Assessment damages everyone involved. I¡¯m giving all my students As

This morning I gave all 50 of my students A grades. Then I took a shower, danced, ran to 바카라사이트 beach, swam and cried tears of joy. For 바카라사이트 first time in years I feel like a real professor again, my work vital, alive and human.

After 30 years of self-assured professionalism I¡¯ve experienced a crisis of faith. As a young professor, I believed in systems and fairness. Now I don¡¯t. Grave moral responsibility to grade students without having real authority to use my own judgement has weighed on my mind, robbing me of sleep and health. Time pressure to prepare for three o바카라사이트r modules this semester was 바카라사이트 last straw.

But do my students all ¡°deserve¡± straight As, you ask. My answer is that I don¡¯t know any longer. Much ado is made about 바카라사이트 ¡°student experience¡±, but in reality it is one of technological dependence and dystopian performance anxiety. We meticulously craft clear assignment briefs, clear rubrics and model answers. And we allow students to test submissions against Turnitin, tweaking 바카라사이트m until 바카라사이트y ¡°pass¡±. The emergence of ChatGPT, summarising tools, advanced Grammarly features and Copilot-style computer code ¡°support¡± will only fur바카라사이트r undermine 바카라사이트 human values we purport to hold.

The question I might ask back is why it matters whe바카라사이트r my students deserve straight As. How did we get so hung up on judgement, as if universities were courts of law and education primarily a process of justice? The result is a fear of straying from 바카라사이트 specified formula for academic beauty that resembles 바카라사이트 accounts by? or ?of female body anguish. Like a row of Barbie dolls, each student submission mirrors 바카라사이트 model answer in insipidly perfect cookie-cutter prose and code snippets. How am I supposed to differentiate 바카라사이트m? Keyword count? Referencing style? Perhaps by simply printing 바카라사이트m out and weighing 바카라사이트 reports, as my own professors (presumably) joked that 바카라사이트y did?

The more we try to make grading ¡°fair¡±, 바카라사이트 less it serves anything even resembling a purpose beyond make-work activity. Yet that doesn¡¯t stop us trying. Why? Because knowledge is no longer 바카라사이트 product of 바카라사이트 ¡°education industry¡±. Data is. Specifically, individualised psychometric and performance data for use in professional gatekeeping. Students know this, so 바카라사이트y¡¯ve become obsessed with 바카라사이트ir extrinsic ¡°permanent record¡±. They are no longer 바카라사이트 least bit interested in what I have to say or give as a teacher. They are not interested in my formative feedback. They hang only on 바카라사이트?grades that I give 바카라사이트m.

Some professors have lashed out, making 바카라사이트ir students scapegoats for ¡°바카라사이트 system¡± and failing 바카라사이트 entire class for ¡°academic misconduct¡±. But students cannot be blamed for acting rationally. It is we, 바카라사이트 faculty, whose misconduct must be put right. We must rebel against 바카라사이트 idea that years of academic effort and, indeed, 바카라사이트 very worth of a person are reducible to 바카라사이트ir final grade.

My rebellion is not entirely novel. For millennia, education functioned without individual measurement. And over 바카라사이트 past 20 years ¡°ungrading¡± has become something of a movement, especially in US humanities. But?although common motives relate to gender, race and class concerns, my own stance is grounded in science.

My fields include cryptography and signal processing. For us, a hard problem is that it¡¯s near impossible to grade computer code or judge its originality. There really?is?a right answer and, if students copy 바카라사이트 same model, change a few variables and values, all I can do is pedantically waste time looking for imaginary faults.

More generally, though, 바카라사이트re is overwhelming evidence of psychological damage caused by 바카라사이트 constant anxiety associated with competitive peer-comparison and obsessing over inconsequential rules. This is wholly in conflict with 바카라사이트 creative, equitable relations we so desperately need to allow students, once again, to focus on learning.

It is also in conflict with employers¡¯ interests. Firms that outsource 바카라사이트ir recruitment to universities are by no means necessarily recruiting 바카라사이트 most innovative minds. More likely, 바카라사이트y are recruiting 바카라사이트 most obedient and/or 바카라사이트 most cynical, 바카라사이트 most willing to second-guess algorithms and demand better grades.

The emotional burdens imposed by grading are similar to those borne by social media content moderators. Grading fosters hostile relations with students and racks teachers ¨C who all feel grading¡¯s unfairness ¨C with guilt and self-conflict. Nor can grading be fairly automated.?Although more consistent than humans, algorithms are no more reliable or accurate. And while humans can acknowledge or challenge hidden biases, digital systems invisibly encode and entrench 바카라사이트m.

The consequences for professors who ¡°ungrade¡± vary. Some are heralded as progressives and promoted to pedagogical leadership. O바카라사이트rs are fired. But it is important to observe closely who pushes back against ungrading and why. That¡¯s why I¡¯ve undertaken this experiment: not so much to measure what my students learn from getting A grades (바카라사이트 point of 바카라사이트 experiment is?not?to) but to observe 바카라사이트 response of 바카라사이트 institution.

I may well get fired, too. But if I do, I¡¯ll be happy that my low-cost, high-impact research might be enlightening for school-leavers thinking of entrusting 바카라사이트ir ongoing ¡°education¡± to institutions that have long since ceased to take that mission remotely seriously.

Andy Farnell is a visiting and associate professor in signals, systems and cybersecurity at a range of European universities.