Different colleges have shown leniency in ranking student s due to the stiff competition posed by the private institution and increased demand for students with higher grades. The tolerance in grading has let the college standards down, thus reflecting negativity in the education process. According to Brent (1998 pp 22-19), the grading system, especially in US colleges, should be in the public domain giving the reasons and the effects of students grades. Despite the fact, he focuses on the management of the Universities and colleges, the implication of such grading to the student’s performance both in life and workplace.
The concern of colleges should be on student’s performance rather than focusing on multiplying their consumers forcing the students to concentrate more on getting A’s than performing.
The community institutions have been affected negatively because of colleges awarding students with A’s that they do not deserve. For example, the professors are afraid of negative evaluation of students and keeping them happy since they depend on their fee to survive such as job security, part-time tutoring (Daniel Pp 6-11). Students have become the custodians of their career fate, in that” a student can now determine what they get in grading. As a result, private colleges and universities such as the University of Phoenix have dignified highly and recommended to those willing to put effort and get standard diplomas.
The questions that both the students and the professors need to address are, whether their happiness is from the A’s they get instead of a D that they deserve. Or is it that the all concept of studies is to obtain the grade that the college is willing to award, not considering how the student performs. Brent argues that the increase in the education level leading to high demand for students and stiff competition among Universities has led to the transformation of in the grading policies, giving students free A’s that they do not deserve. It is somewhat absurd to notice that many professors feel obliged to award students with more A’s to avoid the cancellation of such courses, thus satisfying their reputation and retaining their classes (Cooper pp.22-29).
Additionally, David Brook (pp177-180) argues that the fundamental values of education in fading because of forged grades. And it is just wrong for students to obtain degrees that they have not toiled to achieve. There is no value in learning and getting grades that do not reflect your contribution in the education process. The concept that the students prepare enough to obtain high degrees does not make much sense, but the increase is instead because of the demands put across by both parents and students to measure the worth of their money about education grading.
For example, a Duke University professor, Valen Johnson, faced numerous criticisms for proposing for the restructuring the grading system giving some courses higher weight than others than others. The idea significantly opposed by both students and teachers who felt threaten by students neglecting their sessions and attending the less graded courses. David Brooks in his book, “The Gender Gap at School” reflects on the fact the fallen young men are students who have read.
The society moves towards the future more closely as the day pass. Due to the technological transformation that provides a platform to access information more efficiently and learning made simpler and cheap, people would understand the importance of reading and the education process (David pp177-180). Despite the technological advancement if the educational sector, some young men continue to develop negatively. The gender concepts in different colleges have made education process to lose meaning in the society. For example, the single-gender colleges develop the students understanding of studies, especially in faith-based school. However, the outcome in performance is more demanding than in coeducation (Idemudia et al. 6675-6684). The creation of division in classes creates stereotyping among students, thus impacting on their concentration negatively. In conclusion, Education, especially in University schools, has lost meaning because of an ideology that both students and professors hold.
Unlike in colleges where most courses are practical, most courses in the University are theoretical, and with the development of technology, University students copy paste everything online, thus not being able to think for themselves critically. The female gender takes advantage of the professors to obtain A’s that they do not work hard enough to achieve. The grading system in colleges should be looked upon to bring meaning to the education process (Graff et al. pp. 181). For example, grading system should be on performance, and the technicality of the course a student is undertaking, rather than basing grades on demands of students and their parents. Also, the high demand and tight competition in colleges should reflect performances based on actual degrees, and not free A’s awarded. Professors should be stiff on students to uproot actual results and improve on their performances.
The negativity in the education process is alarming, and governments need to intervene to produce qualified and productive employees in the society.
- Brent Staples, “Why Colleges Shower, Their Students with A’s” op-ed page by New York Times on March 8, 1998, pp 938-1072.
- David Brooks, “The Gender Gap at School” the New York edition with the headline: The Gender Gap at School. JUNE 11, 2006 pp177-180.
- Daniel Corner, Response to Why Colleges Shower Their Students with A’s, Wednesday, 14 October 2009. Pp 6-11.
- Graff, Gerald Cathy Birkenstein, They Say/I Say the Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. New York: Norton. pp. 181 (2006).
- Cooper, Michelle. “Student support services at community colleges: A strategy for increasing student persistence and attainment.” Institute for Higher Education Policy (2010): 22-29.
- Idemudia, Erhabor S. and Nkele E. Sekano. “Gender, grade level, PEN scores and risk-taking behavior of adolescent learners in South Africa.” Gender and Behavior 13.2 (2015): 6675-6684.