standards of grading in education contracts: the decline in education's standards
In the realm of academic discourse, a new system called contract grading is gaining traction. This innovative approach, which allows students and teachers to create agreements regarding the criteria needed for a certain grade, has sparked heated debates among educators and students alike.
Proponents of contract grading argue that it empowers students by offering them the freedom to choose their path when it comes to tackling their course, picking and choosing which assignments to complete. They believe that this system fosters a more personalised learning experience, tailored to the individual needs and interests of each student.
However, arguments against contract grading in higher education often focus on concerns about its impact on equity, student development, and academic rigor. Critics argue that contract grading may reduce academic rigor because students agree in advance to complete certain tasks for a guaranteed grade, potentially leading to a minimum-effort mindset. This can undermine the motivation to exceed basic requirements and challenge students to excel beyond a preset contract.
Moreover, concerns about equity arise as students with more academic support or better initial skills might negotiate more favourable contracts or more easily meet contract terms, while students facing external challenges might struggle to fulfill contract conditions, leading to disparities in final grades based on non-academic factors.
Opponents also worry that contract grading could limit holistic student development. By focusing narrowly on completing agreed-upon tasks, students may not be encouraged to engage deeply with material, take intellectual risks, or develop resilience through overcoming traditional grading challenges.
Implementing contract grading requires significant upfront negotiation and ongoing monitoring, which can be time-consuming for instructors. It also demands high levels of trust and communication between students and faculty, which may not be feasible in large or high-enrollment courses. There is concern that too much student choice or leniency could weaken the structure of courses and complicate instructors’ assessment expertise.
Furthermore, the potential for grade inflation or grade disputes looms large. Because contracts guarantee certain grades if conditions are met, there may be less incentive for instructors to critically differentiate levels of student performance beyond the contract, possibly leading to grade inflation. Additionally, students might push to renegotiate contracts or appeal grades, creating tension and ethical dilemmas for faculty.
Yale University has recently reinstated SAT score requirements for undergraduate applications, indicating a shift towards traditional grading methods. This decision might suggest a growing concern about the potential pitfalls of alternative grading systems like contract grading.
Notably, Ashwin Prabaharan, the Chief Opinions Editor at Dartmouth College, wrote an opinion piece in defence of standardized testing for college admissions. Prabaharan's piece, published in the "Opinions" section, emphasised the importance of standardised testing as a means of ensuring fairness and objectivity in the admission process. However, it is important to note that the opinion piece was written in a personal capacity and does not reflect an official endorsement by Dartmouth College or any of its entities.
As academia continues to evolve, the debate over traditional versus innovative grading systems will undoubtedly persist. The beauty of academia lies in its personalisation, with professors being chosen for their skill set and potential to mould students. As we move forward, it is crucial to strike a balance between innovation and tradition, ensuring that all students have the opportunity to thrive and grow within our educational institutions.
- The new contract grading system in higher education has divided opinions among educators and students, with proponents arguing that it promotes personalized learning by offering students the freedom to choose their educational path.
- Nevertheless, opponents worry that this system could impact equity, student development, and academic rigor, as it may encourage a minimum-effort mindset and lead to disparities in final grades based on non-academic factors.
- Large universities like Yale, for instance, have reinstated SAT score requirements for undergraduate applications, which might signal a growing concern about alternative grading systems like contract grading.
- Concurrently, the debate over traditional versus innovative grading systems persists in academia, with scholars emphasizing the importance of balancing innovation and tradition to provide a conducive environment for all students to thrive and grow.
