Grades and Authority

I was recently thinking about the problems of grades and authority in the classroom. It seems that many teachers nowadays value an egalitarian relationship with students. In principle, this makes perfect sense. In practice, it conflicts with the standard academic system and the commonly held belief that those with more wisdom than you have the authority to evaluate your merits. Constructivist perspectives in education challenge that to some degree. They argue that students' perspectives should be considered as the context for evaluating their work. However, I see no way of justifying grades out of being a somewhat derogatory act, even in the off chance a teacher can really understand a students' perspective.

Anything short of an A surely discredits some of a student's merits (certainly one could have an A in effort but a D in content). Even A's are sometimes off putting. I recall receiving a C on a paper that I thought was pretty good, and from the same professor an A on a paper that I thought was pretty bad. I felt that I was somewhat duped. I quickly got over it, after considering how hard it is properly to evaluate and consider the (sometimes obscured) meaning that students are trying to get across. It is a hard job for everyone, since students are also faced with the challenge of needing to understand the professor's perspectives.

Consider what a grade is supposed to represent. Admissions officials and employers infer an applicant's ability, knowledge, interest, capacity, motivation, work ethic, etc. from his/her GPA. Therefore, for it to hold valuable purpose, it must represent at least some of those capacities (which ones are a very important question). I see a fundamental flaw in thinking an A in a class represents my knowledge and ability in that subject. In fact, many professors admittedly grade only on the consideration of a student's fulfillment of requirements. They hope to secure meaning in the grades by means of quantitative data alone. But I would argue this attempt is somewhat futile. Outstanding students may fail to meet some requirements for individual reasons (some that a humanist/constructivist would seek to sympathize with). Is it fair to give them unsatisfactory grades? And how about those students who have figured out the easiest way to get an A with little to no genuine work or gain?

It is arguable that quantitative data alone cannot provide insight into a student's ability and knowledge. I believe that it more likely represents something like motivation or work ethic (sometimes, but often inaccurately), but only when grades are averaged over a long period of time. However, my level of motivation has certainly changed a few times in the past 8 years, and I myself am entirely uncertain of my future work ethic. And my GPA certainly doesn't help me know that one. But that is exactly what the admissions officials at universities will inference from my GPA; same with my future employers. They will also try to inference my ability, knowledge, interest, capacities, etc.

The teacher has a position of authority over students in our academic system, in part because they are said to have the wisdom to judge a student's merits rightly, and because they do in fact act as key determiners in every student's academic and professional fate. Therefore, it is the teacher's duty to be absolutely certain that he/she does so properly. This duty is imposed by two facts: 1) they are trusted as being responsible for the student's future, and 2) every student looks to their teacher as a source of information and valuable input into their own self. The teacher will cause harm to all students (since grades are comparative) by failing to perform his/her duties.