True, I find the same thing myself. I find a good mark in a test provides only short term satisfaction whereas having a thorough knowledge of something can serve me for years to come.
There are however a lot of students who see academics as something of a game and measure their achievement by score, the fact that they may learn a few things along the way is secondary to their desire to be able to say "hey , look at me I'm a high achiever please pay me lots of money". These people would probably be lost without a grading system of some kind and a lot of them are actually very smart people who probably should be at university.
That's an interesting point, however I doubt that the personal ego of some people is a strong enough reason to impose the grading system on everyone.
And while this more of a philosophical point than anything, I think that this form of competitiveness ("look, I'm better than you") is a major problem of today's society. Education should teach to work together, not against each other.
I agree to some extent, though that could be one reason employers are so happy about grades: they really do want people with those kinds of competitive characteristics.
Experiments in reducing the grade-centricness of universities have mostly foundered on employer objections. UC Santa Cruz for a while was famous for giving narrative evaluations instead of grades. Clases were formally graded pass/fail to indicate whether you met the minimum requirements to move on, and then in either case the professor wrote a one-page or so explanation of what you did well and poorly in the class, some advice, etc. In a sense the evaluation was still quite rigorous, just not boiled down to a single letter.
Companies hated this because they wanted to know which students had the 4.0 GPAs, and which had the 2.0 GPAs: a string of passes plus a stack of narrative reports didn't fit their evaluation model. So UCSC moved to allowing students who wanted to receive a grade along with the evaluation to opt into an A/B/C/D/F grading model alongside the narrative evaluation; eventually they made that mandatory; and finally just dropped the narrative evaluations.
True, if you are advertising a job and get 1000 applications how on earth do you find time to read all the narratives?
You would probably just have recruiters who would grade candidates on the basis of how many times the word "excellent" appeared on the report or similar, no doubt startups would pop up offering machine learning type solutions to these problems as well.
Not to mention it would be easier to corrupt the system as there would be more plausible deniability if a professor simply "forgot" to include some negative factors on the report.
Much easier just to filter numerically based on grade.
Also most of the smart people who do enjoy the learning as an end in itself should know the material well enough to do well in an exam anyway and just view the process of revising for the exam and tweaking their coursework for good marks as "playing the game".
I find it truly sad when education has to conform to demands of companies, when instead it should be the other way round. A fail/pass system with a narrative evaluation would be much better for students at any age. It helps identify problems and, more importantly, discover strengths.
I'm not sure how that would work , the majority of the economy and employment is driven by business (there is also public sector and charity of course). Students need to get something from their college experience that makes them more valuable to someone who can pay them money otherwise it would be difficult to justify the fees and debt, especially to those from lower to middle income backgrounds.
I'm not convinced that academics are better qualified to predict the needs of society regards knowledge and education any more than the free market is.
Regards to helping students evaluate themselves , there is no reason that a professor cannot provide feedback in addition to assigning grades indeed I'm sure many would be happy to and it's more likely a case that many students are simply happy to get their grade and move on rather than evaluate themselves.
>I'm not convinced that academics are better qualified to predict the needs of society regards knowledge and education any more than the free market is.
On the contrary, I'm pretty sure the free market is the last thing qualified for that. It will always be a race to the bottom, and that's not something education should be.
Comments
True, I find the same thing myself. I find a good mark in a test provides only short term satisfaction whereas having a thorough knowledge of something can serve me for years to come.
There are however a lot of students who see academics as something of a game and measure their achievement by score, the fact that they may learn a few things along the way is secondary to their desire to be able to say "hey , look at me I'm a high achiever please pay me lots of money". These people would probably be lost without a grading system of some kind and a lot of them are actually very smart people who probably should be at university.
That's an interesting point, however I doubt that the personal ego of some people is a strong enough reason to impose the grading system on everyone.
And while this more of a philosophical point than anything, I think that this form of competitiveness ("look, I'm better than you") is a major problem of today's society. Education should teach to work together, not against each other.
I agree to some extent, though that could be one reason employers are so happy about grades: they really do want people with those kinds of competitive characteristics.
Experiments in reducing the grade-centricness of universities have mostly foundered on employer objections. UC Santa Cruz for a while was famous for giving narrative evaluations instead of grades. Clases were formally graded pass/fail to indicate whether you met the minimum requirements to move on, and then in either case the professor wrote a one-page or so explanation of what you did well and poorly in the class, some advice, etc. In a sense the evaluation was still quite rigorous, just not boiled down to a single letter.
Companies hated this because they wanted to know which students had the 4.0 GPAs, and which had the 2.0 GPAs: a string of passes plus a stack of narrative reports didn't fit their evaluation model. So UCSC moved to allowing students who wanted to receive a grade along with the evaluation to opt into an A/B/C/D/F grading model alongside the narrative evaluation; eventually they made that mandatory; and finally just dropped the narrative evaluations.
True, if you are advertising a job and get 1000 applications how on earth do you find time to read all the narratives?
You would probably just have recruiters who would grade candidates on the basis of how many times the word "excellent" appeared on the report or similar, no doubt startups would pop up offering machine learning type solutions to these problems as well.
Not to mention it would be easier to corrupt the system as there would be more plausible deniability if a professor simply "forgot" to include some negative factors on the report.
Much easier just to filter numerically based on grade. Also most of the smart people who do enjoy the learning as an end in itself should know the material well enough to do well in an exam anyway and just view the process of revising for the exam and tweaking their coursework for good marks as "playing the game".
I find it truly sad when education has to conform to demands of companies, when instead it should be the other way round. A fail/pass system with a narrative evaluation would be much better for students at any age. It helps identify problems and, more importantly, discover strengths.
I'm not sure how that would work , the majority of the economy and employment is driven by business (there is also public sector and charity of course). Students need to get something from their college experience that makes them more valuable to someone who can pay them money otherwise it would be difficult to justify the fees and debt, especially to those from lower to middle income backgrounds.
I'm not convinced that academics are better qualified to predict the needs of society regards knowledge and education any more than the free market is.
Regards to helping students evaluate themselves , there is no reason that a professor cannot provide feedback in addition to assigning grades indeed I'm sure many would be happy to and it's more likely a case that many students are simply happy to get their grade and move on rather than evaluate themselves.
>I'm not convinced that academics are better qualified to predict the needs of society regards knowledge and education any more than the free market is.
On the contrary, I'm pretty sure the free market is the last thing qualified for that. It will always be a race to the bottom, and that's not something education should be.
I'm not sure I follow, a race to the bottom for whom? Students , Universities or Employers?
I'm talking about the "free market", which is a race to the bottom, which I really don't think anyone wants our education to become.