| > A degree from a university that has gotten rid of grades will not be worth much compared to one that hasn't. You may be surprised to learn that quite a few well-regarded universities adopted this sort of policy years ago. In particular, grading freshmen pass/fail is not uncommon. >The idea of someone not getting accreditation in a course because they already knew the material beforehand and so didn't learn anything is completely wrongheaded and abhorrent. Whoa, Nelly! No one is talking about refusing degrees to students who read too much. I don't know where you got that idea. It definitely wasn't from Jody Greene. Right now, attending university is both an education and a credential. These two goals are in tension, and both are compromised as a result. Students should be able to pursue an education without fear that trying something challenging will permanently affect their career. Employers looking for proof of knowledge shouldn't care where or how that knowledge was learned. >To "tell whether you are graduating people with skills", you need a test of those skills. Right. >That's a grade. Wrong. Traditional letter grades are one way of measuring mastery, but the interviewees in this article describe a few alternatives. Sadly they don't describe these alternatives in detail. I wish this article were a bit more nuts-and-bolts. It leaves more questions than it answers. |