria may make it difficult to establish the representative elite needed for social stability in this country. The second is intensified concern, based on attitudes and performance of recent graduates, over whether grading practices are in fact destroying more human potential than they develop. We see in the former one of the reasons for student dissatisfaction with grading and traditional academic standards, and an interesting reversal of an important tenet of American culture. This tenet holds that the basis for a substantial portion of societal rewards and responsibilities is tested academic ability and related talents-that successes in school are the stepping stones to greater opportunity. By contrast, the new thesis calls for a shift to more egalitarian academic standards so as to guarantee a social hierarchy that is more representative, even if it is slightly less developed. The argument is that we are in no real danger and we can well afford the investment of placing less emphasis on traditional standards of excellence in the hope of building a stronger more hroadly-based society. Furthermore, the standards and values of academe are themselves deserving of the most careful scrutiny. If this thesis were put into practice, generally we would move from a system in which (ideally) responsibility is delegated on the basis of demonstrated excellence, to one in which it is delegated to more or less randomly selected individuals from a pool containing all those meeting some minimum standard. The minimum standard never could he higher than representatives from all major segments of the society could (or would be willing to) achieve. Unless we can find ways to make study for students and life's work for citizens so rewarding that other factors controlling their lives will he subordinated to these, the minimum standard concept will make i t difficult to get more than an average performance from the great majority of better-than-average students or citizens.
I editorially
I
speaking
Even as academic standards and the grading system are heing attacked on egalitarian grounds, they are heing torn asunder for what critics say they are doing to human potential. To some extent the ~erformanceof graduates lends support to the critics' claims that the educational system corruuts more than i t liberates: that the competition forced by incessant grading and rigid grading policies is degrading to many and breeds conformity, ruthlessness and greed without developing talent, providing quality or stimulating creativity; that the schools flout independence, initiative, scrupulous honesty, earnestness and utility, replacing them with an automating spirit that prizes adjustment to a mechanical system and mastery aimed only a t licenses and salary. As if all of this were not enough to compel the conscientious faculty member to toss in the towel on grading and look for a more comfortable alternative, there is the final frustration that he can never he certain his standards are right, that his examinations achieve what he wants them to achieve, or that his judgment in assigning grades or in selecting and emphasizing material is beyond reproach. Still there are a few modest arguments for maintaining traditional academic standards and a realistic grading system-at least for the present. One of these is that no alternative offering any real promise has been advanced. The widely-touted "expressive" approach-letting the students develop on their own with the instructor providing only advice and guidance-has not been and cannot he successful with the great majority of students largely because once released from teacher control, the students simply come under the control of other conditions that claim their time and energies. A second argument is: Human happiness depends on finding fulfillment. For those with good minds fulfillment means competency and contribution. In a society of any complexity, competency and contribution depend on the acquisition of advanced skills and knowledge. The only tested way of acquiring these is through the discipline of academic standards and evaluation. Unfortunately the young do not always appreciate this. A third argument holds that the world has need for rare talents and abilities. These are not found in everyone; they must he sought out, encouraged and fostered. he academic proving ground provides both an index to their presence and a medium for their development. And for the teacher who worries some about his standards, examinations and judgment there is a t least some consolation in recalling that very likely no student ever returned to thank him for making it easy, hut a good number probably returned to thank him -lor pr0vin.g to them that they could do a good deal more u,ith their minds \!TI. and their energies than they ever t~rlie\,edpossible.
Volume 50, Number 7,July 1973
1 449
