The A-F grading system, traditionally used to assess students, is a major determining factor for admittance into higher education. Although the grading system stands as a marker of student progress, it may be a wrong motivator for students and hinder those who truly wish to learn. In reality, the grading scale measures students’ abilities inaccurately, promotes stress, and discourages honest learning. An ideal grading system should, instead, guide students towards sustainable academic success.
The current system not only determines a student’s academic success and academic identity but also may predict future success, even though grades do not reflect one’s full abilities or aptitude. Although not representative of majority of students, Steve Jobs, who had a 2.65 high school GPA and dropped out of college, went on to innovate and become one of the most influential people in the world, thereby reaching beyond the definitions of the grading system. His success, attributed to his grit and ambition, could not have been accurately measured by the limited grading system. As such, it is nearly impossible to fully evaluate a student qualitatively—unless we change that.
Ideally, students should not be driven to succeed just to achieve a high grade; however, the grading system pushes students to become focused on the grades they receive, as grades stand as the sole indicator of success. As competition increases with pressure and expectations, stress may manifest itself in the form of visible paranoia and obsession with perfecting grades. Thus, the system may result in decreased student self-esteem and confidence.
Furthermore, the grading system does not incentivize exploration of topics that students are passionate about and instead transforms learning into a chore.
When students have leisure time, they generally watch TV, go on their phones, or seek other entertainment options. They do not aim to acquire additional knowledge. Many students consider learning as tiresome work, associated with school, which results in a negative mentality towards school and learning. Instead, students value their grades above learning.
Perhaps, we can adopt a different style of keeping students in check. Some alternatives include the pass/no pass system, which would encourage students to learn without the pressure of the tier system. The system should also incorporate more evaluations of student work ethics such as responsibility, organization, conduct, and participation. The addition of vocational classes may provide students applicable skills that are fundamental for functionality in the real world. Such a system will encourage students to explore and dive deeper into academic topics.
Other adjustments to the system exist. For example, the Dutch grading system uses a scale of numbers from 1-10: 10, being outstanding, and 1 being poor. In this system, a score of 4-8, which translates into a range from unsatisfactory to good, is most frequently given. Since the grades 10 and 9 are rarely given, students understand that they will generally have room to improve and grow. Similarly, as the scores of 3, 2, and 1 are rarely given, students know that if they try hard enough, they are unlikely to fail.
Instead of providing letter grades, schools can give students detailed feedback. With detailed feedback, students can focus on engaging in more discussions, experiments, and presentations. In terms of acceptance into higher education, the system can shift to an emphasis on student knowledge and passion exhibited through presentations, projects, essays, or participation in interviews.
Some of these alternatives to the current grading system are also imperfect; however, even the slightest change is still a step towards change. School should be about the progression of learning in all forms and not about having the highest GPA to get into college.
Let’s move the spotlight away from grades and focus on creating a positive learning environment.
