Samantha Fulnecky, a Junior at the University of Oklahoma, filed a formal complaint after receiving 0 points out of a possible 25 points on a class essay in which she cited the Bible to defend traditional gender roles and push back on gender fluidity. The assignment, graded by trans professor Mel Curth, asked students to respond to an article on perceptions of gender roles. In the essay, Fulnecky insisted that gender roles are not socially constructed but ordained by God and claimed that thinking otherwise would harm society because gender fluidity diverges “from God’s original plan for humans.” Many issues pop up here: politics, religion, and gender studies seem to be the most salient. However, I think the this incident sheds light on a greater point of contention in academia: the act of grading, itself.
The Fulnecky incident at University of Oklahoma took off because she received a failing grade. If she had received a respectable grade, would Curth’s feedback have prompted her to make a formal complaint? I don’t think a score of 15 out of 25 would have induced the same social media storm, a suspension of Curth, or a reaction from the Governor. The grade is the thing, and the act of grading is something worth looking at.
I am not the only one who thinks so. The act of grading has emerged as its own subject matter, especially in my field of Rhetoric and Composition. Traditional grading involves a hierarchy of merit involving assigning letter grades based on work quality. Traditional grading, however, is getting a bad rap from many academics who argue for alternative and social justice-oriented modes of student evaluation.
Grading has always been a touchy subject in my career, but I think it is now having a moment. The most meticulous rubric could still have enough subjective wiggle room to encourage a student’s dispute, as we can glean from the Fulnecky incident. I believe better student preparation can go a long way in assuaging this issue, but some scholars have decided to lean into this and created alternatives to traditional grading. Given my experience as a professor and what I know about alternative forms of grading, I still think traditional grading has more upside than downside, and that alternative forms of grading do more harm than good.
Grading Alternatives
One alternative to traditional grading is “labor-based grading,” a method of evaluation that gives more emphasis to the work put into an essay than the quality of the actual essay. Don’t know how to craft an introductory paragraph or properly use a semicolon? No problem! No one can fail if they work hard enough.
Many scholars who support this form of “grading” cite unavoidable human subjectivity as the reason to emphasize labor over quality, but the main motivation seems to be ideological. For most proponents of labor-based grading see traditional grading as a system driven by “whiteness,” therefore making the teaching of writing to non-white students a form of oppression. This may seem like a far cry from the Fulnecky issue, but it really is not. Fulnecky claimed that anti-Christian and or progressive gender ideology was the reason for her failing grade. This means that ideology, in general, is perceived to be the issue.
In addition to labor-based grading, there is the practice of “ungrading.” Ungrading happens when traditional grade is abandoned for feedback and dialogue, alone. Students write self-evaluations and propose their own final grade. Before you call this ludicrous, Schools like Baylor , Duke, and Columbia are experimenting with it. Evergreen State College and other small liberal arts colleges embrace ungrading throughout their curricula.
Putting the political and religious issues aside, I can see why these grading alternatives are attractive to some educators; the Fulnecky incident could have been avoided with a labor-based or ungrading form of evaluation. These systems assuage stress on both sides of the professor/student dichotomy. Professors are relieved of the burden of rigorous assessment and students are relieved of the pressure to produce a well-written essay. Professors can relax and students can give themselves A’s with no pushback. Everyone’s happy. So why grade?
So Why Grade?
To be clear, the idea that grading is the problem does not prompt me to embrace labor-based assessment or ungrading. It does, however, further cement a suspicion I’ve had about those grading practices all along: it’s just easier and better for business. It seems like everyone can get what they want. What’s more, students are seen less as minds to be educated and more as clients to be satisfied with the “product” of an education. The business maxim, “the customer is always right,” comes to mind; with labor-based grading and ungrading, the student is always right.
With these grading practices, it is almost impossible to fail. (I wonder if some students actually fail themselves! I’d love to talk to them.) It is also almost impossible for a professor to suffer a student’s ire. Even if a professor’s feedback is disagreeable to a student, a guaranteed passing grade may douse a fiery dispute. Again, if Fulnecky had received an A, we probably would not know her name.
I don’t think these modes of alternate grading are good things. I think we need a clear and shared discourse of standards, and I think employers and managers of the world should be engaged on a regular basis to discern which hard and soft skills are most necessary. That would be better to align grading with real world expectations and help clarify what distinguishes an A from a B.
This is not to say that labor-based grading and ungrading don’t have their place. (I think they align with the complexities of problem-based learning in which both teachers and outside stakeholders evaluate student work.) But generally, I think we still need traditional grading; we need real and discernable distinctions between good and bad work. Students need to be incentivized to know the difference, because evaluators beyond academia (e.g., employers and supervisors) will definitely know. Being “ungraded” could get someone “unhired.”
In addition, I believe incentive is a strong driver, and ambition can be harnessed. “Chasing grades” has been coded as shallow, but I think it is quite profound. I truly enjoyed most of my college and graduate school classes and wanted to do well out of a genuine thirst for knowledge, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t get a substantial dopamine hit when I earned an A.
Grades did not stress me out; they invigorated and enthused me, and I wanted to do all I could to get the best grade. This meant honing my resourcefulness and agency, which in turn bolstered my confidence in successfully navigating the world. It meant meeting with professors during their office hours to get a better grasp of the course content or work out ideas of my own. When I got a bad grade, I would talk to the professor about why and how I could improve.
I have also seen the efficacy of extrinsic motivation as a professor. When I gave alternative grading a shot (I had 5 small assignments that I didn’t grade but counted toward class participation) many students did not like it. They wanted confirmation of an actual grade. Beyond my own experience, research shows that removing extrinsic motivation like grades has a detrimental effect on many students’ performances. Gradeless grading caters to a certain kind of “self-regulating” student: those with high self-discipline and prior preparation. Not every student (I dare say not most students) fit that description.
Traditional Grading Isn’t the Problem
I do not think grades are the problem. I think attitudes toward grades are the problem. I wonder what would have happened if Fulnecky and her professor had a face-to-face, civil conversation about the grade. We can’t know for sure, but it probably would have garnered more than 0 points on the assignment. Perhaps that is the real lesson here.