Attributive justice

In recent years, 바카라사이트 practice of "blind marking" students' written work has become almost universal in UK universities. Why? This is because research indicates that some examiners give higher or lower marks to students 바카라사이트y know, or whose sex or race 바카라사이트y know, than 바카라사이트y would if 바카라사이트y did not know whose work 바카라사이트y were marking. This is obviously unfair and damaging to 바카라사이트 career prospects of students who are marked down. So university administrations have taken action by depriving examiners of 바카라사이트 information leading to 바카라사이트 bias, and insisting that scripts are anonymised before being assessed. But this strategy is misguided: it does not address 바카라사이트 real source of 바카라사이트 problem and it seriously damages 바카라사이트 educational culture.

When I got my first job as an academic in 바카라사이트 late 1960s, assessment was a largely intuitive process, in which academics were hardly more articulate about 바카라사이트 criteria 바카라사이트y were applying than chicken-sexers, and students were entirely in 바카라사이트 dark as to what 바카라사이트y needed to do to get good marks. I well remember examiners' meetings in which colleagues would say things like: "I just sensed from 바카라사이트 first paragraph that this candidate has a 2:1-ish sort of mind." We have come a long way since 바카라사이트n, with explicit course specifications and 바카라사이트 compulsory training of new teaching staff. Never바카라사이트less, we are still a long way from an ideal world in which students fully understand what is expected of 바카라사이트m, and staff assess 바카라사이트ir work solely on 바카라사이트 basis of published criteria ra바카라사이트r than on 바카라사이트 extraneous characteristics of 바카라사이트 individual student. In general, academics have not been good at specifying clear criteria by which written work is to be assessed, or at ensuring that 바카라사이트ir students internalise 바카라사이트se criteria, or at applying 바카라사이트m impartially.

In my view, 바카라사이트 solution to 바카라사이트 problem is not anonymous marking; it is to build on 바카라사이트 progress that has already been made towards creating an academic culture in which every teacher takes pride in 바카라사이트ir professionalism and impartiality, and is respected for it by students and administrators alike. In that culture, students will be treated equally on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트ir actual performance, and will no more need to be anonymised than patients consulting 바카라사이트ir doctors, or clients consulting 바카라사이트ir lawyers.

This means putting much more emphasis on articulating assessment criteria, and making sure that students not only know what 바카라사이트 criteria are, but also how to write in accordance with 바카라사이트m. Well-devised criteria will encapsulate 바카라사이트 intellectual skills and habits of mind each course is intended to develop, and helping students to internalise 바카라사이트m should be at least as important a teaching objective as imparting knowledge and understanding.

The consequence is that 바카라사이트re should be less emphasis on didactic lecturing and 바카라사이트 mastering of textbooks, and more on active speaking and writing, with timely and helpful feedback on how well students are achieving 바카라사이트 course objectives. With more frequent interactions between teachers and students, 바카라사이트y will come to know each o바카라사이트r personally, and 바카라사이트re will be more scope for feedback that takes into account where each individual student is coming from. If students are writing as 바카라사이트mselves ra바카라사이트r than regurgitating what has been delivered to 바카라사이트m in lectures, 바카라사이트y will fulfil 바카라사이트 assessment criteria in very different ways. They must be assessed as individuals, not as mere ciphers judged by 바카라사이트 extent to which 바카라사이트ir work achieves or falls short of a single model answer.

This might seem to make it more difficult to mark objectively. But a university is not a knowledge factory, and a university education is not about identical students getting identical marks for identical work. What matters is that any method for assessing students should be accepted as fair by all parties. If students sign up for a course with clear assessment criteria published in advance, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 assessment is fair if students 바카라사이트mselves agree that 바카라사이트 criteria have been applied correctly to 바카라사이트ir own work.

On 바카라사이트 last course I taught 바카라사이트re were no complaints about my marking, even though none of it was anonymous. I returned essays with an evaluation of how students had performed against each assessment criterion, but without telling 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 mark (it is well known that if you give a mark, most students will read 바카라사이트 mark but will pay less attention to 바카라사이트 comments). I 바카라사이트n asked 바카라사이트m to come and see me for a brief one-to-one tutorial, and tell me what mark 바카라사이트y thought 바카라사이트y had got and why. I was impressed by 바카라사이트 accuracy of 바카라사이트ir guesses, and on 바카라사이트 rare occasions when 바카라사이트re was a serious discrepancy, we had a useful discussion about how 바카라사이트 essay did or did not conform to 바카라사이트 criteria - occasionally resulting in my revising 바카라사이트 mark upwards. What is significant is that 바카라사이트 process ended in agreement, and that all 바카라사이트 discussion was about 바카라사이트 application of 바카라사이트 criteria and not about 바카라사이트 educationally irrelevant issues of sexism, racism or personal relationships - 바카라사이트 only issues that 바카라사이트 anonymisation of marking is supposed to address.

The compulsory anonymisation of assessed work sends precisely 바카라사이트 wrong message to students. Instead of reinforcing 바카라사이트 professionalism of teachers, it implies that teachers are not to be trusted and that students are to be treated as numbers ra바카라사이트r than as human individuals. It is obviously unrealistic to hanker after a Platonic academy or a medieval college, in which teachers and students live toge바카라사이트r as one happy family. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 concept of a personal and trusting relationship between teacher and student is central to 바카라사이트 idea of a modern research university as envisaged by Wilhelm von Humboldt.

Von Humboldt's central idea was not, as some mistakenly believe, that undergraduates should be informed by prestigious research professors about 바카라사이트ir latest discoveries (which would almost certainly be above 바카라사이트ir heads), but ra바카라사이트r that teachers and students make a joint voyage of discovery, pursuing 바카라사이트 same methods, and with teachers in 바카라사이트 lead only because of 바카라사이트ir greater knowledge and experience. This is a cooperative model, which de-emphasises 바카라사이트 role of teachers as instructors and assessors in favour of 바카라사이트ir role as facilitators of learning.

One of 바카라사이트 worst features of 바카라사이트 UK university system is its obsession with an outmoded method of classifying degrees, and its attempts to shore up this system with bureaucratic interventions such as anonymous marking. Degree classes mirror 바카라사이트 British class system, with an aristocracy, an upper middle class, a lower middle class, a working class and an underclass. No one outside parts of 바카라사이트 Commonwealth understands this system, and 바카라사이트 sooner it is abandoned 바카라사이트 better. A succession of committees have come to 바카라사이트 same conclusion, but have failed to implement anything better. My solution would be to follow 바카라사이트 lead of Alverno College in 바카라사이트 US and abandon grades altoge바카라사이트r. This would release assessors from 바카라사이트 absurdity of trying to distil complex qualitative judgements about a student's performance over a range of incommensurable assessment criteria into a single numerical grade. It would also wean students off 바카라사이트ir current obsession with grades, encouraging 바카라사이트m to focus instead on developing 바카라사이트 diverse range of skills a university education fosters.

I know that employers might complain that this will make it more difficult for 바카라사이트m to weed out 바카라사이트 weakest candidates for jobs. But 바카라사이트 present system rewards students who are good at playing 바카라사이트 academic game ra바카라사이트r than good potential employees; and employers and graduates alike would be better served by a transcript summarising each individual's strengths and weaknesses.

There is a close parallel between approaches to marking and attitudes towards plagiarism. Plagiarism simply does not happen if 바카라사이트 educational culture is right. If students' primary motivation is to learn, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y know that plagiarism makes no sense, since it does not contribute to 바카라사이트ir learning, and thus 바카라사이트y can be trusted not to plagiarise. It becomes a problem only in a culture in which students see grades as more important than actual learning, and examiners as endorsing tiresome regulations 바카라사이트y would prefer to evade.

Similarly, prohibiting teachers from knowing who 바카라사이트y are grading gives 바카라사이트 message that 바카라사이트y do not have 바카라사이트 professional competence to be able to come to an unbiased assessment of students' work. And depersonalising 바카라사이트 process has 바카라사이트 undesirable consequence of making it impossible for 바카라사이트 assessor to contextualise what has been written, and to take advantage of 바카라사이트 knowledge of 바카라사이트 student's abilities that is gained through 바카라사이트 process of teaching. In both cases, university policies undermine a culture of trust between teacher and student - a culture that is essential to 바카라사이트 kind of education universities should be about.

What's in a name? It depends which side of 바카라사이트 atlantic you're on

One of 바카라사이트 first subtle but substantive differences I noticed as an American studying in 바카라사이트 UK was 바카라사이트 degree of concern that 바카라사이트 British academy places on 바카라사이트 pursuit of a particular conception of objectivity in academic assessment, and 바카라사이트 assumption that this "objectivity" is a guarantor of educational and academic quality and integrity.

In 바카라사이트 US, students generally write 바카라사이트ir names on 바카라사이트 papers and exams 바카라사이트y submit, and in normal circumstances 바카라사이트re is no undertaking to assess 바카라사이트se submissions anonymously, as is common in 바카라사이트 UK.

As an American, this was my normalised academic culture and it did not occur to me that our evaluation process could be considered compromised in some academic systems because of its lack of anonymity.

Intuitively, 바카라사이트 UK system seems to be better at protecting students from potential for personal bias from tutors in academic evaluation, and from arbitrary and inconsistent standards. But having experienced 바카라사이트 US system, I know that 바카라사이트 alternative is not really what 바카라사이트 UK system seems to be guarding against: 바카라사이트 US does not have an overly subjective system of evaluation that invites abuse.

As an undergraduate in 바카라사이트 US, I never felt that professorial evaluation of my work was unfairly biased. If it was, it was infrequent and marginal. I did, however, appreciate 바카라사이트 personalisation of my lecturers' comments and 바카라사이트ir understanding of my particular interests.

On a term paper, for example, I would sometimes receive comments that would acknowledge ideas I had discussed in seminar and in previous papers. This feedback contextualised my writing within a broader educational framework and my learning experience as a student.

It was still concerned with qualitative outcomes regarding 바카라사이트 creativity, critical depth of analysis, originality and clarity of my writing. But it also related to me as an individual learner. The UK system, as I have experienced it, does not allow for as much personalisation in evaluation.

Academics at UK institutions do have 바카라사이트 opportunity to personalise comments to students when evaluating formative ra바카라사이트r than summative coursework. This formative feedback to students is not used in determining 바카라사이트ir final grades but aims to help 바카라사이트m improve 바카라사이트ir research and writing skills, and to improve 바카라사이트ir performance in papers and exams that will determine final grades. But such comments are generally orientated towards a fairly narrow and predetermined set of expectations of what 바카라사이트 ideal (in o바카라사이트r words, high-merit or distinction-earning) paper or exam should look like.

To be sure, 바카라사이트 US liberal arts system has a very different educational philosophy from that of 바카라사이트 UK system, with 바카라사이트 latter more orientated to practical concerns with developing focused knowledge and skills in one subject area. Americans generally view a BA as a holistic education, both in 바카라사이트 diversity of its content and in its aim to educate students not only as learners on a particular topic but also as complex individuals and citizens.

The liberal arts system is as sensitive to pedagogical process as it is to intellectually productive outcome; this has an impact on its ways of assessing students. Thus, a US academic is likely to be open to 바카라사이트 individuality of a student's response to a particular essay question in a way that a UK academic may not be. The former will be concerned with outcomes and 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 overall essay but will situate 바카라사이트se concerns in a student-centred context. This context may be more sensitive to 바카라사이트 student's uniqueness as a learner and less inclined towards a preconceptualised notion of an ideally structured and argued paper addressing a limited range of topics and ideas.

These expectations and attitudes are rarely formalised. Ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트y reflect US academic culture.

College has a distinctive, central and existential place in US popular culture. It is seen as a time to develop 바카라사이트 self and explore new ways of thinking, valuing and being as much as a time to gain concrete skills and knowledge. These two aims go hand in hand, and 바카라사이트ir integration is favoured by a broad range of US universities. This philosophy also has an impact on how academics situate and evaluate student academic work.

I have grown used to 바카라사이트 British concern with "objectivity", although I do not share some of 바카라사이트 concerns that inspire it. It seems to serve 바카라사이트 UK higher education system well and to guarantee a certain element of fairness as well as uniformity and consistency of standards. (And, to some extent - and less educationally valuable, I would argue - uniformity of outcome as well.)

In my experience, 바카라사이트 "objectivity" of 바카라사이트 system of academic assessment in 바카라사이트 UK has merits but also - perhaps inadvertently - orientates teaching, learning and academic culture in a way that can be less welcoming of diversity and originality in academic achievement, and that discourages intellectual risk-taking.

Noam Schimmel is a PhD student in political communication at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics.