Editor's note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
Among the thousands of students on campus, we all share one experience — getting graded. You may have strong thoughts and memories about grading. You may have been docked points for missing a class because the bus was late. Or at the end of the semester when you were a mere .01% off from the next letter grade.
Those experiences are all too familiar. The practices underlying those experiences have serious flaws, and it is time for Indiana University to join the growing number of schools and professors ditching them.
The practice of grading became commonplace in the United States in 1865. Since then, it has been an everyday part of the educational experience. It is hard to imagine education without it. But what is the purpose of grading today?
Grades at the higher education level serve many purposes, from determining whether you should be awarded a scholarship, be admitted into graduate or professional school or be eligible to serve in student government. With grades serving so many purposes, the pressure to get good grades is intense.
Grades are a multidimensional measure, meaning they capture both cognitive factors, or your knowledge of the course material, and noncognitive factors such as attendance, participation and whether you turned everything in on time. The ratio of cognitive to noncognitive factors differs across classes based on each professor’s values, beliefs and perspectives.
That’s not fair to students. No person reviewing a transcript would know the reasoning behind a grade was because you got questions wrong on an exam or because you turned in an assignment late — it ends in the same grade. But the reasoning behind that same grade is drastically different.
Other common practices include the 100-point grading scale. There are 101 different scores you could get on a given assignment, but what makes a difference between an 87% and 88% on a paper? There isn’t one — at least not a meaningful one.
Professors don’t need 101 different performance levels, as it can increase “decision-making complexity, which allows for the greater influence of subjectivity, more error, and reduced reliability,” grading researchers Laura Link and Thomas Guskey said.
The 100-point grading scale became widespread in the United States due to the evolution of technology and electronic gradebooks that could handle complex percentages. Researchers in the grading space have advocated for fewer grading categories — such as four to five letter grades and no percentages.
Professors should also consider eliminating grading based on noncognitive factors. If we all agree that grades are intended to demonstrate knowledge of the course material, a student’s attendance, participation and late submissions are irrelevant and pollute the grade a professor assigns.
Research has shown that non-cognitive factors like race and gender have led to unfair bias and misinterpretation of behavior in grades. I don’t claim that professors shouldn’t care if a student rarely shows up, turns in work late or is disengaged in class. However, penalizing this with a grade reduction is not the solution.
So far, I have only described changes that make the traditional grading method more equitable for students. However, some schools and professors are scrapping traditional grading altogether, with positive effects for students, such as reduced anxiety and the ability to focus on doing their best rather than just earning points. Linda Nelson, founding director emerita of the Office of Teaching Effectiveness and Innovation at Clemson University and Joseph Packowski, senior lecturer at the IU Kelley School of Business, have suggested multiple alternative grading methods in their book, “Specifications Grading 2.0.”
While the federal government has begun to take a stance on grading practices in higher education, it falls short of addressing the reality that grades will remain a subjective measure. In October 2025, the Trump administration invited higher education institutions to sign on to the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education for financial benefits, which requires a promise that schools would not inflate or deflate grades for non-academic reasons.
Adopting different grading methods or even equitable practices within the current traditional grading method is a step in the right direction. Professors could reduce the number of grading categories or not report noncognitive factors. IU professors should join this conversation about the flaws in current grading practices and adopt different, better practices.
Leo Cavinder (he/him) is an undergraduate student studying political science, education policy and education law. He also serves as the Speaker of Congress in student government.
