Paul Goodman believes that grading should be abolished. His proposal is situated around the idea that grading in certain environments is negative. His first argument is that "grading hinders teaching and creates a bad spirit, such as cheating and plagiarism" (20). Looking particularly at Harvard and other Ivy League colleges, he points out that employers will be more impressed that you were there than what your grades were. It's similar with other employers today. What matters is that you have your bachelor's degree in whatever, that you survived the four years of classes and tests. Unfortunately, you need a 2.0 GPA to get a degree, and that involves a lot of tests and exams. Goodman's argument is that testing does not determine one's full extent of capabilities. If the aim of testing is to filter out our weaknesses, then there is no need for it. Also, if the aim of testing is to keep students from being lazy, then grading is of no use. Goodman argues that laziness is a character-defense, meaning we are not being challenged or this class is just not needed. Overall, Goodman agrees that "there are several good reasons for testing, and kinds of tests" (21). However, he feels that they are overused in higher education and create problems such as cheating and plagiarism. Tests should be used for positive results, and not used to sort weaknesses and keep students busy.
Gardner believes that standardized tests should not have a time limit. Standardized tests do not represent real world situations. Gardner believes that "background knowledge, seriousness of purpose, and effort - not speed and glibness - are the essentials of good scholarship" (24). A more appropriate option to standardized tests might include a larger variety of questions other than multiple choice, and no time limit to testing. This might allow students to show their true colors. There are, however, many objections to this point. The first is the simple fact that students want to be done with standardized tests ASAP. I don't want to be tested for more than three or four hours. Why don't you just torture me instead? Secondly, these tests need to be graded quickly and fairly. Anything other than multiple choice would call for unwarranted labor on part of the test results. Standardized testing is a necessary evil to help sort out those who are ready for the next level of education.
Diane Ravitch believes that testing is important and vital to education. She believes that standardized tests are not a way of weeding out the weak, but finding those that have a higher learning capability. Tests in everyday life help to keep us safe from "hazardous products and shoddy professionals". Standardized tests in education are leading to help children with learning problems and giving them extra help. Diane has many good points, and is very positive about testing in schools. She admits that tests that have more diversity - short answer, essay, and multiple choice - are better indicators of a child's knowledge.
All three authors offer valid points regarding testing. I've always hated standardized tests, but do believe they are a necessary evil when evaluating college entrance for students. Goodman's beliefs about testing are negative, and they do bring out the worst in some students. However, testing is essential in certain elements of society. My personal experience with tests is that if I have paid attention all semester, I only have to study for finals for 4-6 hours to receive a good grade. However, if I slacked off and was lazy, I have to study a lot more and am not even guaranteed a good grade. Grades are like salaries: the harder you work for them, the easier they will come.