2.11

We now continue with Pt. 2 of our two part series "This Friday's Column and Next Friday's Column" with the much anticipated, but never quite realized "Next Friday's Column." Like "This Friday's Column," it occurs on a Friday and contains wordstuffs of a thoughtful nature. Unlike "This Friday's Column," "teh funny," like my dependably errant pants, is sadly absent. You could call it solidarity with the Writer's Guild, if only because calling it "laziness" makes me look bad. Anyway.

The recent move to change UT's grading scale to a minus system has been one of the most talked about issues on campus, because, unlike global warming, the war in Iraq, and the dropping value of the dollar, UT students and faculty will actually be affected by it (and can't as easily insulate themselves into warm hollows of ever-so-snuggly denial). Some individuals dislike it because it will decrease GPAs, making them presumably unlovable by their parents and/or god. Some like it because it will decrease other people's GPAs more than theirs, entitling them to an even greater supply of smug superiority. And others don't care because they are either fatalist, illiterate, graduating, or some sordid combination of all three. Personally, while I would gladly stake my claim to fatalistic illiteracy, I'm afraid I feel the urge to take a step back and look at this not just as an issue of "the minus" but an issue of grades themselves.

It seems to me, the fundamental functions of grades are threefold: to quantify, to certify, and to motivate...ify learning. Grades supposedly give a numerical value to one's learning, a must for bureaucrats and politicians eager to rank and file away peoples and results for elections and selections to come. Good grades supposedly certify that you have, in fact, learned the class's targeted subject with some proficiency. And grades supposedly encourage us to learn when motivators such as "perceived utility and/or real life application" fail.

The success of these goals is largely open to debate, but I'm of the mind that grades aren't nearly as effective as one might believe. First, they do indeed quantify supposed learning/success, but I wonder why we bother with the "letters" at all. If the intent is to quantify into numerical form, why not just give a percentage out of 100 or a number on the 4.0 scale? The minuses seem aimed at precision, why stop until the goal's achieved? Second, there's a question of what, exactly, is certified. Essentially, a grade indicates that, at a few specific moments, you successfully satisfied a teacher's performance demands. It neither indicates what you learned or whether you still have such knowledge, but instead represents one point in time and one subjective perspective.

But, perhaps most importantly, I think grades fail as good motivators. When reading some of the letters to the Beacon, I've often been surprised to read people describing good grades as "rewards." I say this not because I disagree with the definition, but because I've never really felt that way. To me, grading has always seemed Machiavellian in nature. I (and perhaps you too) work not because I want an A but because I fear anything less. I don't "earn" A's, I just avoid the misfortune of anything else.

Which is to say, grades succeed in prompting me to do the bare minimum required to appear as if I've done my best. Changing to minuses just raises that bare minimum a bit. The quality of my education will remain the same, as no change is made to content or practice. What will change is the amount of stress, something often forgotten by those who have steady jobs and minimal uncertainty about their professional futures.

In short, grades prompt students to do the least required of them to succeed. They scare away creativity (too risky), they negate the need to challenge one's self (not required, why do it?), they are inadequate measuring tools (what, exactly, does this "B+" mean?), and they exacerbate already high levels of fear, stress, and uncertainty. None of those sound like things an upstanding university would want to encourage.

Obviously, I've insufficient space for all I'd like to say. For more, I'd suggest looking up Alfie Kohn, but I'd also suggest that you think (and talk) about it yourself. Are we here to learn or get a degree and GPA claiming we've learned? Maybe the university should ask itself the same question.