Grades and Testing

Goodman argues that grading should be done away with. He assumes that if prestigious universities abolish grading, then others would feel the same effects of it and follow along. He thinks that students are only concerned with what they "have" to know, rather than what they "want" to know. There is more interest in passing the class with a competetive grade, than in actually wanting to learn the material. He states this in the phrase, "The naive teacher points to the beauty of the subject and the ingenuity of the research; the shrewd student asks if he is responsible for that on the final exam." (19). He goes on to say that even very intelligent and bright students can become sick of a certain subject, can have a lot of common sense but not very book smart, and can become school-tired. These factors can effect a student's performance and ultimately lead to a bad grade, which will represent his or her intelligence even if they are smart. I can see where Goodman is coming from when he says to abolish grading. I know from experience that even if I want to pursue a subject, a bad grade hinders me from doing so. Sometimes, the grade is not only dependent on the student's performance and difficulty of the subject matter, but also on the teacher. There is a difference between good and bad teachers and how well the students learn from each one. I can also disagree with the banning of grades because how else would one be motivated? Grades are a way to evaluate performance and skills in a certain area. If I had a strong desire to be a dentist, but couldn't pass chemistry with a good grade, I probably would have to rethink my future plans because most dental schools think of grades as how well a student understands basic concepts.

Gardner believes that even though tests are necessary, they shouldn't be timed. He says, "The original thinking behind the SAT is that individuals possess varying scholastic apptitudes. The SAT is designed to discover those who've got the intellectual goods and merit a college education" (23). This is true, however, any student would be able to come up with the right answer if they were given an unlimited amount of time on a test, especially if outside resources were available. What he does not mention is that identifying correct answers in a certain amount of time evaluates how well one can perform under pressure. Like the editorial letter says, college and life itself are factors of major pressure. If one can not do well under pressure, they are more unlikely to succeed. I also agree with one of the other letters that compares good marks from a student who took more time and could use outside resources to the good marks of a student who finished in the set amount of time with no resources. They look the same, but schools won't know who actually has the better skills.

Ravitch defends testing by saying, "tests are a necessary fact of life [...] and play a constructive role" (26). Tests let us know how well we are doing compared to others on the same level as us or the same age as us. They let us know who can advance to the next level and who has to be held back in order to do good and get the best education as possible. I strongly believe these statements. I understand that students can buckle under pressure and have anxiety when it comes to tests, because I am one of them. But tests are good measurements of what one has learned and how well their skills have developed throughout the years. Education is taught step by step in sequences. If one doesn't master the first step, the second step and every other one after that will be much harder to accomplish. I think our world would be disaturous if professionals, and drivers, and other occupationalists weren't tested on their skills. What if a doctor was doing brain surgery on you without being tested of his or her knowledge? Scary!